Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachments C-G (replacements)
_� IFmbars adera C:AP1TA1. VATLTNC.US LLC: December 3, 2010 Attachment G Mr. Rick Workmon AT&T 4430 Rosewood Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 Re: Results Way Office Park — Results Way, Cupertino, CA 95014 - Wireless Facility Placement Mir. Workmon, After further exploration of the proposed alternative location for a wireless facility at our Results Way property as discussed at the Cupertino City Council meeting on Novernber 1, 2010, we regret to inform you that we are unable to allow AT&T to construct a wireless telecommunitations facility at that position on the site. The alternative location discussed at the City Council meeting is at the entrance- to our campus, The entrance to the campus has been carefully planned and, unfortunately, there is no room for a wireless facility in this setting. We are still willing to work with AT&T to help achieve their goal of providing coverage to this neighborhood and to the surrounding'businesses. The location proposed by AT&T to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Commission on September 14a 201.0 is acceptable to us. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact meat any time. Thank you again for all of your efforts on this site, this will be a great benefit to the community as a whole.once completed, Rega Bla in ardt Project D ctor Embarcadero Capital Partners, L.L.C. 1301 Shoreway Road, Suite 250 Belmont, California 94002 Tel 650-373.1230 Fax 650,373.1617 �P Coin Jung - ■I�IIII IIPII IIPII� From: Blake Reinhardt [breinhardt@ecp-Ilc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:42 PM To: Colin Jung Cc: 'fw1440@att.com' Subject: ATT cell tower Attachment D Colin - After reviewing each of our Results Way parcels, the ATT cell tower location that was approved by the Cupertino Planning Commission for the Result Way campus is the only site that is feasible at this time. Blake Reinhardt Project Director Embarcadero Capital.Partners LLC, 1301 Shoreway Road, Suite 250 Belmont, CA 94002 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 C U PERT NO TAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department ' September 16, 2010 Dave Yocke Trillium Telecom 7901 Stoneridge Dr., Suite 503 Pleasanton, Ca, 94588 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTfON LETTER - U 20T0-03, EXC 2010-04, TR-2010-31 This letter confirms the decision of the Planning Commission, given at the meeting of September 14, 2010, approving a Use Permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility, consisting of a 74-foot tall monopine with twelve panel antennas and associated base equipment; approving a height exception to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of about 67 feet or less; approving the removal and replacement of up to four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the installation of a proposed personal wireless service facility, located at the Results Way office complex, according to Planning Commission Resolution No.(s) 6604, 6605 and 6606. Please be aware that if this Permit is not used within a two-year period, it shall expire on September 14, 2012. Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of this decision. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the City Council. Sincerely, Colin Jung Senior Planner Planning Department Enclosures: Resolution 6604, 6605, 6606 CC: ECI Two Results, LLC, 1301 Shoreway Rd, Suite 250, Belmont, CA 94402 Allen Wong, 10170 imperial Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 g;/planning/post hearinglkabnfewrU 2010-03,EXC-2010-04,TR 2010-33 f -,PQ - 3 o 2mo-M CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6604 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVNG A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY; CONSISTING OF A 74-FOOT TALL MONOPINE WITH TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED BASE EQUIPMENT AT THE RESULTS WAY OFFICE PARK SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public ' health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan, the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance and the purpose of this title. 3) That the operation of the facility will comply with federal safety standards for radio frequency radiation emissions. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and Resolution No. 6604 U 2010-03 September 14, 2010 Page 2 That the subconclrisions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application s No, U-2010-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2010 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2010-03 Applicant: Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Location: Results Way SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: `.at&t/CN3242-A/November Drive/Results Way/Cupertino, California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated 08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled T-1, A-0 through A-3, A-1.1 and C-1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein .may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1). these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. COLOCATION OFANTENNAE The treepole shall be structurally designed to accommodate the collocation of additiondl antennae from other wireless carriers. The co -location agreement shall be at market rates with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. 4, ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of 18 months, said aerial and associated facilities shall be removed, The applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition. .. h D - 5,- Resolution No, 6604 U-2010-03 September 14, 2010 Page 3 5, EXPIRATION DATE This use permit shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of the permit. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning Commission may review -the state of wireless communication technologies, camouflage techniques and maintenance to determine if the visual impact of the aerial facility can be reduced. . b. TREE POLE APPEARANCE AND MAINTENANCE The applicant shall use a sufficient number of artificial branches to obscure the appearance of the panel antennae and any associated mounting framework. The top port.ion of the tree pole shall have branches of varying length to give the tree pole a conical form. Patel antennae mounted away from the mast shall have needle covers to blend with the green foliage of the artificial branches. The mast shall be wrapped with a faux bark and any antenna mounted close to the mast shall be painted brown to mimic a tree trunk. The foliage shall have a mottled green coloration. The building permit shall be reviewed a11d approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to ensure the above condition is met. The applicant shall perform regular maintenance of the tree pole to maintain its appearance and obscure the panel antennae from public view. 7. EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE The base equipment enclosure shall be constructed of high quality materials and/or be screened by appropriate landscaping as determined by the Director of Community Development. The final enclosure design, wail treatment/color and screening strategy shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits_ 8. TREE REPLACEMENT The removed trees are to be replaced with three (3) 24" box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Final locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall provide a letter -from a landscape architect, certifying that the newly planted trees are in good health and the irrigation system is operating properly to maintain the trees. In addition, the final landscaping plan shall confirm that the existing irrigation systems are operating properly in order to service the existing and new trees in the area. 9. TESTING OF RADIO FREQUENCY ff3 LEVELS Radio frequency levels will be monitored and tested annually for a period of three (3) years from the date of the final occupancy approval. The result of these tests will be made available to the Planning Department and the FCC for review. The City Resolution No. 6604 U-2010-03 September 14, 2010 Page 4 reserves the right to perform code enforcement actions and/or revoke this use pe'rrnit if the results show RF levels inconsistent with the federal standards. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMSSIONERS: Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:14one ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ATTEST: APPROVED: s Aarti Shrivasta-ra Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director GVplmrnin&Wrepvrf/,-es%20ION-2010-03 res.dac Is/Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission kqq -1 EXC-2mo-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO.6605 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ANTENNAS TO BE MOUNTED ON A MONOPINE AT A HEIGHT OF ABOUT 67 FEET OR LESS ON A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED AT RESULTS WAY ' SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: , EXC-2010-04 Applicant: Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) Location: Results Way SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, in order to provide height flexibility in situations where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 19.108 occur, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards; and VI =EAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to the Height Exception for this application: 1. That the literal enforcement of the prrivisions of this title will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this title in that the extra antenna height above the ordinance maximum of 55 feet is needed because the rnonopine rests in a location below the grade of the neighborhood that will be serviced with telephone coverage, 2. That the proposed project will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that the wireless technology produces RF energy below federal exposure standards, and 3. That the proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic because it is not sited within the travel ways or sight lines of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. EXC-2010-04 is hereby approved; and n9. Resolution No. 6605 EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2010-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2010, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1, APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled, "at&t/CN3242-A/November Drive/Results Way/Cupertino, Califorxda 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated 08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled•T-1, A-0 through A-3, A-1,1 and C-1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. _NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)'(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and .a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Con-iraissioaz of the City of Cupertilzo by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ATTEST: s Aarti Shrivastava Aard Shrivastava Community Development Director g:/pimrrriilg/p�lreyorF/res%2009/f XC-2010-04 ms.doc APPROVED: /s/Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission 11Z 2010-31 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO.6606 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF UP TO FOUR COASTAL REDWOODS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A PROPOSED PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY AT THE RESULTS WAY OFFICE COMPLEX SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2010-31 Applicant: Dave Yocke (AT&T Mobility) Location: Results Way SECTION 11: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Comrission of the City of Cupertino received an application to approve the removal of four Coastal Redwoods that are by an approved development plan considered protected trees subject to Chapter 14.18, the Protected Tree Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices. have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this -natter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission finds: 1. That the aforementioned trees are in conflict with the development proposal; 2. That the application for Tree Removal, file no. TR-2010-31, is hereby approved; and 3, That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained u-L the Public Dearing record, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2010 are incorporated by reference herein. fi-�Dp - lo Resolution No. 6606 T&-2010-08 April 13, 2o10 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "at&t/CN3242-A/November Drive/Results Way/Cupertino, California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated 08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled T-1, A-0 through A-3, A-1.1 and C-1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT The removed fi:ees are to be replaced with three 24" box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Final locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. Applicant shall provide a letter from a landscape architect, certifying that the newly planted trees are in good health and the irrigation system is operating properly to maintain the trees. 3. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14s' day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the folfowing roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Kaneda ; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Miller i ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None F ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ATTEST: APPROVED: s Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Developinent Department /s/Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission A-W- it Attachment F Cupertino Planning, C&nmission 4 ... September 14, 2010 way to approach a site like this. However, the work has been done and that is why the existing retaining walls are to remain. They are going with a tiered foundation system building around the existing foundation so that there will be two layers of strengthening of the site. Com. eda;. • Said h derstood that the applicant had the property zoned for hillside resid ial and they have a ri o build. Based on the plans, it appears the end result from an a ion standpoint will be better what is presently there, because you will be planting t 11 and putting in something that ctually help mitigate erosion and water flow across a site. • The owner must be there is a fault limo which carries a certain ; all of Cupertino is at risk from an earthquake, is area potentially is more at risk than average site in Cupertino. If the owner is going in wr eir eyes open to the fact that th are quite close to a fault line and potentially in a rupture xo that is important for them t ow. • Said be assumed the city would re they have a good ctural consultant that will make sure the building is securely drilled into bedroc o it will remain stable if there is an earthquake. • With all those things in place, he said he wo ort the application. Chair Brophy; • Said he was sympathetic to Com. Giefe ° argument an ' this were a clean site that had not been developed, he would vote aga' He said the reas ey have a hillside exception is not only to make sure that the de ' is done well but to deci that some sites are just too heavily sloped to be subject to d lopment, which the current sifie x • Said he was certain they wo use a quality geotechnical engineez, oted that whenever there are heavy inter rain no can drive around the hilly parts of the city see emergency arrangements being talc a of to deal with hillside slippage, and those pres bly were all designed by compet geotechnical engineers_ He said he would bring an engine even if it is 47 degrees. • He said it is Ek a whole idea that the city is providing its land for offstreet parking, bu Com. Giefer d, the main concern is just the incredible steepness of it_ There are some sites in the futur ey simply have to look at and tell the applicants'that the risk of developing them is too gr to the community at large. That is d fact of nature, not a policy issue. Having said that, =en pointed out, with the construction that is going on there, to try to undo what has y bdone would probably cause more damage than building a house. /mak aid hehoped in the future they would have stricter policy in terms of deciding whether or a siteisactually developable,rather than saying how can we make it developable and e i# the least problem. Motion; Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-1-0, Com. Giefer voted No, to approve Applications M 201©-04, and EA-2010-03. 2.L-2010-03, Use Permit request to allow a personal wireless service facility C-2010-04, consisting of 12 panel autenmas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine TR 2010-31 and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Dave Yockel Way office park, Height Exception to allow antennas to be mounted AT&T, Results Ray on the monopine at'a height of 67 feet where 55 feet is allowed; Tree Removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of four Redwood trees as part of the wireless service facility installation. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 14, 2010 Colin Jung, Senior PIanner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Use Permit for a personal wireless service facility with 12 panel antennas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine with base equipment at the existing Results Way Office Park, height exception to allow antennas to be mounted on the monopine at 67 feet where 55 feet is allowed; and tree removal permit for removal and replacement of four Redwood trees; as outlined in the staff report, • He reviewed the site location and noted that the proposal was to provide improved AT&T cell phone coverage for the Monta Vista area., He also reviewed the design of the monopine as detailed in the staff report, Page 214. The history of AT&T's attempts (and the outcomes) since 2005, to provide better wireless communications coverage in the Monta Vista area were also reviewed; a table showing the locations and outcomes is included in the staff report. • Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit, Height Exception and Tree Removal per the model resolutions. Com. NPiller: • Asked if Blackberry Farm location or Deep Cliff had been considered for placement of the facility. Colin Jung: • Said Blackberry Farm would be a challenging location, because it is in a giant hole; to get something that is even covering anything on the residential outside, you would likely have to go up 100 feet. Deep Cliff is part of another hole and it would also require a very tail antenna location. The applicant could comment, as they developed a search radius. Leon Beechmau, AT&T: Showed slides relating to some of the questions about the service and the lhct that it is needed. Information related to demand, showing capacity issue: a lot of which is driven by the evolution of the telecommunications wireless industry; much of it is driven by one of the local companies; you get a sense of why we need to add to the capacity of our network. is Showed facts produced by the TIC, showing that people in Cupertino want improved service. Survey responded to the wireless service; issue of quality: demand has grown and coverage has deteriorated somewhat since 2007. Safety concerns: only 50 out of 600 respondents had safety concerns; the vast majority did not have concerns with safety_ + The majority did not have concerns about aesthetics, the site of the towers has been improved over time and will be addressed with the proposal. Over 50% of the people responding to the survey had issues with coverage, which is in the same area of the proposed new facilities. He said he, felt they were offering a good thing for the city; it will improve the wireless coverage, it is a high usage area for wireless services. They have worked about 5 years to get this done and think it will benefit the local economy. Scott Longhurst, President, Trillian Co. (AT&T land use consultant): • Continued with a slide presentation, describing the proposed project to build a 74 foot tall monopine, placing 12 antennas, stacked in 3 sectors of 2 antennas each, and pulled those antennas in close to the pole which will be benefited by the conical shape at the top. • The antennas will be much Iess visible to the general public; socks will be put over those antennas that have additional pine needles that will help diffuse the straight lines of them for a more natural shape. • Inside of the equipment compound, they are proposing 7 equipment cabinets; 3 will be, deployed; at the present time reserving space for 4 additional cabinets. As technology changes, an .additional capacity needs to be added to the site which can be done by adding cabinets within the shelter itself without having to go onto the pole. There is some ancillary AW-13 Cupertino Planning Corrmi ission 6 September 14, 2010 equipment including power and telephone cabinets; the cabling to connect the antennas to the equipment cabinets, electrical meters, etc., will be housed inside the equipment enclosure. Staff has asked that the project be designed as well as engineered to accommodate a future carrier; the plan is to do so, there would be up to 9 additional panel antennas that. could be deployed at the site in the future. He illustrated the proposed location on the existing property; the existing view and what it would look like if the site is built. The site is needed because presently.AT&T does have a significant gap in coverage in the Monti Vista area, their initial anticipated coverage area is to the southwest primarily to cover the school areas and to the residential areas to the south and west. There is fairly good coverage to the east which is why they tried not to move the site any further north and east because they would be getting into areas where there is already acceptable coverage. The Bubb Road and McClellan Road area has been identified by the survey as the No. 1 area needed improved coverage. Over the last few years AT&T has experienced approximately 500% growth rate as depicted in other slides, primarily due to the advent of Smart Phones and the apps that have been developed for public use and further enhance the use of the smart phones. The additional heights have been requested for two reasons, to serve that greater geographic area and see over the surrounding buildings. . Referred to an.updated coverage map, and explained why the location was chosen. There have been a variety of locations analyzed over the past 3-5 years; this is the closest non-residential property to their original coverage objectives, which was centered more around the high school itself and the surrounding residential community. Reviewed the benefits of the project; which will improve coverage for AT&T customers in an area of Cupertino that is currently receiving substandard coverage, specifically at the College, high school, middle schools, residents to the west and across Imperial Avenue, and south of McClellan as well as the businesses in the area and Highway 85. As part of this improved coverage, AT&T customers will receive improved data speeds, including faster internet connectivity, and file downloads. It will also provide customers with the latest technologies including 3G and 4G as well as improved access to 911 services which are location based. Said they reviewed the staff report and have no problems with any proposed conditions; and would submit for Director's review the building materials for the equipment enclosure. He requested that the Commission grant approval and allow the project to move forward. Chair Brophy: ® Based on a -mails received, the No. 1 concern is how can they respond to the concerns that people have about what might exist in spite of the FCC standards that states the Commission cannot consider health effects from any project that meets the FCC design. Dr. Jerry Bushberg, Consultant: • The'report states that it is 1% of the allowable limit; allowable limit has a safety factor of 50 fold built into it which is a big margin of safety, about 5,000 times below the level thought to be potentially harmful. The public safety limit was established assuming that people might be exposed 24 hours per day/365 days per year, and the reason the large safety factor was applied to the public exposure standard, which is 50 times below the threshold for effects and ten times below the level for occupational exposure, is because the public has a wide variety of people in it from healthy to infirm, from young to old. Chair Brophy: • Asked what the general state of scientific belief was in terms of the effects of emissions from cell towers. Studies from Germany and Israel argued that cancer rates within 400 meters of cell towers were 3 or 4 times that of the areas that did not have cell towers near them. ftg iq Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 14, 2010 Dr. Bushberg: • Over the last ten years in particular, mostly because of the proliferation of wireless technology and the concern for .a large percentage of the population using cell phones, there have been a number of independent scientific commissions that have been set up to answer the question whether the health and safety standards currently in existence in Europe and USA are adequate to protect the public health and safoty. He illustrated a list of some involved; the list was reviewed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and airier their review of these reports, each one of which typically is 100-200 pages, their collective statement about this was as follows: "Today expert reviews on health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the same conclusion; there have been no adverse consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below international guidelines". • The literature is vast, and literally contains thousands of biological effect studies, both studies on cells, studies on animals, both long and short terms, as well as epidemiological studies and what they refer to as human provocation studies where people are exposed and they look at effects like whether they get headaches or not, and effects on sleep, etc. There are going to be in any body of research individual studies that show either an effect that other studies don't show, or on the other side of the extreme, shows the -absence of the fact where some studies do show an effect. The responsibility of all of these scientific organizations and committees that have been impaneled is to review the entire body of literature and look at the weight of the evidence, and that is what the recommendations both from these reports and a collective judgment of the WHO is based on, not individual papers. Said that there is a recent study (re: children) 2010 American Cancer Society website, evaluating potential threats relating to cancer_ Where the exposures are the highest, people actually using a cell phone, and exposure that you get when you use your cell phone is many times greater than the typical exposure one gets from living around a cell site. There have been a number studies both around AM and FM broadcast facilities, e_g. TV towers, and one published that the American Cancer Society called attention to, in Britain involved 1,000 families of young children with cancer and a similar group of families without, and they found no link between the mothers' exposure to towers during pregnancy based on distance from those sites. Their website talks about the issue in detail with additional reference to the research itself. Said that the present phones have a feature called adaptive power control, if they have a very strong signal, the cell sites only want to see a signal strength which remains at a certain level. To save battery life on the phones, if you are very close and there is a good signal to the cell site, the cell site will signal the phone to tarn its power down to get it within that range. If you are very far away and have a poor signal, such as one bar, then it will signal the phone to turn up to maximum power to make the connection if it can. One of the effects of having good coverage, is to lower people's exposure from the phones through the use of adaptive power control; the individual exposures which are typically the highest, will be reduced. TIC representative: • Said because many years have passed and there are different Commissioners from when the first report was given, he provided a copy of the report. He said that AT&T reps summarized • The only thing they didn't say that was relevant is that AT&T three years ago had about a 42% share of the city of Cupertino; it was the dominant carrier. The two carriers that mattered in Cupertino were Verizon and AT&T; they each had over 40% share, everyone else combined at about 15% share. The estimate is that AT&T has grown to be even more dominant because of the rise of the lPhone. * The other point that was made was that not only has there been a coverage hole but the coverage hole has got worse because people's demands upon their Smart Phones and other ftq-)s Cupertino Planning Commission S September 14, 2010 devices have become huge. Relative to the question about putting them higher in the hills, putting cell phones higher in a hill area doesn't necessarily improve coverage because of the nature of the way the microwave range radiation works to get a bounce off hills. It may look like you have coverage,'but not really be able to have a consistent coverage from those areas. The survey done three years ago was statistically valid, with a huge response, three times that from a typical voting poll with a very small percentage error; the results were likely to be statistically valid for the whole city. This is an area that in the three years since, in terms of e- mails received and a -mails the city has received, overwhelmingly by a factor of 100 to 1, the comment received are people begging for a fix to the cell coverage and the general wireless coverage within the city. That is why we worked with you and the City Council to make the changes that were made in the -ordinance for cell. towers. We would like to see improvements made in this area so we don't have to worry about it anymore. Colin dung: • Summarized the areas that can be considered in the Planning Commission deliberation and what can't. Said the Federal law was clear on the point that while they could hear all input presented, the law states that local agencies and decision makers of local agencies cannot make decisions on personal. wireless service facilities such as this one on the basis of health effects if it is demonstrated that the emissions from that facility meet or are below federal safety standards. Other issues within the purview of the Planning Commission include issues of design, visibility, location, importance of service to the community, etc. Chair Brophy opendd the public hearing. Steve Malani, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Imperial Avenue in this particular area is bEglited and there is an existing conduit ran that they proposed going through the property that goes to Imperial Avenue. He said he was opposed to the routing of the conduit; his perception is that the conduit run impacts the development opportunity of that particular parcel. • He suggested they recommend to the applicant that the conduit line be moved closer to the property line. Eventually somebody will redevelop that property and it needs to be redeveloped and reworked; and said he would like to see the conduit moved closer to the property line. Colin dung: Said he had a discussion with the property owner who said he had the same concern, that the electrical and telephone connections for this tower are taken off of Imperial Avenue and go through one of those smaller light industrial properties that is owned by the Results Way Office Park owners. On the plans itself it shows the conduit ran going right through the center of the property; and the property owner said be did not know what they had planned for the future, but felt they would be limiting their options if they run it through the center of it. Colin Jung said he was sure that the property owner would take care of it as he was aware of the concert from his own economic interest. Maowen Lin, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said that Dr_ Bushberg's report spoke to the effects on children; the British study only studied effects on children up to 4 years old; no long term effect of children's health. Said her children would be exposed to cell phone radiation 24 hours a day, because of proximity to the school and their home. If the cell phone tower is installed, they will likely move from their home, as the facility would have a negative effect on their Home value. + AT&T does not need to build the tower there to fill their current gap; the best location would be a non-residential area. Agnes Fu, Astoria Town House resident: • Opposed to the project. • Distributed copy of petition of 240 signatures opposed to the location. • Showed photos of the Astoria townhouses, the tower is twice the height of 3 story townhouse; most of the residents will see the cell tower every day when driving on their" community road. She compared the height of the tower to trees on the properties nearby, and said if the tower is built in the proposed location, they would move as they were concerned about the effects of radiation on her children. • She said she would drive her children to school to reduce the time of exposure, which will increase the traffic problems around the school. Also the City of Cupertino encourages children to walk to school. The tower is counter -environmental. Katrina Huang, 6 year old Lincoln School student: • Opposed to project. • Said she and her mother sometimes walk in the neighborhood and she didn't want to see a very tall tower in their neighborhood. Kate Huang, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Raised concerns about health effects. The proposed location is close to two townhouse communities, most have school aged children; all the children are as valuable as those living in the Monta Vista area; it is a concern to parents and children who walk to school every day. • Once the tower is up, it will be easier for another carrier to add to the existing pole or another one; there is already one existing near there and the level of RF radiation combined will not be linear, the level will be much more and increased in a higher frequency. • Said that the public hearing conflicted with Monta Vista's Back to School Night and many parents are unable to attend the public hearing due to scheduling conflicts. Because of the scheduling conflict, the result is an unfair representation of public opinion, especially of those whose lives who are greatly impacted by tonight's decision. Cid Pereira, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said she chose to reside in Cupertino because of the duality of life, concern for its citizens, and .excellent schools. Although it is important to be viable and provide services and look to the fixture, never forget the quality of life, balance and harmony in this. • The placement of the tower has been attempted a number of times, and most people don't want it in their yard. The services are needed, but it should be with thoughtfulness and responsibility. Perhaps there is a better location for it, somewhere where it doesn't impact the live.s of the Cupertino community. Ashley Wellman, Cupertino resident: • In favor of project. • Said she was in favor of the project and was disgruntled with AT&T because of the current poor service, and would not remain a customer if she was not under contract. Said she was • frustrated because all her calls are dropped within hgr home and service is not good in her home or close proximity. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 14, 2010 Alexander Wu, Cupertino resident: Opposed to project. • Said the tower is big and noticeable, and he did not want to see the big ugly, chunky tree when he walked by the area every day. • Recalled that it was the seventh time that the facility had been relocated, so there must be adequate reasons it has failed before. Natalino Camilleri, Monta Vista area resident: • Said he was an RF professional with a PhD. In RF and electro magnetics, and did not work for AT&T. Said one could not deny that service in that area is bad, and has been such for a long time. AT&T has been crying to put something there for more than 5 years; they need to get the project moving, and help'them get there. The area needs improved coverage. Relative to safety, he said he agreed with the AT&T consultant and the data shown, and if AT&T wanted to put a tower in his backyard, he would agree to it. Andrew Wu, Imperial Avenue, Cupertino: • Said his unit faces the parking lot, which presently has a good, harmonious view and if AT&T moves forward with the proposal, it will make the community very ugly. Said he was not opposed to AT&T improving the coverage, but was opposed to the proposed location. • Other carriers in the area have excellent coverage, and do not have their facility next to the residential area. Stop this project at the beginning; remember the Wall Street greed, bringing the entire country and economics down. AT&T is starting a greedy approach to take over this beautiful community and put ugly construction there. There are many ways to improve the coverage, but this way is the wrong way and I ask you to stop this from the beginning, .keep our community beautiful for the present and next generations. • Said he was also concerned about the radiation potential. There is a much better choice. Stephen Chen, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said that the FCC Act states that the community cannot refuse AT&T the right to place a cell phone tower there just because of health concerns. • He relayed his father's concerns for property values in the community, stating that one of Cupertino's greatest assets is its stability for property values because of its high quality education. We are living in a crucial economic times and luckily we are in this district in such a high quality, high level educational district, so our property values would not drop so much. Once AT&T places the cell phone tower in the proposed location, the residents will react, and future home buyers would react. • He said he felt the cell phone tower will affect the entire residential area by giving potential home buyers an excuse to bring down the property values of the area which is something the City of Cupertino cannot afford, because the property takes they gain from the houses are able to fuel the standard of education that Cupertino School District currently provides. He said he did not think the community would sacrifice the property taxes that the community offers the City by purchasing the houses. The new homes represent a more modern, cleaner environment to live in, and future home buyers will express concern over the large radial tower there and possibly bring down the value of the home. • He urged the Commission to help preserve the high quality education that will be able to sustain the next generation of homeowners; have AT&T choose a more preferable spot for future home buyers and residents of Astoria. Cupertino Planning Commission 1 l September 14, 2010 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Addressed the five redwood trees to be removed on the industrial park property; when the young trees surrounding the monopine grow taller, will they compromise the actual monopine structure, because redwoods will grow very quickly. • If -the project is approved, the cell tower will be there for quiet a while so the redwood trees will grow up around it, having attained a height of 20-25 feet within 9 years if they are adequately watered_ What are the future plans for this, since it is assumed that all the redwoods out there are part of the approved planting guide for this industrial park there; and that is why there needs to be a permit to remove those trees. • There have been great hopes for this industrial park, to try to make sure this property is going to go forward and be able to be refurbished and have a useful life as an industrial park. • Referring to an earlier comment about the conduit run, she said it would not be the best thing to have the conduit going across the middle of the parking lot off of the industrial,park if it is going to be used in the future. • If the monopine is not to be used again by AT&T in the future, will it be completely taken down and disassembled and removed or will it be left on the property? There has been an improvement in the appearance of many of the trees; some elderly ones are in poor condition. She asked that they address some of her questions about the size of the redwoods? Colin Jung: • Said the trees are about 20-30 feet in height, not sure of age, but not in good health; the tops of the trees are dead with an abundance of brown foliage, and they will not grow much taller. Looking at it from the standpoint of a screening issue, they need to be removed and new trees planted; it is a staff condition that they rehabilitate the irrigation system and begin to take much better care of the trees in the rear parking lot. Nicholas Chen, Manta Vista High School student: • Opposed to project. • Said he was concerned about the radio frequencies and how the radio emissions will affect the health of all the people in the townhouse complex, because studies have shown that cell phones has increased your chances of getting brain cancer. Many of the residents are concerned that it would lower the property values of the Astoria townhomes, and would cause additional health problems, and with more monopines or other radio emission towers set up, the combined amount will likely affect residents more than a single monopine. • On behalf of the townhouse residents, he asked that the Commission acknowledge their pleas to secure their property values and their future likelihood as long as they reside there. Jenny Zhong, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said she felt it was a bad idea to install a radiation tower at Results Way since it is very close to the schools and residential area. There are many students and residents who walk through the intersection of McClellan and Bubb Road everyday which is close to Results Way. The monopine is not a real tree and the residents don't want to live under the suspect radiation waves area. • She urged the Commission to consider their concerns. Srinivas Rama, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Works in the technology industry; purchased a home in Cupertino because of the quality of life, school district and appreciating property values. Said that as a parent he expected to take /TTO- [1 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 September 14, 2010 risks on his own so that his family -could have a good quality of life, and having a cell tower with any amount of unknown risks to their health and quality of life is unacceptable to him. He said that the direction his property value has taken is a financial setback for his family. The location of the monopine is close to three different schools where the students attend from 8 to 10 hours per day. He questioned why the tower would have to be over 70 feet in height. He asked that the Commission consider all the issues before making a decision on the proposed monopine. Thomas Huang, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to the project. • Said he lives next to the location of the proposed monopine. • Said he felt it was a health hazard to all the residents and students going through the area; there are 3 schools in the area, and it is not a good idea for the kids to be exposed to radiation for long periods of time especially during school days. He said he heard that people who live in the area have three to four more times chances of getting cancer; and also from AT&T staff, that even though there is no link between pregnancies and exposure to the tower, there is more concern to people living in this area. Do the people who want better service or internet connection know where the tower is proposed to be Iocated? + He referred to the Monta Vista handbook where it states that the students should not use their cell phones at school; they are to be turned off and put in backpacks. • He said the monopine would be seen from the family's windows and would obstruct views on the mountain trails and of the city. It will not be a good sight since it will be sticking out, since most of the buildings and trees are 1-3 storys high, while the monopine is 5-6 storys high. Grace Chen, Astoria townhome resident: • Opposed to project. • President Obama has recently encouraged capital expenditures by major corporations to revamp old and existing technologies. • She asked if AT&T had the latest technologies at existing cell sites, and when technologies become antiquated in two or three years, can the existing sites be replace with newer ones that potentially can resolve the problems that exist in the Monts Vista area. • She questioned if the reports on radiation related to a 70 foot monopine and up-to-date technology. Their reports may have been dated in 1999 where 10 years ago they were not talking about the size and magnitude of what is seen today and the radiation that is emitted. Old data cannot be used in order to make decisions on what may impact the community 10-20 years in the future. • She said if the project is approved, she was requesting that a rider be placed onto the application that homes in the proximity of 1,000 feet from the cell tower, be monetarily compensated for the devaluation of the homes. • She referred to Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan, which states "attificials should be visually integrated and should not be significantly taller than...' ; and it is taller and cannot be visually integrated in that area and it is contrary to what the Wireless FMP has set forth. • The purpose of tonight is for AT&T to increase its coverage, why is it necessary that if they do not need the 12 antenna panels that it is included in tonight's application. If this improves_ their service, are all 12. panels necessary? How many panels do they need to fulfill their commitment to providing good cell phone service. I would like you to request AT&T to give you the answers prior to the approval. • She said she sent an e-mail to the Commissioners, and requested that each issue stated in the e- mail be addressed. Cupertino Planning Cori'iinission 13 September 14, 2010 Chris Ho, Astoria townhomne resident: • Opposed to project.. • Said he planned to live in the Astoria townhomes longer if the proposal is denied. He said he did not want his child to get the radiation. • Said he had AT&T service for 12 years, If they say they care about their customers, they have to do something to improve their service. They have to improve their products first, because I have used a cell phone that has good reception and I don't have antenna gage problem that IPhone has. There is a rumor that Verizon will have IPhone within a year, so by the time you build the tower, it is already gone for that business. I don't think that is something we need to worry about that much. Astoria townhomes are three levels so it is much higher. • Said although there is a lot of research saying that there is no link between pregnancy and radiation, that study is only one year old, compared to the residents who lived there for many years. Said he did not want to participate in cancer research because they are putting the power there and he would just leave immediately. He- said he was not the one who volunteered himself to put the tower in their back yard. Andrew (7 year old child) no last name given: • Opposed to project. • Said he resided on Imperial Avenue a few hundred yards away from the proposed cell tower, and would attend Manta Vista high school in the future. • He asked the Commission not to approve the cell phone tower there because his parents might move from their residence if the tower is built; and he didn't want to move away from his best friend who also lived in the area. Gin Guo, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project.. • Said he worked in the technology industry and understood the technology; said he felt it was a waste of money and effort to build the cell tower. The area is already well covered; the issue for AT&T is not coverage, it is capacity. It is because AT&T has a bad infrastructure; the coverage is there but they couldn't handle it so they need to upgrade their lnfi-astrycture to improve the capacity, not the coverage. Alen Wong, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project.. • Noted that the application is incorrect; the tree is 80 feet tall; the 74 feet height is based on future parking lot elevation and he said he did not think the office building renovation project would raise it G feet from the existing parking lot. If someone put a future grade there 5 feet above the existing lot, it is not correct, • Showed existing coverage map from staff report. The proposed location is in front of Lincoln Elementary School; it is based on the wrong location; the actual location is 1300 feet away. He noted that there were 4 or 5 different versions of the coverage map. • Other carriers have better coverage in Cupertino than AT&T. Verizon towers are near the highway, away from the residential area; Sprint puts towers near the highway and put roof mounted near residential areas; that is what AT&T should do. Vincent Chiu, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to the project. • Said be had aesthetic concerns about building a 70 foot tower. The nearby townhomes are 40 feet tall, and the trees about the same height; the 70 foot tower will not blend in with the surrounding areas. Monopine towers are designed to fit in with the surroundings, that is why Cupertino Planning Commission 14 September 14, 2010 they look like trees, but this tower, will stand out excessively.. + Relative to radiation concerns, he said he was not in a position to dispute the professional word of consultants; but said the correlation between cancer and cell phone,towers has not been definitively proven or disproven. Based on that we should not be building a tower on uncertainties of whether or not it will or will not cause cancer. Weibing Zhou, Cupertino resident: + Opposed to the project. • Said that all speakers except two, object to the proposal, and he agreed with them for. all the reasons they mentioned. He said he has Verizon service and doesn't have any problems; whereas he had service problems when contracted with AT&T. He was not convinced -that the cell tower is the solution for the coverage; AT&T gets •a lot of reception companies nationwide, does Verizon or Sprint have more cell towers than AT&T7 He said the tower was not necessary. • Said that Appendix 9 of the proposal is totally biased, because it does not include any feedback from people who are against the approval. For those people who don't mind installing a cell tower in their back yard, he said he was willing to donate $10 to help with the installation. Kam Chung, imperial Avenue resident: • Opposed to project. + Said that customers of Sprint and Verizon don't have coverage issues; so she did not believe the tower is the only way that AT&T can improve their signal or services. They can come up with a better way other than erecting a tall tower in her front yard. • Said she bad same concerns as other speakers and hoped that the Commission would address all the concerns and questions expressed at the meeting before making a decision. Bob Austin, Cupertino resident: • Said he was neutral about the project. He said he has an ?Phone and it would be good to have better coverage; once he turns his head, the coverage is lost. • Based on evidence heard tonight, he -hoped the Commission doesn't make a decision for this proposal without more feedback; but take more time to discuss issues with residents who are experts in the technology area. Said that he felt AT&T could have made a better effort and provided more documentation for the community to read on the proposal. • Who is going to get paid for this; where is the money corning from. Does AT&T give to the city through takes, is that why it is such a big deal? He said the path the students take every day is full of weeds and be takes it upon himself to mow them down; the city does not do it_ He said in his opinion the city doesn't take care of it unless they get money for it; and he would like to see the city put some time into taking care of the path. • What is the long term impact'? is Verizon going to come and put in some cell towers? What will happen in a year when, Verizon takes over the 1Pbone; is AT&T in a race to get to the cell tower built before then? Are there going to be more cell towers? Where does it end?? • He said if the cell tower goes in, he will get better service; if it doesn't, he will have a better view. Robert (no last name given): • Opposed to the project. • Said he had friends and relatives living in the Astoria Townbomcs, and pointed out that if AT&T is proposing to put up the cell tower, it is only 207 feet away from the townhomes. There are 80-100 kids who live in the townhome and whose health will be affected by the cell tower_ He asked the Commission to take that into consideration. "9 - )�2_ Cupertino Planning Commission Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. l5 September 14, 2014 Com. Kaneda: • For AT&T, there was a comment that it was not an issue of coverage, but an issue of capacity. Can someone explain that? • The maps shown the cell tower will cover further down along Bubb Road but then as you get to Rainbow, it appears that there is once again no coverage. Are we going to have another application at some point in the future for Rainbow Road and are there any other major holes in Cupertino? Son Bui, AT&T RF Radio Frequency Engineer: • Specifically for this area, the requirement that is lacking is coverage. Capacity is tied into that, but it is more after effect as you: get more users specifically for this area; it is a coverage lacking and when we say coverage, we have different thoughts about coverage. Here, the point is coverage for in -building as well as improved coverage surrounding the outside areas. • Said it was difficult to predict where the requirements are; but as you get further away from the cell site, the coverage decreases and as shown on the map, toward the north, northeast side and northwest, they have existing coverage that will overlap with this. To that end, there is good coverage, or sufficient coverage. Toward the south, only. time and number of subscribers and requirements will dictate whether or not that is needed; it is hard to tell in the immediate future whether it is needed there. Colin dung: • Said staff was working with a number of AT&T contractors to look at cell sites in the southern part of Cupertino that are going to address the areas around Rainbow and also along Stevens Canyon Road in those areas. There are many more coverage issues with AT&T. Com. Miller: • Said that several residents showed a map they tools off the AT&T website which gave a different coverage story than the map shown at the meeting by AT&T. He asked for an explanation of the discrepancy. • Said it seemed that AT&T had a continuous problem and Verizon does not. Is that a fimction of Verizon with superior technology? What is the reason we don't see these demands for cell towers in town and yet Verizon has good reception throughout most of the city? Son Bui: • Said he would review where they got it off the website and discuss internally when it was created, under what condition and the circumstances it was done for. He said he understood it was created for different requirements, and the new requirement now is that they do need the coverage there. • Said the perception that one is better than the other lies with coverage, and we know that for this specific area and a lot of areas, AT&T is going to spend a lot of money -to improve that and close the gap. From that perspective, there is a need to build more sites. Other factors play into that; the number of users, naturally both are at the top of the competition and the more users you have, your coverage requirements there is more demand for that. It is hard to say who has more subscribers and it varies from local area to area. In gencral, AT&T does need improved coverage in this area. Colin Jung: • Said that a number of the carriers that staff is working with, includes Verizon and they are ri VD- �-3 Cupertino Planning Coitimission lfi September 14, 2010 looking to improve their coverage in the southern part of Cupertino, in the same areas around Rainbow and Stevens Canyon Road. In certain people's minds, they do have better coverage, but they have holes in their network also. He reported that in meeting with the AT&T engineers, they discussed the service in areas, and it was brought to their attention that AT&T tested certain areas by driving in those areas mostly at non -peak tunes, rather than at peak times when customers were complaining of problems. He said that the marketing people were not talking to the network engineering people, which might account for the differences reported in coverage. Com. Giefer: • Asked if the project is approved, and the tower installed, what the average Iifespan is of the tower before replacing components, what is the use and maintenance model for the devices; how frequently would AT&T come in and update its devices and do routine maintenance; what is anticipated in terms of mean times between failures? Son Bui: • Legally if the site goes down, AT&T has to service it to make sure the service isn't interrupted; he did not know how frequent that is, and will get the data from area to area and the type of equipment purchased. It is difficult to quantify what the average is. Scott Longhurst; • Said that the sites are monitored remotely; there is a network operation center, all facilities are monitored and alarmed; if someone enters the facility an alarm goes off. If a component goes down, an alarm goes off and cell techs go out to the sites_ They generally visit the sites every month to six weeks with laptops, and run diagnostics and leave. In terms of the technology itself, that is more difficult to answer because technology moves very rapidly. There are changes being made to existing facilities to change over from copper Tl lines to fiber optics to help with the capacity issue at existing facilities; they are also moving towards 40. He said they requested additional cabinet space up front so that as that technology is deployed, they can go in and set the cabinets; some of the changes can be just swapping out cards. Chair Brophy: • He asked Astoria townhome resident Grace Chen to comment on the solitary antenna versus the monopine relative to health issues, aesthetics and property values. Grace Chen: • That was approved in 1997, the Astoria complex had not yet been built. It is on a roof, about 15 feet in height. Today AT&T's proposal is a 74 foot tower which hides 12 panel antennas. It is likened to comparing.David and Goliath; a solitary antenna 15 feet high, compared to a 74 foot high monopine. One is at Cupertino Supply and the one they are proposing is directly behind Cupertino Supply which is 207 feet away from the development. • This one is at the same location parallel except a few feet apart; prior to today, they were not aware that there was a cell tower in the vicinity, because it doesn't look like a cell tower; perhaps it has been there, but because they didn't know it was there, they were not concerned when this development was constructed. Today they have an impact; they can impact the decision of building a tower, which currently the closest development is 207 feet away; the townhouse complex has a higher percentage of children under 18; whereas 35% of the houses in Cupertino have children under 18_ Chair Brophy: • Said he had wanted to hear the issue of the Sprint Nextel one which he sees when walking Cupertino Planning Coil mission 17 September 14, 2010 down Imperial Avenue, as. compared to the faux tree; he said he had a difficult time understanding the acceptance of one compared to the other. Com. Kaneda: • Said he has heard a lot about reduced property values related to cell towers; then the comment that there was a cell tower the whole time and not many knew about it, so it goes against reduced property values. An e-mail from Marshal Jackson, realtor, states that he is not aware of any negative impacts on property values from cell towers. He asked staff if they were aware of any research regarding the impacts of cell towers on property values. Colin Jung: + Said that they are not appraisers or real estate agents and did not have that information. AT&T representative: • Said there was a report commissioned in Los Angeles County; the appraiser was from the Northern California area and found there was not a direct correlation between a cell site and the proximity to homes and property values. He said he would supply a copy of the report. Com. Kaneda: + Said they were not permitted to make findings based on health concerns; and asked if they were permitted tp make findings based on perceived changes in property values based on health concerns. AT&T representative: • Said the law states that if the RF emissions are consistent with the FCC guidelines then you cannot use those as a basis for denying the project. When posing the question, one would ultimately be saying the RF emissions was a factor in the decision making, and again if the RF emissions are consistent with guidelines they are not appropriate as a factor in the Commissioner's decision making_ Coin. Kaneda: Said that once again they were in the unenviable position of having to listen to many concerns about health issues, but having their hands tied on whether or not they are permitted to make findings based on them. There were a large number of comments based on health concerns that they cannot take into account on the project. + • Said he lived in the area, and had a child attending Kennedy Middle School, and understood the parents' concerns. He said there was a coverage issue in the area; friends have visited his home who have AT&T coverage, and they experience dropped calls when they walk into his home. He said he felt there was also a coverage issue along Bubb Road. • He said another reason he was not that concerned about the health issue, is that the calculated numbers that the consultants are coming out with, is 1 /100* of the maximum guidelines and it is 115,00e of the levels that they think will affect health.. Radiation is a bad word that everyone is afraid of, but the fact is there is radiation everywhere, and this form of radiation at the levels being discussed„ don't appear to be health threatening. There are two experts who are bonafide experts on radio frequency and the healtheffects; one is a paid consultant of AT&T, so everyone may be slightly skeptical of what he says; but the other person has. no ties to AT&T, and both of them said that they have no concerns with health issues. • He said his biggest concern that he can rule on is 'the fact -that the monopine is twice as tall as anything else in the neighborhood; but I think that mitigates against there is a cell tower nearby on top of a building that is actually not disguised at all; it is on top of a one-story building, and nobody seemed to be bothered by it or mentioned it. Cupertino Planning Co'dimission is September 14, 2010 • He said he supported the application as he could not find anything to rule on and deny the project. Coca. Giefer: • Said Com. Kaneda did a good job summarizing what they can and cannot consider and make findings on. The Commission can make their findings based on land use and from the staff report, the applicant report and the testimony from The community. She said she has ndt heard anything that would allow her to rule that it is an inappropriate land use, and she would support the project. Com. Muller. • Said he was an engineer and from his perspective he was convinced that there is not a safety issue. However, logical arguments are being made, and they are receiving emotional responses from the community, which is very challenging. A lot of input has been received at the meeting, they have also received many a -mails and have received petitions as well. The input is S to 1 against the tower as far as the residents are concerned; the people who are opposed to it are those people who live closest to the tower. • AT&T did a survey, and it said that everyone wants and needs better coverage. What it boils down to, is everyone wants better coverage, but everyone wants the tower in someone else's back yard, and that is the challenge faced. • Said from his standpoint he could see the benefits of having the tower; however, he is also sensitive to the fact that there is a large group of residents in the city who, .even though it might benefit them from a technology standpoint, don't want it. The customers for the product and the service do not want the product and the service. He said he had to be sensitive to that fact. For those reasons, there are some other issues besides the one the Commission is not permitted to discuss; the fact is that it doesn't fit into the environment, it does stick up into the air and it is aesthetically an issue; and it also does not meet the height requirement_ He said for those reasons, he did not support the project. Vice Chair Lee: • She said that at the Mayor's monthly meetings, the TIC has said every month that they have listened to the residents and are working for the residents to get more cell phone coverage in the southwest area, the tri school area, the Bubb area, McClellan Road, and they are working hard so that AT&T can have better coverage in that area. • . Said that she has been attending the meetings for four years and it seems 'like there might be an opportunity for them, to improve coverage for businesses and residents. • She said she felt they should approve the project. Chair Brophy: • Said he felt that given the problems of the locations on the west side in the McClellan Road corridor, this is not necessarily an ideal location but is as good as you will find, because once you get further west, it is entirely residential areas. The tree is not exactly an ideal solution, but it is better than having a 70-foot pole. He believes that over time the redevelopment of the Measurex property will lead to larger natural foliage which will make it stand out less. Under those circumstances and under the restrictions set by Federal law, he said he would vote to support the project.. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-0-1, Cam. Miller voted No; to approve Application U 2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010 31, /�'D9 - -),� I Cupertino Planning Commission 19 September 14, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Stated that Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 { days. OLD BUSINESS: None W BUSINESS• None RNPRT OF THE PLANNING CONMSSION discussed. No meeting. Chair Brophy reported that the Merce4A Road project was Cote. Kaneda reports • The TIC reported that AT&T application would be ca g back. • Tin Tin Market went b pt and closed down. • P.W Market has closed. • Hewlett Packard is moving ou n a two year time e. • Seagate will move in and take o Symantec's ces. • Commissioner's appreciation dine ' Sept r 23'd. • The city has funding set aside to cr ' g guards at 10 locations in the city for the schools. There are more than 10 lacati coded, the city is proposing to use that funding to go to the schools and train the volunte ecomfe certified crossing guards. Chair Brophy: • Reported that World of Music w out of busin Vice Chair Lee: • On August 11, she attende blic Safety Commissio said they are piloting the Voltage program at Kennedy and cola schools, with RFIDs an ackpacks; students go through a zapper meter. It starts ' the school year, they have eys in Oct. and May and the Commission fields co laints about traffic in the area. } • Sept. 23 is Commiss' ers' Dinner, spouses are invited. + There are op e " on the Parks & Rec Commission, Fine Commission, Bike Commission, B' & Pedestrian Commission, & Public Safety; intervie this month. • Relative tor n Building Ordinance, the Mayor said they should m sure that more information ' ven to builders regarding the grants so they can access grant ation. • July Corn ity Congress was very successful. Acterra does au exam in your use, looks at your ele city usage, your refrigerator, put in a thermostat and guarantee you can a 25% on your ctricity bills. They showed residents how to make compost at their homes, ave hints h the average person could save. • Par nd Rec: Discussed Memorial Park; will have educational campaigns because of th gee , signs will be posted not to feed the ducks. They are trying to raise money for the fences fo a dog park. • e Arts Commission: Shakespeare Festival ended; some budget money went to Euphrat useuzn; every First Friday in October is City Arts Day. The Mayor wants each Commission to put out an event. "P - I CUPERT INO Attachment G OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALT, 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 45014-3255 (408) 777-3308 - FAX (408) 777-3333 - planninaDpertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Z 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 i Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U 20101-03, EXC-2010-04 September 14, 2010 Page 2 246 feet to Olive Ave. residence 207 feet to Astoria townhouses Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption BACKGROUND Posed 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 YQcke (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 Coves e 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: `y • 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 AIM 70 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: A 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 FrequenW Ene= Assessment AT&T Mobility coxnmissioned`� 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/cmz; Cellular: 0.58 mW/cm�). 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 Anal sis 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 anent 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 T10HP - 3A Dave Yocke (for AT&T Muoility) 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 Notic 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. NPr33 fip 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 WPIanner ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Attachment 9: Approved by .1=� I W-m� Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Model resolutions for U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31 Existing & Proposed Coverage Maps Santa Clara County Sheriff's letter dated June 23, 2010 Photosimulations of treepole (3) Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc.: AT&T Mobility, Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A), Results Way, Cupertino, California dated August 20, 2010 AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map Alternate Site Analysis provided by applicant Communications from TIC Commissioners Emails from residents and workers in Cupertino Plan Set G:\Plann ng\PDREPORT\2010ureports\U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31.doc P11 AT U