.02 U-2008-03 At&tCITY OF
CUPERTINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.
Agenda Date: August 25, 2009
Application: U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05
Applicant: Phillip Thomas, Black Dot Wireless (for AT&T Mobility)
Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC
Property Location: near 5 Results Way
Application Summary:
USE PERMIT (U-2008-03) to allow a personal wireless service facility consisting of a 74-
foot tall tree pole with six panel antennas and an equipment enclosure with the
associated equipment in the westerly landscape strip in the rear parking lot of an
existing office park.
HEIGHT EXCEPTION (EXC-2009-05) to allow antennas to be mounted at a height of
67.1 feet where 55 feet is allowed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the use permit and height exception per the model
resolutions enclosed. Planning Commission action is final, unless appealed to the City
Council.
BACKGROUND:
On August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed and continued the project to its
August 25, 2009 meeting. The Commission directed the applicant to consider the
possibility of relocating the personal wireless service facility to the east side of the office
park near the railroad tracks. A detailed project description and staff's analysis are
found in the August 11~ staff report (Attachment 1).
2-1
Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Wireless) U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS August 25, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission Comments
The Planning Commissioners expressed the following concerns/comments:
1) Setbacks to nearby residential properties
2) Other wireless antenna options (i.e., roof mounted and/or public art masts)
3) Explore the possibility of relocating the tree pole to the east side of the property
4) Revise condition relating to the equipment enclosure
Staff response:
Setbacks
There are two setbacks that apply to cell site monopoles: A 6-foot property line setback
of the mast and a 75-foot setback of the antennas to the nearest residential property line.
For this project, the mast is setback 10.5 feet from the side property line, and the
antenna is setback 161 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property on Imperial
Avenue (Attachment 2).
Other Antenna Options
The maximum height of abuilding-mounted antenna at Results Way is 39 feet (10 feet
above the 29-foot tall building); unless a height exception is approved. The applicant is
asking for a height exception of 67.1 feet where 55 feet is allowed for afree-standing
monopole. The height exception is needed to "see" over the buildings and provide cell
service to the poorly served neighborhoods to the south and east along Bubb Road and
McClellan Road. Given the coverage objectives, the effective height of the antennas is
about 48 feet and the tree pole is well within the height norms of such facilities. Staff
believes that a tree pole is the best aesthetic solution for this site given the proposed
location of the pole and its close proximity to existing trees. Any other pole design (i.e.,
clock tower or artwork) will increase the visibility of the pole.
Relocating the Pole
According to the applicant, the objective of this AT&T cell site is to serve the poorly
covered residential areas and schools around Bubb and McClellan Roads. Shifting the
cell site to the east side of the Results Way Office Park would reduce coverage in the
poorly served residential areas and improve coverage in the industrial area and freeway
where coverage is already acceptable (see coverage map, Attachment 3). The east side
of the office park is also inferior because of the general lack of trees that could be used
to visually blend in with the tree pole. The approved redevelopment plans for the
Results Way Office Park does not provide excess land to locate a monopole and
equipment enclosure. Such a facility would need to be located in the parking lot and
would remove a minimum of six parking stalls. The existing and approved office park
has a surplus of parking stalls that could absorb the loss of six stalls.
The applicant has informed staff that the property owner is not interested in offering an
alternative site on the east side of the office park for the AT&T cell site (Attachment 4).
2-2
Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Wireless) U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS August 25, 2009
Page 3
Equipment Enclosure Condition
Per the direction of the Planning Commission, Condition #7 has been revised to the
following:
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, wall treatment/color and screening strategy
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of building permits.
Technology, Information and Communications Commission Comments (TICC)
Commissioner Wally Iimura, representing TICC, addressed the Planning Commission
in support of the proposed tree pole. The following points were made by TICC:
• The proposed tree pole meets all the required safety and aesthetic standards;
• The proposed wireless facility addresses the coverage hole that was identified by
the TICC's public survey;
• Current AT&T coverage in the Bubb corridor is very poor, which means no
coverage, dropped calls and poor audio;
• Poor coverage presents a safety hazard for individuals in reporting accidents and
for emergency responders (especially in the hilly areas of Bubb corridor)
Please see Attachment 5 for the detailed comments from TICC.
Public Comments
The following is a summary of the comments and concerns raised by the public at the
hearing:
• The location of the AT&T tree pole is too close to residential properties
• The proposed artificial tree is not visually pleasing
• The pole should be relocated to along the freeway
• The proposed radio frequency radiation (RFR) emissions will pose health risks
• The RFR exposures to the second floor level of the nearest residence was not
addressed by the applicant
• The RFR report was not prepared by a professional licensed radio/ electrical
engineer
The first three points have already been addressed by this staff report and the August
11, 2009 staff report. Regarding the last three points, the Telecommunications Act of
1996 prohibits local agencies from regulating personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such
facilities comply with Federal Communications Commission Guidelines for such
emissions. Email communications from the public are attached (Attachment 6).
Enclosures:
2-3
Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Wireless) U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS August 25, 2009
Page 4
Enclosures:
Model resolutions for U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05
Attachment 1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 11, 2009
Attachment 2: Zoning & Setback Map for AT&T Tree Pole
Attachment 3: Existing and Proposed AT&T coverage maps
Attachment 4: Email message from property owner, Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC
Attachment 5: Email message from TICC Commissioner Peter Friedland
Attachment 6: Email communications from the public
Prepared by: Colin Jung AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by
Chao
City Planner
Approved by
Aarti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
G: ~ Planning ~ PEIREPORT ~ 2009ureports ~ U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05 second
2-4
U-2008-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
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 TREEPOLE
WITH SIX PANEL ANTENNAS AND AN EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH THE
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT NEAR 5 RESULTS WAY
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 and the purpose of this title.
3) That the operation of the facility will comply with federal safety standards for radio
frequency radiation emissions.
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
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
2-5
Resolution No. U-2008-03 August 25, 2009
Page 2
No. U-2008-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
August 11 & August 25, 2009 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: U-2008-03
Applicant: Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Mobility)
Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC
Location: Near 5 Results Way
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, California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc.
dated 07/02/09 and consisting of six sheets labeled T-1, A-0 through A-3, and LS-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 OF ANTENNAE
The treepole shall be structurally designed to accommodate the collocation of
additional 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.
2-6
Resolution No. U-2008-03 August 25, 2009
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.
6. 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
portion of the tree pole shall have branches of varying length to give the tree pole a
conical form. Panel antennae mounted away from the mast shall have needle covers
to blend with the green foliage of the artificial branches. The mast and any panel
antennae 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 and 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, wall treatment/color and
screening strategy shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development prior to issuance of building permits.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Aarti Shrivastava Lisa Giefer, Chair
Community Development Director Planning Commission
g:/planning/pdreport/res~009/EXC-2008-03 res.doc
2-7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
EXC-2009-OS
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE
MOUNTED AT A HEIGHT OF ABOUT 67.1 FEET ON A TREEPOLE-STYLE PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED NEAR 5 RESULTS WAY
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2009-OS
Applicant: Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Mobility)
Location: Near 5 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
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to the Height Exception
for this application:
1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions 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 treepole 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 radiation below federal exposure standards,
• visually, the treepole will appear shorter as the adjacent property grade is 6 feet
higher than the project site.
3. 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-2009-OS is hereby approved; and
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-2009-05, as set
2-8
Resolution No. EXC-2009-OS August 25, 2009
Page 2
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 11 & August 25, 2009, and
are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
T)F.PT_
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
07/02/09 and consisting of six sheets labeled T-1, A-0 through A-3, and LS-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 25th day of August 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Aarti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
APPROVED:
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Planning Commission
g:/planning/pdreport/res/2009/EXC-2009-OS res.doc
2-9
Attachment 7
CITY OF
CUPERTINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ,2 Agenda Date: August 11, 2009
Application: U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05
Applicant: Phillip Thomas, Black Dot Wireless (for AT&T Mobility)
Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC
Property Location: near 5 Results Way
Application Summary:
USE PERMIT (U-2008-03) to allow a personal wireless service facility consisting of a 74-
foot tall tree pole with six panel antennas and an equipment enclosure with the
associated equipment in the westerly landscape strip in the rear parking lot of an
existing office park.
HEIGHT EXCEPTION (EXC-2009-05) to allow antennas to be mounted at a height of
67.1 feet where 55 feet is allowed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recorrunends approval of the use permit and height exception per the model
resolutions (Attachment 1). Planning Commission action is final, unless appealed to the
City Council.
PROJECT DATA:
Property Zoning:
Height of Treepole:
Height of Antennas:
Required Setback:
Proposed Setback:
Environmental
Determination:
Planned Development, Light Industrial Intent - P(ML)
74 feet (measured from grade to foliage top)
67.1 feet
75 feet (from residential property)
161 feet to Imperial Ave. residence
315 feet to Olive Ave. residence
370 feet to Astoria townhouses
Categorical Exemption, Section 15303: New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures
2-10
Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Wireless) U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS August 11, 2009
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Phillip Thomas (representing AT&T Mobility) is proposing a personal
wireless service facility to be located in the westerly landscape strip of the rear parking
lot of the Results Way office park. It consists of a tree pole with six panel antennas and
base equipment within a concrete block enclosure. The tree pole will be designed for
collocation so that more antennas and base equipment may be added by other wireless
carriers in the future. The proposed location is in a landscaped setback on the western
edge of the property and is surrounded by office and industrial land uses with a
minimum distance from a residential property line of 161 feet (see aerial map below).
The project will not obstruct the approved redevelopment plans for the Results Way
office project.
2-1 ~
O Proposed Location of AT& T cell site
Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Wireless) U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS August 11, 2009
Page 3
The City's Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) has
previously conducted an on-line survey of residents and workers to identify cell phone
usage and issues. 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. The existing and
proposed AT&T phone coverage is. depicted in Attachment 2.
DISCUSSION:
Site Location. The AT&T tree pole is proposed in the westerly landscape strip of the
office park which has numerous tall and large trees to the south and smaller trees fo the
north. The proposed location is two to four times the required 75-foot setback from a
residentially zoned property.
Treepole and Enclosure Appearance
The appearance of the tree pole will be comparable to more modern tree pole designs,
like the faux pine treepole located near the southwest corner of Miller Avenue and
Richwood Avenue. The tree design includes:
• faux bark cladding
• an artificial pine branch structure that will resemble a tree and obscure the antenna
rack
• Pine needle covers that will obscure the panel antenna even further (Attachment 3)
Even though there are many tall, mature trees in the office park's westerly landscape
strip, the immediate tree pole vicinity is occupied with smaller stature trees, which
makes it more challenging to blend in the treepole.
To achieve a more natural and realistic tree image, staff is recommending the following
changes to the tree pole:
• 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 treepole shall be designed with a more conical form to simulate
the shape of a real pine tree.
In addition, staff recommends the following change to the base equipment screen wall
(6-foot tall concrete block wall):
• 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, except the entry area.
All of the above recommendations are incorporated uz the conditions of approval.
2-12
Phillip Thomas (for AT&T Wireless) U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS August 11, 2009
Page 4
Hei hg t Exception Request.
The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 67.1 feet for the antennas, whereas, 55
feet is allowed. The extra height is needed because the rear grade of the office park is
much lower (19.2 feet lower) than the McClellan Road grade and the antennas must
"see" over the tops of the adjacent office buildings to provide phone coverage to the
neighborhood to the south.
Radio Frequency Radiation Assessment.
AT&T wireless commissioned the preparation of a radio frequency radiation (RFR)
assessment (Attachment 4) to determine the projected radio emission levels and
compare them against the federal exposure safety standards. The report concluded that
the project is within the federal safety standards for RFR exposure. In accordance with
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.
Referral and Noticing
In accordance with the recently revised ordinance, the plans and supporting
documentation were referred to designated members of the TICC. TICC commissioner
Peter Friedland responded (Attachrrient 5). He said:
He strongly supported the project. The facility would be well concealed by its location in an
industrial park and its tree camouflage. The facility meets federal safety standards for RF
emissions and would address the single greatest cell phone coverage problem identcfied in last
year's TICC survey.
Public hearing noticing was mailed to a 1,000-foot radius of the project property.
Enclosures:
Attachment 1: Model resolutions for U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05
Attachment 2: Existing & Proposed Coverage Map
Attachment 3: Photosimulations of treepole (2)
Attachment 4: Radio Frequency Analysis, AT&T Mobility Site #CN3242
By Evan Wappel dated 6/11/09
Attaclunent 5: Email from Peter Friedland, TIC Commissioner
Attachment 6: Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Jung AICP, Senior Planner
2-13
Colin Jung Attachment 4
From: Phillip Thomas [wirelessconsulting@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:12 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: U-2008-03/AT & T
Attachments: Utility Pole InstaII.JPG
Colin
Below is the response from the landlord at Results Way. Please contact Andrew Brown to discuss (Contact Info Below).
Also, please have the attached photo available to put up on the big screen at the hearing (To address one of the
Commissioners concerns).
Thanks<
Phillip Thomas
AT & T Mobility Representative
From: Andrew Brown [mailto:abrown@ecp-Ilc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:57 PM
To: Phillip Thomas
Cc: Blake Reinhardt
Subject: location of cell site
Phillip-
We do not want to move the cell site from the current location. However we do need to resolve some concerns
regarding the compatibility of our existing and future underground utilities versus the AT&T cell equipment. Blake
Reinhardt our Project Director has offered to work with AT&T to resolve this issue.
Andrew C. Brown
Director of Leasing
Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC
1301 Shoreway Road, Suite 250
Belmont, California 94002-4151
650.292.4100 direct
650.373.1617 fax
http://www.ec~-Ilc.com
The Information in this email message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or
copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please email the sender and delete all copies. If this transmittal includes an
attachment or document then the submission of same does not constitute an offer and is subject to further review and revision. A binding agreement wil! only exist when it is
executed by duly authorized representatives from all parties, delivered, and approved by their respective counsel.
2-17
Colin Jung Attachment 5
From: Peter Friedland [peterfriedland@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:24 AM
To: TICC
Cc: Colin Jung
Subject: AT&T Tower statement
Wally, et. al.,
If I were able to be present at the Tuesday Planning Commission meeting representing our
cellular sub-committee, this would be my statement:
We believe the proposed new AT&T cellular "treepole" in the Results Way complex meets all the
required safety and esthetic standards for such an installation. Moreover, this new facility
addresses the coverage hole that was found in the TICC's 2007 survey to be the most important
in Cupertino. At the time AT&T was the leading carrier in Cupertino with about a 45~ market
share--given the growth of the iPhone, we believe this is .still likely to be true. Of the
approximately 125 comments relating to poor coverage spots (made by the 614 responders to the
survey), 65 singled out the Bubb corridor area that would be served by the new tower.
The current coverage situation for AT&T customers in the Bubb corridor is still very poor.
From the personal experience of one of our members as a homeowner in that area, we can attest
to poor to non-existent signal at many spots, dropped calls when there is signal, and poor
audio quality throughout. Beyond being an inconvenience, this is a safety hazard, both for
individuals in reporting accidents and for emergency responders, particularly in the hilly
areas of the Bubb corridor.
For those reasons, the TICC strongly supports the City staff recommendation to approve the
proposed new facility.
Peter
Email secured by Check Point
1
2-18
coin ~unp Attachment 6
From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dep.
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:04 PM
To: Gary Chao; Colin Jung
Cc: Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: FW: Horrible cell phone reception!
FYI - I will put a copies of this in the AB binder and also for each planning commissioner. I will fw this to the planning
commissioners via e-mail now O
`-~ Think before you print. 10 fewer pages/week/employee = 3619 trees saved
You are the Difference -Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
From: C. Phillips [mailto:cephil@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:47 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Horrible cell phone reception!
Dear Planning Commission:
I live on Rucker Drive and the cell phone reception is unacceptable. Sometimes there is NO SIGNAL, and other
times,I am often forced to wander my front yard and driveway (in all kinds of weather) or hang out of a second
story window in an attempt to use my phone. I feel my personal communications are overheard by all by
neighbors!
It sounds like it may be difficult to find a solution to the cell phone problem in my neighborhood, but I
would ask you to continue to work on finding a solution.
Not having dependable cell phone use in Silicon Valley is unacceptable. Often we have NO signal, and
important calls are dropped or cut off. I would feel compelled to disclose this problem if I were to sell my
home, and obviously this condition is negatively affecting the value of the properties in my neighborhood.
All citizens of our city should have equal access to decent cell phone communication.
Thank you.
C. Phillips
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. Find out more.
1
2-19
Colin Jung
From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:10 PM
To: Colin Jung; Gary Chao
Cc: Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: FW: APPLICATION NO U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05
FYI
`,'~ Think before you print. 10 fewer pages/week/employee = 3619 trees saved.
You are the Difference -Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
From: Tsai Margaret [mailto:Tsai_Margaret@cusdk8.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:58 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Tsai Margaret
Subject: APPLICATION NO U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05
Dear Sirs:
I have few questions about this facility.
1. Why AT & T get exception, all the residents in the Cupertino have to follow the restriction?
2. All the council members have already taken action to GREEN of Cupertino. This facility is not the "GREEN".
Further more this facility will damage to our environment.
3. AT& T should give our neighborhood more information instead of directly put an application into city of Cupertino.
Let us feel that big company like AT&T just wants to make profit and did not care about our environment or impact
of our daily life.
4. Once this facility is been damaged by nature such storm or earthquake will cause worst damage to people and
neighborhood. I believe that AT &T won't step in to help our neighborhood. It will cause city huge liability to
help us. Please take our safety issue to be considered.
5. We have lot of children in our neighborhood and they walk to home everyday. I just don't want any child been
harass by AT& T contractor in the future if city approved this facility.
Planning committee should put environment, safety, and health is first priority instead of profit of AT & T.
Let us love our earth, our city, our neighborhood and our home. Health and safety should be above some kind of
convenience.
Please reconsider this facility and all neighbors will appreciate your effort for us.
1
2-20