Loading...
106-E. Appeal filed on 9/28/10.pdfATTACHMENT E CUPERTINO 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email City of Cupertino 10300 'Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APP E,A i1 U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31 :y `of���m� �mm�mm SEP Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (For AT&T Mobility) Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo jin 10170 Imperial Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 421-0207 structors@yahoo.com 4. Please check one: 0 Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development 0 Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works E) Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 0 Appeal a decision of Design Review Committee 0 Appeal a decision of Code Enforcement 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: September 16, 2010 6. Basis of appeal: See Attachment 1 Signature(s) Please complete form, include appeal fee of $162.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 09-051 ($155.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. ATTACHMENT t. BASIS OF APPEAL 1. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies: Policy 6-1 : Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. It is contrary to the following aesthetic guidelines relating to Lattice Towers and Monopoles on page 24 of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the surrounding trees to which it is being visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearance for the life of the personal wireless service facility. The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc.). The proposed 74' tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding buildings. See Photo 1-1. Results Way Office Park parking lot — westerly strip, with proposed monopole added for illustration. Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the proposed monopole will be more than 40 feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower will be an eyesore, as it is significantly taller. It does not blend in with current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the surrounding buildings, of approximate 30 feet. See Photo 1-2. View from Imperial Avenue, with proposed monopole added for illustration. The proposed cell tower will be significantly taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current Cupertino city ordinance - and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood - do not allow structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet. The existing roof -mounted Sprint-Nextel antennas structure is already an eye -sore to the neighbors, the residents in Morita Visat do not want to see another one so nearby. See Photo 1-3. View from Imperial Way of the roof mounted Sprint-Nextel antenna, with proposed monopole added for illustration. Again, the proposed monopole will tower over existing structures and buildings. The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians, passersby and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road. Attachment 1-1 2. The application does not meet the safety requirement established in City of Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies: Policy 7-1 : The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7-2 : The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types of personal wireless service facilities: 0 For building -mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; 0 For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level; a For all co -located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and a For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities. The radiofrequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated August 20, 2010, is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective height about 65 feet above ground. A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56' above ground) of the lower tier of the antennas proposed and also based on the bottom elevation of future antennas proposed at lower elevations. A radiofrequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all carriers and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT&T and other carriers. AT&T has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application. In last year's application, AT&T had proposed six antennas. The city should not approve more antennas than actually needed to improve the coverage. 3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage map based on the proposed location. Prior to the planning commission meeting, dated September 14, 2010, an outdated proposed coverage based on the antennas located about 1,300 feet away from the actual proposed location was included in the staff report and another outdated proposed coverage map which is offset about 170 feet was presented by AT&T's representative in the meeting. See Exhibit 1. 1 Cupertino Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 14, 2010, Attachment 2: Coverage Map (Existing). Location of proposed monopole and associated coverage area are placed at intersection of Imperial Way and McClellan Road, differing from that mentioned in the Staff Report. An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site should be studied and reviewed. The city should not approve a wireless facility application Attachment 1-2 without even seen a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location. Next, if the location of the proposed monopole is incorrectly placed on the map, then the coverage area that the proposed monopole is to service will be affected. As a result, Exhibit 1.2 (from the Cupertino Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 14, 2010, Attachment 2: Coverage Map (Proposed)) does not accurately reflect that the coverage area of the proposed monopole. We can see from the proposed coverage map that the 74 feet tree pole at the proposed location will not improve coverage effectively. See Exhibit 1.3 Google Earth with proposed "wrong" and "correct" location of the monopole. Given that the proposed location is to be in the Result Way office park, those customers who AT&T would like to service, that is living on/near Bubb Road, south of McClellan Road, will still not be included the "new" coverage area. Those clients who have complained of poor service, that is south of McClellan Road, still will not be in the coverage area, because the physical location of the monopole is shifted northward by at least 400 meters or 1250 feet. Also, so far, we have three different versions of existing coverage map. One, from AT&T's official website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/, with zip code 95014) the coverage map shows good coverage for most of the Monta Vista area, See Exhibit 1.4 AT&T Coverage Viewer. One was included in the staff report that shows that the proposed tree pole is located in acceptable coverage area. See Exhibit 1.1. The area prior to the monopole has acceptable coverage. Third, a coverage map presented by AT&T's representative in the September 14, 2010 meeting shows that at the proposed tree pole that there is no/limited coverage. See Exhibit 1.5. Coverage maps presented by AT&T, Cupertino Planning Commission meeting, September 14, 2010 We need to determine the assumptions of the existing coverage map and the proposed coverage map, on a revised map. 4. Coverage versus capacity It was brought up during the Planning Commission meeting, on September 14, 2010, that in the area under discussion at times there is good coverage. It was mentioned that there was a "significant degradation in coverage" especially during after school hours and after work hours when many parents are calling their children. This particular area of Monta Vista is the home to Cupertino's education trifecta of Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Monta Vista High School. More than 4,400 students (not including teachers and administrators) arrive at school and are dismissed, within a 30-60 minutes interval. Attachment 1-3 Given this, if this is the problem, then capacity issues may be misconstrued as "poor coverage". This issue still needs to be explored and further discussed by the city staff, council members and its residents. It should be clear whether there is a need for this application and perhaps seek other alternatives that can resolve this issue. . Alternative locations and structures shall expand to larger areas. Knowing that the antennas at the proposed location will not improve the coverage effectively, it is necessary to study alternative locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office buildings, with considerations to aesthetic, coverage improvement, and such. It is also clear that a smaller structure, such as roof mounted antennas at the center of coverage gap may suffice in improving the coverage in this area, instead of the more than the 74' tree pole located at this wrong location. Half of the Monta Vista area has good coverage, namely from Sprint-Nextel & Verizon Wireless, and yet, there is no Sprint or Verizon cell phone tower near the residential area. Why is it necessary that a 74' monopole is the only viable solution to help AT&T provide better service to its customers in this area? Had AT&T really explored all alternatives? Can roof mounted antennas serve as potential solutions to AT&T's problems, or does AT&T have other intentions? Attachment 1-4 Photo 1-2 View from Imperial Avenue, with proposed monopole added for illustration Photo 1-3 View from Imperial Avenue — of existing roof mounted antenna Exhibit 1.3 From Google Earth, proposed monopole at "wrong" location and "correct" location Coverage Viewer Exhibit 1.4 AT&T Coverage Viewer Page 1 of 1 Voice, Coverage .1-jeuend 15 1 Best Good Moderate Partner No Service Available Mobile Broadband Coverage F 111 Show Mobile Broadband Coverage Important Information About the Coverage Map Map may include areas served by unaffiliated carriers, and may depict their licensed area rather than an approximation of the coverage there. Actual coverage area may differ substantially from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage, buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT&T does not guarantee coverage. Charges will be based on the location of the site receiving and transmitting the call, not the location of the subscriber, http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewerlprint.j sp?type=voice&lat=37.3143551880278... 9/13/2010 Exhibit 1.5 Coverage maps presented by AT&T, Cupertino rlanning Commission meeting, September 14, 2010