107-F. CC Staff Report dated 11/1/10.pdf
Attachment A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. ____ Meeting Date: November 1, 2010
Subject
Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility
Recommendation
Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility
consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base
equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park
Description
Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals:
Use Permit (U-2010-03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve
panel antennas mounted on a 74-foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the
Results Way office park.
Height Exception (EXC-2010-04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a
height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed.
Tree Removal (TR-2010-31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood
trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility.
Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357-20-042
Applicant:Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility)
Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin
Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC
Background
On September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved (4-1 vote; Miller voting
no) a proposal for a 74-foot tall AT&T wireless service monopine located in the northwest corner of
the parking lot at the Results Way office park (Attachments B-resolution, C-hearing minutes, D-
Commission staff report & L- approved plan set) The Commission noted that most of residents’
concerns related to perceived hazards of RF energy, and a radio frequency study determined that the
cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed emissions) were well below federal
safety standards. The commissioners noted that federal law prohibits cities from making wireless
facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that met federal
standards. Generally, the Commissioners felt that the monopine was well-designed and given its
location and context, the facility would not be visually obtrusive. Commissioner Miller voted no on
the project. He felt the monopine was too visible at the proposed location, being over twice the
height of the existing trees.
The Planning Commission hearing was well attended and comments were received from both
supporters, as well as those who opposed the project. Please see Attachment I for the numerous
emails and letters received. For a detailed Planning Commission hearing discussion, please refer to
the September 14, 2010 Commission meeting minutes (Attachment C).
The Planning Commission decision was appealed by three residents on September 28, 2010
(Attachment A – Appeal Request).
Discussion
The basis of the appeal is described below followed by staff comments in italics.Where the
applicant has provided the response, at the request of staff, the comments are so noted:
1. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of
Cupertino’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan.
Appeal Point 1(a): It violates the following policy:
Policy 6-1: Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as
viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods.
“The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians, passersby
and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road.”
Staff Response: The Glossary of the City’s Wireless Master Plan (p. 38) describes a visually
“intrusive” impact as a wireless facility “that visually contrasts with its surroundings to the point of
conflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings.” The project does
not visually contradict its surroundings as it has been camouflaged as a tree and it is sited in a large
landscape strip with other trees of similar shape. The Facilities Master Plan Siting and Design
Guidelines for Lattice Towers and Monopoles recommends that:
“Intrusive and Obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such
artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger
trees near the monopole may be a project requirement.”
The project is already sited in a wide landscape berm with other trees of similar form (Coastal
Redwoods). The Planning Commission approval included the rehabilitation of the irrigation system
and the planting of three 24” box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Trees
planted in this location would have the most beneficial effect in screening views of the project for
nearby Astoria residents.
2
The monopine is most visible in the vicinity of Imperial Avenue and Olive Avenue. It has limited
visibility to McClellan Road as it is separated by over 1,400 feet of landscaping with tall, mature
trees and over 650 feet of intervening landscaping and buildings to Bubb Road.
Appeal Point 1(b)
: It violates the following policy:
Policy 6-2: Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously
with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood.
The proposed 74’ tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding buildings.
Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the proposed monopole will be more than 40
feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower will be an eyesore, as it is significantly
taller. Existing landscaping has a height similar to the surrounding buildings of approximately 30
feet.
Staff Response: It is more appropriate to make height comparisons between the proposed monopine
with the existing vegetation, rather than the buildings. The project lot is large and the topography
varies. While the redwood trees (25-35 feet tall) immediately around the monopine (74 feet) are
much shorter, the closest building is 265 feet away and is on a grade 10 feet higher than the
proposed facility. Ideally to make the monopine blend better with the surrounding, it should be
located near those existing trees of comparable height in the landscape strip; however, those taller
trees directly abut residences and the 75-foot setback requirement between a wireless facility and a
residential property line could not be met.
The 74-foot height for the monopine is needed for two reasons:
1) The monopine must be tall enough to see over the buildings in order to provide cell
coverage to residential neighborhoods and schools south of the project site; and
2)Provide an opportunity for another wireless carrier to collocation its antennas on the
monopine.
The City requires wireless carriers to consider collocation opportunities when they propose new
monopoles in order to reduce the proliferation of new wireless facilities and if it will reduce the
visual intrusiveness of having more new facilities in the area. Given the difficulty of finding suitable
wireless facility sites in this area and the fact that two other wireless carriers are looking for a
Monta Vista location, makes this monopine a strong candidate for collocation.
AT&T has indicated to staff that the 74-foot height is the minimum height needed for the carrier to
meet its coverage objectives for the area, regardless if whether the collocation of antennas is
permitted in the future or not.
Appeal Point 1(c ): It violates the following policy:
Policy 6-3: Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so
that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings.
It does not blend in with the current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the
3
surrounding buildings, of approximately 30 feet….The proposed cell tower will be significantly
taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current
Cupertino City Ordinance – and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood – does not allow
structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet.
Staff Response: The difference in height between the monopine and surrounding structures has been
answered in the previous response. The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (CMC
Section 19.108, Attachment G) permits a maximum structure height of 55 feet. Taller structure
heights may be allowed with a height exception approval. New wireless facilities with similar
heights have been approved by the City in the past.
The wireless facility has been designed to be compatible with its surroundings with faux bark,
branching limbs and needle covers on the antennas to hide the antennas (Attachment F-
photosimulations). Additional conditions were approved by the Planning Commission to give the
monopine a more natural appearance. They include mottling the green color of the artificial
needles and shaping and adding branching to give it a more natural appearance. Another condition
requires the applicant to perform regular maintenance to maintain the appearance of the monopine.
2. The application does not meet the safety requirement established in the City of Cupertino’s
Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies:
Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radio frequency radiation
assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close
proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines.
Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radio frequency radiation assessment for all co-located
antennas. (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines).
The radio frequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, dated
August 20, 2010 is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective height about
65 feet above ground. A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56’ above
ground) of the lower tier of the antennas proposed and also the bottom elevation of future antennas
proposed at lower elevations.
A radio frequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all carriers
and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT&T and other carriers. AT&T
has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application. In last year’s application,
AT&T had proposed six antennas. The City should not approve more antennas than actually needed
to improve coverage.
Staff Response: A last minute design change lowered the height of six of the twelve proposed
antennas from 65 feet to 56 feet. An updated radio frequency study for the revised 12-antenna
design (Attachment J) with the lowered tier of antennas demonstrates that the radio frequency
energy exposure plus the contribution from the existing, next door, Sprint-Nextel personal wireless
service facility is still well within the Federal safety standard. The maximum calculated cumulative
level of radio frequency emissions at ground is 0.73% of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE).
4
At the second floor elevation of any nearby residence, the exposure is 0.92% of the MPE. On the
rooftop of any nearby non-residential building, the exposure is estimated to be 2.4% of the MPE.
According to the applicant, the number of antennas has changed from the initial six requested in the
2009 application to the 12 requested as part of this application because it would allow AT&T the
flexibility to add additional antennas as new technology is deployed. The proposed 12 antennas
have been included on all drawings, photo-simulations, project descriptions and in the City staff
report. Furthermore the Hammett & Edison radio frequency energy report based its analyses and
conclusions of the facility utilizing all 12 antennas operating at maximum power levels.
Also, as stated in the Planning Commission staff report, staff will require a new radio frequency
energy study when a future antenna collocation proposal is made. Staff normally requires a new
radio frequency study whenever an antenna collocation occurs, but the City Council may add it as a
requirement to its action on the appeal.
3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage map
based on the proposed location.
An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site
should be studied and reviewed. The City should not approve a wireless facility application without
even seeing a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location. Three different coverage
maps have been available:
The first coverage map included with the Planning Commission staff report shows the
proposed facility near the intersection of Imperial Avenue and McClellan Road. If the
facility is incorrectly placed on the map, then the proposed coverage area is likely wrong too.
The second coverage map from AT&T’s website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/,
with zip code 95014) shows good coverage for most of Monta Vista.
The third coverage map was presented by AT&T’s representative at the September 14, 2010
Planning Commission Hearing shows that at the proposed facility site that there is no/limited
coverage.
Staff Response: Please see Attachment K for the updated coverage maps (showing existing and
proposed coverage) with the location of the facility accurately depicted.
The applicant states that its website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer) coverage maps were
developed to allow existing and potential AT&T customers the ability to view the general level of
coverage in a geographic area. AT&T included a statement on the website to ensure viewers
understand the limitations of the website, noting that actual coverage area may differ substantially
from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage,
buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT&T also
noted that the maps shown on the AT&T web page are intended for use for the general public and
are not as detailed as the radio frequency engineering maps submitted to the city and discussed at
the planning commission public hearing. The radio frequency coverage maps are based on data
taken in the field and sophisticated computer programs and models that provide a graphical
representation of existing coverage as well as coverage if the proposed facility is built. Wireless
5
networks are dynamic and their performance is influenced by a number of factors including the
geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding
sites and the number of users accessing the network. The level of coverage in a geographic area
served by a wireless facility is also impacted by these factors.
4. It was mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing that at times cell coverage was good
in Monta Vista. It was also mentioned that there was a significant degradation in coverage
especially during after-school hours and after-work hours when many parents are calling
their children. More than 4,400 students plus teachers and administrators arrive at school
and are dismissed within a 30-60 minutes interval. Given this, if this is the problem, then
capacity issues may be misconstrued as “poor coverage.” This issue still needs to be
explored and discussed. The need for the facility is not clear-cut, perhaps other alternatives
can resolve this issue.
Staff response: The applicant states that the level of coverage in a geographic area served by a
wireless facility is impacted by numerous factors, including the geography of the surrounding area,
heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding (wireless facility) sites and the
number of users accessing that facility at any given time. For instance, sites located near freeways
usually have peak times that correspond to the peak traffic hours on the freeway. As traffic
increases on the freeway, more people in the same geographic area are attempting to make calls
and once the wireless network reaches capacity, no more calls can be initiated and existing calls
may be dropped. So, even though there may be “coverage” in an area, the level of service may be
lower than expected due to an increase in network traffic.
Staff notes that the 2007 Technology, Information and Communications Commission survey of cell
phone users in Cupertino documented that the Monta Vista/Kennedy Schools/Bubb Road/McClellan
Road area was the number one poor cell phone coverage area in Cupertino
Staff also believes that the perception of “good” cell phone coverage has also evolved over the
years. Historically, consumers used cell phones when they were mobile (i.e. outdoors). Nowadays,
consumers expect their cell phones to operate at work and at home (i.e. in buildings). In general,
low-power radio signals are inadequate to provide good in-building coverage and wireless networks
must be built-up and expanded in order to provide better in-building cell phone coverage.
5. Alternative locations and structures should expand to larger areas.
Since the proposed location will not improve coverage effectively, it is necessary to study alternative
locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office buildings. It is also clear that a smaller
structure, such as roof-mounted antennas at the center of coverage gap may suffice in improving the
coverage in this area, instead of the 74-foot tall treepole. Half of Monta Vista area has good
coverage, namely from Sprint-Nextel & Verizon Wireless, and yet there is no Sprint or Verizon cell
phone tower near the residential area. Why is a 74-foot tall monopole the only viable solution to
improve AT&T coverage? Had AT&T really explored all alternatives? Can roof-mounted antennas
serve as a potential solution?
6
Staff Response:Sprint-Nextel’s wireless facility is located on Imperial Avenue next door to the
Astoria Townhomes; the closest Verizon Wireless site is on the De Anza College campus. Staff has
summarized AT&T’s and city staff’s 5-year search and evaluation for a suitable Monta Vista
wireless facility site in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D).
As part of their due diligence, AT&T also approached other property owners in the general area
including, the following:
Potential Co-Location Opportunity:
10420 Bubb Road, Cupertino – The property owner and AT&T were not interested in
pursuing a lease due to lack of room for a facility.
Other Alternative Locations Explored:
Monta Vista High School - The project was subsequently approved by the city however, due
to concerns raised by parents and neighbors, the school board declined to enter into a lease
agreement to permit the facility to be constructed. At that time, suggestions were made by
opponents of the project and city staff to move the location of the facility out of the
residentially-zoned areas and look at commercial properties to the northeast that had
sufficient space to accommodate the proposed use.
21495 McClellan Road, Cupertino –The property owner and AT&T were not interested in
lease due to lack of room for a facility.
Industrial Areas to the East-These were reviewed and had no available space (without taking
up parking spaces) or were too close to the freeway where AT&T currently has coverage
from existing facilities to the northeast and southeast.
Utility Poles – these are used in extreme locations where a standard wireless facility cannot
be built (steep hillsides, public right-of-way, etc.). If utility poles are used, height is
compromised and it would take multiple facilities to obtain the same coverage that one
standard facility (such as the one proposed) can obtain.
Sites on Results Way - The applicant submitted an application to the city in 2008 to place the
proposed facility near the southwest corner of the office park. This initial site was rejected
by staff, so the applicant sought an alternate location in the rear parking lot landscape strip
near the building. This site was reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing but the
application was ultimately withdrawn because of conflicts with a utility easement. A third
location on the property was proposed by the applicant in June 2010 (current proposal).
Due to future development plans on the subject property and proximity to existing utility
easements and overhead power lines, the current location was ultimately selected as a
compromise location that met the requirements of the city while allowing AT&T to meet most
of the original coverage objectives.
7
Staff notes that the Results Way Office Park consists of three separate parcels. The entire focus of
the current application has been on the rear parcel that is furthest away from McClellan Road.
Most other alternative sites on the properties were not feasible because of the property owner’s
approved redevelopment plans, utility easements and closer proximity to residential properties.
Selection of an alternative site on the other two parcels would require a separate City review.
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments
A.Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 and TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10
B.Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution No. 6604
C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10
E. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Letter dated 6/23/10
F. Photosimulations of monopine (3)
G. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map
H. Communications from TIC Commissioners
I. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters
J. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino,
California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10
K. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps (updated)
L. Planning Commission-approved Plan Set
8