Loading...
Exhibit CC 11-15-2011 Item No. 16 Wireless Communications Facility at Jollyman Park cc is - Ic - Ii Ifevh � � 412V/ 10300 Torre Avenue 9ss 408-777-CITY (www.cupertino.org) � CUPERTINO NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION AND HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Cupertino City Council will hold a study session and hearing on the matter described below. The public is encouraged to attend and speak. APPLICANT: Alex Morin for Cortel, LLC and AT&T LOCATION: Jollyman Park(Stelling Road near Highway 85) APN: 359-25-049, 359-25-002, 359-25--024, 359-25-048 DESCRIPTION: Study session and hearing regarding the review of AT&T's request to submit planning permits and enter into a land lease in order to construct a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park (Ste ing oa near Tiighway 85) HEARING DATE: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 beginning at 5:30 p.m. for the study session and 6:45 p.m. for the hearing ADDRESS: Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue Agenda may be subject to change. If you are interested in an item or have questions, please call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223 prior to the meeting date to verify that the item is still on the agenda. The time this item will be heard on the agenda cannot be predicted. For more information, agendas and packets are available for review on the Thursday afternoon prior to the meeting, and are also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org/agenda. NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: This notice is sent to owners of real property as shown on the last tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified. Kimberly Smith City Clerk La4-3fuer A11:61-4 G irk r i-,h7 ' td\ 11"-vjl) gct 1--)01->6' 713 \s 4 C C_ l l Ii .c/ ' l (o Karen B. Guerin From: David Knapp Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:26 PM To: 'Ardith West' Cc: City Council; Department Heads Subject: RE: J011yman Park AT&T Hearing Thank you Ardith. I'll pass this on to Council. From: Ardith West f mailto:ardith.west@ att.neti Sent: November 14, 2011 10:52 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: J011yman Park AT&T Hearing Dear Mr. Knapp, I am writing to register MY OPPOSITION to the constructlion of a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park. A park is to be a community"nature preserve" for members of the city to retreat to for recreation, relaxation, health preservation and recharging from the stresses and pressures of today's society. Constructing this facility will have a negative effect on the quality of life for not only nearby residents but also for all park users, the majority of whom are the youth in our community. In 1994 the State of California constructed Freeway 85 adjacent to Jollyman Park. Many of the nearby residents, including me, opposed this construction not only for personal health reasons but also for health concerns of people visiting the general area. Freeway 85 brings air pollution in the form of fuel emissions, concrete &tire tread particle transmission, as well as excessive noise pollution. All of these factors detract from the vision of a park to be a "nature preserve." With PG&E now having installed the controversial "Smart Meters," on residences in this Cupertino area, electronic pollution has been added on top of the negative pollutants from Freeway 85. With the installation of a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park, added electronic pollution will target not only nearby residents but also park users, increasing possible health risks, particularly to our youth who most frequently enjoy use of the park. Creating a facility such as this for the benefit of those passing through our area devalues our neighborhoods and community. Property values & park usage will be affected by adding another negative factor of electronic transmissions to the already present pollutants of fuel,tire, concrete particulates and freeway noise. All of this diminishes the health &wellbeing of Cupertino as well as its residents. If Cupertino is doing this as a means to increase our city's coffers, ask yourselves, are you putting the citizen's health at risk in exchange for the almighty dollar? It's the same dollar that we're coming to realize is being snatched from us by many public and government entities in the form of"bail-outs" & salaries for the top 1%. I'm asking you to think about the 99%whose health is at stake by constructing the wireless facility in Jollyman Park. If it's needed for future regional growth find an area that won't impact the health of Cupertino citizens and its prized youth. Sincerely, Ardith West, November 14, 2011 LC lr - lS - � ( 1+-ern Colin Jung From: Bhavini Kamarshi [bhavini111 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:19 AM To: Cohn Jung Cc: V-yahoo Subject: AT&T cell tower Dear Mr. Jung, We live at 10695 Orline Court(near Jollyman Park) and have been resident here for almost seven years. We are writing to to express our concern and voice our objection about the proposed tower site at Jollyman Park. -We are sure that the City of Cupertino is aware that this park s the neighborhood park for thousands of residents and children, not to mention the church next door. There are also rumerous children's sports programs that are held at this park throughout the year and there is an after-school program at the church. As a result, this park is one of the most heavily used and popular parks in the area. -We believe that housing a cell tower or any other wireless communications facility at this park will be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood and the park's appeal. The height and proximity of the cell structure will be an absolute eyesore. -We strongly believe that our parks should be maintained primarily for the interests of our children and our residents, who do not need any towers or structures that impede the use and beauty of the park. The nation and the state are struggling to fight the obesity problem in the country and the City of Cupertino should ensure that this park's beauty and attraction are not compromised in order to encourage our children to get out and exercise more. The access, use and appeal of the park should not be compromised under any circumstance. -We think cell towers should not be located anywhere near parks and residences. Aside from the aesthetic issue, there is significant documented concern about interference to TV and radio signals, as well as risk of cancer, that suggests these issues affect the safety and quality of life. -We are aware of at least two other occassions in the last seven-eight years when cell tower construction was considered at the park or the adjoining neighborhood. Both of those attempts were convincingly defeated. We do not understand why the City Council repeatedly wastes the time of the City and its residents by considering these proposals over and over again. We believe the residents have already convinced the Council in previous hearings that cell towers should not be contructed in or near parks and residences. We suggest the City and its residents would be better served by the Council outright rejecting these kinds of proposals (towers near residences or children's parks) now and in the future. -We are also disappointed at the way the Council has chosed to notify the local residents about this proposal. By avoiding the mention of cell towers and describing this innocuously as"a wireless communication facility", we feel the Council is trying to mislead the City and its residents. Cupertino is home to a very professional community and we believe the Council should be professional and forthright in its business conduct. Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration.. Yours sincerely, Bhavini and Vijay Kamarshi 10695 Orline Court Cupertino 1 Cc i ( - ts - 1 ( Ifev \ ( � f1:10 10300 Torre Avenue y1.194s 408-777-CITY (www.cupertino.org) CUPERTINO NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION AND HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Cupertino City Council will hold a study session and hearing on the matter described below. The public is encouraged to attend and speak. APPLICANT: Alex Morin for Cortel, LLC and AT&T LOCATION: Jollyman Park(Stelling Road near Highway 85) APN: 359-25-049, 359-25-002, 359-25-024, 359-25-048 DESCRIPTION: Study session and hearing regarding the review of AT&T's request to submit planning permits and enter into a land lease in order to construct a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park (Stel il'ng-Road near Tli vay HEARING DATE: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 beginning at 5:30 p.m. for the study session and 6:45 p.m. for the hearing ADDRESS: Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue Agenda may be subject to change. If you are interested in an item or have questions, please call. the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223 prior to the meeting date to verify that the item is still on the agenda. The time this item will be heard on the agenda cannot be predicted. For more information, agendas and packets are available for review on the Thursday afternoon prior to the meeting, and are also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org/agenda. NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: This notice is sent to owners of real property as shown on the last tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified. Kimberly Smith City Clerk CAA-&ue'r frx)r- 4)21/1)--Q-- J)c 'gam tAt '117 C'C 1111 .011 # ( (p Karen B. Guerin From: David Knapp Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:26 PM To: 'Ardith West' Cc: City Council; Department Heads Subject: RE: J011yman Park AT&T Hearing Thank you Ardith. I'll pass this on to Council. From: Ardith West f mailto:ardith.westAatt.neti Sent: November 14, 2011 10:52 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: J011yman Park AT&T Hearing Dear Mr. Knapp, I am writing to register MY OPPOSITION to the construction of a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park. A park is to be a community"nature preserve" for members of the city to retreat to for recreation, relaxation, health preservation and recharging from the stresses and pressures of today's society. Constructing this facility will have a negative effect on the quality of life for not only nearby residents but also for all park users, the majority of whom are the youth in our community. In 1994 the State of California constructed Freeway 85 adjacent to Jollyman Park. Many of the nearby residents, including me, opposed this construction not only for personal health reasons but also for health concerns of people visiting the general area. Freeway 85 brings air pollution in the form of fuel emissions, concrete &tire tread particle transmission, as well as excessive noise pollution. All of these factors detract from the vision of a park to be a "nature preserve." With PG&E now having installed the controversial "Smart Meters," on residences in this Cupertino area, electronic pollution has been added on top of the negative pollutants from Freeway 85. With the installation of a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park, added electronic pollution will target not only nearby residents but also park users, increasing possible health risks, particularly to our youth who most frequently enjoy use of the park. Creating a facility such as this for the benefit of those passing through our area devalues our neighborhoods and community. Property values & park usage will be affected by adding another negative factor of electronic transmissions to the already present pollutants of fuel, tire, concrete particulates and freeway noise. All of this diminishes the health &wellbeing of C:upertino as well as its residents. If Cupertino is doing this as a means to increase our city's coffers, ask yourselves, are you putting the citizen's health at risk in exchange for the almighty dollar? It's the same dollar that we're coming to realize is being snatched from us by many public and government entities in the form of"bail-outs" & salaries for the top 1%. I'm asking you to think about the 99%whose health is at stake by constructing the wireless facility in Jollyman Park. If it's needed for future regional growth find an area that won't impact the health of Cupertino citizens and its prized youth. Sincerely, Ardith West, November 14, 2011 C„ Colin Jung From: Bhavini Kamarshi [bhavini111 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:19 AM To: Colin Jung Cc: V-yahoo Subject: AT&T cell tower Dear Mr. Jung, We live at 10695 Orline Court(near Jollyman Park) and have been resident here for almost seven years. We are writing to to express our concern and voice our objection about the proposed tower site at Jollyman Park. -We are sure that the City of Cupertino is aware that this park is the neighborhood park for thousands of residents and children, not to mention the church next door. There are also numerous children's sports programs that are held at this park throughout the year and there is an after-school program at the church. As a result, this park is one of the most heavily used and popular parks in the area. -We believe that housing a cell tower or any other wireless communications facility at this park will be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood and the park's appeal. The height and proximity of the cell structure will be an absolute eyesore. -We strongly believe that our parks should be maintained primarily for the interests of our children and our residents, who do not need any towers or structures that impede the use and beauty of the park. The nation and the state are struggling to fight the obesity problem in the country and the City of Cupertino should ensure that this park's beauty and attraction are not compromised in order to encourage our children to get out and exercise more. The access, use and appeal of the park should not be compromised under any circumstance. -We think cell towers should not be located anywhere near parks and residences. Aside from the aesthetic issue, there is significant documented concern about interference to TV and radio signals, as well as risk of cancer, that suggests these issues affect the safety and quality of life. -We are aware of at least two other occassions in the last seven-eight years when cell tower construction was considered at the park or the adjoining neighborhood. Both of those attempts were convincingly defeated. We do not understand why the City Council repeatedly wastes the time of the City and its residents by considering these proposals over and over again. We believe the residents have already convinced the Council in previous hearings that cell towers should not be contructed in or near parks and residences. We suggest the City and its residents would be better served by the Council outright rejecting these kinds of proposals (towers near residences or children's parks) now and in the future. -We are also disappointed at the way the Council has chosed to notify the local residents about this proposal. By avoiding the mention of cell towers and describing this innocuously as"a wireless communication facility", we feel the Council is trying to mislead the City and its residents. Cupertino is home to a very professional community and we believe the Council should be professional and forthright in its business conduct. Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration.. Yours sincerely, Bhavini and Vijay Kamarshi • 10695 Orline Court Cupertino C C i l Karen B. Guerin From: Keithddl527 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:48 PM To: Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark. Santoro; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong Cc: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Agenda Item 17: Reconsideration of EXC-2011-10 Regarding CitjCouncil Agenda Item 17;Reconsideration of an exception to the HOC plan, Petition for Reconsideration of EXC-2011-10 requested by Dr. Lum Dear City Council Cupertino's General Plan, a plan once crafted in partnership with your constituents to give our elected leaders clear guidance for our city's governance and your once official mandate to act on our behalves, this document has been hi jacked by non elected actors. You, the City Council, have willing and enthusiastically transferred your powers of governance over to actors who do not have to answer to the electorate, clearly you do not wish to lead any more, perhaps you desire just the robes of office, the stylish title, the simple ceremonial duties, or why would you undermine your elected duties and responsibilities, not just for yourself, but for all future city council's by default as well? Appeal's requested by your constituent's of your prior approved exceptions or variances to our General plan, to a specific plan, to our zoning—to our municipal code in general—these appeals are a reflection of these individual's or group's desire to challenge any defective legislative act of the planning commission or city council or any administrative approval by unelected city official, as your constituents are typically motivated without regards to personal gain, but with a deep heartfelt civic duty to protect our fellow residents, as you feel empowered to act once too. The old guard of Cupertino which wields power has been knocking heads with upstarts from all areas of our community, those who dare to voice contrary ideas for our city's future direction. That heated dialog has come a long way the past few years and where once there was only fear there is now a begrudged growing respect, perhaps these groups will never become friends, but they do have a common political enemy and that is against manufactured consent, rather facilitated manufactured consent, which can be turned against not only the lone voices in our community, but against the old power structures too, and those that wield it unwisely, as no one is immune to this anti democratic virus once it has been let loose in our community. It must be understood, as your constituent's clearly understanc today, that our city's general fund is held hostage by many actors; federal, state and county, with each actor desiring specific actions in trade for supplying ongoing funding to our community, the trade of choice, is for changes to be made to our General Plan, as community development pressures fabricated from outside our community have shouted down our own resident's desires for community development as directed by our own general plan documents. Typically, our overseeing bureaucratic actors demand revisions to our general plan which go against our community's quality of life manifesto, so your constituents are under attack. Our voices are made mute with every professional consultant group that city staff hires with your city council's uninspired approval, these professional facilitator's who can manufacture a "group think" consensus, whispering away community descent with polite algorithmic precision, then claiming that a majority public mandate has been magically reached, freeing our city father's to act as they alone desire, avoiding any true consensus building efforts, dirty as that process may be, but taxpayers paid the ultimate price for this deceit all the same, as manufactured consent now replaces -your once inspired governance-shame on us all for letting this come to pass. Resident's have been quietly counting there pennies, selling off unwanted possessions, gathering these funds to renew a dialog with their elected officials, you, the city council, and with the actors who direct you from behind the scenes, benign or malignant as they may be, as we now understand we have lo"Pay to Play" as the pain of the status quos is now too painful to ignore, equally vast is the manufactured distance you desire to keep us at, why our appeals now come at a very high price. But we can whisper too, we will respectfully request that government transparency be restored, we will respectfully ask for our three minutes at all public hearings, we will politely ask that administrative approvals be posted on the city's web site, we will exercise the appeal process as never seen before in our city's history, as the betrayal of authentic governance has come at too great a price; I will miss some of my possessions, but I will not sit by and do nothing, as will many in our 1