CC 01-20-2015, Exhibit, Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Verizon Wireless FacilityAppeal of a Planning Commission Approval
Verizon Wireless Facility @ Cupertino HS
Application Nos. DIR-2014-27, EXC-2014-06
■ Referral of a Director's Minor Modification to allow
the .construction of a personal wireless service
facility with 6 panel antennas on an existing sports
field light pole, a base equipment station and an
emergency power generator.
■ Height Exception to allow the mounting of the
antennas at a height of 74'- 6" or less when the
ordinance maximum height is 55'.
Background Information
® Property Location: 10100 Finch Ave.
APN 375-06-001 & =002
® Appellants: Muzhou Shao, Huijing Cao, & Luwen
Lin
® Applicant: Pamela Nobel, NSA Wireless (for
Verizon Wireless)
® Property Owner: Fremont Union High School
District
Background Information Cont.
■ Project heard by
Planning Commission on
August 26, 2014.
■ Primary public concerns
were perceived health
effects from the radio
frequency emissions
■ Other concerns were
aesthetics, structural
integrity of the pole &
security.
■ Commission approved
project on a 3-2 vote.
■ Appeal on Sept..8, 2014.
Appeal Petition Point #1
1. The (antenna) height proposed exceeds the limits
stated in the City regulation.
The City Ordinance allows antenna heights to
exceed the maximum of 55 feet if a height
exception is granted. The Planning Commission
made the required findings and granted the
exception. To date, the City has approved 11
exceptions for antenna heights ranging from 60 ft.
to 158 ft., including a 67 -ft. exception for the
adjacent Nextel cell tower/light pole @ CHS.
Appeal Petition Point #2'
-,,2. Negative aesthetic effect on holues . & school
The 92 -ft tall. sports field .l gl-it-pole- already,
exists.
Generally it is encouraged for antennas to be
mounted on existing utll� y or light. es
Appeal Petition Point #3
3. No coverage issue at Cupertino High School and
surrounding neighborhood.
According to Verizon, the proposed antenna will
improve the existing coverage rating from poor to
good.
Existing Coverage
.1 Is
F.-. J -r_
1/20/2015
Appeal Petition Point #5
5. Lack of sufficient disclosure and communication to high
school families and community.
Planning Commission hearing was legally noticed, which
included:
■ A legal advertisement in the Cupertino Courier.
■ Mailed notice to property owners within 300' of the
school 10 days prior to the hearing.
■ Posting on the City's official notice board.
■ Posting on the City's website.
■ Site signageposted at the high school along Tilson
enue
Avand Finch Avenue U days before Rearing.
In addition, Verizon hosted a neighborhood meeting prior
to Commission hearing. Noticed to 300 -ft radius property
owners.
Appeal Petition Point #6
6. Cupertino High School is not a good location for a
cell tower because it does not provide enough
coverage for a poor reception area. Verizon needs
to provide a plan to address coverage for all poor
reception areas and have it reviewed by City.
The proposed facility will enhance overall Verizon
coverage (indoor and outdoor) in the area. The
applicant evaluated numerous alternative
locations and confirmed the school sports field
was the most ideal location.
1/20/2015
adequate coverage. -
Vallco Shopping Center/AMC
Received staff approval for cell facility, but
Rooftop, 10123 Stevens Creek
recent property ownership change has
Blvd.
removed viability of a long-term site lease.
Cupertino Financial Center,
Pursued site, but landlord backed out of
10050 Stevens Creek Blvd.
transaction. Existing Sprint facility on rooftop
Bethel Lutheran Church, 10181
Inadequate space in parking lot for equipment
Finch Avenue
shelter; very close proximity to residences
Existing Nextel -Sprint cell/light
Collocation height for antennas is too low to
pole @ Cupertino High School,
meet Verizon Wireless's radio propagation
10100 Finch Ave.
requirements.
3 -story office bldg., 5425
Too close to existing Verizon cell site at 5300
Stevens Creek Blvd. a, Bret Ave.
Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose
6 -story office bldg., 5405 Stevens
Too close to existing Verizon cell site at 5300
Creek Blvd. a Stem Ave.
Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose
Recommendation
Deny the Appeal of the Planning Commission
Approval of the Director's Minor Modification
(U-2014-27) and Height Exception (EXC-2014-06)
for a personal wireless service facility at Cupertino
High School.
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415/288-4000
FACSIMILE 415/288-4010
November 26, 2014
VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX
City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
4IS
Re: Appeal of Verizon Wireless Application DIR-2014-27, EXC-2014-06
Telecommunications Facility
Cupertino High School, 10100 Finch Avenue
Dear Council Members:
We write on behalf of our client Verizon Wireless to ask that you follow the well -
reasoned recommendation of planning staff and uphold the Planning Commission's
approval of a proposed Verizon Wireless facility at Cupertino High School (the
"Approved Facility"). The appeal by Muzhou Shao, Luwen Lin and Huijing Cao
("Appellants") has no merit and should be denied.
♦Verlwn i 1fir eleuu ha.�'i vvwrked diiigeliby tv identity a I ativii aiid dejign that VViii
serve eastern Cupertino with the least impacts to the community. In all, a total of six
alternate sites were reviewed. The preferred alternative involves placing six antennas on
an existing 92 -foot stadium light standard that was designed for mounting wireless
antennas. To minimize visual impacts, the proposed antennas will be mounted directly to
the pole. To identify any community concerns, Verizon Wireless held a community
meeting at the site on August 22, 2014. Notice of the community meeting was mailed to
all property owners within 300 feet of the property on August 4, 2014. The need for
improved Verizon Wireless service in eastern Cupertino has been confirmed by the 1,210
text messages received by Verizon Wireless in support of the Approved Facility.'
As described below, the Approved Facility fully complies with all requirements
for approval under the City of Cupertino Wireless Facilities Master Plan (the "Master
Plan") and the Cupertino Municipal Code (the "Code"). In addition, it will provide badly
needed improvements to Verizon Wireless service in the area, and there is no less
' A letter from Verizon Wireless Marketing Director Ross Bennett that describes support text messages
received is provided under separate cover.
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 2 of 10
intrusive alternative. Finally, a competitor of Verizon Wireless already operates a similar
facility with antennas mounted on another light standard at the same stadium. For all of
these reasons, federal law compels approval of Verizon Wireless's application. We
strongly encourage the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's well -reasoned
decision and deny the appeal.
I. The Project
The Approved Facility has been thoughtfully designed to minimize any aesthetic
impact. Verizon Wireless proposes to attach its antennas to an existing 92 -foot tall
stadium light standard. The antennas will be mounted using a stacked design, with three
antennas mounted at 65 feet and three at 71 feet 6 inches. This design allows antennas to
be mounted as close as possible to the pole, avoiding unsightly crossanns and minimizing
any aesthetic impacts. Radio equipment will be located in a nearby existing modular
building, and a generator located in a fenced enclosure on an adjacent pad will supply
backup power in case of emergencies. A photosimulation of the Approved Facility is
attached as Exhibit A.
Prior to Planning Commission approval, the proposed design was reviewed by the
City's Technology, Information & Communications Commission, which supported the
project with recommended conditions of approval regarding noise compliance and RF
safety training. Those conditions were incorporated into the Planning Commission
resolution.
A report by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated May 19, 2014
(the "H&E RF Report"), attached as Exhibit B confirms that radio-frequency ("RF")
emissions from the facility will fully comply with Federal Communications Commission
(`PCY`' miirlalinac Annthar rannrt by Wammatt Rr -P licnn AQ+,rl T„"� Q 7(11 A (th.
"H&E Acoustic Report"), attached as Exhibit C, confirms that noise levels from the
Approved Facility will not exceed 39.5 dBA at the nearest property line. This is well
below the City's most restrictive limit of 50 dBA, and is based on the worst-case
assumption of simultaneous operation of the condenser and the emergency generator.
II. The Approved Facility Fully Complies with the Cupertino Wireless Master
Plan and All Code Requirements.
As confirmed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 26, 2014,
the Approved Facility meets all requirements for approval under the Master Plan and
Code. Verizon Wireless chose a design and location that conform to the highest
preferences of the Master Plan, that is, antennas mounted on an existing structure in a
non-residential zone. The height of the uppennost tip of the antennas will be 74 feet 6
inches, which requires an exception to the zoning district height limit of 55 feet. In
approving that exception, the Planning Commission properly made the three findings
required under Code § 19.136.090: that the antenna height is consistent with the intent of
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 3 of 10
the Wireless Communication Facilities chapter of the Code, is not injurious to adjacent
properties, and does not result in a hazardous condition.
The Approved Facility is unmanned and will not generate significant traffic. As
discussed above, it complies with FCC public exposure limits and City of Cupertino
noise regulations, and has been carefully designed to minimize aesthetic impacts. In
short, the Approved Facility will not create any environmental or land use impacts of any
kind that could justify denial of the Approved Facility.
III. Federal Law Compels Approval of the Approved Facility.
Verizon Wireless is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless telecommunications
services throughout the United States, including Cupertino. The siting of wireless
communications facilities ("WCFs"), including the one at issue here, is governed by
federal law. While it reserves to local governments control over the siting, placement and
modification of WCFs, the federal Telecommunications Act (the "TCA") places "certain
limitations on localities' control over the construction and modification of WCFs."
Sprint PCSAssets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 721 (9th Cir.
2009). Specifically, the TCA preserves local control over land use decisions, subject to
the following explicit statutory restrictions:
• The local government must act on a permit application within a reasonable period
of time (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii));
• Any denial of an application must be in writing and supported by substantial
evidence contained in a written record (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii));
• 1 7f1P Intal anvPrnmPnt maw T9nf rPmlIntP ilia "JQoP "+ -of +' nr
..,..... 4D-..,..................7 ...,....b.,...........,y....,.,.�..,..y —.—MOn, vi
modification of WCFs on the basis of the environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC's
regulations concerning such emissions (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv));
• The local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)); and
• The local government's decision must not "prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C.
§332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
With this legal framework in mind, we address below the specific federal law
issues before the City Council with respect to this application.
J
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 4 of 10
IV. Substantial Evidence for Approval, No Substantial Evidence for Denial
As interpreted under controlling federal court decisions, the "substantial
evidence" requirement means that a local government's decision to deny a WCF
application must be "authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a
reasonable amount of evidence (i.e., more than a `scintilla' but not necessarily a
preponderance)." See Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d
715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005). In other words, a local government must have specific reasons
that are both consistent with the local regulations and supported by substantial evidence
in the record to deny a wireless facility permit.
While a local government may regulate the placement of WCFs based on
aesthetics, it must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations
and supported by substantial evidence in the record. Generalized concerns or opinions
about aesthetics or compatibility with a neighborhood are insufficient to constitute
substantial evidence to deny a permit. See City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrains, 101
Cal. App. 4th 367, 381 (2002).
As set forth above, Verizon Wireless has provided substantial evidence to confirm
that the Approved Facility complies with all requirements of the Master Plan and Code.
Photosimulations confirm that adding antennas to an existing 92 -foot light standard will
have no significant aesthetic impacts. As confirmed by the Planning Commission,
Verizon Wireless has chosen both the highest preference location and the highest
preference design under the Master Plan. Finally, the H&E RF Report confirms that the
Approved Facility will operate far below the FCC's exposure limits, and the H&E
Acoustic Report confin-ns that it will fully comply with Cupertino noise regulations.
Tn rnntrnct Annallnntc nrnw;Al nn P.,;.1A, — log �10 e rho „ b-a-t;.,l o ,,1e
YaV - uV V vauVUVV, 1VL U1VnV L11V JU VaLGL11L10.1 VV1ULJllIiV
required under federal law, to warrant denial of Verizon Wireless's application.
V. Radio Frequency Emissions Comply with FCC Standards and Are not a
Local Zoning Issue.
A scattering of local residents have objected to the Approved Facility based on
generalized fears of the health effects of RF emissions. However, local governments are
specifically precluded under federal statute from considering any alleged health or
environmental effects of RF emissions of proposed WCFs "to the extent such facilities
comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions." 47 U.S.C.
§332(c)(7)(B)(iv). As set forth in the H&E RF Report referenced above, the Approved
Facility fully complies with — and will operate far below — applicable FCC limits.
Indeed, the H&E RF Report calculates that the maximum exposure anywhere at ground
level is 2.3% of the applicable FCC public limit and at any nearby school building 330
feet away is 1.9% of the applicable public limit.
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 5 of 10
Moreover, federal preemption goes beyond decisions that are explicitly based on
RF emissions. It also bars efforts to circumvent such preemption through some proxy
such as aesthetics or property values. See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Servs. of Cal. LLC v. City
of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (in light of federal preemption,
"concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial
evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health
effects caused by RF emissions"); Calif. RSA No. 4, d../b/a Verizon Wireless v. Madera
County, 332 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311 (E.D. Cal. 2003) ("complaints about property values
were really a proxy for concerns about possible environmental effects of RF [emissions],
which cannot provide the basis to support a decision"). Where, as here, a WCF has been
shown to fully comply with FCC guidelines, health concerns, or any proxy for health
concerns, cannot justify rejection of the Approved Facility.
VI. Denial Would Constitute Unreasonable Discrimination.
In its decisions regarding WCF permits, a local jurisdiction may not unreasonably
discriminate between companies that provide functionally equivalent wireless services.
Federal courts considering such cases have ruled that such discrimination occurs where a
provider has been "treated differently from other providers whose facilities are `similarly
situated' in terms of the `structure, placement or cumulative impact' as the facilities in
question." MetroPCS v. San Francisco, 400 F.3d at 727.
The City of Cupertino approved the existing Sprint facility on a different light
standard at the Cupertino High School stadium in 2000. The impacts from the existing
Sprint facility are negligible as the antennas are mounted to the light standard in a manner
similar to Verizon Wireless's proposal. As properly determined by the Planning
Commission and staff, the Approved Facility poses no new impacts and certainly no
1111pa�LS that are drflijr%ill 110111 L11VJe Vf L11e Spr1nL IaLA11Ly. V11LLe1 L11GJG clicumstances,
the Approved Facility is clearly "similarly situated" to the approved Sprint facility, and
denial of the Verizon Wireless application would constitute unlawful discrimination
under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I).
VII. Denial Would Constitute an Unlawful Prohibition of Service.
A local government violates the "effective prohibition" clause of the TCA if it
prevents a wireless provider from closing a "significant gap" in service by the least
intrusive means. This issue involves a two-pronged analysis: (1) whether the provider
has demonstrated the existence of a "significant gap" in coverage; and (2) whether the
proposed facility is the "least intrusive means," in relation to the land use values
embodied in local regulations, to address the gap. See T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of
Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2009); see also T -Mobile West Corp. v. City of Agoura
Hills, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134329 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
If a provider demonstrates both the existence of a significant gap in service, and
that the proposed facility meets the "least intrusive means" standard, the local
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 6 of 10
government is required to approve the facility, even if there would otherwise be
substantial evidence to deny the permit under local land use provisions. This is because
the requirements for federal preemption have been satisfied, i.e., denial of the .permit
would "have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47
U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(1)(ii); T -Mobile v. Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 999. For the local
jurisdiction to avoid such preemption, it must show that another alternative is available,
that it is technologically feasible, and that it is "less intrusive" than the proposed facility.
T -Mobile v. Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 998-999.
A. Verizon Wireless Has Demonstrated a Significant Gap in Coverage
and fretwork Capacity.
Verizon Wireless has documented the need for expanded coverage and improved
network capacity in eastern Cupertino (the "Significant Gap"). The gap in coverage and
capacity is fully documented in the Statement of Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency
Design Engineer Brian Ung attached as Exhibit D (the "RF Engineer's Statement"). As
shown through coverage maps included in the RF Engineer's Statement, there is a clear
gap in Verizon Wireless service in eastern Cupertino that includes major roadways. As
shown through capacity charts included in the RF Engineer's Statement, Verizon
Wireless's network in eastern Cupertino has already reached capacity exhaustion during
peak hours which is compromising network accessibility and reliability.
Having established a significant gap in coverage and network capacity, Verizon
Wireless has met the first prong of the two-part test required to presumptively establish a
prohibition of service under federal law.
B. The Alternatives Analysis Confirms that the Approved Facility is the
T,. ..b T...6...,..5 �,,. ILS �.,. �,. T. SIE aL .. T.E ..�aStS ..J OS��SSS ,.„�d /'�__
Least AA1L1 wave Ideall.' to 1'11II L11C YLLC11L1A1CLl OlgI1111Ca11L klil�l 111
Verizon Wireless Service.
In an effort to fill the identified Significant Gap, Verizon Wireless evaluated a
total of six locations as shown in the comprehensive Alternatives Analysis attached as
Exhibit E. As the Alternatives Analysis demonstrates, the Approved Facility's location
and design — the most preferred under the City's Master Plan — is the least intrusive
means of providing wireless service to the identified Significant Gap.
When comparing the Approved Facility to other potential alternatives, it is
important to note that federal law does not require that a site be the "only" alternative, but
rather that no feasible alternative is less intrusive than the Approved Facility. MetroPCS
v. San Francisco, 400 F.3d at 734-35. Here, as explained in the Alternatives Analysis,
there is no feasible location that would be less intrusive than the Approved Facility.
In short, Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in coverage and
network capacity and has shown that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive means to
address it, based on the values expressed in the Master Plan and Code. Under these
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 7 of 10
circumstances, Verizon Wireless has established the requirements for federal preemption
such that denial of the permit would constitute an unlawful prohibition of service.
VIII. Response to Appeal
Appellants raise several grounds for appeal, none of which present the substantial
evidence required under federal law to warrant denial of Verizon Wireless's application.
1. Antenna Height Permitted Under Code §19.136.090.
Appellants first charge that the antennas will exceed height limits in the Code.
However, as noted above, Code § 19.136.090 allows an approval body to grant a height
exception if it can make three required findings. The Planning Commission, in its
approval, easily made these three findings, based on substantial evidence.
2. Verizon Wireless Stealth Design Incorporating Existing Light Refutes
Appellants' Claims of Aesthetic Impacts.
Appellants claim that the Approved Facility will have a "negative effect on
aesthetics of homes and schools," but offer no specifics, much less substantial evidence.
In fact, the Approved Facility, situated near the center of the over -30 -acre high school
campus, is located distant from any homes. The closest homes, to the east, are over 370
feet distant, beyond the east side of the stadium. In order to minimize aesthetic impacts,
Verizon Wireless elected to use an existing 92 foot light standard that had been
specifically designed for the placement of wireless antennas rather than constructing an
entirely new cell tower. Verizon Wireless chose a vertically stacked design for mounting
of its antennas which allows the antennas to be mounted nearly flush with the existing
lialht Q!ta1114ar,1 minimi-7in the nyerall "VMM Ile of the light otond—A 0 n nntcrl tho
& F 1 11611 Jl(Al1UlL1 U. 1J 11V1 - L11V
Cupertino High School stadium already hosts Sprint antennas on the light standard
immediately south of the Approved Facility, which is closer to homes than the antennas
of the Approved Facility. Finally, photosimulations show that the Approved Facility will
have minimal if any aesthetic impact to homes and schools.
3. Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency Design Engineer's Statement
Clearly Identifies Significant Gap in Verizon Wireless Services.
Appellants claim is that there is "no coverage issue in Cupertino High School and
neighborhood" but provide no evidence and contradict this assertion in their sixth claim
by stating that the high school site "is not a good selection because it does not provide
enough coverage for poor -reception area." In the RF Engineer's Statement, Verizon
Wireless has documented both coverage and network capacity issues in the Significant
Gap that will be served by the Approved Facility. Verizon Wireless RF engineers use
proprietary software and network data to determine the coverage and capacity needs of
Verizon Wireless customers. Site selection and design are carefully determined based
upon Verizon Wireless engineering requirements, taking into account topography,
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 8 of 10
buildings and other obstructions, usage patterns, and projected demand. Through the
review of numerous sites by Verizon Wireless RF engineers based on network
requirements, Verizon Wireless identified the Cupertino High School stadium light as the
least intrusive alternative which can provide radio signal propagation to serve the
Significant Gap. In short, there is no factual basis for Appellants' claim that the facility's
location will not provide needed coverage and capacity.
4. Emissions Studies and Structural Reports Confirm Safety of
Approved Facility.
As to Appellants' claim of potential safety and environmental impacts to high
school students and residents, this is nothing more than thinly disguised fears of RF
emissions. As noted above, the facility's RF emissions will be far below federal limits,
and therefore have no bearing on your review of the appeal. In addition, a condition of
approval recommended by the City's Technology, Information & Communications
Commission requires employees or contractors who work on the facility to be trained to
safely maintain the facility.
To the extent Appellants mean to suggest that the Approved Facility poses some
other safety risk, unrelated to their RF fears, there is no factual basis for any such claim.
Verizon Wireless selected a light standard built by the Fremont Union High School
District with the express intent of allowing wireless carriers to place antennas. Like any
other construction at Cupertino High School, the Approved Facility must undergo
rigorous structure and safety review and inspection by the California Department of
General Services Division of the State Architect ("DSA"). Any and all safety issues with
respect to installation of antennas on the. existing light standard will be addressed through
the DSA review and inspection process. In this regard, the tower manufacturer Valmont
Structures has prepared a sti^uvt�ural analys, dated October 24, 2V14, aLtached as
I-AMU1t
F, which confirms that the existing pole is structurally adequate to support Verizon
Wireless's proposed antennas and equipment.
5. Community Is Aware of Approved Facility through Verizon Wireless
and City Public Notice and Signage.
Appellants claim that there was a "lack of sufficient disclosure and
communications to high school families and the community." As noted above, Verizon
Wireless provided mailed notice of a community meeting to all neighbors within 300
feet. A copy of the Verizon Wireless notice, which explained the Approved Facility, is
attached as Exhibit G-1. The City provided required public notice of the August 26,
2014, Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the high
school campus, and notice was also published in the Cupertino Courier on August 15,
2014, posted on the City's web site and posted on signage at the high school campus.
Photographs of two 4 -foot by 6 -foot signs posted at the high school announcing the
Planning Commission hearing is attached as Exhibit G-2. Finally, through the filing of
their appeal, Appellants have confirmed that they and their neighbors were fully aware of
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014
Page 9 of 10
Verizon Wireless's application and have full and timely opportunity to provide public
comment into the City approval process.
6. Verizon Wireless's Future Plans Depend upon Approved Facility.
Appellants ask that their appeal be granted pending a proposal from Verizon
Wireless to remedy all service gaps in Cupertino. However, wireless communications
demands are dynamic and Verizon Wireless's plans for future growth of its infrastructure
must remain flexible. The Approved Facility addresses a current critical need for
improved wireless service in eastern Cupertino. Other areas of Cupertino will also
require service enhancements in the near future, and the Approved Facility has been
located to fit within Verizon Wireless's dynamic network. Any effort to plan beyond
these requirements would be speculative and potentially misleading. Finally, federal law
does not allow local jurisdictions to dictate the technology or service provided by a
wireless carrier or to mandate any particular buildout of any technology or network plan.
See New York SMSA v. Ltd. v Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97 (2010). Appellants'
demand that approval of the Approved Facility be withheld until'all Verizon Wireless
needs in Cupertino have been addressed must be rejected.
In sum, Appellants present a list of unsupported generalized objections, but no
evidence to support those objections, let alone the substantial evidence required to
support denial under federal law. In contrast, Verizon Wireless has provided ample
evidence of compliance with the Master Plan and Code to support approval of the
Approved Facility.
Conclusion
VPriw)n «TiYeIeSS has ::�orkedl ulilirrantlN7 . Ver the laot oA 7-1 +� ;A—+;Y tl,o
i•15- .y uv—vvi—yi. ars w 1u�IILtl� Lue
ideal location and design for a facility to serve eastern Cupertino. The resulting
Approved Facility represents the least intrusive means of addressing the significant
coverage and capacity gap. Reliable Verizon Wireless service in this area is essential to
the health, safety, and welfare of residents, travelers, and emergency services providers in
the surrounding community. We strongly encourage you to follow the recommendations
of planning staff, uphold the Planning Commission approval, and deny the appeal.
Very truly yours,
Paul B. Albritton
cc: Colin Jung
Colleen Winchester, Esq.
Cupertino City Council
November 26, 2014,
Page 10 of 10
Schedule of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Photosimulations
Exhibit B: Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, RF Emissions
Exhibit C: Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Noise Levels
Exhibit D: Statement of Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency Design Engineer Brian Ung
Exhibit E: Alternatives Analysis
Exhibit F: Valmont Structures Structural Analysis Report
Exhibit G-1: Notice for August 22, 2014 Community Meeting
Exhibit G-2: Photograph of Public Notice Signs Posted at High School
Exhibit A
Cupertino High School Site # 278118 Looking Northwest from Stadium
10100 Finch Avenue View #1
3/27/14 Cupertino, CA Applied Imagination 510914-0500
reless Cupertino High School Site # 278118 Looking Northwest from Stadium
10100 Finch Avenue View #2
3/27/14 Cupertino, CA Applied Ima<pnabon 510 914.0500
Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station'(Site No. 278118 "Cupertino High School")
10100 Finch Avenue • Cupertino, California Exhibit B
Statement of Hammett & Edison, nc., .Consulting Engineers
The firm of Hammett & -Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained: on behalf of.
Verizon Wireless, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site:
No. 278118 "Cupertino High School") proposed to be located at 10100 Finch Avenue in Cupertino,
California, for, compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency
("RF") electromagnetic fields.
Executive Summary
Verizon proposes to install directional panel antennas on a tall light pole sited at Cupertino
High School, located at 10100 Finch Avenue in Cupertino. 'The proposed operation will,
together with the existing base station at the site, comply with the FCC guidelines limiting
public exposure to RF energy.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal.. Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate 'its
actions for possible significant: impact on the.'environment. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits
is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide. a
prudent margin of safety,for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive
FCC limit for exposures of unlimited. duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless
services are as follows:
Wireless Service Frequency Band Occupational Limit Public Limit
Microwave (Point -to -Point) '. 5;000-80,000 MHz:.. 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2
BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 5.00 1.00
WCS (Wireless Communication) 2;300 5.00 1.00:
AWS (Advanced Wireless) .. 2;100 5.00 1.00.
PCS (Personal Communication) 1,950 5.00 ,, 1.00
Cellular 870 2.90 0.58
SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0157
700 MHz 700 2.40 0.48
[most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 :.. 1.00 0.20
General ;Facility Requirements.
Base stations :typically consist of two distinct parts: the. electronic transceivers (also called "radios or
"channels") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are. connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A
small- antenna for reception of GPS signals- is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky.
( HAMMETr &: EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS R7AI
e=' , SN ra,a�vG' Page 1 of 4
Verizon Wireless • Proposed.Base Station (Site No. 278118 "Cupertino High School")
10100. Finch Avenue • Cupertino, California
Because of the, short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the
antennas require line -of -sight paths for their signals to propagate well Arid so are installed at some
height above ground. -The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with
very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. This means that it is generally not possible for
exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically
very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its- Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC -Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure -2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very :close by (the "near -field effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an
energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The
conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has.been verified by numerous
field tests.
Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by Verizon, including zoning drawings by Diamond Engineering
Services, Inc., dated March 4, 2014, it is proposed to install; six directional panel: antennas — three
Andrew Model HBXX-6516DS antennas and three Andrew Model LNX-6514DS' antennas — on the
existing .92 -foot light pole sited on the north side of the west football bleachers at Cupertino High:
School, located at 10100 Finch Avenue in Cupertino. The antennas would be mounted with up to
IT downtilt at effective heights of about 65 and 71'h feet above ground and would be oriented in
stacked pairs toward 606T, 180°T, and 3.106T, to provide service in all directions. :The maximum
effective radiated power in any direction would be 10,300 watts, representing simultaneous operation
at 4,110 watts for .AWS, 4,120 watts for PCS, and 2,070 watts for 700 MHz service.
Located on a similar fight pole on the south side of the. bleachers, about 250 feet away, are similar
antennas for use by Sprint Nextel. For the limited purpose of this study, the transmitting facilities of
that carrier are assumed to be as follows:
Service Maximum ERP Antenna Model Downtilt Height:
it:
PCS 3,000 watts Andrew RR9017 4° 80 ft
SMR _ 1,500 _ Andrew DB844G65 4 80
T HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
b a C
CONSMING ENGINEERS R7AI -
G� s rt SANFIUNCISCU Page 2 of 4
Verizon Wireless • Proposed:Base Station (Site No. 278118 "Cupertino High School")
10100:Finch-Avenue • Cupertino, California
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to .the proposed Verizon
operation by itself is calculated to be 0.021 mW/cm2, which is 2.3% of the applicable public exposure
limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground, for the simultaneous operation of both
carriers, is 2.5% of the public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level for a person
on the uppermost part of the bleachers is 6.0% of the limit. The maximum calculated cumulative .level
at any nearby school building* is "1:9%o of the public limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level
at the second -floor elevation of any nearby residence, is 1.5% of the public limit. It should be noted
that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected.:to overstate
actual power density. levels.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to their mounting locations, the Verizon antennas would not be accessible to the general public,
and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To
prevent occupational exposures in :excess of the FCC guidelines, it is recommended that appropriate
RF safety training be provided to all authorized .personnel who have access to the pole, including,
employees.and contractors of the wirelesscarriers and of the school district. No access within 16 feet
directly in. front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the
- lights or. pole, should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be
demonstrated, to ensure that occupational protection requirements are :met. Posting explanatory signs$
at the antennas and/or on the pole below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible
from any angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be
sufficient to meet FCC -adopted guidelines.
Conclusion
Based on the information and, analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion . that
operation of the base station proposed by Verizon Wireless at 10100 Finch Avenue in Cupertino,
California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure: to radio frequency
energy and, therefore, will not for this -reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The
highest calculated level in publicly accessible: areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow,
for exposures of unlimited duration.. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure
* Located at least 330 feet away, based on photographs from Google Maps.
f Located at least 360 feet away, based on photographs from Google.Maps.
$ Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be
provided (e.g., a telephone:number)'to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an
engineering matter, and guidance: from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals
may be required.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
} 'CONSULTING ENGINEERS R7Al
4 max`
.1 wt saNrKANcIsco Page 3 of 4,
Verizon Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. 278118 "Cupertino High School")
10100 Finch Avenue • Cupertino, California
conditions taken at other operating base stations. Training authorized personnel and posting
explanatory signs is recommended to establish compliance with occupational exposure limitations.
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2015. This work has been carried
out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where
noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
May 19, 2014
707/996-5200
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSUL PING ENGINEERS R7AI
sw RANCISC° Page 4 of 4
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1.996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively,: have
a: significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and.. Measurements (",NCRP").
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety
Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz," includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and
are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for: occupational and public exposure;
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz)
Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field
Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
(MHz) . (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2)
0.3— 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
1.34 3.0 614 823.81f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/1
3.0— 30 1842/f 823.81f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ f2 180/1.
30— 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
300— 1,500 3.541�f 1.59f 1rf/106 /238 f/300 1/1500
1,500— 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
1000
100
3 .N 10
a �3
0.1
Occupational; Exposure
PCS
`� FM Cell
Public Exposure
0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105
Frequency (MHz)
Higher levels are allowed for short periods- of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings; respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher:
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, -such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering. and Technology Bulletin No. 65 .(August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into:a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program- allows for the description of buildings and uneven.
terrain, if required to obtain more `accurate projections.
HAMMETT & EDT SON, IN C.
,_0Nst11. iir:;.; :NC iNr azo FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
1
RFR.CALCTM Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment._ The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such' that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish
(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in
the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65
(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones.
For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 0 x 0. D x h P ' in mW/cm2,
6
BW
O.1x16XnXP..t
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax - x h2 , in mW/cm2,
where ABW = half -power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,
D = distance from antenna, in meters,
h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
71 = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).
The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
2.56x1.64x100xRFF2 xERP
power density S = in mW/cm2
4xjrxD2 '
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of'2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power. density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
Methodology
Figure 2
Verizon Wireless -'Proposed -Base Station (Site No. 278118 "Cupertino High School")
10100 Finch Avenue • Cupertino, California
Exhibit -C
Statement of Hammett & Edison,. lnc., Consulting Engineers
The firm. of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Verizon
Wireless, a personal telecommunications carrier, to evaluate. its base station (Site No. 278118:
"Cupertino High School") proposed to be located at 10100 Finch Avenue in Cupertino, California, for
compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting sound levels from the installation.
Executive Summary
Verizon proposes to install a new base station at Cupertino High School, located at
10100 Finch Avenue in Cupertino, to include equipment cabinets within an existing building,
air-conditioning for the cabinets, antennas on a tall pole, and a back-up diesel generator.
Noise levels from the equipment operations will be below the allowed municipal limits. .
Prevailing Standard
The City of Cupertino sets forth limits on sound levels in Chapter 10.48.040 "Daytime and Nighttime
Maximum Noise Levels" of its municipal code, as follows for. noise on neighboring properties in .the
indicated zones:
Zone :: "Day" 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. "Ni hg t" 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Residential 60 dBA 50 dBA
Non-residential 65 55
Figure 1 attached describes the calculation methodology used to determine applicable noise levels for
evaluation against the prevailing standard.
General Facility: Requirements
Wireless telecommunications facilities ("cell .sites") typically consist of two distinct parts: the
electronic base transceiver stations ("BTS" or "cabinets") that are connected to traditional wired
-telephone lines, and the antennas that send wireless signals created by the BTS out to be received by
individual subscriber units. The BTS are often located outdoors at ground level and are connected to
the antennas by coaxial cables. The BTS typically require environmental units to cool the electronics
inside. Such cooling is often integrated into the BTS, although external air conditioning may be
installed, especially when the BTS are housed within a larger enclosure.
Most.cell sites have back-up, battery power available, to run the base station for some number of hours
in the event of a power outage.: Many sites have back-up power generators installed, to. run the station
during an extended power outage.."
.
,U-,J,� HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
ti CONSULTING ENGINEERS H2IA
* :: a SAN rRA.NCISCo Page 1 of 3
Verizon Wireless_ • Proposed Base Station (Site No. 278118 "Cupertino High School")
10100 Finch Avenue •Cupertino, California
Site &,Facility Description
Based upon'information provided :by Verizon, including drawings by Diamond Engineering Services,
Inc.; :dated March 4, 2014, that carrier proposes to construct a base station, including equipment
cabinets installed within a room to be created inside .the existing building located between the tennis
courts and the'baseball field at Cupertino High School, located at 10100 Finch Avenue in Cupertino,
California.. Directional panel antennas are proposed to be located on a tall pole near the baseball field; .:
this portion of the base station is .passive, generating no noise.
A 307kilowatt diesel back-up power generator, assumed for this analysis to be a Generac Model
SD030 configured with the manufacturer's Level 2A sound enclosure, is to be installed within a
fenced compound to be built against the tennis court fence, for emergency use in the event of an
extended commercial power outage. The generator is typically operated with no load for a. single
15 -minute period once a week during daytime hours on a weekday, to maintain its readiness for
emergency operation. To be installed within the generator compound are two condensing units,
assumed for this -analysis to be Cold Point Model CNC748, part of the split -system cooling for the new
equipment room.
The nearest property lines are to the west and east, at about 3:50 feet away; the property: lines to the .
north and south are much further away.
Study Results
Based on data from Generac, the maximum noise level from the generator is 63:0 dBA, measured at a
reference distance of 23 feet. Based on data from Cold Point, the maximum noise level from one of
the condensing. units'is 59.0 dBA; measured at a reference distance of 10 feet. Two condensing units
are to be installed, paired, with two air handling units inside the equipment room; this arrangement
provides for redundancy, so. th. e units operate only one at a time.
Accounting just for the distance involved and ignoring the attenuating effects of the intervening
buildings, the maximum. calculated noise level at the nearest property lines, for the simultaneous
operation of the generator and one condenser, is 3-9.5 dBA, well below most restrictive, nighttime
residential. limit of 50 dBA in Cupertino.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the
operation of the Verizon Wireless .base station proposed to be located at 10100 Finch Avenue in
Cupertino, California, will comply with that city's requirements for limiting acoustic noise emission
levels.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
r coNsut MIG ENGI vEEKs H2IA
°. = * ,• ,
SANITANCISCO Page 2 of 3
Verizon Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. 278118 "Cupertino High School")
10100 Finch Avenue • Cupertino, California
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2015. This work has been carried
out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where
noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
June 9, 2014
HAmmm & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
pzz-
-A; s
William F. Ham tt, P.E.
707/996-5200
H2IA
Page 3 of 3
Noise Level Calculation Methodology
Most municipalities and other agencies specify noise limits in
units of dBA, which is intended to mimic the reduced
receptivity of the human ear to Sound Pressure .("LP") at
particularly low or high frequencies. This frequency -sensitive
c
filter shape, shown in the graph to the right as defined in the
International Electrotechnical Commission Standard No. 179,
the American National Standards Institute Standard No. 5.1,
and various other standards, is also incorporated into most
calibrated field test equipment for measuring noise levels.
30 dBA
library
40 dBA
rural background
50 dBA
office space
60 dBA
conversation
70 dBA
car radio
80 dBA
traffic corner
90 dBA
lawnmower
10
0
-I0
20
-30
-40
-s0
-60
-70 F
-s0 1=
10
100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)
The dBA units of measure are referenced to a pressure of
20 µPa (micropascals), which is the threshold of normal
hearing. Although noise levels vary greatly by location
and noise source, representative levels are shown in the
box to the left.
Manufacturers of many types of equipment, such as air conditioners, generators, and
telecommunications devices, often test their products in various configurations to determine the
acoustical emissions at certain distances. This data, normally expressed in dBA at a known reference
distance, can be used to determine the corresponding sound pressure level at any particular distance,
such as at a nearby building or property line. The sound pressure drops as the square of the increase in
distance, according to the formula:
where LP is the sound pressure level at distance Dp and
LP = LK + 20 log(DK/DP), LK is the known sound pressure level at distance DK.
Individual sound pressure levels at a particular point from several different noise sources cannot be
combined directly in units of dBA. Rather, the units need to be converted to scalar sound intensity
units in order to be added together, then converted back to decibel units, according to the formula:
where LT is the total sound pressure level and L1 Lz
L1, LZ, etc are individual sound pressure levels. LT = 10 log (10 /10 + 10 /10 + ...),
Certain equipment installations may include the placement of barriers and/or absorptive materials to
reduce transmission of noise beyond the site. Noise Reduction Coefficients ("NRC") are published for
many different materials, expressed as unitless power factors, with 0 being perfect reflection and
1 being perfect absorption. Unpainted concrete block, for instance, can have an NRC as high as 0.35.
However, a barrier's effectiveness depends on its specific configuration, as well as the materials used
and their surface treatment.
HAMM ETT & EDISON, INC.
LO\SL'L:rI\t;1iNGIN►:IiR5 Methodology
$A\ FRANCISCO Figure 1
Exhibit D
VerrjLOnwireless
2785 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
November 20, 2014
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Brian Ung, Radio Frequency Design Engineer,
Verizon Wireless Network Engineering Department
Subject: Statement in Support of Verizon Wireless's Proposed
Telecommunications Facility at Cupertino High School
Executive Summary
Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in its wireless services in
eastern Cupertino. This area is currently served by the existing Verizon Wireless
facility located nearly one mile to the northeast of the proposed facility at 5300
Stevens Creek Boulevard in San Jose. The nearest existing Verizon Wireless
facilities to the west, on the Apple campus and De Anza College campus, are
one -and -one-half and two miles distant, and the nearest existing sites to the
south, both in San Jose, are each approximately two miles distant. As a result,
there is an absence if in -building coverage and spotty in -vehicle coverage.
Further, accelerated growth in voice and data usage by Verizon Wireless
customers in Cupertino has increased the demand on these network facilities in a
manner that compromises network accessibility and reliability. This accelerating
growth in demand has already led to capacity exhaustion of the Verizon Wireless
facilities serving this area starting this year. This capacity gap must be remedied
through new infrastructure to avoid further degradation of Verizon Wireless
service in Cupertino. The coverage gap and capacity gap described below
constitute the "significant gap" Verizon Wireless seeks to serve through a new
facility (the "Significant Gap").
Coverage Gap
Verizon Wireless is experiencing a gap in service coverage in an area of eastern
Cupertino roughly bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, Johnson
Avenue to the east, Rainbow Drive to the south and Blaney Avenue to the west
(the "Coverage Gap"). The Coverage Gap includes approximately two square
miles in area and a population of nearly 25,000 residents. The Coverage Gap
also includes heavily trafficked Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road, which currently
experience over 35,000 vehicle trips per day.' A graphic description of the
Coverage Gap is shown in the map below.
Coverage plots like that below provide important information regarding the
anticipated level of signal, and therefore the projected coverage provided by a
site at a given location. The areas in green reflect good coverage that meets or
exceed thresholds to provide consistent and reliable network coverage in
vehicles and in homes. The areas in yellow and red depict decreasing levels of
coverage, respectively, with yellow areas generally representing reliable in -
vehicle coverage, and red areas depicting areas reliable for outdoor use only.
Capacity Gap
As noted, the identified gap area is currently served by distant sites. At times of
high traffic volume, the coverage area of these distant sites shrinks to
accommodate an increasing number of mobile devices adjacent to the sites. As
a result, the Coverage Gap area actually expands during times of high customer
usage. In addition, the volume of voice and data services used by Verizon
Wireless customers has been increasing rapidly over time. As a result, the
Coverage Gap area actually expands during times of high customer usage. In
addition, the volume of voice and data services used by Verizon Wireless
customers has been increasing rapidly over time, nearly doubling every year.2
Verizon Wireless has modified its adjacent facilities in an effort to maximize the
capacity available; however, as shown in the graphic below, increased demand
for voice and data services has already outstripped the capacity of adjacent sites.
City of Cupertino Public Works Data.
h ttp://www. cupertino. org/Mod ules/ShowDocument. aspx?documentid=7464
2 Federal Communications Commission Report & Order 14-153, October 17, 2014, 17.
The below graphs show the increased usage over the last year as well as
predicted usage through April 1, 2015 for the existing Cupertino, Apple and De
Anza Verizon Wireless facilities shown in the previous map. By comparing the
trend line of increasing usage with the absolute maximum capacity throughput of
these facilities, Verizon Wireless RF engineering demonstrates that the identified
gap area is now at exhaustion. Achieving capacity exhaustion severely
compromises the Verizon Wireless network, leading to failed call attempts,
dropped calls, poor call quality and slow data speeds (the "Capacity Gap").
Cupertino Cell Site Beta Sector
Capacity Chart
Data
Volume in
Mega Bytes
8000 -
Capacity Usage slope
Exhaust limit
6444 —
w
2000
0-1 1 1 1 1 1 1
to/10013 M0014 4t1/2014 M QG14 10110014 1t102014 411/2415
Cupertino Cell Site Gamma Sector
Capacity Chart
16000-
6000
j 4000
u.
2000
At exhaustion with
--- _�'-, uptrend
{
0'1 1 i 1 i i 1
1On42413 1r1P,014 4111.414 1710014 tOslf.VI4 1111:015 411fo1+5
Apple Cell Site Alpha Sector Capacity
10000 _
Presently at
$000— exhaust limit
€oao
4000
-- ----
a000_ }j
0-1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10/1MI) 4r1r2O1. W/2014 411r2015
Mr.1014 7MM14 ttfl.'O15
Denza Alpha Capacity Chart
R
8000—At exhaust with
�-� ��•�� uptrend
0-1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10f1/2013 111f2014 ♦111:014 T11f.V1♦ 10v1r1014 111MIS VIrA1S
Approved Vallco Mall Site Withdrawn
Unfortunately, the Vallco Mall has recently been sold and will no longer be
available for a Verizon Wireless facility. The City of Cupertino approved Verizon
Wireless's plans for a building -mounted wireless facility on the Vallco Mall. The
Vallco Mall facility is neither constructed nor operational. If completed, the Vallco
Mall site would have provided needed capacity relief in northern Cupertino. In
any case, due to its location north of the Significant Gap, the Vallco Mall site
would not have served the Significant Gap. Both the proposed Vallco Mall facility
and the Cupertino High School facility are designed to fill distinct coverage and
capacity gaps and are both necessary for the Verizon Wireless network in
Cupertino. A coverage map showing the anticipated coverage of both the
proposed Vallco Mall and Cupertino High School sites is shown below.
Unfortunately, the Vallco Mall site is no longer available and Verizon Wireless
must seek an alternative location to bring needed service to this area of
Cupertino. Loss of the Vallco mall accelerates the need for improved service to
the Significant Gap.
Conclusion
As cellular networks mature, distant sites must be supplemented with
more sites closer to customers, in large measure due to the increase in usage of
the network. In addition, certain fourth- and fifth- generation technologies require
facilities closer to customers and cannot be provided by the current distant sites.
These coverage and capacity demands have resulted in the Significant Gap in
Verizon Wireless service in eastern Cupertino. Verizon Wireless most deploy
new infrastructure to provide the in -building service coverage required by
customers and to avoid further:degradation of its network in the area of the
identified Significant Gap. '
Respectfully submitted,
trian Ung
RF Design Engineer
Network Engineering Department
Verizon Wireless
Exhibit E
Alternatives Analysis
Verizon Wireless
Cupertino High School
10100 Finch Avenue
Cupertino
November 25, 2014
Summary of Site Evaluations
Conducted by NSA Wireless, Inc.
Compiled by Mackenzie & Albritton LLP
G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary................................................................................................... 3
II. Significant Gap.....................................................................:................................... 3
III. Methodology............................................................................................................ 3
IV. Analysis.................................................................................................................... 4
1. Cupertino High School Stadium Light Standard (Proposed Facility) ........ 5
2. Sprint Facility at Cupertino High School Stadium ..................................... 6
3. Plaza Portal Center..................................................................................... 7
4. Bethel Lutheran Church.............................................................................. 8
5. Cupertino Financial Center......................................................................... 9
6. Office Building, Santa Clara..................................................................... 10
Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 11
Map of Alternatives
2
I. Executive Summary
Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in coverage and network
capacity in eastern Cupertino. Based on a review of available site alternatives as set forth
in the following analysis, Verizon Wireless believes the placement of antennas on an
existing light standard at the Cupertino High School stadium (the "Proposed Facility")
constitutes the least intrusive alternative for providing Verizon Wireless service to the
'identified coverage.and capacity gap based on the values expressed the Cupertino
Wireless Facilities Master Plan (the "Master Plan") and the Cupertino Municipal Code
(the "Code").
II. Significant Gap
The significant gap in Verizon Wireless network coverage and capacity in eastern
Cupertino occurs in an area roughly bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north,
Johnson Avenue to the east, Rainbow Drive to the south and Blaney Avenue to the west.
The gap area includes major roadways such as Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road, and
encompasses two square miles and a population of 25,000. Additionally, the
accelerating increase in use of voice and data wireless services in the area has led to
capacity exhaustion of the existing Verizon Wireless network. The identified "significant
gap" is more fully described in the Statement of Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency
Design Engineer Brian Ung _dated November 20, 2014 (the "Significant Gap").
III. Methodology
Once a significant gap has been determined, Verizon Wireless seeks to identify a
proposal that will provide coverage through -the "least intrusive means" based upon the
values expressed by local regulation. In addition to seeking the "least intrusive"
alternative, sites proposed by Verizon Wireless must be feasible. In this regard, Verizon
Wireless reviews the radio frequency propagation, elevation, height, available electrical
and telephone utilities, access, and other critical factors such as a willing landlord in
completing its site analysis,. Wherever feasible, Verizon Wireless seeks to identify
opportunities that allow placement of wireless facilities on existing structures with
minimal impacts.
Under the Master Plan, the most preferred location for wireless facilities is
"existing structures in non-residential areas," including "stadium light poles" on "Public
School District properties." The next preference is for new structures in non-residential
areas, followed by existing and new structures in residential areas. (Master Plan, pp. 14-
15) Under the Code, wireless facilities are generally prohibited in residential zones and
on parcels with residential uses. (Code § 19.136.030(B)) The Code allows for facilities
that exceed zoning district height limits through a height exception. (Code § 19.136.090)
While other wireless facilities are permitted in Cupertino, including freestanding facilities
and new structures, any such facilities would be more intrusive and less preferred than
mounting the existing structures reviewed under this alternatives analysis.
3
IV. Analysis
Verizon Wireless first investigated opportunities. to locate its facility on existing
structures outside residential areas in the eastern Cupertino area and readily identified the
available Cupertino High School stadium light standard as well as another light standard
at the school already supporting a wireless facility. Next, Verizon Wireless searched for
buildings in the area that could host a wireless facility, and identified three such
locations. Considering the City of Cupertino's general prohibition of wireless facilities in
residential zones, Verizon Wireless did not seek out such locations. At the request of the
Planning Department, Verizon Wireless also investigated a location in Santa Clara which
was determined to be too distant from the Significant Gap and too close to an existing
Verizon Wireless facility, resulting in interference issues.
The results of this analysis are as follows:
M
Existing Structures in Non -Residential Areas
Acknowledging the Master Plan's top preference for locating wireless facilities
on existing structures in non-residential areas, Verizon Wireless investigated such
structures with adequate height to support a wireless facility and identified the following
five locations.
1. Cupertino High School Stadium Light Standard (Proposed Facility)
Address: 10100 Finch Avenue
Elevation: 200 feet
Zoning: BA (Public Building)
This existing 92 foot tall light standard was designed to support placement of
wireless antennas and has been approved by the Division of the State Architect, which
certifies the safety of school structures. Verizon Wireless has proposed a stacked antenna
design with three antennas mounted at 65 feet and three at 71 feet six inches, allowing the
antennas to be mounted a minimal distance from the surface of the pole, minimizing their
visibility. Radio equipment will be located in a portion of an existing modular building
behind the stadium bleachers, and a new generator will provide backup power in case of
emergencies. This equipment placement will not interfere with student access to stadium
facilities. Though the City has no setback requirements for wireless facilities located on
utility poles, the Proposed Facility is located over 350 feet from the nearest residence to
the east and over 450 feet from the nearest residence to the west. Given the superior
radio propagation achieved at the height available on this pole, this Cupertino High
School stadium light standard is Verizon Wireless's preferred location for the Proposed
Facility.
2. Sprint Facility at Cupertino High School Stadium
Address: 10100 Finch Avenue
Elevation: 200 feet
Zoning: BA (Public Building)
This facility operated by Sprint Nextel was approved in 2000 and is located on the
Cupertino High School stadium light standard approximately 260 feet south of Verizon
Wireless's Proposed Facility and approximately 270 feet from the nearest residence to the
south. The Sprint antennas leave insufficient room for additional antennas to be mounted
at a height acceptable to meet Verizon Wireless's radio propagation requirements.
Lacking adequate space on the pole for sufficient antenna height, this location is not a
feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility.
0
3. Plaza Portal Center
Address: 19665 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Elevation: 195 feet
Zoning: Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
This one-story commercial structure is located 0.6 miles northwest of the
Proposed Facility on the northern fringe of the Significant Gap identified by Verizon
Wireless. The building is of insufficient height for placement of antennas that could
achieve radio propagation sufficient to cover the Significant Gap. Lacking sufficient
height, this location is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility.
7
4. Bethel Lutheran Church
Address: 10181 Finch Avenue
Elevation: 195 feet
Zoning: BQ (Quasi -Public Building)
This religious facility is located one-quarter mile northwest of the Proposed
Facility. Intense use of the building's use as a religious facility and school requires
placement of radio equipment in an exterior shelter in the parking lot, where reduction of
parking spaces is disfavored. Additionally, this parcel is located adjacent to residentially -
zoned parcels to the north, south and west. While the church structure includes an
existing steeple, height and structural limitations of the steeple will likely require
replacement with a larger and taller antenna facility, potentially compromising the
likelihood that this would be considered an existing structure under the Master Plan.
Considering disfavored exterior equipment placement, close proximity to residences and
the need to structurally replace the existing steeple with a taller tower, this is a less
favorable alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility.
5. Cupertino Financial Center
Address: 10080 North Wolfe
Elevation: 195 feet
Zoning: Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
This building is located at the northern fringe of the Significant Gap and is located
approximately one-half mile north of the Proposed Facility. The building supports a
Sprint wireless facility on the roof. Following preliminary negotiations, however, the
landlord withdrew from lease negotiations for an additional wireless facility on this
building. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon
Wireless's facility.
9
Locations Outside Cupertino
At the request of the City of Cupertino Planning Department, Verizon Wireless
investigated a specific location in Santa Clara.
6. Office Building, Santa Clara
Address: 5405 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara
Elevation: 195 feet
Zoning: N/A (Santa Clara)
Though this new office building has favorable height for radio propagation, it is
located northeast of the Significant Gap to be filled by the Proposed Facility.
Additionally, this site is located only 0.3 miles northwest of the existing Verizon
Wireless facility at 5300 Stevens Creek Boulevard in San Jose and would cause signal
interference due to its close proximity to the existing facility. Due to its distance from
the Significant Gap and interference issues, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon
Wireless's facility.
10
Conclusion
Verizon Wireless investigated six locations for placement of its wireless facility
to serve the Significant Gap in its wireless service in eastern Cupertino. Considering the
excellent radio frequency propagation from the height afforded by the available stadium
light standard, along with the willing landlord, the Cupertino High School stadium light
is Verizon Wireless's preferred location for its wireless facility. Based upon the
preferences identified in the Cupertino Master Plan and Code, the Proposed Facility,
placing a wireless facility on an existing light standard on a non -residentially' -Zoned
parcel in a location that provides coverage to the Significant Gap identified by Verizon
Wireless, clearly constitutes the least intrusive alternative location for Verizon Wireless's
facility under the values expressed by the City of Cupertino.
11 '
s' ,ti � '1•�1
�t
J4 Bethel
��� lutherat
• 4i=. �,
t
k
,
.q
r -
2
v
valmont V
STRUCTURES
Diamond Engineering Services
ATTN: BrUce !_yon
4225 So la no Ave
Napa, GA 94558
R 1926) 362-2264
Exhibit F
Octaber 24, 2014
subjects StrtgcturaI Analysis for Existing 901 Monopole with 12''Rado me mounted from 62'-
9" to 74'-S" AGI.
Analysis Order No. 269817-1-1
Site Name: Cupertino HS, CA
Original Valm*nt Order No. 144005
Dear Mr. Lyon;
We have completed the structural analysis you requested for ttla above referenced mono pola. The
maults of our anaalysis indicate that the polar base plats and anchor bolts arra structurally
adequate to accommodate the proposed equfprineht loading.
The design criteiis and loading condition used fnr this analysis was as Follows:
71A -222-G Addendum 2 Including;
90 mph Whid (3 Second Gust, 100 year return period) No Ice
Exposure Category: O
Structure Classification: 111
Topography Category_ 1
60 mph Basic Wind Speed with no Ice for Twist and Sway
Spectral Respanse Acceleration at Short Periods and 1 Sac: Ss = 1,92 & Si = 0.69
18 - Luminaire Q 90.0
3 - Luminaire cnossarm a@ 90.0
1 - 5'd [a x 12' Radaorne @ 66.5 UPDATED,
1 - emerge nray Ilg[it @ 30f.0
2 - security light @ 24.0 .
4 - Erectrical Box Q 15,01
1 - 2' HIGH PERFORMANCE (w1PM) (6 Gi4z) @7a 56.5
B -Ericsson R12US11-Dual PA RRU (17.8x17"x7.2") @-62.0 NEW
The structural analysis was based upon monopole information abta1ned-from Valmont Drawinq numbers
DD4687Z (08119111). E3DIU914 (0211,41':1) andCG14384 (02f1DI11); and zoning drawingsA4,A5,A6, and
ADI provided by Diamofld Engineering Services.
Valmont Mi rm{kx1, ures. Valmoat Ir,(luso'c%,1 nc.
3575 254 Strcct 5al.m; OR 975OZ-1123 USA
'1611I'me:800.5 ;-2151 rae:503-3i5-ZNff wwwmalmunUalm Yta 1 u173
valmontV
STRUCTURES
The following Is a comparison of the ground Tina reaction between the original design and the results of
this analysis:
Base Moment (f# -kips) 1008 ! 851 -16%
Base Shear (kips) 11.6 10.0 -14%
BaseAxlal (kips 14.5 15.2 45%
The results from this analysis indicate that the base rnoment and shear ground line reactions have
decreased and Lha base axial ground Cine reaction has increased due to the revised loading, Stress ratios
for the structure rernain within acceptable limits, Stress ratios less than 1.00 are considered acceptable,
Due to the degreased moment and shear ground line reactions, d the foundation was installed per
Valmont Foundation Drawing, numbers 70001 R and 7000_2R, then the Foundation would be adequate to
handle the revised loading; ,Because. bearing pressure does not control pier foundation design, the
increased base axial reaction is acceptable,
If there are any questions concerning the structural analysis, please don't hesitate in contacting me
directly at (503) 5$9-6628_
Sincerely,
Nathan Ross
Associate Engineer
Enc, Analysis Calculations �1 copy)
ValmomMicroilcv, IT('S, Valmont Injnserivs ho.
3575 V 5ireet Salem, OR-4?71321-1123 11NA r
Toll F=; I3FIG-547-2151 Pax: 503-316-2W %ww.valmam•,wm Net 2 of 7.
vaimontT
STRUCTURES
Disclaimer:
This enOneerinn study is based on the theoretical capacity of_t_he structure. it is not_a.conditioh
assessment of the tower. -
This report is being provided by Valmont without fie benefit of an inspection by our personnel and is
based on information supplied by the customer to us. Valmont has made no independent determination,
nor is required to, of the accuracy of the informetion provided. Thorefore, unless specifically informed to
the contrary by the customer in writing, we assume the foil owing:
1. The subsoil characteristics exist as stated on the tower drawing or stated elsewhere ire this report;
2, The tower is erected and maintained _in accordance with the manufacturer's plans and
specifications and is Qlumb;
3. There is no damage,natural or manmade, to the structure, either gradual or sudden;
4. All connectiorfs are properly installed;
5. The information concerning the components, existing and proposed, is accurate; and
6. There are no modifications to the tower itself, except as may be disclosed elsewhere in this
report.
'this report is valid for only the design criteria listed (Ex. Code, wind, antenna and Iinu loading lists, etc.).
If any of this information is not carreat this study should not be used. It is recommended 'AS-Duiif
foundation systems Ge verifed to match assumptions in this report to insure VaKity,
Valimir N-lici oflco, I.TCS, Mal,nart Industries, [«c.
34 5 '25'x' Street Salem_ OR 9' M3 A 12,3 !JSA
'MI Frnp; 811[i-547-2151 Fm: 903.31£-2047 www.vplmcmteam (~as�c 3 t1f3
Exhibit G-1
NSA Wireless, Inc.
Site Acquisition • Planning • Political Advocacy • Construction Management
August 4, 2014
Please join us for a neighborhood meeting to discuss and ask questions regarding Verizon
Wireless's proposed installation of a new unmanned telecommunications facility to be located on
an existing Sports Field Light Pole located at Cupertino High School — 10100 Finch Avenue in
Cupertino.
Project Description: Installation of 6 new wireless antennas on the existing Sports Field Light,
associated base equipment and an emergency generator. Site photos and plans will be available
at the meeting, as well as on file with the Planning Department at the City of Cupertino Planning
Department located at City Hall — Application No: DIR-2014-27 & EXC-2014-06 — Colin Jung,
planner (408) 777-1356
Meeting Date, Time and Location
When: Friday, August 22 at 6:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m.
Where: Cupertino City Hall/Room 100 —10300 Torre Avenue - Cupertino
Pamela Nobel
Independent Contractor
NSA Wireless, Inc.
Representing Verizon Wireless
2010 Crow Canyon Place - Suite 355
San Ramon, CA 94583
(707) 486-7252
2010 Crow Canyon Place Suite 355, San Ramon CA 94583 (925) 244-1890 Fax (925) 355-0672
Exhibit G-2
Photographs of Public Notice Signage
UeRllwireless
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Ave, Bldg. E
Irvine, CA 92618
December 5, 2014
City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Re: Verizon Wireless Application
Telecommunications Facility, Cupertino High School
Dear Council Members:
I am the Verizon Wireless Marketing Director over the team that maintains and manages all data
and informational messages that are sent to Verizon Wireless customers in California. In
connection with the application referred to above, Verizon Wireless arranged for a text message to
be sent to customers with billing addresses within Cupertino area ZIP codes 95014, 95129, 95070
and 95130. The entire text message sent reads as follows:
Free message from Verizon: Reply YES to this text to show your support for
improved Verizon Wireless service in Cupertino. Add a message to tell the City
Council you support a Verizon Wireless facility on an existing stadium light at
Cupertino High School or to request more info.
The text message above was sent on November 20, 2014. As of November 26, 2014, we have
received 1,210 affirmative text responses indicating support for the Verizon Wireless facility
proposed at the Cupertino High School stadium and 43 respondents opposed. Text messages
received confirmed the need to provide improved Verizon Wireless network capacity in Cupertino.
Samples of the text messages of support received from Verizon Wireless customers appear on the
attached pages.
I am available to verify the above information as you may require.
Sincerely,
oss Beett
Marketing Director
Loyalty Marketing & Operations
Attachment
Sample Text Messages of Support
for Verizon Wireless Cupertino High School Facility
Yes me need better coverage in Cupertino
Absolutely YES!! This is the heart of Silicon Valley—why does the Cupertino City Council
even think this is a question?
Allow wireless at tiny hi.
Good to go for the wireless facility on existing structure.
HELL YES WE NEED THIS SO BAD
Hey. If it helps and causes no harm why not. Should improve service for the whole
neighborhood as well.
aprove of the planned new wireless facility on the stadium light
I' doM Go verizon and cupertino!
I support a Verizon Wireless facility on an existing stadium light at Cupertino High School
I support a wireless tower on a facility in Cupertino
support improved Verizon service in Cupertino
t
I support the new proposed wireless tower in Cupertino for Verizon as cell service in
Cupertino is awful!
I support the Verizon facility at Cupertino high.
I support verizon wireless in cupertino
I support vzw and we need more reception
I vote YES ... and believe its a .good deal.
Makes sense to me- yes!
YES - we simply need better cell phone coverage. As a Verizon customer, I fully support
this .
Yes and also support the facility on the light
Yes for verizon service in Cupertino
Yes I support a Verizon Wireless facility on an existing stadium light at Cupertino High
School.
1 of 4
YES I support a VZW facility on a Cupertino high school light
Yes I support more service! Mine sucks, it's so slow!!!!
Yes it's a good idea
Yes Need better signal. Mine is'terrible.
Yes please on both. Service needs to be improved.
Yes to a new wireless facility at Cupertino high school.
Yes to improved service & light. Wud like info on service
Yes to improved wireless signal.
Yes to Verizon for improved wireless service. I support a Verizon wireless facility on an
existing stadium light at Cupertino high school
Yes we need more Verizon service in Cupertino.
Yes- to wireless facilities in Cupertino
Yes, I need better service! Dropped call and bad cell service in Cupertino
Yes, I support a Verizon Wireless facility on an existing stadium light at Cupertino H.S.
Yes, and I support the facility at Cupertino High.
Yes, I don't get service in my office. Ridiculous
YES, i support a Verizon Wireless facility at Cupertino HS.
Yes, please improve the Verizon service in Cupertino! Reduced infrastructure diminishes
the city's value to everyone!
YES, please send more info
Yes; put up the facility!
Yes! I get cut off all the time in my own home. I couldn't count on my cell alone.
Yes! A unit at CHS would improve my local service.
Yes! Add a facility to the stadium post.
YES! I definitely support Verizon's efforts to improve their already fantastic service by
adding onto an existing stadium light at Cupertino High School.
Yes! Please add a Verizon facility at Cupertino High School.
2of4
Yes! Please allow increased coverage in Cupertino for Verizon customers.
Yes! Please allow Verizon to use that location for improving their service quality, much
needed since Cupertino is not well covered by any wireless service
Yes!! There is no negative impact from a facility on an existing light pole.
Yes!! Support for Verizon Wireless facility on an existing stadium light at Cupertino High
Yes!!! This new facility is badly needed.
YES. Please improve coverage in cupertino any way possible.
yes. A wireless sub -system on a light pole at Cupertino high should be beneficial to the
users
Yes. Cannot believe we live in the middle of Silicon Valley and have poor cell service in
many areas
YES. Coverage is Cupertino is not very strong. Strange that I have limited use of my
iPhone's data plan in the home city of Apple.
Yes. CUPERTINO Highschool is a good spot for cell tower. Reception is not very good in
that area.
Yes. I do support Cupertino high school lights at stadium
YES. I greatly support any kind of improved wireless in our neighborhood, especially
around the schools where the wireless seems to drop a lot. Thank you
Yes. I support a Verizon Wireless facility on an existing stadium light at Cupertino High
School.
Yes. I support this
YES. My Verizon service at home is only fair due to poor signal strength. We need a
closer tower!
Yes. Please allow Verizon . Wireless facility on existing stadium light. We need strong
signal for quality calls. Thanks.
YES. Please approve wireless infrastructure improvements.
Yes. Put A cell tower at Cupertino high school
Yes. Service at home is only bad service I have!!
Yes. Service in that area stinks.
3 of 4
Yes. Service is horrible in Cupertino.
Yes. The reception is horrible in Cupertino area
Yes. The residents deserve better coverage
Yes. We are in silicon valley and we should have the best in connectivity.
YES. We need a verizon tower in cupertino to enhance our cell service, and so students
who have verizon can make emergency phone calls safely.
Yes. We support wireless facility at Cupertino H S. thank you .
YES. You may not like the way cell towers look but everyone wants fast and reliable
service.
Yes.... I would love better service in Cupertinoll
Yes ... please add more wireless power in this area.
r�
4 of 4