Loading...
Exhibit CC 10-6-15 Item #8 Verizon Lease and Cell Tower AppealKirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: City Cell Tower Endorsement From: Jim Oberhofer [mailto:jimob@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 8:26 AM To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul Cc: Jim Oberhofer Subject: City Cell Tower Endorsement Hello Cupertino City Council, CC 10/6/15 Item #8 I am the volunteer Emergency Coordinator for the Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency Service {CARES) and I support the proposed Cell Tower that you will be reviewing during tonight's Council Meeting. I am traveling this week and will not be able to represent this position in person. The following is offered in support for proceeding with this project. Back in 2007, we h.ad a fire in the hills above Cupertino (http://www.firefightingnews.com/article-us/37152/Wildland- Fire-Erupts-Above-Cupertino) that fortunately was contained. During that event, the Cupertino EOC and CARES were activated. One of the problems we experienced in supporting the activation was poor cell phone coverage at City Hall. This was apparent when we held a teleconference with the Cal Fire Chief in the field and the EOC Staff had to huddle around the City Hall front desk to get a decent cell-phone signal. This problem still exists today, The tower proposed by Verizon to be located on City Hall property will help mitigate cellular access problems from City Hall whenever the EOC is activated. Additionally, Cell Phones will be the de facto backup phone system in the event City Hall loses its landline telephone system, thereby allowing the City to continue to transact government business on behalf of our residents. I urge you to support the recommendation from the City's Planning Commission and approve this tower project to proceed. Sincerely, Jim Oberhofer Jim Oberhofer I Emergency Coordinator I Cupertino ARES/RACES 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 j CP 408.839.8798 jli.:~ikn6pe@arrl.net Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Posting on NextDoor City Center -voting on cell tower From: Patti Glick [mailto:footnurse@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 4:05 PM To: City Council Subject: Posting on NextDoor City Center -voting on cell tower No Cell Phone Tower at Cupertino Library Priya Tiruthani: Hi neighbors, there is a proposal to install a cell phone tower, near the electric car charge pole, that is 85 feet tall and fake it to look like a Eucalyptus tree. Please attend the City Council meeting today to speak to the council on your thats about this installation. Please sign this petition if you do to agree to this ... WHERE'S THE PETITION FOR YES ON THE CELL PHONE TOWER? See the following people who ARE in FAVOR of it. .. Betsy Miller I actually want more cell towers in Cupertino. The cell phone reception is very poor. Patti Glick I agree WITH putting up a cell phone tower in Cupertino. We five in a "dead zone" and it would be lovely to have better reception - not just personally but for City Hall with also happens to be our city's emergency center. Patti Glick Home: 408-865-1244 Cell: 408-406-6158 10/6/2015 ·#3/l 1 10/6/2015 2 10/6/2015 3 ~ --' ' Q20: Cell Phone Antennas ------------------------------------------------------- The 2014 results are riearly identlcal to 2012 results, with almost 3 ()ut of5 resid~nls indicating unobstructed wirelf)ss coverage f6rphcine arn:ldata was more .important. Abo;ut one qGarter of residents (2q.2 percent) s.aid t~e,y l'lere morf! concEi_med about pub)ic; e.xpqsureto radjofregl!ency way~s.. . · · 10/6/2015 4 10/6/2015 5 Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electricity, magnetism, light, and sound. 10/6/2015 6 10/6/2015 7 10/6/2015 8 10/6/2015 1 10/6/2015 2 10/6/2015 3 10/6/2015 4 10/6/2015 5 10/6/2015 6 10/6/2015 7 10/6/2015 8 10/6/2015 9 10/6/2015 10 Name 1 "JrhPt}; ~o'> .;1' 2 I _,. 3 4 5 6 7 - 8 -91 lJ-fti.N' A X. 10 - 11 - 12 - 13'' - 14 - 15 - 16 -17 - 18 -19 - 20 - 21 -22 - 23 Ct 10/&}IS-#B ~ N N I-" I-" I-" I-" I-" I-" I-" I-" I-" I-" I-" 0 U) 00 '-' en U1 +::> w N I-" 0 U) 00 '-' OJ Vl +::> w N I-" T ~ KJ1 ~ :p P'1 I-\ z m F::£_ ~ . 3 " ~ m ~ A n ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 0 <:'..., ,.._ )\ :;. lu ' ~ ? .5 17'\ (]" l) .,_ K' ......__ "'-.(\ !\ ~ -" ~ ~ ' ~ '~ . ~ -~ ~· ...... ~ . 1:· ~-'.}J ""l ~ ~· ~ ',)9 ~ m -r--... --"" ~ tn -r--~ '-~ -~ ~-~ ~ .s . ,_ i• l ~-~ ,. :i i I• ~ ~c· ~ ) ~ ~ .cf' !\ c ~ ~ <:r7 ~ ~'" ~ "10 ~ I• RJ-· ~ ··-s ~ .~ ~ :;. :., ' -...: ~ ~· ~ " f~/ 3 ·[ I\ i~! ,!;~'. C...• ~~ .CL·. i;m~, ® 'l 'Ch " -, ? ,, ' >') [·,. \) \:' ' A ' ) ~l \ "';:.l ~ N N WN J • ,\ ~ 7:1 ~-E £ ........ u ~ ~ Q-, Di a ~ . §" ,..........._ ~ 2. r- I ~ ~ ~ 2 ·~ T. ::i °' r-::-; 0-~ r-1 Sign this petition against the proposed cell tower at the Cupertino library and City HaH. Please add an email address lf you would Hke to be updated. Name Signature Address 1 <: /v~~ ~A J<i '"\ ~-' -\ Sign this petition against the proposed cell tower at the Cupertino Library and City Hall. Please add an email address if you would like to be updated. Name .. Signatur~·· , Ad•:hfe$s·• ·. .·. . ·.· 1 ~ --i~ ~J\.J4~ '~- - Signatures 1. 2. 3. 4. Name: William Tseng ( on 2015-09-09 19:06:57 Comments: Name: Rama Vallabhaneni ( on 2015-09-09 21 :00:30 Comments: Proposed cell tower will aesthetically damage our neighborhood. Alternative locations should be fully investigated. Name: Lisa Wang ( on 2015-09-10 00:02:28 Comments: no cell tower in residential area. Name: Sam Hsieh ( on 2015-09-10 19:32:28 Comments: 6. Name: Danny Blitz ( on 2015-09-11 00:38:40 Comments: We live right across the street and were never notified! Maintaining the health of our residents is clearly not a priority of our city officials. Be sure to think twice when they are up for a vote again! 7. Name: Jason ( on 2015-09-11 00:48:23 Comments: 8. Name: Jennifer Schmid on 2015-09-11 00:52:52 Comments: As an RN, I have grave concerns about the lack of data showing the safety or lack thereof regarding cell phone towers, especially in close proximity to residences and areas where children congregate (such as a library). 9. Name: Tina sorooshian ( on 2015-09-11 02:09:17 Comments: 11. Name: Heidi Wong ( on 2015-09-11 03:46:33 Comments: Page 3 of 8 13. Name: Sailaja Vellanki ( on 2015-09-11 04:04:25 Comments: I strongly oppose this cell phone tower. Other places should be investigated. 14. Name: Lenora Heuchert ( on 2015-09-11 04:42:15 Comments: Stop putting cell towers near residents! 15. Name: Mushtaq Bapoo ( on 2015-09-11 05:04:49 Comments: Strongly oppose this cell phone tower by the library many kids walk daily by the designated area. Other places should be investigated. 16. Name: Andrew T ( on 2015-09-11 05:18:40 Comments: Do not build this tower it will be bad for the surrounding area 17. Name: Marile Shelly ( on 2015-09-11 05:50:44 Comments: 19. Name: YUEH YUN BOETTICHER ( on 2015-09-11 07:12:33 Comments: 20. Name: EVAN BOETTICHER ( on 2015-09-11 07:13:42 Comments: 21. Name: Megan Lin ( on 2015-09-11 12:52:54 Comments: 22. Name: Jungmin ( on 2015-09-11 13:34:22 Comments: 23. Name: Hanten Chow ( on 2015-09-1115:10:31 Comments: 24. Name: Daping Zhang ( on 2015-09-11 16:15:25 Comments: 25. Name: Amy Zhang ( on 2015-09-11 16:35:20 Comments: Page 4 of 8 26. Name: Sarah Chen ( on 2015-09-1118:47:16 Comments: 27. Name: katy wang ( on 2015-09-11 22:20:32 Comments: I don't like live in the shadow of cell tower, it is just too close to the residential area which is bad for our health!! There are people say it is safe, but the fact is the people who live close to the tower has much higher chance to get sick! We want a safe home! 28. Name: Pane Stojanovski and family ( on 2015-09-11 22:43:25 Comments: 29. Name: Hailing Li ( on 2015-09-11 22:51 :09 Comments: It's too close to residential area and library which would raise safety concerns, and a stand out high tower would look really bad in that place. 30. Name: Kalpana Adesara ( on 2015-09-11 22:55:27 Comments: 31. Name: Hitesh ( on 2015-09-11 23:55:16 Comments: We do not need a cell tower in this area. Please find other location. Thanks! 32. Name: Kishore Sorathia ( on 2015-09-12 00:21 :22 Comments: 33. Name: Teri Scott ( on 2015-09-12 03:58:54 Comments: 34. Name: Resident of Cupertino ( on 2015-09-12 18:38:18 Comments: While the Cupertino Library does have bad reception, it is a library, and people who go there should not find the need to use their cell phone. If they do, they can just walk outside the library to get 3 bars, allowing for people inside the library who need to do work to continue undisturbed. There really is no need for such a large cell tower that can adversely affect people's health. I find it quite greedy that the city council is passing so many unnecessary and possibly even unethical actions that haven't been told to surrounding residents. They are the ones who will have to live with what happens, and it is downright stupid if they are not made aware about the possible changes. 35. Name: Laura Oliver ( on 2015-09-12 22:31:11 Comments: 36. Name: Gerry Foye ( on 2015-09-12 22:42:26 Comments: 37. Name: Kristin ( on 2015-09-12 23:27:34 Page 5 of 8 Comments: Now you want to give Cupertino a cell tower in front of the library = true stupidity. 38. Name: Vicki L. Harvey ( on 2015-09-12 23:45:04 Comments: 39. Name: Ashwin Mohan ( on 2015-09-13 01:14:17 Comments: 40. Name: Kimberly Zhu ( on 2015-09-13 02:03:36 Comments: 41. Name: Min Li ( on 2015-09-13 02:13:24 Comments: 42. Name: Qi Zhu ( on 2015-09-13 02:13:55 Comments: 43. Name: Anthony Zhu ( on 2015-09-13 02:19:20 Comments: 44. Name: lyn ( on 2015-09-13 03:07:35 Comments: 45. Name: richard mcgrath ( on 2015-09-13 05: 13: 19 Comments: 46. Name: Sumeet Kumar ( on 2015-09-13 16:26:40 Comments: 47. Name: Susan Muzik ( on 2015-09-13 17:43:08 Comments: 48. Name: Tiffany Tang ( on 2015-09-13 19:26:13 Comments: 49. Name: Marie ( on 2015-09-13 23:22:07 Comments: Our health should be the top priority -we live in this neighborhood. Please move this tower to a different area. 50. Name: Albert Hoffman ( on 2015-09-14 03:02:52 Comments: Notification was insufficient and alternatives were not adequately considered Page 6 of 8 by the planning commission. 51. Name: Mary Roller ( on 2015-09-14 04:50:39 Comments: No. It's too close to too many houses including my own. 52. Name: weinan kao ( on 2015-09-14 12:26:44 Comments: 53. Name: Murthy Vedula ( on 2015-09-14 16:33:54 Comments: I support this petition. I strongly oppose this plan. Regards Murthy Vedula 54. Name: Matthew Wong ( on 2015-09-14 18:40:50 Comments: 55. Name: Sau Hang Tang ( on 2015-09-14 18:41:08 Comments: 56. Name: Amy Hsu ( on 2015-09-16 18:58:42 Comments: 57. Name: Matthew Jian Hong Zhong ( on 2015~09-16 22:04:22 Comments: 58. Name: Andrea Toth ( on 2015-09-17 16:37:50 Comments: 59. Name: chifang ma ( on 2015-09-18 06:38:48 Comments: 60. Name: tseng wen kung ( on 2015-09-18 06:39:35 Comments: 61. Name: Anna Soland ( on 2015-09-22 03:43:51 Comments: This facility is inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. 62. Name: Shu-Hwa Chang ( on 2015-09-22 04:05:03 Comments: 63. Name: Rose Jang ( on 2015-09-23 06:36:57 Comments: Page 7 of 8 64. Name: amit shah ( on 2015-10-01 05:27:13 Comments: 65. Name: paulina on 2015-10-04 08:55:20 Comments: 66. Name: Carla McMurray ( on 2015-10-05 04:49:32 Comments: 67. Name: Andreas Muller ( on 2015-10-05 04:52:50 Comments: Page B of 8 MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14rn FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX Mayor Rod G. Sinks Vice Mayor Barry Chang Council Members Gilbert Wong TELEPHONE 415 I 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 I 288-4010 September 24, 2015 Savita Vaidhyanathan and Darcy Paul Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, California 95014 C~ !O/t;ft) . . fr0 Re: Appeal of Verizon Wireless Applications DP-2014-07, ASA-2014-10 and EXC-2014-12 Telecommunications Facility, Civic Center, 10800 Torre Avenue City Council Agenda, October 6, 2015 Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers: We write to you 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 unanimous approval of Verizon Wireless's stealth facility at Cupertino Civic Center (the "Approved Facility"). The appeal filed by Lei Wang ("Appellant") has no merit and should be denied. The Approved Facility location and design comply with development requirements of the City of Cupertino (the "City") and minimize visual impacts. In fact, the location of the Approved Facility was favored at a July 16, 2013, City Council study session. The Approved Facility will provide needed improvements in Verizon Wireless coverage and capacity to Cupertino residents, visitors and emergency services personnel. As described below, the appeal must be rejected under the Cupertino Municipal Code (the "Code") as well as under federal law. Appellant's primary objections based on aesthetics are not supported by the Code or the Cupertino Wireless Facilities Master Plan (the "Master Plan"). Indeed, the Master Plan encourages the stealth design and location (a treepole at a non-residential site) that Verizon Wireless has proposed. Verizon Wireless has provided uncontroverted substantial evidence that the Approved Facility fully complies with all findings for approval for a development permit, architectural and site approval and height exception. In addition, the Approved Facility Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 2 of 9 will provide needed improvements to Verizon Wireless coverage and network capacity in the area, and a review of 18 alternatives confirms there are no less intrusive feasible alternatives. For these reasons, denial of the application would violate the federal Telecommunications Act. We strongly encourage you to follow planning staffs recommendation and affirm the Planning Commission's carefully considered approval. I. The Project The Approved Facility has been thoughtfully designed to minimize any aesthetic impact on the adjacent community. Verizon Wireless proposes to mount six panel antennas on a treepole designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree. The treepole will be located in an unused area next to a Civic Center parking lot. Antennas will be concealed within faux foliage attached to the treepole. Antennas will also be covered with leaf socks for further camouflage. Faux foliage attached to numerous arced branches will extend both above and below the antennas to enhance the resemblance to a eucalyptus tree. The treepole will be placed within an approximately 1,420 square foot equipment area along with radio equipment and a diesel generator to provide backup power in emergencies. The equipment area will be surrounded by a 10.5 foot tall wood slat fence. The equipment area and treepole base will be screened by numerous existing trees on the Civic Center property and along Rodrigues Avenue. As recommended by the City's arborist, two trees will be removed to accommodate the equipment shelter, and Verizon Wireless will plant seven ceanothus trees and eight manzanita bushes along the north side of the equipment area facing Rodrigues A venue, with additional manzanita bushes to be planted on the south side adjacent to the parking lot. Photosimulations of the Approved Facility are attached as Exhibit A. A report by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated June 12, 2014 (the "H&E Report"), attached as Exhibit B, confirms that radio-frequency ("RF") emissions from the Approved Facility will comply with Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") guidelines. The Approved Facility will not generate significant traffic. In short, the Approved Facility will not have significant adverse impacts of any kind: II. The Approved Facility Complies with All Code Requirements. As confirmed in the Planning Commission Staff Report for the August 25, 2015, Planning Commission hearing, the Approved Facility meets all requirements for approval under the Code. Further, as Verizon Wireless is one of the City's carriers for emergency response personnel, the Approved Facility will provide an important public safety benefit by improving Verizon Wireless service in the vicinity of the Civic Center, which hosts the City's emergency operations center. The Approved Facility complies with architectural and site review findings of Code §19.168.030 as the treepole is designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree placed among numerous other trees, treepole materials have been selected with attention to texture and color to blend with existing foliage, and the equipment area is surrounded by a wood slat fence and new landscaping in order to Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 3 of 9 preserve neighborhood character. While the 62-foot mounting height of Verizon Wireless's antennas requires an exception to the Code's height limit of 55 feet, the Planning Commission properly made the three findings for approval of a height exception under Code §19.136.090: that the antenna height (a) is consistent with the intent of the Wireless Communication Facilities chapter of the Code, (b) is not injurious to adjacent properties, and ( c) does not result in a hazardous condition. As the treepole is located 80 feet from the nearest residential property line, it complies with the setback requirement of Code § 19. l 36.050(A)(2)(b ). The Approved Facility is consistent with the Master Plan with respect to its non- residential location and stealth design. This includes the faux tree design, as well as the use of screening techniques such as covering the antennas with leaf socks and screening the equipment with fencing and new landscaping. Additionally, the Approved Facility complies with the noise regulations of Code Chapter 10.48, as radio equipment generates minimal noise, and the generator will be turned on no more than a few minutes a month, for testing. The Approved Facility will not generate significant traffic. In short, Verizon Wireless's Approved Facility complies with all requirements of the Code. III. Federal Law Compels Approval of the Application. Verizon Wireless is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless telecommunications services throughout the United States, including the City of Cupertino. The siting of wireless communications facilities ("WCFs"), including the one at issue here, is governed by federal law. While reserving to local jurisdictions control over the siting, placement and modification ofWCFs, the federal Telecommunications Act (the "TCA") places "certain limitations on localities' control over the construction and modification of WCFs." Sprint PCS Assets, 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)); • The local government may not regulate the placement, construction, or modification ofWCFs 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 Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 4 of 9 • 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. IV. Substantial Evidence for Approval, Lack of 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)." 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 ofWCFs 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 do not constitute substantial evidence upon which a local government could deny a permit. See City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 101 Cal. App. 4th 367, 381 (2002). As set forth above, Verizon Wireless has provided substantial evidence to show that the Approved Facility complies with all requirements for approval under the Code. Among other evidence, photosimulations demonstrate compatibility of the eucalyptus design of the treepole with other trees in the vicinity. The H&E Report confirms that the Approved Facility will operate well below the FCC's exposure limits. In contrast, Appellant has provided no evidence -let alone the substantial evidence required by federal law-to support denial of the Approved Facility. V. Radio Frequency Emissions Comply with FCC Standards. The TCA prohibits local governments 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 Reports referenced above, the Approved Facility complies with applicable FCC guidelines and will operate far below all applicable FCC public exposure limits. Indeed, the H&E Report calculates that the maximum cumulative exposure anywhere at ground level from the Approved Facility MetroPCS facility is only 2.1 % percent of the applicable FCC public limit. Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 5of9 Moreover, federal preemption goes beyond decisions that are explicitly based on RF emissions. It also bars efforts to skirt 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, dlbla 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 comply with FCC guidelines, neither health concerns nor any proxy for health concerns can justify denial of the Approved Facility. VI. Approval is Required in Order to Avoid 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 service; 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 (9 111 Cir. 2009); see also T-Mobile West Corp. v. City of Agoura Hills, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134329 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Recent case law has confirmed that inadequate network capacity to provide reliable wireless service constitutes a "significant gap" in service to the same extent as inadequate coverage. See Nextel v. City of Mt. Vernon, 361F.Supp.2d336 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (summary judgment for wireless carrier on a claim of "prohibition of service" based on a demonstration of inadequate capacity). If a provider demonstrates both the existence of a significant gap, and that the proposed facility meets the "least intrusive means" standard, the local government is required to approve the facility, even ifthere 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)(l)(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 Service. Verizon Wireless has documented the need for improved coverage and network capacity in the Cupertino Civic Center and surrounding area (the "Significant Gap"). The Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 6 of 9 Significant Gap is fully documented in the Statement of Radio Frequency Design Engineer Brian Ung attached as Exhibit C (the "RF Engineer's Statement"). The RF Engineer's Statement explains that there is a gap in coverage as well as rapidly increasing usage of Verizon Wireless's network in Cupertino and that the existing Verizon Wireless facilities providing service to the area are already experiencing "capacity exhaustion." This results in call blocking and a lack of access to the network during periods of peak usage, and will compromise the Verizon Wireless network in Cupertino-particularly in the Civic Center area-until additional capacity is added. Having established a Significant Gap in service, 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 Least Intrusive Feasible Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Verizon Wireless Service. In an effort to fill the Significant Gap, Verizon Wireless evaluated 18 alternatives, as shown in the comprehensive Alternatives Analysis attached as Exhibit D. The result of this analysis is that the location and design of the Approved Facility-a stealth treepole facility placed among numerous other trees in a non-residential location favored by the City -is the least intrusive feasible means of providing wireless service to the Significant Gap. When comparing the locations of 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. In this case, 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 Code. Under these circumstances, Verizon Wireless has established the requirements for federal preemption such that denial of the permit would constitute an unlawful prohibition of service. VII. Response to Appeal Appellant raises several grounds for appeal, none of which present substantial evidence to support denial, as required under federal law. Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 7of9 1. The Approved Facility is Consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Appellant's primary objection is that the Approved Facility violates the City's Master Plan, however, a review of specific provisions confirms the Approved Facility's consistency with the spirit and letter of that guiding document. Several provisions of the Master Plan cited by appellant pertain to impacts on residential areas, but these are irrelevant in a non-residential location such as the Civic Center. The Civic Center is zoned P-BA (Public Building), not residential, and is designated as public facilities on the City's Land Use Map. Indeed, the only higher preference under the Master Plan is placement on existing structures. As there were no existing structures with a willing landlord and adequate height, Verizon Wireless has placed its facility in the next- preferred location category under the Master Plan: a new structure located in a non- residential location (the Civic Center parking lot). The Approved Facility has been designed to present minimal visual impacts from any vantage point, including the Rodrigues Avenue right-of-way. Following the direction of the Master Plan, Verizon Wireless has camouflaged its facility as a treepole resembling a eucalyptus tree, and placed it in an area with numerous other trees of varying type and height located on the Civic Center property and along the Rodrigues Avenue right-of-way. In further compliance with the Master Plan, antennas are screened with leaf socks to match elements normally viewed in the immediate environment. To harmonize the treepole with surrounding trees, numerous arced branches supporting faux foliage are placed along the length of the treepole trunks, further concealing antennas and providing varied shape to the treepole to blend it with surrounding tree branches. Fronted by the tall established trees along the Rodrigues A venue right-of-way and with tall streetlights in the vicinity, the treepole is of appropriate scale and blends in well with its surroundings. Verizon Wireless has worked with the City to arrive at a location and design that successfully incorporate the guidance of the Master Plan. As affirmed in the staff report for the August 25, 2015 Planning Commission hearing, "The project is consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan with respect to its location at Civic Center and the design of the free-standing facility within a landscaped area." (See Planning Commission Staff Report, p. 2.) Appellant's charges of violation of the Master Plan are unfounded and this ground for appeal must be rejected. 2. The Approved Facility Landscaping Will Enhance the Appearance of the Equipment Shelter. Appellant questions the aesthetic qualities of the Approved Facility, focusing on the viability of proposed landscaping. The City selected the plant varieties to be used to screen the equipment shelter, that is, ceanothus trees and manzanita bushes. These are both reliable and attractive California native species which require little water. Seven ceanothus trees and eight manzanita bushes will be planted on the north side of the equipment shelter along the Rodrigues Avenue right-of-way. As noted, the treepole will Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 8 of 9 harmonize with existing established trees. This ground for appeal is unfounded and must be rejected. 3. The Approved Facility Constitutes the Least Intrusive Alternative for Providing Needed Wireless Service to the Significant Gap. Appellant attempts to discredit Verizon Wireless's site selection process by raising infeasible alternate locations. Though the Code does not require Verizon Wireless to show that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive alternative, the Code and Master Plan provide guidance as to location selection. Following this guidance, Verizon Wireless reviewed 18 alternatives as discussed in the attached Alternatives Analysis, discounting locations in residential zones or in residential use as well as locations with unwilling landlords. Several alternatives, including Wilson Park, are located where antennas cannot provide adequate radio frequency propagation to serve the Significant Gap. The Alternatives Analysis concludes that the Approved Facility -1 a stealth treepole on a non-residential location -is the least intrusive feasible alternative. We note that the Approved Facility location was favored at the July 16, 2013 City Council study session. In short, this ground for appeal is baseless and must be rejected. 4. The Approved Facility Is Designed for Safety. Appellant raises doubts as to the safety of the Approved Facility, but these doubts are not based on facts. The generator includes an industry-standard diesel generator and fuel tank. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division inspects such generators to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, including the California Health and Safety Code. Relevant fire prevention regulations are enforced by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, including the California Fire Code. The Approved Facility is not located within a flood zone as confirmed by the FEMA Flood Zones map cited by Appellant, which shows that the nearest flood zone is a narrow Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage channel located to the east of the Civic Center property. In the unlikely event of a lightning strike, the treepole is grounded and Raycap surge protectors mounted on the treepole will protect equipment. All of appellant's safety concerns will be fully and adequately addressed by the Cupertino Building Division through their thorough review of construction drawings that are routed to all relevant departments to confirm compliance with all codes. These health and safety code concerns are not relevant to the Council's review of development permit land use entitlements, and this ground for appeal must be rejected. 5. The Planning Commission Hearing Was Adequately Noticed in Compliance with Code. Appellant claims that there was inadequate notice of the Planning Commission hearing and cites an outdated code section that is not part of current Code Chapter 19.136, regulating wireless facilities. Verizon Wireless mailed notice of its July 22, Cupertino City Council September 24, 2015 Page 9of9 2015, community meeting to neighborhood residents and also erected a story pole at the Approved Facility location on July 17, 2015, to demonstrate the proposed height of the facility in advance of the community meeting. The City provided required public notice of the August 25, 2015, Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the Civic Center, and notice was also published in the Cupertino Courier and posted on signage at the Civic Center location. A photograph of the posted public notice is attached as Exhibit E. Finally, in filing the appeal, Appellant has confirmed that they were fully aware of Verizon Wireless's application. This ground for appeal is frivolous and must be rejected. Conclusion Following the City's guidance as to the location of the Approved Facility, Verizon Wireless has worked diligently with the City to identify the ideal design for a stealth wireless facility to serve the Civic Center area of Cupertino. As approved by the Planning Commission, the Approved Facility meets the findings for approval under the Code and is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. The resulting Approved Facility also represents the least intrusive means to address the gap in coverage and network capacity. Bringing improved Verizon Wireless service to this area is essential to the health, safety, and welfare ofresidents, travelers, and emergency services providers in the surrounding community. We strongly encourage you to follow the recommendations of plaiming staff, affirm the Planning Commission approval, and deny the appeal. cc: Colleen Winchester, Esq. Colin Jung Gary Chao Schedule of Exhibits Exhibit A: Photosimulations Exhibit B: H&E Report Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton Exhibit C: Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Brian Ung Exhibit D: Alternatives Analysis Exhibit E: Posted Public Notice Aerial photograph showing the viewpoints for the photosimulalions. 1~:'' ,'•,)r --,Jt"':-\ 25 ··\,.- Deanza Stevens Creek 10800 Torre Avenue ~ilo, CA 95014 veriz!Jflwireless Photosimulation of the view looking south from across Rodriguez Avenue. v '1 Date: Julv 25. 2015 10800 Torre Avenue ~o,CA95014 verizRpwire/ess © Copyrighi 2014 Previsualists Inc. • www .pho1 osirn.corn •Any modification is strictly prohibited. Printing letter size or larger is permissible. This photosimu1otion is based upon information provided by the project applicant. V ' Date: July 25. 20 l 5 10800 Torre Avenue ~o,CA95014 verizR!'lwireless ©Copyright 2014 Prev!sualists Inc. • www.photosim.com •Any modification is strictly pror1ibited. Printing letter size or larger is permissible. This ohotosimulaiion is based upon iniormation provided by the project applicani. Photosimulation of the view looking northeast from the Civic Center. v' 'l Date: July 25. 20 5 Deanza Stevens Creek 10800 Torre Avenue ~o,CA95014 veriz.!!Pwireless © Copyrigh1 2014 Previsua\ists Inc. • www.pho1osim.com •Any rnodificotion is strictiy prohibited. Printing iet\er size or larger is permissible. This pr1olosirnu1ation is based upon ·1nlorrnatbn provided by the project applicant. 1 Date: July 25. 2015 10800 Torre Avenue ~o,CA95014 vel'iz99wireless © Copyright 2014 Previsua!ists Inc. • www.pho1osirn.com •Any modification is strictly prohibited. Printing letter size or larger is permissible. Tr1is p·notosimulaiion is based upon iniorrnation provided by the project applicant. Exhibit B Verl:zon Wireless'*' Prapos·ed Base Station (Sim No. 249553 '1De1.Anza Stevens Creek,,) 10800 Torre Avenue 11 Cupertino, California Statement cf Hatnt1'H!tt ·& edison, Inc.I Comiultrng engineers The finn CJf H~mmett & Edison, Inc., c~n1:l-U.[tlng gngintiers, h0Sj beet'• itetaitted !)t'I hehll.H' {J f Ve1.'il.O!l Wirel.ess, a per.sonat wirol\Ps:s telooom1mmk..alkms carrier, to ('.'ilahm.tr; tht.:: b!l&e sl:ation (Site No. 249553 ~~DeAJl7 .. a Stevt.'lmi Crillcik1 ') p1·opo.sed to be located at l 0:800 Torre Avr;m1e in Cupertino, C~!lfornia, f".ot· ci,nnplian~ wllh v.ppro:rn·ia.te guideline;!! l.imltt~~g hwt1rui ciq)l)s.tu-e to mdfo froquCJlc.y ("RF") elec.trorn~gnctic fields. Executive Summary Verizr.:m1 pmpooes [{} rri.stfllll directional panel antennas. or1 a tat1 :steiel pole, configured to rcsc.~nthk': a pine me, Lo be s~ Led al J 0 SiOO Ton-e A venue ln Cupertino. The proposed oporn.tiun wm, together with the u1h'Cr lfJl'OIJO.."M:-d ba,si; tliU'.itkin at the site, i::.omply ,i.•ith the FCC guidelines lirnithtg public e~po;:;ure to RF energy. The lLS, Congress requirl;s tJ:mt thr; Fc:dr:r;p.I Gommim[c~rtlcms Cumm[s::tiol'l f'f(!C") ev~hw.te its actions for possible significant im~ct on lhr: r::nv[rcmmen,t, A sucmnm)' oflhe FCC's c:;o;.posurc Umiis is ahown in Piglirc I. These limits apply fur ccmHnt1~1t1s ~xposures Md ate inten.dt.'!d lti provi® ii pruderit ma1·git11 Or SIIJ f ety fol' ~l I J'.IC:t,qom::, eega1x!L!J:..qs of age, @;eEider, size, or health. Tl L>e most re;Slt'lcd\•e FCC Jimlt fof' expcu1.1re$ or Ut1li111i1ed duradmi li;1 1·.adio fi'oqu.:::ncy e.11.et'gy for SIZ!~·~t·eil persrnm] 1vin1l.css services 0re. ~s folktws: Micm1,wve (PolnMo~P'll'itn) BRS (Broaclbillm.1 bdio) 5~000..80,000 MHz 2;6{)0 WCS (Wireless Comrmmitatiun) A WS (Advmi..ced W.iriofo·J1s) PCS (Personal Com1m.mfol.'ltb:m.) Ceil1.dar SMR {81::.ecializ..r::,;;I Mc:.) bile R~1dio) 700 MH.-; [mosl restrictive freqi1ency r;;inge] 2.300 2>100 l ~950 870 855 7flfl 30-JlJO -~· ... L""'llf.,..ll,,_t -"""~!u.alll:mJi...._!i ..,l.il,.,.ro .... Jl_ :too mW!cm2 l.00111Wlc:m'l 5.00 1.00 5.00 J.00 5J){J 1.00 5.00 LOO 2.9{1 0.58 2.85 05'7 2.4{} 0.4:8 I ,{I{} 020 General Fael!i'ty Requimments Bose stl!llfo•1~ typic:aUy c011.!li.st nf two disLlH.cL p;nrl<:i: the clec.ironic: t1·ansi:::Ei;.•ers (ah:o c.:alh:d ;'n:idlmi:" nr "'ich~:nnels") thi;it are c<mnected to Lh~ 1r.111:Utit)n£il wired t.etepb.l)tle I.hies, nnd the p0ssi ve rmrei:n:nui t!l~f'!t sr::nd the: wtri::lc~:;: *.ligm.;ls i::re.j'J.i:.crl h~" Lhc rRd:iO:.\i owt Ln be ~eceived by iridivldm1' :mhsct·lber units. The tnu1$Cei \lef\':l ~re 4)ften lt.H::•:£Jtc:d at grnuntl level ~rnd Eiro connecLe>d: to the ru1c.ienn.as 1l)I CO;flX lml cabJe;.q_ A small antenna fol' rc<:cplfon of GPS signals is Jllso l"cguircd, mmmti;d with ~1 c[c;;ir view of the sky. Be.cause the shorl wr:.rvctcngth of the frcqm~nc.ics assigned hy !he f'CC for wireless scrvit:c:s, the HA'f!.™ll:IT & EDISON, INC. CONSlJJ,'fll',l!J Jl~JGl!f>f.~IW.,S MNL'l':l!Nt.~ Lt:li'E P'<1g1:: ] o!}'f.4, Verizon Wireles5 •Proposed Base Station ~Sit111J No. 249553 "DeAnz:a Stevor11s Cr.ee,k'''} 10800 Torre Avenue• Cupertino. CaH·fomla ~mhm:na:t Mf1.1.ire lin.i:-of'...sight }}.11.Uu1 for their sigmds ki pt·o~tgatc well and so aro instal.letl at some hdghl abv't'll.) grnu:m.I. 11.te illTLi!rmas. l!ITC dc~ignL'(f k1 i:onccnlrutc ilhdr ene,1~y tow,J.&rd Lhi::: hort:r..i;m, wiLh very mue eru.'lt·gy wasted to•wm·d the sk)' t)r the ,gro~mct 11i is meam-1 tliJ'lrt it 11:1 ~ener~1Hy not JJ'O'Ssil:J le for expo.sure com:litions to .!l.Pf'rneic.h the rmt1'>imum po:;:in1118s.ible C::><po::i.ur~ Jimi~s without being l'hys:lcally very ne!!:r the Antermas. Com,puter Modeling Method The FCC prnvkh:s clire,,r;:~i°'n for dctcm1h":dng cmupHBtm.:e in its Office of Engb1eedn~ alld Technology Bulletit1 No. 6S~ "Evn.!uating C(J1npllance with F'CC-SpecH1ed Gtdde[inc:t: for H~rman Bx:1Jol.).Stira to Radio f~·eque:r1cy Riufa-1.tkm," diiPt;d Augus;t 1997. Figul'I:: 2 attached desir:.:ribcs: the calcu]atloti method<~t~:.gie:,s, reUecl:ing the t~cts th1~¢ a di.rt:ction./\l iu1tt:r:ma'5 radi::itlr.:m patl:i:rn is not fully fonned at fo..::.l;'.11iort& very clo~ b:;• {the 4'1'lear-:ffold'' effeel} and that at gresk:r distam:es thi:i power level ft'om '1lri ~meii:gy sotrrce decreases whh the. squru-e ot' the disf.a.11-0e from h (me .. i:nvc:1':S~ sqU$1'e l~w11 ). lhc c:orue:t"lli'ltive nmt1.ma of this method for c:vaJuating ex~i.osum .;:(mditkms h0s be.e11 vedlil~~t hy r:u1merorns field l:e5"1S .. Site ancl Fac::i lity OescrJpticm Ba:sei:J lll:kHl 111fbrrm1tion p1fllJ11idr::d by Verizon. ~ndudin~ z.otl:ing dn~wings: by MST Architects:, lm:., drited A:1-1:rH 8, 2014, L! is ;proposed to in~t~1:1l :dx Am:l:rew ModcJ SBNI H 1-1 D65 B cHrectional 3:mnct m1terinas 011 fl new S.O~foot .stee I pole, cot:ifigured to reii;.embfo a pt1:1c tree:, to I~ inst~! led in tlu: northernsi corner of the 11a~kirlg lot a& the Cupe11ino Civic Cc.mo:r, to.cGttc:d ml lOSOO Torre i\1·emi:c in Cupertino. The .llL1temu1s would be rno1.mte<l at a11 c.t1:bctive height of 11bm1t 62 feet !lllicwe gl"\Hmd and w1;1ukl be oritmiei;,1 in p111irs t!Jiwru'>d 90°1\ 180°T, am:l 21ll0 T. Ptw tho limited purpose of' Lhi:s ii!tm:J:r•; tt ls Msumed tfmt the :m:aitennas would be h:umi!led with up to .3.:. downlil.l mnd that tbe n1axjnmut effective ra.dfated fPO\llfer in any d:ircctim1 '°"'cmkl be Hl,200 •,11rous, re:p.1-esen1d11,g .sinmJt1:i1K~-0us opemt:.1011 ut 4,J20 WBlt.~ fot· AWS; 4,000 'i<\'~.m for PCS, Md 1.880 wau::; for 100 MHz Hll:lr'lke; no opcrntion 011 cellu!a:r fl'equendes is pmpc~sed for: this. sire. P't·opos.ed to be located on the. same pole nee similar 1111tet1nit!l far wie by AT&T Mobilily. mdng the. foll.owing trar1smiUi1:ig faicmcics: ~-~r.VklL ..... ~ .. ~-..M..uimum ERP ,, __ ...;l'""'"l=tle="=ll"'-'ll M""'· ·=Od=i::;""-1 _____ ___,D;:;_;c;::_;,~:.;:;m='i=lt _........:;H=e,jgfil! WCS 5,640 w11lts Ani:.fr~w SBNHH-1 D6SC 4° 7•! fl Ce11ulm.· L,000 Andrew SBNHH-l D65C' 8 'l•i 700 MHz 2,660 Atidrew SBNHH~ l :06SC s 74 PCS 6,500 Andrew SBNHH~1D·65C 4 HAMMfl'r'I' &:: EDISON, tNC. tlt!NSIJl;..'Ill\l:J llNCINfillftS '?Jlt.~ll'ir.11~ L2YE P<1gi: 2 {lf4 Verlzon Wireless"' Proposed Base Station (Site No. 24E1553 "'OeA.n.z:a Stov@ns Cr.eek.") 1 OSDO Torr& Avenue • C upertlru::i, Cal lfcrnla Swdy Results For a person nn)•whel'e at grow1d; the maximum RF exposure 11!::·.·~J due to the prnposoo Verizon 011e1:.ariofi hy it.:1elf is cafou loted ~o be 0. 02 l mW /em2~ w11ich is 2. l % c1 f tne applkahle public e.:tp(}.sure Umlt. The maximum caleulated eumutru:i.ve fevel at gNrmid; for the s.imulraneous opet.ll.riou of h{J.ih (;.ilfi'ricra, iii 3.9%1 of ti'!C µuhtfo cxpo:mr>: Hmit. Th<C m1.ndmum ~lculawd cum1,1tativi: level .a.t the tlm;.:,,::~ sk:try rcsklcnt1al complex to the 11or1l1, acros~ R<1Jdrigues Avem:1e,~ is 2.~8-'-0 ofthc. publlc r;xposurc limit. The m.i:i-:imum eal'cufated cumufatlvc k\•cl (It the SC·'l:;Omimfloor elevation of i:u11y other nci!lrby residcflc.ict is. 3.2% of thiJ publfo <l:l1<pcisur'>f.'l lin1i1. h .~hi:mld bic rioted thnt 1hc.11c rei;:ult.~ h1elm!c .i:.:"1vcral 1!wrwslnC>!1.'!!3j' assumptif.m.s mtrl (hcrefom aro ~:o:.poolle..d to o'llctStnre actml.I 1)ower chrnsJty level.s. Due ti) tht~ir mounLing loc.(.ttkms, !~e Veriro11 antertna.s would not be aoocssib!c to the genel'a1 pubH~ • .ar1d so LID mHigalkm mea~'lu'es are ne,ces5:11.ry to \:-0m111y with !he PCC public CXJKJsure guidelirie.s. It is pre::>uJned tha:t tbe t"NO cat·riers will, us rCC licensee;;i, take ad~u:ate .ideps to ensure tl:m:t thell' cemplD}•ew.s or {:Ontt·i.-ctors receive tt.pprDprim1e tmlntng 111m~ l:X)mply wlth FCC 1'ceupwtiom1I e:x:post•r~ guide I ines whenever "111,o·ork hS 1·ec1uited ne.nr. the a"tcr~nas th.emselvcs. Based 01.1 the i111ft1:rmalio11 .and analysis above, it is me urn::lcrsigm:(rs protbsiomd op1mm1 that npernticm of the base ~taHon pmposoo by Vet'i'P.Ofl Wirnfesg at 10800 'fom Avern.J& in CLtpel'lino, Califoml.!:t; will ·comply with the prevtllilng st;rrndm·tls ftir UmUing pubHc: ~Kpos.11re to rad1u frequli!ni::y OfiC·I'ID' e.tld, thc1~fcir1,;, wlll not f0or d~is rn~so~1 io~use m. sig11U'1cam impillc~ on the, ;;.nvh'Qmncnt The higf:icst C.(tk-1,1luted kwel in ptiblicly .1J.ccies.stbli: ;111"el!l~ l~ muich [c&;s Hum the prc:v~tli.ng s~ndli!rds ~uow for iextx~un:-s of unfonited dura~i<IJ:rn. This find Ing Is 1.1omsisl¢:nt with 111e~tS1.Jremeni:l.i of tichml ex.pos1..1rt>: oo:ndiLion$ 'i.f!lkcn mt (1thcr OJ:i.erafo1g ha.'1t: ji,t11Jlio11s. • l"'l'.'.;ali!d fit le;;ist I ;?,~l faet aWfl)', bailed an ii.lw.1>rigt11pbY. lium 04.l<D,&lill Mari:i. t l...tJ.t1n.1e<l nt leasl J>li5 feet awn~-. baS'::d on phot~,ri1pbs frum <J~J()glc Mupi;. HAMMilTI' &: BOif:ilON, INC. OJJ'{(it;.1:fll'~J l!~.!Gt:N'.111~ W.N ~Wt!XCl!iro t:.'!''!'E ragf!l :'l 4)f .i Ver~on Wireless· Proparu~d BMe Statlo.n (Site No. 2495·53 "DeAniza Stevens creek") 110000 Torre Avenue'*' Cupertirnor C.alifornia Authorship The unde1:sjg:11cd aut'hor of chis statement is fl qualified l"rofossiomd Engineer, hoJdlng t;alifomia Registra~ion Nos. E-t3026 and Mm.2.0676~ Vi.'hicb expire on June 30. 2015. 111Js. wm·k has been ciurie(I out a.me.for Ms dfrec.tfon, emd all statem.er.m: are u·u.e and correc.t of hLs 0<wn knowledge except_, when.:.~ :noh:d, When dnf;a has l:x::r.::n supplied by oll11cr:;, which r;:fota he lwlicvca to be. correct. June ! 2, 20 14 HAMMlil'n' ~ Er.:U$C:)N,. lNC. ~UL'Ilf>.'C Jll',IGINru!f.S SllNfW',HCl!ilO · WHJl.run fl. Fh u:tt, P.B. 7ff719~5200 1;2"t'l~ P~lt~ 4 of 4 FCC Radio fn;J:qUilWliCY Protection Gulde The U.S. Congrc;ss rcquir~d (l 996 Telecom Act) the Foo~rl;l] ComrrumkathlJHi Cornmfa.~!01:11 ("FCC") to 1i1d.011t a natic)n wide hunmn i;::i,;,poSJ.Jl'e standard (l) et'Ul.llt'e that its liee:11sees do not, ct.mmhi.frvely, hl:'lve a signif:icm1t impact on the cnviro:nmenl. Tlm fCC m:lopted the limits from Report No, 8·6, ''Bjofogica.f E.ffcctjj ~1:1d Exposure Critr:r.i . .iw for Railfofrcquc11.;,,".Y Elootronll:'!glltdic Fields, ... rmhrl8lli:>d 111 1986 by the CQrtgl'ession~Hy charterl;;!d N~ttivnd C.tJii;m.ocll ori R1;1di~Ltion Pn1tectio11 i:md Mea~ma'eme111~ C''KCRP"). Serw.r0te lin'titi;, tiptJly for f.tec:upatktnal and pul:ilic e::i:pc~m"e com:'litfo,.1m, with the k1ttc:r lbuitl!l g1me;1·rllty frvc times more rc~trictivc. The mmc recent standard, dcvell)pc{I hy the lns.t:Hut~ of Ek.\Ctric;nl ~nd Bl~m.mie8 Eoglm~1:::n:• r:md lllppro.,,·oo .a,s Amt:ri>l.ililn N~rtiomt[ S4ax1dnrd ANSJ/IEE.E C95. l-2006, "Smfely t.c\•e],s. with Re8pec~ to HL11:rmrt l!xpo.sore to !ti"Ldio Fr~wency Electrotm1g1:1.ctk Fields. 3 kHz to 300 Gliz," includes simila:r Hmits. T.bcw limits app1y for oontinuo1Js exposures fm1n aH sources and arc intended tti provid.~ ~t prrt.doeat margin of saJct.y for all pern~mis, ri;:wudlt;'.SS of nge, .b.reml~, ::;ize,, o:r hemlth. As sho,;im fo the table ~ind chnr:l 'below, iJ;eparate limiti;; 0r1oply for occupa:tional and 1:rotilic c::-q'.1'osu1"e concHtlot1~. \11i·t1l1 mc l11.tr01· limits (in Uaiic.ii am:llor dashed) up tn five times; more nmtriccive: Froquenl;i)' Appli{!flbtl!J Ri!it\~ {MHz) !l).j -J J4 LJ4·-3.0 3.0-:;10 :10-:mo 300 -l,5{.'11) t,500-WU,000 ll}OO ] l}l)- rn- l - OJ El®tum:rni.Mt.lli..Ei.i;;ldt;; {f is ft'<:Q.~WY of e11~issiori in MFb:} _ 'Elloohric M11glll!lti·~ l:lqt1i~·ft!ca1 far-l?iotd Fl~M Str~netJ1 Field S:IN!rigl:JL Powc:r Danaity (Vltll·} (Matl} (mW.'L).Jii~) 6Jtt 6U .l.63> I, 6.t ll)fJ I(}() 614 82V1lf 1.61 ], lS!lf ll)IJ !lfl!i/ 18421 f 823.~'lf o!'l.l!.'91' f 2.19/j 900I r 18{).if 6L4 21.S t:U63 ()_(}'129 LO o.z J5ffl l .. lWf ·Ji'llOO {ill38 f/3(1(1 /ftJi)fi Bl .fHA O.JM 0.UH 5.0 UJ / Oi.;c.i11J111tk~m1J B.?1.p.;:18ur:e ... PCS Cel.I ... ~----' \. FM ' :rrr;,. -. - /~-- ____ , PubU1: E.t'"""t~uJ·ff! ~ ~ I -'--1+-·~·--·-· 1=• --~-·•1~ ~,,,; Cl.l I l'I} WO 10 3 !0'1 JO~ Fr-cquency {MHz) Hi;gbe.r te'l.··e1s a.re allowed ±hr shol't ]X:l!iods of tiniej such tLml Jlotal exposure !Efvels averaged 01te:r six m· thirty n1inme,s; fot· occupntk1nal or public setliu~s, :ies.p-ecthielyt do not exceed i'hfl limits, flm:l Mgliet' lcvc,[s als¢J Mc alki\,vcd fot' c:;itposures kJ. snrnH arena, such 1.bat the spatittlly averuged lev•els do not c:.:ecet1 tf1e l:iniit.-:o. However, ricir.hct of these al lowfu1ces is iue<li'JlOl'ated in the co1mervatlve cnlcufatfon formutas i11 the FCC Office of E:nginei'.!!dng 11.ncl Tedmology Bulletin No. 65 (A11gi.:1sl 199"?} for pmjecting field. levels. Eiarm:n.eH &. Bdison has buj[c thol!ie fon:tnilas iuto ~i proprfotary program tlmt c:alc:ulatl.'.ls., a• eadl l.ocation cm mi riL'bilr.a1y 1'eC~angular grid, th~ !Otal c;1qx'lt:lcd 'µ{IWCr <lcnst~y from any nmnber of individual 1·.adfo immces .. The program uHow.s for tlm d'Cscriptfon oftn.iHdings and un.cvoD lcuain, if required to obt~1Ln mon.~ a-vcurnte prnj~Hons. ··: \.,{•;. !·;:i HAMMJ11T .&: UIJISON, INC. ::f·:t\':·,"1-:.1 COhlif)t:nw,; 1•Ncc1v111r.iis I i .r~;:,L1i.f ::t#iN1%\}J('J$.f'tl FGC 01tid~Hr.;1roa 1•·igrni: I Asses.sment by Calculmion of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guldelh1&s The U. ~i Crmgr~ss roqulred { 1996 Tet~com Act) the J1c<lcrnl Comrmm.ic~1U0ns Commission (' f'CC') to adopt a nationwide htm;.i.m exposure standard ta cnm,1111; th;ii;t its lic~i;:s do not. cuimdNtivcly, have ~ si.gnifie>ant rmpact on the envlromnl}nt. The maximum permissible cxpoouro Umit:s a<lQPlcd by tbc FCC (.see Flgure l) apply for contintmus ex.posures from ail wure.es and me inlcru;:k.xl to prnvidc a prudent lUl;!:rgill 1pf1;:;1foly foniJl £.:ICrBOll~, rr;:~rdfc&J!. (If ~Lg'¥, gender, litzC, 01" hc!.!ilfh. Hlgbcr k:wc!s !lf'C al[py,•cd for short p¢rio.i;I.~ or time, sitcb Lhat cotal expo~.m.re 1eveb;; a'i.1erngeil rwci· six 01· tlih·ry rnimHe.s 1 for oi.::cup~tkmal or pubfo:: sc:tLings, n:1i1pecti vel)'; dir1 uoL excoocl the Umim. NearFl&ld PrC!lHctfon methods llnvc been developed for. the near fie.kl zone of panel (directfomll) ;and \Vhlp (omnidit1Cctfomd) antennas, l:!ti':Pical at wireless telecommtmkations haE>e srati01:is 1 as \.,.•ell as dhih (apern.m:) a:ntcnruw, typk:a.H;r• u:;;;cd for microwl!lvc faocs. The autieun!l patterns are ncH fnUy formed :in Llle ne01· field at these artr.erm11s, aild the FCC Office of Engineering and 1'oohno1ogy Bulletin No. 6:5 (Angnst l 997) gh't'L5 Rnit:able ronrm:las tor cai.culR£1ng power dr.:msity withtl'l ~mch zon~ .. n l !!..' ..i , S 180 OJ x pnet -mWx -i. ror ~. pane or w11·1p ante1:um1 lJiO'i.Wr uerimty . "' --M -----, m · · 1t:m .. , 19'8 w n. x:D x h • ..II , s 0 _1 X 16X1j1 X: P n,:l • ,...,'JIU, .1 lillld fO.t' .fU.1 JJ:perti;J.t'J;: £"1.nte1:1;oet.1 ml•;!o;.,1.li!Jf'.n 1'.l'-OWer 1,.1ett6tl;j' max "' · . :1(:.X h 1 , Jj'.J um /Cl'.l1 , where 6:Bw = h~1lf-1:MJwer bi.::lilmw[dth of ihe i:l~~te1111.nr in degte.(!;9, nnd Pnet = net po\ver input to the anremia; in wahts, D = dist.i.mce from 1;mrenna, iJJ melers~ h = ape.ri11re height otche antennn; in 1I1:etmj and t~ = a1)et'lme efffoje11cy (unit1e-.ss~ &yplcaU.y 0.5~~18). The f:nc~or of 0, 1 in tlic numertl!OOIB -conveti:5 h.1 th~ deslr~d unilS of J;:-ttW¢1' \1¢1"1.&ity. Far f lel'.d. OET~65 gives lhi~ fo1muh11 fc1r calcul.1.ting powCiI d.i::tll!!Jty in thir; fif1r field of Qti fruJivid.uAI RF &:Otrrce: .1 , S 2_56 x I .64 x l 00 x RFF2 x: ERP , mW ... 2 11owe;r (.eris1 Ly ._ = 4 , m · lcrn , xio< where. ERP = tC>11ll1 ERP (lllH pol:!l:ri:lfJ.li~lml), iii kflc.w.a.Em, RFF = relative field factor a~ th11 direction ~:o the acnml point of ~lc:ulatlon~ :n.nrl D = dis.tancfl fr.0111 the cttnrer of rndiatton oo the ~int of caktdition, in meters. The fa:clor of 2.:M accounts fur the increase in power density due m gmn11d rnflcclt{m~ as.s1J1m:ing n rn11ecHon Ci"te:f:lkkmJ oft .6 fl ,6 x l .6 = 2.56). The factor .of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole reh1iei·1,1e to m1 isof:n:.ipic l'.adillE<ir. The factor or 100 in the null'M~mto.r cm1verl& to the desire.it 1mHlil of 1>ower det1iliLy_ This: fnrtr1\.1I~ l'l~l:i.l been l'ILlilL h1to n proprietary p:rogi·aJtl tltfl.t calculares_J at each locatkm (H1 ~m 1lltbi'l1:flf)' recti:uigttl!'.Lr grid. the lot~] CXf!CCtOO p-OWOi" deinsitj' foom ru1y 1n11nt)ef of itldivh:Juru r~cUflltion ~1Ju.ooes. The pm~rmn ~lsiu allow1:1 for Che de .. i.:r:lptfof'.l cif om1ev1.m terra.h~ h• the vicinlty, Lo ohtai.u rnore accmate: prnjecllomL '.'I .·;t»'; t HAMM:l!.l'"J'&llmsoN,lNC. ')''1\ifJ<l CflNHIJl.'nJ:·...:: llt·KJINli!lJO:::: .: , iM'.::,::i ~~""'1•li:4jlit:z1<:(i M~.1hr,i4'l(l<foJr.r" 'Fl;f.!,'!Ufl 2 Exhibit C ~·· verlztglwireless 2785 Mitchell Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94598 September 23, 2015 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, 10800 Torre Avenue Executive Summary Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in its wireless services in the Cupertino Civic Center and surrounding area. This area is currently served by the existing Verizon Wireless Apple facility one mile to the north of the proposed facility, the De Anza facility 1.1 miles to the west, the Cupertino facility 1. 7 miles to the east in San Jose, and the Blue Hill facility 1.6 miles to the south in San Jose. As a result of the distance of existing facilities and demands on the existing network, there is an absence of in-building coverage in the Cupertino Civic Center and surrounding area as well as a large area that lacks in-vehicle service. Further, accelerated growth in voice and data usage by Verizon Wireless customers has increased the demand on the existing Verizon Wireless network in a manner that compromises network accessibility and reliability. This accelerating growth in demand has led to capacity exhaustion of nearby facilities. The coverage gap and capacity gap described below constitute the "significant gap" Verizon Wireless seeks to serve through a new facility (the "Significant Gap"). To avoid further degradation of Verizon Wireless service in the Cupertino Civic Center and surrounding area, the Significant Gap must be remedied through construction of new infrastructure, in this case, a stealth facility at 10800 Torre Avenue (the "Proposed Facility"). Coverage Gap Verizon Wireless is experiencing a gap in in-building coverage roughly bounded by Lazaneo Drive and Forest Avenue to the north, East Estates Drive to the east, Bollinger Road to the south, and Westacres Drive and Kim Street to the west. This in-building coverage gap is composed of residential areas as well as much of the Heart of the City area with office, commercial and residential complexes. Notably, in-building coverage is lacking in business and residential locations near the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard as well as at the Cupertino Civic Center, location of Cupertino emergency response operations. Additionally, a larger area south of the aforementioned gap extending to Rainbow Drive lacks in-vehicle coverage. The gap area includes heavily-trafficked Bollinger Road with 15, 700 vehicle trips per day as well as portions of Stevens Creek Boulevard with 30,400 vehicle trips per day and De Anza Boulevard with 38,800 vehicle trips per day.1 (Collectively, the "Coverage Gap.") A graphic description of the current Coverage Gap is shown in the map below. The Proposed Facility will provide reliable service coverage to an area of approximately 29.7 square miles and a population of over 61,500 residents. Coverage plot maps 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 poor service areas with marginal coverage unsuitable for in-vehicle use. Current Coverage Map 1 City of Cupertino Public Works Data. Capacity Gap The identified gap area is currently served by the existing Apple facility Alpha (southeast-facing) and Beta (southwest-facing) antenna sectors and the existing De Anza facility Alpha (east-facing) antenna sector. This is apparent in the following best server plot. Best server plots depict the dominant signal provided by each antenna sector of nearby Verizon Wireless facilities. Signal from each sector is depicted in a different color. In the following best server plot, the dominant signal of the Apple facility Alpha (southeast-facing) antenna sector is shown in blue, the Apple facility Beta (southwest-facing) antenna sector is shown in black, and the De Anza facility Alpha (east-facing) antenna sector is shown in light tan. The De Anza facility Alpha antenna sector serves a particularly large area of the Significant Gap, including the Cupertino Civic Center. The Proposed Facility is located such that all three of its antenna sectors will provide coverage to the same area, relieving the Apple facility and De Anza facility antenna sectors serving the area. Best Server Plot At times of high traffic volume, the coverage area of the distant Apple and De Anza facilities shrinks to accommodate an increasing number of mobile devices closer to those facilities. As a result, the Coverage Gap area is actually enlarged 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 existing facility in an effort to 2 Federal Communications Commission Report & Order 14-153, October 17, 2014, if 7. maximize the capacity available; however, as shown in the graphic below, increased demand for voice and data services has already outstripped the capacity of the existing Verizon Wireless facilities serving the gap area. The below graphs show the increased usage over the last year as well as predicted usage through 2016 for the existing antenna sectors serving the Significant Gap. By comparing the trend line of increasing usage (orange line) with the absolute maximum capacity throughput and spectrum availability of this existing facility (red line), Verizon Wireless RF engineering demonstrates that the existing Apple facility Alpha antenna sector reached capacity exhaustion over one year ago and the existing Apple facility Beta antenna sector and the existing De Anza facility Alpha sector are presently reaching capacity exhaustion. Achieving capacity exhaustion severely compromises the Verizon Wireless network serving Cupertino, leading to failed call attempts, poor call quality and slow data speeds (the "Capacity Gap"). 10000- o- 20- 15 _; ::) l:!:I 10 <( o- Capacity Graphs Existing Apple Facility Alpha (Southeast-facing) Antenna Sector I I I I 1/1/2015 7/1/2015 1/1/2016 7/1/2016 I I I I 1/1/2015 7/1/2015 1/1/2016 7/1/2016 8000- b LL 0- 12- 10- 8- -2- Capacity Graphs Existing Apple Facility Beta (Southwest-facing) Antenna Sector I i I l 1/1/2015 7 /1/2015 1/1/2016 7/1/2016 I I I I 1/1/2015 7/1/2015 1/1/2016 7/1/2016 8000- 6 4000 u.. 250- 200- 150- ·50- Conclusion Capacity Graphs Existing De Anza Facility Alpha (East-facing) Antenna Sector I 1/1/2015 I 1/1/2015 I 7/1/2015 I 7/1/2015 I I 1/1/2016 7/1/2016 I I 1/1/2016 7/1/2016 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 facilities. These coverage and capacity demands have resulted in the Significant Gap in Verizon Wireless service in the Cupertino Civic Center and surrounding area. Verizon Wireless must deploy the Proposed Facility 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. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding Verizon Wireless's proposed facility. Respectfull~~bm~, ~g'I RF Engineer • verlZOl)wireless Alternatives Analysis De Anza Stevens Creek Cupertino Civic Center 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino September 24, 2015 Summary of Site Evaluations Conducted by Complete Wireless Consulting Compiled by Mackenzie & Albritton LLP Exhibit D TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3 II. Significant Gap ...................................................................................................................... 3 III. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 3 IV. Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Juniper Hotel ............................................................................................... 5 2. Office Building (Cupertino City Center Buildings) ................................... 6 3. Seagate Building ......................................................................................... 7 4. SVF City Center Building 1 ........................................................................ 8 5. SVF City Center Building 2 ........................................................................ 9 6. I&G Direct Real Estate ............................................................................. 10 7. Trend Micro .............................................................................................. 11 8. Civic Center (Proposed Facility) .............................................................. 13 9. Civic Center Quad Plaza ........................................................................... 15 10. Civic Center Library Field ........................................................................ 16 11. Church Assembly in Cupertino ................................................................. 17 12. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ............................................. 19 13. Wilson Park ............................................................................................... 20 14. Cupertino City Center Apartments ........................................................... 22 15. Montebello Building ................................................................................. 23 16. Biltmore Apartments ................................................................................. 24 17. Lamonico Property ................................................................................... 25 18. Small Cell Network .................................................................................. 26 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 27 Map of Alternatives 2 I. Executive Summary Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in service in the Cupertino Civic Center and surrounding area of Cupertino. Based on a review of 18 alternatives as set forth in the following analysis, Verizon Wireless believes that placement of a stealth trccpole at a non- residential location (thli! "Proposed Facility") constitutes the least intrusive alternative to provide service to the identified gap based on the values expressed in the Cupertino Municipal Code (the "Code") and Wireless Facilities Master Plan (the "Master Plan"). II. Significant Gap There is a significant gap in Verizon Wireless in-building service coverage in the Civic Center and surrounding area of Cupertino as well as additional areas in the vicinity lacking in- vehicle service. Further, the accelerating increase in the use of voice and data wireless services has led to capacity exhaustion of the existing Verizon Wireless network in the area, compromising network accessibility, reliability and data speeds. The antenna sectors of the existing Verizon Wireless facilities serving much of the gap area have reached capacity exhaustion, and Verizon Wireless must place an additional facility in the Civic Center area in order to provide reliable voice and data services to the area. The identified "significant gap" in network coverage is more fully described in the Statement of Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency Engineer Brian Ung (the "Significant Gap"). III. Methodology Once a significant gap has been determined, Verizon Wireless seeks to identify a location and design that will provide required coverage through the "least intrusive means" based upon the values expressed by local regulations. 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 of any existing structures, available electrical and telephone utilities, access, available space for required equipment and other critical factors such as a willing landlord in completing its site analysis. Wherever feasible, Verizon Wireless seeks to deploy camouflaged or stealth wireless facilities to minimize visual impacts to surrounding properties." Under the Master Plan, the most preferred location for wireless facilities is "existing structures in non-residential areas," followed by new structures in non-residential areas. Less favored are 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). IV. Analysis Per the guidance of the Master Plan, Verizon Wireless first investigated non-residential locations in the vicinity of the Significant Gap, seeking tall existing structures that could elevate antennas and identifying seven such structures, none of which proved feasible due to unwilling or inaccessible landlords or inadequate radio frequency propagation. Verizon Wireless next sought to place a new facility at a non-residential location, identifying three locations at the Civic 3 Center, two church locations and a location at a public park suggested by the appellant of the Proposed Facility. One of the Civic Center locations proved able to provide excellent radio frequency propagation with minimal visual impacts and is the location favored at a July 16, 2013 City Council study session. Verizon Wireless also reviewed four additional locations in the vicinity of the Significant Gap that proved infeasible due to residential zoning or residential uses. Lastly, Verizon Wireless considered a network of small cells in the right-of-way. The results of this analysis are as follows: 4 Existing Structures in Non-Residential Areas Verizon Wireless first investigated the vicinity of the Significant Gap for tall stmctures in non-residential areas, and identified the following seven locations. 1. Juniper Hotel Address: 10500 South De Anza Boulevard Elevation: 240 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a facility at this hotel (formerly the Cypress Hotel) located 0.25 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet greater in elevation. This nine-story building provides sufficient height for antennas to serve the Significant Gap. Previously, Verizon Wireless was unable to secure a lease in 2011 from the prior property owner and abandoned this location. The property has recently changed hands. A Verizon Wireless representative has communicated with, but has not secured, a lease with the new owner. Further investigation of available space, utilities and access will need to be completed, as well as negotiation of a new lease, before this alternative would be feasible for a Verizon Wireless facility. 5 2. Office Building (Cupertino City Center Buildings) Address: 20450 Stevens Creek Boulevard Elevation: 240 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a facility at this office building located 0.25 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet greater in elevation. A Verizon Wireless representative contacted the prior building owner regarding a proposal for a wireless facility on this building, but received no response. Follow-up efforts to communicate with the current building owner have been unsuccessful. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 6 3. Seagate Building Address: 10200 South De Anza Boulevard Elevation: 240 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a facility at this office building located 0.25 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet greater in elevation. A Verizon Wireless representative contacted the building owner, but the building owner was unwilling to enter into a lease with Verizon Wireless due to security concerns. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 7 4. SVF City Center Building 1 Address: 20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a facility at this four-story commercial building located 0.20 miles north of the Proposed Facility at an equivalent elevation. A Verizon Wireless representative contacted the building owner regarding placement of a wireless facility on the building but received no response. Follow-up efforts to communicate with the current building owner have been unsuccessful. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 8 5. SVF City Center Building 2 Address: 20330 Stevens Creek Boulevard Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a facility at this four-story commercial building located 0.20 miles north of the Proposed Facility at an equivalent elevation. A Verizon Wireless representative contacted the building owner regarding placement of a wireless facility on the building but received no response. Follow-up efforts to communicate with the current building owner have been unsuccessful. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 9 6. I&G Direct Real Estate Address: 10201 Torre Avenue Elevation: 23 5 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a facility at this commercial building located 0.1 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility and 10 feet higher in elevation. A Verizon Wireless representative contacted the building owner regarding placement of a wireless facility on the building but received no response. Follow-up efforts to communicate with the current building owner have been unsuccessful. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 10 7. Trend Micro Address: 10101 North De Anza Boulvard Elevation: 240 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a facility at this commercial building located 0.45 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet higher in elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers determined that a facility at this location would cause interference with Verizon Wireless's existing facility at the Apple Campus one-half mile north of this location. Additionally, a rooftop facility at this location could not provide service to the gap area. As shown in the coverage map below, such a facility would duplicate existing coverage, would not provide needed in-building coverage to the eastern and southern portion of the gap area and would not provide in-vehicle service to the southern portion of the gap area. Due to RF interference concerns and insufficient radio frequency propagation, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 11 Coverage Provided by a Facility at Trend Micro 10101 North De Anza Boulevard 12 New Structures in Non-Residential Areas Identifying no feasible opportunities for mounting its facility on an existing structure in a non-residential area, Verizon Wireless next explored placement of a new structure at a non- residential location with sufficient ground space, and identified the following six locations. 8. Civic Center (Proposed Facility) Address: 10800 Torre Avenue Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: P-BA (Public Building) Verizon Wireless proposes to mount six panel antennas on a new stealth treepole structure next to a parking lot at the northeast corner of the Cupertino Civic Center. This location was favored at a July 16, 2013 City Council study session. The treepole is designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree, with numerous arced branches supporting faux foliage to disguise the antennas, which will be covered with leaf socks for further concealment. The treepole will allow for future collocation by another wireless carrier, as encouraged in the Master Plan. The treepole will be placed within an approximately 1,420 square foot equipment area along with radio equipment and a generator for emergency use. The equipment area will be surrounded by a 10.5 foot wood slat fence. Numerous existing trees of varying type and height will surround the treepole on the Civic Center property and in the Rodrigues A venue right-of-way, and Verizon Wireless will plant new shrubs and small trees to screen the equipment area. As shown in the following coverage and best server plot maps, antennas at this location provide excellent radio frequency propagation to serve the Significant Gap in coverage and will provide capacity relief for the Verizon Wireless network in Cupertino. This is Verizon Wireless's preferred alternative for the Proposed Facility. 13 Session-Santa...Oa,a_ot 1315 Usei:bung Tue Sep2216:23.592013' 51ate Plane -CWifoolia 1 Datum' N.A.003 Center Lat: 'ifl-tS-46.10 N Genter ton: 122.02~26 .09 W Cells li:lf:C-eJ!Na.me ~,=--~~~- P1 ima Md Qmlldenlfal Coverage Provided by Facility at Cupertino Civic Center 10800 Torre Avenue 14 9. Civic Center Quad Plaza Address: 10800 Torre Avenue Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: P-BA Public Building Verizon Wireless reviewed this location near City Hall and the Library at the Civic Center plaza on Torre A venue, approximately 400 feet southwest of the Proposed Facility. The lower cover of existing small trees in this highly-trafficked area of the Civic Center does not lend itself to blending or camouflaging of a treepole facility, and a facility at this location would create more visual impacts than the Proposed Facility which is situated next to taller varied trees in a corner of the Civic Center property with much less activity. This plaza location was not favored at the July 16, 2013 City Council study session due to the high level of activity. Due to unfavorable visual impacts, this location is not a less intrusive alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 15 10. Civic Center Library Field Address: 10800 Torre Avenue Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: P-BA Public Building Verizon Wireless reviewed this sports field at the Civic Center located approximately 800 feet south of the Proposed Facility. The lower cover of existing small trees surrounding this high-activity area of the Civic Center does not lend itself to blending or camouflaging of a treepole facility, and a facility at this location would create more visual impacts than the Proposed Facility which is situated next to taller varied trees in a comer of the Civic Center property with much less activity. This sports field location was not favored at the July 16, 2013 City Council study session due to the high level of activity. Due to unfavorable visual impacts, this location is not a less intrusive alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 16 11. Church Assembly in Cupertino Address: 20075 Bollinger Road Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: BQ -Quasi-Public Building Verizon Wireless reviewed this location 0.6 miles southeast of the Proposed Facility at a similar elevation. This location is on the southern fringe of the Significant Gap area. Verizon Wireless RF engineers reviewed this location and determined that with antennas placed in a stealth structure of comparable height to that of the Proposed Facility, a facility at this location could not provide sufficient service to the gap area. As shown in the coverage map below, a facility at this location would not provide needed in-building coverage to the northern and western portions of the gap area. Notably, a facility at this location would not provide in- building coverage to the area near the Cupertino Civic Center and the area near the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Further, as shown in the best server plot below, a facility at this location would not provide needed capacity offload to exhausted sectors of existing Verizon Wireless facilities. Due to the inability to adequately serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 17 8anerlftLtoad •Clltl-ect0r_road LTEASRP 7C!.1 Ck ASAP(dBITl,l • :>=·SO • > ... -oo • ;:>=.:jOI) ~oo; dea11Za_steven5...Cfeek...a.ppeal t<r~r~ ff33:56 2015 StetePlaru?-Catifomia1 Datum. UA003 Centerlat:37-18--.t5-28N cem~rl01l:122-024!431W c ... lbl:~Name Coverage Provided by a Facility at Church Assembly of Cupertino 20075 Bollinger Road 18 / 12. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Address: 20125 Bollinger Road Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: BQ-Quasi-Public Building Verizon Wireless reviewed this location at the Civic Center located 0.6 miles southeast of the Proposed Facility at a similar elevation. Verizon Wireless learned that it is the national policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints not to entertain siting of wireless facilities on church property. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible location for Verizon Wireless's facility. 19 13. Wilson Park Address: 19784 Wintergreen Drive Elevation: 210 feet Zoning: PR -Public Park Verizon Wireless reviewed this public park, suggested by the appellant of the Proposed Facility, located 0.5 miles east of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet lower in elevation. This location is located at the eastern fringe of the Significant Gap area. Verizon Wireless RF engineers reviewed this location and determined that with antennas placed in a stealth structure of comparable height to that of the Proposed Facility, a facility at this location could not provide service to the gap area. As shown in the coverage map below, a facility at this location would not provide needed in-building coverage to the northern and western portions of the gap area. Notably, a facility at this location would not provide in-building coverage to the area near the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Further, as shown below, a facility at this location would not provide needed capacity offload to exhausted sectors of the existing Verizon Wireless Apple facility. Due to the inability to adequately serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 20 Se:lSion. deanz.a_stevens_aeek...11.0P"'...a! ~~~~ 17:45.49 2015 Stnte Ptane. CaJifornm 1 Oarum. NAD6l Centl'!r lat 37· 18-45.?.Jl: N Ccnte1 l.Dn: 122·M-2437W SeCl'.OfS Coverage Provided by a Facility at Wilson Park 19784 Wintergreen Drive 21 Residential Areas In reviewing the vicinity of the Significant Gap for tall buildings and raw land locations with available space for a wireless facility, Verizon Wireless investigated the following four locations but determined that residential zoning or residential uses precludes placement of a wireless facility under the Code or that the residential location is disfavored under the Master Plan. In addition, Verizon Wireless reviewed a network of small cells to serve the Significant Gap. 14. Cupertino City Center Apartments Address: 20350 Stevens Creek Boulevard Elevation: 250 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed this five-story apartment building located 0.15 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet greater in elevation. As residential areas are less favored for placement of wireless facilities under the Master Plan, this is not a less intrusive alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 22 15. Montebello Building Address: 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard Elevation: 235 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed this eight-story apartment building located 0.25 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility and 10 feet greater in elevation. As residential areas are less favored for placement of wireless facilities under the Master Plan, this is not a less intrusive alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 23 16. Biltmore Apartments Address: 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard Elevation: 210 feet Zoning: Heart of the City-CG, OP, Res Verizon Wireless reviewed this new three-story apartment complex located 0.3 miles northeast of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet lower in elevation. As residential areas are less favored for placement of wireless facilities under the Master Plan, this is not a less intrusive alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 24 17. Lamonico Property Address: 20445 Bollinger Road (approximate) Elevation: 255 feet Zoning: R3 -Residental Verizon Wireless reviewed this undeveloped parcel located 0.5 miles south of the Proposed Facility and 30 feet greater in elevation. As wireless facilities are not allowed in residential districts under the Code, this is not a feasible alternative for Verizon Wireless's facility. 25 18. Small Cell Network Address: Various Elevation: Various Zoning: Verious Verizon Wireless considered placement of new small facilities in the right-of-way to serve the Significant Gap area. Such small facilities have a much smaller coverage footprint than the Proposed Facility, and Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Brian Ung determined that 12 such small facilities evenly distributed across the breadth of the Significant Gap would be required to achieve the coverage and network capacity offload provided by the Proposed Facility. Utilities are placed underground in most streets within the area of the Significant Gap, eliminating opportunities to place small facilities where they are needed. Given the size of the Significant Gap and limited opportunities for placement of small wireless facilities, placement of 12 such facilities is neither a feasible nor less intrusive alternative to serve this Significant Gap. 26 Conclusion Verizon Wireless has investigated 18 alternatives for the placement of its wireless facility to serve a Significant Gap in coverage in the Civic Center and surrounding area of Cupertino. Based upon the preferences identified in the Cupertino Municipal Code and Wireless Master Plan, the Proposed Facility, placing a stealth treepole on a non-residential location, clearly constitutes the least intrusive location for Verizon Wireless's facility under the values expressed by City of Cupertino regulations. 27 ,...---·-------------- Verizon Wireless De Anza Stevens Creek Cupertino Locations of Sites Proposed and Alternatives CUPERTINO For Additional Information: NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The City of Cupertino's Community Development Department has recieved an application for a permit at this property I PROTECT DESCRIPTION: Development Permit (DP-2014-07) and Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-10) to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of six panel antennas mounted on an 80 ft. tall treepole designed for collocation, and an enclosed base equipment station and emergency power generator near City Hall. Height Exception (EXC-2014-12) to allow six panel antennas to be mounted at a height of 66 feet, where 55 feet is allowed, on an 80 foot tall treepole for a personal wireless service APPLICANT: PUBLIC HEARING: 369-31-033 Jenny Blocker (Verizon Wireless) Planning Commission -Tuesday, August 25, 2015 *, 6:45 p.m@Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue Next to Cupertino Library * Agenda is subject to change. Please contact the Planning Deparbnent or the City's website at www.cupertino.org/agenda to confirm the hearing/meeting date 181 Submit comments at the City of Cupertino's website at www.cupertino.org/planning or by email at: planning@cupertino.org. 181 Contact Colin Jung in the Planning Division at ( 408) 777-4843 or by email at colinj@cupertino.org. 181 Visit the Planning Department Monday-Thursday: 7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., and Friday: 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m., at: City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue Tl1e Cupertino Courier c/o Bay Area News 'Group 4 N. 2nd Street, Suite 800 San Jose, CA 95113 2083307 CUPERTINO,CITY OF ·GRACE SCHMIDT 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 PROOF OF PUBLICATION State of California County of Santa Clara I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not a party to or interested in -the above entitled matter. I am the Legal Advertising Clerk -of the printer and publisher vf the Cupertino Courier, a newspaper published in ·the English language in the City of.Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California. I declare that the Cupertino Courier is a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California as determined by court decree dated November 13, 1956, Case Number 100637. Said decree states that the Cupertino Courier is adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara and State of.California. Said order has not been revoked. I liE1clare ti 1<:h tiH:l 1wti1,,e, ot which the annexed is a pr'1nted copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 8/14/2015 t certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct. Dated: August 17, 2015 PubUc Notioe~ r.9P312·07/2B/15 Legal No. 0005547822 lEGAL NOTICE ·OF REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA on August 25, Wl5, at ·<;:45 p.m. In the Counc)I Chambers of tile Cupertino Community Hall, '100)50 Torre Avenue Is hereby given. Tlie following appllcatlon(s) for action by the Planning Com· mlssion will lie heard: 1. Application No.(s). ASA•2014·10, DP•2014•07, EXC·2014-12 Appl leant: Jenny Blocker (Verlzon/Clvtc center) Location: 10300 Torre Ave Architectural and Site Approval for the design of "' personal wireless. service faclllty consist· Ing of611anelantennas mounted on a tree pole deslgneil for collocation and an enclo.sed :t\ase equlpment station a."\d emergency power gen· era tot; Development Permit to alfow a ·personal wire· Jess service facillty consisting of 6 an• tenna~ mounted OJI an BO-foot tall tr de· .slgned for eol!oc11tlo11 and an enclose ase equlpment station and emergency power gen• eratori Height -!!xception to allow six panel 'antennas to tie motinted at a height of 66 fllet on an 80· fOQt tall tree pole, Yihere 5!i :teet Is allowed ·fur a wireless communications facility at Cupertino City Hall Environmental Recommendalioni C<ltegoricalfy Exempt All environmental documents for the descrl· bed applications are available for publlc re• view at the Cupertino communfty Develop· ment Department, HlJOO Torre Avenue, Cupertino, ·Callfomla, 95014. If you challenge the actlon of the Planning Comrnlsslon In court, you may .be 'limlted to raising onlythose Issues you or somaooe else raised atthe plih· lie hQarlng descrll!ed In this notice, or In writ• ten correspondence delivered to the. City of Cupertino ati he publlc hearing. Please note ·t commission policy Is to allow an ap cant and groups to speak for 10 minutes an lncllvlduals to speak for J minutes. Gary Chao flubllcatfon Dale: Assrnt. Dir. Of August 14, 1.015 Community Development, City of Cupertino cu #55478221 Auaust 14, 2.015