MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14 FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

Transcription

1 Council Agenda: Item No.: i»» MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14 FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE 415/ FACSIMILE 415/ June 3,2016 VIA City Council City of San Jose 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, California Re: Appeal of Verizon Wireless Application CP Telecommunications Facility, 6164 Bollinger Road City Council Agenda. June Dear Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Herrera and Councilmembers: We write on behalf of our client Verizon Wireless to urge you to follow the recommendation of Planning Division Staff and uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of a wireless facility disguised as a pine tree (the "Approved Facility"). The appeal filed by Jingzhao Ou ("Appellant") provides no substantial evidence to warrant denying the application and must be rejected. The Approved Facility complies with the San Jose Code of Ordinances (the "Code") and Council Policy 6-20 regarding wireless facilities (the "Policy"), and it meets all findings for issuance of a conditional use permit. Further, as the Approved Facility represents the least intrusive means to fill a significant gap in Verizon Wireless service in the vicinity, denial of Verizon Wireless's application would violate the federal Telecommunications Act. We urge you to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval. I. The Project The Approved Facility has been thoughtfully designed to minimize any impact on the adjacent community. Verizon Wireless proposes to place its antennas on a 45 foot tower disguised as a pine tree placed near four existing pine trees of similar or greater height. Antennas will be concealed within faux foliage and branches, and branches will extend an additional five feet above the tower to 50 feet, providing a realistic tapered appearance. Antennas will be covered with pine needle socks for further concealment. The treepole will be placed within an approximately 500 square foot equipment area that will also contain radio cabinets and a generator to provide continued service in case of emergency. The equipment area will be surrounded by an eight foot concrete block wall textured and painted to match a proposed waste enclosure on the property. Verizon Wireless will plant bushes immediately north of the equipment area that match existing landscaping on the property.

2 San Jose City Council June 3,2016 Page 2 of 8 To demonstrate its insignificant visual impact, we have attached photosimulations of the Approved Facility as Exhibit A. A report prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, attached as Exhibit B (the "H&E RF Study"), confirms that the Approved Facility will operate within Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") radio-frequency ("RF") exposure guidelines. Another report prepared by the same firm, attached as Exhibit C (the "H&E Noise Study"), confirms that the Approved Facility will comply with the City's noise standards. II. The Approved Facility Complies with All Code and Policy Requirements and Meets All Findings for Issuance of a Use Permit. As confirmed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, the Approved Facility complies with all applicable requirements of the Code and Policy and meets all findings for issuance of a conditional use permit. The 50-foot tower complies with the height limit of the CN-Commercial Neighborhood zone under Code At 57 feet from the closest property line, the Approved Facility complies with setback requirements of both Code Chapter and Policy 3(c). Designed to resemble a pine tree placed next to four established pine trees of similar or greater height, the Approved Facility complies with Policy 3(a) encouraging use of stealth designs and screening trees to minimize public visibility. Staff have also confirmed that the Approved Facility poses no detriment to peace, health, safety or welfare and does not impair the utility or value of nearby property, consistent with the conditional use permit finding of Code (A)(1). As the subject property is 1.85 acres, it is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the Approved Facility which occupies only 500 square feet and meets all height and setback requirements, satisfying the finding of Code (A)(2). The Approved Facility will generate no traffic other than infrequent maintenance visits and is served by available utilities, meeting the finding of Code (A)(3). The Approved Facility is also consistent with Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan requirements for the neighborhood/community commercial designation, consistent with the finding of Code (A)(4). Notably, the Approved Facility fulfils General Plan Telecommunications Goal IN-6 and Telecommunications Policy IN-6.1 as it provides an important public benefit through improved communications for residents, visitors and emergency response personnel. Because the Approved Facility meets all findings for approval, the Council should deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's approval. 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 San Jose. The siting of wireless communications facilities ("WCFs"), including the one at issue here, is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act (the "TCA"). While the TCA reserves to local governments traditional land use control over the siting, placement and modification of

3 San Jose City Council June 3,2016 Page 3 of 8 WCFs, it places certain restrictions on such local regulation. The following restrictions are relevant here: 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 cannot regulate the placement, construction, or modification of WCFs on the basis of their RF emissions so long as those emissions are below the limits set by the FCC (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)); and Local regulation or decisions 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 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 based on requirements set forth in the local code and supported by evidence in the record. (See Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005) [denial of application must be "authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence"].) I While a local government may regulate the placement of WCFs based on aesthetics, mere 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 ofrancho 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 and Policy. Among other evidence, photosimulations demonstrate the minimal visual impacts of the disguised treepole placed among established trees that provide ample screening. The H&E RF Study confirms that emissions from the Approved Facility will comply with FCC guidelines, and the H&E Noise Study confirms compliance with noise standards of Code In contrast, Appellant has provided no evidence - let alone the substantial evidence required by federal law - to support denial of the Approved Facility. We respond briefly below to the points raised in the appeal, which fall into four general categories. As we will explain, none are supported by substantial evidence.

4 San Jose City Council June 3,2016 Page 4 of 8 A. The Alleged Impacts of RF Emissions Have No Bearing on the City's Decision. Appellant's first and sixth grounds for appeal raise unfounded concerns over the health effects of RF emissions and the related concern over decline in property values. This issue is entirely preempted by federal law. As noted above, the TCA expressly prohibits local governments from considering any alleged health or environmental effects of RF emissions so long as a proposed wireless facility complies with FCC limits on such emissions. Here, there is no dispute that the Approved Facility will comply with those limits, as the H&E RF Study confirms. Indeed, the study concludes that the maximum exposure anywhere accessible at ground level will be only 3.9% - or 25 times below - the FCC public limit and at any nearby residence will be only 1.2% - or 83 times below - the public limit. Thus, there is no dispute that federal preemption applies here. 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 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 comply with FCC guidelines, neither health concerns nor any proxy for health concerns can justify denial of the Approved Facility. In short, these grounds for the appeal must be rejected. B. The City Will Ensure the Approved Facility Complies with Building and Safety Codes. Appellant's second and third grounds for appeal express an alarmist, unfounded concern over earthquakes and explosion, but the Approved Facility is engineered to rigorous structural and safety standards. Structural analysis reports will be submitted as part of a building permit application. The City Building Division will review and inspect the facility to ensure compliance with all building and safety codes prior to operation. The generator will be reviewed by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health for compliance with safety regulations. And, will also comply with all requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This ground for appeal does not raise any considerations relevant to zoning requirements of the Code and must be rejected. C. Federal Courts Have Determined That Marketing and Sales Maps Are Irrelevant to The Engineering and Design of Wireless Networks. Appellant's fourth ground for appeal challenges the need for the Approved Facility, referring to a marketing map on Verizon Wireless's website. However, federal

5 San Jose City Council June 3,2016 Page 5 of 8 courts have determined that maps used by a wireless provider for purposes of marketing their services are unrelated to and have no bearing on the validity of mapping tools used by radio frequency engineers. See T-Mobile West Corporation v. City of Huntington Beach WL , at *12 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ("PCC Maps are not system engineering or design tools"). While the Verizon Wireless online Coverage Locator maps show that Verizon Wireless provides outdoor coverage in most of the area in question, these generic maps do not reflect the more precise mapping of in-building and in-vehicle coverage used to improve network performance. The coverage maps used by Verizon Wireless engineers to design its network are further refined by actual performance tests to accurately measure existing levels of service in the field. In contrast, the Coverage Locator maps clearly indicate that they are a rough approximation of service, as reflected in the following disclaimer: These maps are not a guarantee of coverage and contain areas of no service, and are a general prediction of where rates apply based on our internal data. Wireless service is subject to network and transmission limitations, including cell site unavailability, particularly near boundaries and in remote areas. Customer equipment, weather, topography and other environmental considerations associated with radio technology also affect service and service may vary significantly within buildings. Some information on service outside the Verizon Wireless proprietary network, and we can not vouch for its accuracy. 1 Verizon Wireless engineers have provided substantial evidence of the need for the Approved Facility in the Cell Site Necessity Case referenced below. This ground for appeal is not based on substantial evidence and must be rejected. D. The Approved Facility Was Noticed in Compliance with Code Requirements.. Appellant's fifth ground for appeal pertains to public notice for the Planning Commission hearing, but Appellant acknowledges that residents within 500 feet were notified and merely wishes that residents at a greater distance were noticed. The Staff Report to the Planning Commission verifies that Staff provided mailed notice to residents of the May 4, 2016, Planning Commission hearing as required by Council Policy 6-30 regarding public outreach, and Verizon Wireless provided posted notice of the application. Public notice materials are shown in Exhibit D. This ground for appeal does not allege any violation of Code requirements and must be rejected. V. Approval is Required in Order to Avoid Unlawful Prohibition of Service. 1 http ://ww w.verizonwireless.com/landingpages/better-matters/

6 San Jose City Council June 3,2016 Page 6 of 8 A local government's denial of a permit for a wireless facility violates the "effective prohibition" clause of the TCA if the wireless provider can show two things: (1) that it has a "significant gap" in service; and (2) that 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 th Cir. 2009). If a provider proves both elements, the local government must approve the facility, even if there is substantial evidence to deny the permit under local land use provisions. This is because the provider has met the requirements for federal preemption; 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. To avoid such preemption, the local government must show that another alternative is available, technologically feasible, and less intrusive than the proposed facility. T- Mobile v. Anacortes, 572 F.3d at A. Verizon Wireless Has Demonstrated a Significant Gap in Service. Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in service in the vicinity of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue. The significant gap is described in the Cell Site Necessity Case prepared by Verizon Wireless RF engineer Brian Ung attached as Exhibit E (the "RF Engineer's Statement"). As shown through coverage maps and capacity graphics included in the RF Engineer's Statement, there is a significant gap in Verizon Wireless coverage and capacity in the vicinity and proposed facility. This affects local residents and visitors as well as communication with emergency response personnel. B. The Approved Facility is the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. In an effort to address the significant gap, Verizon Wireless reviewed the area near Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue determined by RF engineers to be suitable for a new facility to serve the gap. The area is primarily residential, but Verizon Wireless evaluated four non-residential locations, as follows: West Valley Presbyterian Church, 6191 Bollinger Road, Cupertino This location was determined to be unsuitable due to structural impediments of a steeply sloped roof and lack of ground space for equipment. Hyde Middle School, Bollinger Road, Cupertino - The Cupertino School District will not allow a new wireless facility at this school. Orchard Shopping Center, 6150 Bollinger Road - Verizon Wireless considered rooftop designs at Orchard Shopping Center that could potentially be approved with a permit adjustment. There are existing wireless carriers at this location. When Verizon Wireless reviewed designs with Planning Division Staff in 2014, Staff was not supportive due to visual impacts the of rooftop projections required to elevate antennas to a sufficient height to serve the significant gap.

7 San Jose City Council June 3,2016 Page 7 of 8 Safeway, 6150 Bollinger Road - Safeway was not willing to entertain a rooftop facility at this location following its merger with Albertsons. In addition, a 24' height of the Safeway building is inadequate to provide the single propagation required by Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless's review of alternatives confirms that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive 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 In this case, there is no feasible location that would be less intrusive. In short, Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in service and has shown that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive means to address it, based on the values expressed in the Code and Policy. 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. Conclusion Verizon Wireless has worked diligently to identify the ideal location and design for a camouflaged wireless facility to serve the vicinity of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue. The Approved Facility is consistent with all Code and Policy requirements, and it meets all findings for issuance of a conditional use permit. It also represents the least intrusive means to address a significant gap in Verizon Wireless service. Bringing improved Verizon Wireless service to this area is essential to reliable communications with emergency services providers, and to the health, safety, and welfare of residents and visitors in the surrounding community. We strongly encourage you to affirm the Planning Commission's approval and deny the appeal. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Richard Doyle, Esq. Tracy Tarn Schedule of Exhibits Exhibit A: Photosimulations

8 San Jose City Council June 3,2016 Page 8 of 8 Exhibit B: H&E RE Study Exhibit C: H&E Noise Study Exhibit D: Public Notice Materials Exhibit E: RF Engineer's Statement

9 Exhibit A 6164 Bollinger Road 3/18/16 San Jose, CA Applied Imagination 51091A-0500

10 Existing proposed treepole verifotlwireless. 3/18/16 Bollinger & Miller 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, CA Site# Looking Ea$t from Miller Avenue ~ View 11 AppliedImagination 510'

11 verfconwiretess _ 3/18/16 Bollinger & Miller Site# Looking North from Hyde Avenue 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, CA View #2 Applied Imagination

12 Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No "Bollinger and Miller") 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, California Exhibit B Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., 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 "Bollinger and Miller") proposed to be located at 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose, 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 pole, configured to resemble a palm tree, to be sited at 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose. The proposed operation will 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) 5-80 GHz 5.00 mw/cm mw/cm 2 WiFi (and unlicensed uses) BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 MHz WCS (Wireless Communication) 2, AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2, PCS (Personal Communication) 1, Cellular SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) MHz [most restrictive frequency range] 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. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO R0NR.2 Page 1 of 4

13 Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No "Bollinger and Miller") 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, 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 and 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 Figure 2 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 Infinigy, dated March 11, 2016, it is proposed to install nine Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B directional panel antennas on a new 45-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a pine tree, to be sited in the parking lot behind the retail center located at 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose. The antennas would employ no downtilt, would be mounted at an effective height of about 42 feet above ground, and would be oriented in groups of three toward 20 T, 135 T, and 260 T, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 10,070 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 4,210 watts for AWS, 3,840 watts for PCS, and 2,020 watts for 700 MHz service; no operation on cellular frequencies is presently proposed from this site.. Presently located on the retail center building, at a distance of about 275 feet from the Verizon pole, are similar antennas for use by AT&T Mobility, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation is calculated to be mw/cm 2, which is 3.9% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at any nearby building is 4.1% of the public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence* is 1.2% of the public * Located at least 70 feet away, based on photographs from Google Maps. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS R0NR.2 SAN FRANCISCO Page 2 of 4

14 Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No "Bollinger and Miller") 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, California exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels from the proposed operation. Because power density levels in all areas lfom the proposed Verizon operation are calculated to be less than 5% of the applicable FCC limit, it is excluded under FCC Rules (b)(1) Table 1 and (b)(3) from having to consider the effects of other stations at the site or nearby in determining its own compliance with FCC exposure guidelines in publicly accessible areas. No Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting location and height, the Verizon antennas would not be accessible to unauthorized persons, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Verizon will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors receive appropriate training and comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. 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 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose, 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 conditions taken at other operating base stations. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SANFRANCrSCO R0NR.2 Page 3 of 4

15 Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No "Bollinger and Miller") 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, California Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 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. March 21, 2016 William F. Ha; HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO R0NR.2 Page 4 of 4

16 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide 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 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 C , "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: Freauencv / Applicable Range (MHz) Electromagnetic Fields ( f is freauencv of emission in MHz) Electric Field Strength (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (A/m) Equivalent Far-Field Power Density (mw/cm 2 ) /f /f /f /f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ f 2 180/f , Vf 1.59*ff Vf/106 if/238 f/300 f/1500 1, , " <D Tfi ^ 10- > O 8 ^ P-i 1- Occupational Exposure PCS Cell FM 0.1" Public Exposure lo 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 & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO FCC Guidelines Figure 1

17 RFR.CALC 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 = x ^'^x^net, in m W/cm 2, 0 BW ^xd xh, n 0.1 x 16 x r? x P_. t.. w, ~ and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Omax = 5 > m w /cm z, jt x h where 0bw = 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 17 = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically ). 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:,. a 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF 2 xerp. w 9 power density ~, m mw /cm z, 4 x jt x D 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. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO Methodology Figure 2

18 Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No "Bollinger & Miller") 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, California Exhibit C Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Verizon Wireless, a personal telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No "Bollinger & Miller") proposed to be located at 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting sound levels from the installation. Executive Summary Verizon proposes to install a new wireless telecommunications base station, consisting of equipment cabinets, a back-up generator, and antennas on a tall pole, to be sited at 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose. Noise levels from the equipment operations will comply with the City of San Jose limits. Prevailing Standard The City of San Jose sets forth limits on sound levels in its Zoning Ordinance Chapter Part 6 "Performance Standards," in which Table , applying to parcels zoned for commercial use, states the noise limit as 55 dba at any adjacent property zoned for residential use and as 60 dba for any adjacent property zoned for non-residential use. 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: electronic base transceiver stations ("BTS" or "cabinets") that are connected to traditional wired telephone lines, and the antennas that 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 ran 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. the HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. tpnsulumgshjclniers; E9BD Page 1 of3

19 Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No "Bollinger & Miller") 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, California Site & Facility Description Based upon information provided by Verizon, including zoning drawings by Connell Design Group, LLC, dated May 11, 2015, that carrier proposes to install several equipment cabinets and a back-up power generator within a walled compound by the south side of the Orchard Farms Shopping Center, located at 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose. For the purpose of this study, the four equipment cabinets with active cooling fans are assumed to be one CUBE Model SS4C215XC1, one CUBE Model PM63912JF1, and two Ericsson Model RBS6101. A Generac Model SD030 back-up diesel generator, configured with the manufacturer's Level 2A* sound enclosure, is to be installed within the compound, 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. Several directional panel antennas are proposed to be installed on a tall pole within the compound; this portion of the base station is passive, generating no noise. The nearest adjacent property is to the south, at about 60 feet from the compound, and is zoned for residential use. Study Results Information provided by the manufacturers gives the following maximum noise levels from the proposed equipment: Maximum Reference Equipment Noise Level Distance CUBE SS4C215XC dba 1.5 meters CUBE PM63 912JF1 62 dba 1.5 meters Ericsson RBS dba 1 meter Generac SD dba 23 feet The calculated noise level at the nearest adjacent property for the simultaneous operation of all fans in all four cabinets is 45.6 dba, well below the City's 55 dba limit. During the time that the generator is tested, or when it is in full operation during a power outage, the maximum calculated noise level at the nearest property is 54.7 dba, still below the City's limit. * A custom version for Verizon's use. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CpNSULtIN<j El^btNBEitS mkniancistta E9BD Page 2 of 3

20 Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No "Bollinger & Miller") 6164 Bollinger Road San Jose, California 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 6164 Bollinger Road in San Jose, California, will comply with the City's requirements for limiting acoustic noise emission levels. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 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. January 5, 2016 HAMMETT & EDISON, IMC. 03NSULtJNG BMNBERS: ' E9BD Page 3 of 3

21 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 ("L P ") at particularly low or high frequencies. This frequency-sensitive. filter shape, shown in the graph to the right as defined in the o 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 dba 40 dba 50 dba 60 dba 70 dba 80 dba 90 dba library rural background office space conversation car radio traffic corner lawnmower Frequency (Hz) The dba units of measure are referenced to a pressure of 20 ppa (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: Lp - Lk + 20 log(^k/p) p ), where Lp is the sound pressure level at distance D p and LK is the known sound pressure level at distance DR. 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 Lp is the total sound pressure level and LI, L 2, etc are individual sound pressure levels. L t = 10 log (l0 Ll/l + 10 L2/l0 +...), 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 However, a barrier's effectiveness depends on its specific configuration, as well as the materials used and their surface treatment. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology SAN FRANCISCO FigUlV 1

22 CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement PUBLIQHEARING NOTICE The Planning Commission of the City of San Jose will consider a Conditional Use Permit at a public hearing in accordance with the San Jose Municipal Code on: The project being considered is: File No. CP15-085: Conditional Use Permit to construct a 50-foot tall wireless communication facility (monopole), associated equipment enclosure, and emergency generator on an approximately 1.85 gross acre site in the CN Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District located at southeast corner of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue (6164 Bollinger Road) (Marchese Christopher Trustee & Et Al, Owner). Council District 1. CEQA: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Reports, drawings, and documents are available for review from 9:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and a draft permit and recommendations will be available for review seven calendar days prior to the public hearing at: You are welcome to attend and to speak on this issue. To arrange an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to participate in this meeting, please call (Voice) or (TTY) at least 48 hours before the meeting. Muon biet tin tire bang tieng Viet Nam ve to" thong tin nay, xin quy vi lien lac Sylvia Do 6" so va doc so du" an CP Para information en Espanol acerca de esta solicitud, comuniquese con Elizabeth Zepeda al , e indique el numero de proyecto CP * If you choose to challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to only those issues you, or someone else, raised and discussed at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. Comments and questions are welcome and should be referred to the Project Manager, Tracy Tam in the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement via at tracy.tam@sanjoseca.gov or by phone at Please refer to the above file number, or scan the QR code below, for further information on this project. Dated: April 21, 2016 Wednesday, May 4,2016 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers City Hall 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3 rd Floor Tower San Jose, CA (408) Noticing Radius: 500ft

23 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, P.Nobel do hereby declare as follows: 1. Oil 1 2/23/15 J posted public oil-site notice on the project site consistent with the City of San Jose's requirements for on-site notices under City Council Policy Number Attached to this declaration are photographs showing the duly posted public notices on the project site. 3. After posting the aforementioned notice, I inspected the sign on 1 2/28/15. to confirm that the notice was still posted 4. If the notice was damaged or removed during the requisite noticing period I replaced the notice at least once. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct - EXECUTED ON THIS DAY, 12/28/15 m SanJose Signature P.D. Nobel Name (Print or Typed) Project Manager Relationship to Project: e.g. owner, Attorney, Architect, etc.

24

25 Exhibit E verhronwireless 2785 Mitchell Drive Walnut Creek, CA June 3, 2016 To: San Jose 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 6164 Bollinger Road, San Jose Executive Summary Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in its wireless services in western San Jose. This area is currently served by distant existing Verizon Wireless facilities. The nearest Verizon Wireless facility to the east is located at 5300 Steven Creek BLVD, Cupertino, CA (known as the "Cupertino site") and is 1.3 miles distant. The nearest Verizon Wireless facility to the northwest, on the Apple campus and at (known as the "Apple Computer site"), is 1.9 miies distant, and the nearest existing site to the southwest, located at 7246 Sharon Drive, San Jose, is approximately 1.3 miles distant. As a result, there is an absence of in-building coverage and spotty in-vehicle coverage that is particularly pronounced to the north, west, and south of the intersection of Bollinger and Miller Road, and a network capacity short fall, particularly to the northeast toward the Cupertino site. Accelerated growth in voice and data usage by Verizon Wireless customers in San Jose has increased the demand on 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. This capacity gap must be remedied through new infrastructure to avoid further degradation of Verizon Wireless service in San Jose. 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 its 4G LTE service Coverage in an area of western San Jose roughly bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, S De Anza Blvd to the west, Rainbow Drive to the south and Lawrence Expressway to the east (the "Coverage Gap"). The Coverage Gap includes approximately 4.5 square miles in area and a population of nearly 29,000 residents. The Coverage Gap also includes heavily trafficked Miller Avenue and

26 Bollinger Road, which currently experience over 35,000 vehicle trips per day. 1 A graphic description of the Coverage Gap and the service provided by the proposed facility are shown in the maps 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 invehicle coverage, and red areas depicting areas reliable for outdoor use only. 1 City of Cupertino Public Works Data. cupertino. org/modules/showdocument. aspx?documentid=7464

27 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. The below graph shows the increased usage over the last year as well as predicted usage through July 1, 2016 for the existing Cupertino Verizon Wireless facility shown in the previous map. By comparing the orange trend line of increasing usage with the absolute maximum capacity throughput of these facilities shown by the red line, Verizon Wireless RF engineering demonstrates that the identified gap area is now at capacity 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"). 2 Federal Communications Commission Report & Order , October 17, 2014, 7.

28 7/1/2015 1/1/2010 7/1/2018 1/1/2017 7/1/2017 CcriflftsriSSanajxijprsisy materials fa aiiiraiffidvaszaipefscrfel and KisKSesgsfBSesGniy. Use, ii3c^ir8«$6l7tai$bn ojth m3ie/ia]&r.dp«t7tttf«s to ^urcsfiftxtzed pescflsffsiird parses except ay wjtfkrcx^&srakit 1 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 western San Jose. Verizon Wireless must 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.

29 ian Ung F Design Engineer Network Engineering Verizon Wireless

30 From: Paul Albritton Sent: Thursday, August 11, :47 AM To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo; Districtl; District2; District3; District4; District5; Oliverio, Pierluigi; District7; Herrera, Rose; Districts); District 10 Cc: Doyle, Richard; Tam, Tracy; Ruth Cueto; Freitas, Harry; Dent, Mollie; City Clerk Subject: Verizon Wireless Supplemental Submittal CP Dear Mayor Liccardo and honorable Councilmembers, Please find attached supplemental materials supporting Verizon Wireless's Planning Commission approved facility at 6164 Bollinger Road. These supplemental materials include an updated justification of the need for the site from Verizon Wireless's RF engineer, Brian Ung, as well as more detailed information about alternative sites investigated by Verizon Wireless over the last three years. We have also included evidence of over 200 text messages received by Verizon Wireless in support of the proposed camouflaged facility. We encourage you to review these messages from your constituence regarding the need to improve service in west San Jose (e.g.,. "YES!.Everyone in the WSJ neighborhood has been complaining about the lack of wireless network connections. We need this long overdue service provided asap!") Verizon Wireless has been experiencing an organized opposition to any new facilities in Cupertino, west San Jose, and Saratoga. We are anxious to answer any questions you have regarding this facility, which is immediately necessary to address network shortfalls in the area. Verizon Wireless is also willing to continue this matter should the Mayor's office or a councilmember's office wish to host a community meeting for dialogue with this organized opposition. Our experience is that this opposition is based upon the fear of RF emissions, notwithstanding evidence submitted by Verizon Wireless showing that this facility will operate well within federal safety guidelines. We encourage you to call with any questions you have regarding the attached materials. Thank you. Paul for Paul Albritton Mackenzie & Albritton, LLP 220 Sansome Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, California (415) pa@mallp.com

31 MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14 TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE 415 / FACSIMILE 415 / August 10, 2016 VIA City Council City of San José 200 East Santa Clara Street San José, California Re: Appeal of Verizon Wireless Application CP Telecommunications Facility, 6164 Bollinger Road City Council Agenda, August 16, 2016 Dear Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Herrera and Councilmembers: On June 3, 2016, we wrote to you on behalf of our client Verizon Wireless to urge you to uphold the Planning Commission s approval of a wireless facility disguised as a pine tree (the Approved Facility ) on commercial property at 6164 Bollinger Road. Since the hearing was rescheduled to August 16th, Verizon Wireless has used the additional time to prepare a comprehensive analysis of alternative locations and designs, which we have enclosed as Exhibit A. This analysis confirms that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive means to fill the significant gap in service in western San José. To further document that coverage gap and the need for the Approved Facility we have also enclosed two additional documents. Exhibit B is a revised statement from the Verizon Wireless radio-frequency ( RF ) engineer. Exhibit C is a letter from a Verizon Wireless Marketing Director regarding the 215 residents of western San Jose who sent text messages of support for the Approved Facility and the improved Verizon Wireless service it will bring to the area. As set forth in our previous letter, the Approved Facility has been carefully designed to avoid any significant visual, noise, or other impacts on the community, and it meets all requirements for approval. Planning Division staff have confirmed this in their thorough, well-reasoned reports both to the Planning Commission and to this Council, both of which recommended approval. That alone is sufficient reason to reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission s decision, but it is not the only reason to do so. As set forth in our previous letter, denial of the application would constitute an unlawful prohibition of service in violation of the federal Telecommunications Act (the FTA ) if Verizon Wireless can show that: (a) it has a significant gap in service and (b) the Approved Facility is the least

32 San José City Council August 10, 2016 Page 2 of 2 intrusive means to fill that gap. The enclosed documents confirm that Verizon Wireless has met both of these requirements. First, there is a significant gap in service in western San José. This is confirmed by both the RF engineer s statement (Exhibit B) and the 215 text messages from area residents attesting to the need for improved service (Exhibit C). Second, there is no less intrusive alternative, as confirmed by the alternatives analysis (Exhibit A). Indeed, as explained in the alternatives analysis, the only other viable alternative a rooftop facility on the same parcel was rejected by Planning Division staff who recommended the faux pine tree design that the Planning Commission ultimately approved. There is one additional issue under federal law that we did not due to time constraints raise in our previous letter. Several competitors of Verizon Wireless maintain visible antennas on the roof of a building on the same property as the Approved Facility. Given that the Approved Facility has less visual impact due to its design as a faux pine tree, denial of the application would constitute unlawful discrimination in violation of the FTA. 1 Finally, we would like to extend an invitation. If you have any questions about the Approved Facility or the alternatives considered, we would be happy to meet with you individually or in small groups (consistent with the Brown Act) at the location of the Approved Facility. Please let us know if you would like to arrange such a meeting. Very truly yours, cc: Richard Doyle, Esq. Harry Freitas Tracy Tam James A. Heard Schedule of Exhibits Exhibit A: Alternatives Analysis Exhibit B: RF Engineer s Statement (revised 8/9/16) Exhibit C: Cover letter from Verizon Wireless and text messages in support of Approved Facility 1 Among its other restrictions on local regulation of wireless facilities, the FTA provides that local governments shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I).

33 Verizon Wireless Alternatives Analysis Bollinger & Miller 6164 Bollinger Road, San Jose August 8, 2016 Summary of Site Evaluations Conducted by NSA Wireless, Inc. Compiled by Mackenzie & Albritton LLP

34 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary... 3 II. Significant Gap... 3 III. Methodology... 3 IV. Analysis... 4 Collocation Review Orchard Farms Center Collocation West Valley Presbyterian Church... 5 New Building-Mounted Facility - City of San Jose Safeway Studio 10 Dance... 7 New Free-Standing Facility - City of San Jose Proposed Facility... 8 New Facility - City of Cupertino Hyde Middle School... 9 Conclusion Map of Alternatives 2

35 I. Executive Summary Verizon Wireless seeks to fill a significant gap in its coverage and network capacity in western San Jose. Based on a review of alternatives as set forth in the following analysis, Verizon Wireless believes that concealing antennas in a tower designed to resemble a pine tree (the Proposed Facility ) constitutes the least intrusive alternative to provide service to the identified gap based on the values expressed in San Jose Municipal Code (the Code ) and Council Policy 6-20 regarding wireless facilities (the Wireless Policy ). II. Significant Gap There is a significant gap in Verizon Wireless coverage and network capacity in western San Jose. In-building and in-vehicle service coverage is lacking in the vicinity, which is composed primarily of residential areas and a shopping center. Further, the Verizon Wireless facility serving much of the gap area area is nearing capacity exhaustion, and Verizon Wireless must place an additional facility in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility to provide new coverage and relieve existing antenna sectors to ensure the reliability of the network. The identified significant gap in network coverage is more fully described in the Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Brian Ung. 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, grading requirements, height of any existing structures, available electrical and telephone utilities, access, available ground space, zoning and other critical factors such as a willing landlord in completing its site analysis. Under the Code s regulations for the the R-1 and CN zoning districts, buildingmounted wireless facilities are a permitted use. Slimline monopole wireless facilities are allowed with issuance of a special use permit, and other wireless facilities are allowed with a conditional use permit. Code , In residential districts, wireless facilities on parcels with a residential use require a conditional use permit. Code Building-mounted facilities must be architecturally integrated in the building and may project no more than ten feet above the building surface plus an additional foot for every ten feet the antenna is set back from the building parapet to a maximum height of fifteen feet. Code Under the Wireless Policy, siting on buildings is preferred, and monopoles are allowed if building-mounted facilities or collocations are not feasible. Wireless Policy 1. Building mounted and monopole facilities should be designed to minimize visual impacts, and for monopoles, the Wireless Policy encourages use of stealth designs and screening trees. Policy 3(a). 3

36 IV. Analysis Collocation Review Verizon Wireless first sought to identify existing wireless facilities in the gap area that could potentially serve as collocation facilities, reviewing the following two locations. 1. Orchard Farms Center Collocation Address: 6150 Bollinger Road Elevation: 232 feet Zoning: CN Neighborhood Commercial Verizon Wireless considered placement of a wireless facility on this shopping center located immediately north of the Proposed Facility. Verizon Wireless reviewed the only building at the shopping center tall enough to elevate antennas to the height required to serve the Significant Gap. The height of the roof is 28 feet 2 inches and there is a five foot parapet. This building also supports antennas of Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile. In 2014, Verizon Wireless presented Planning Division Staff with two designs for a roofmounted Verizon Wireless facility that would place antennas near the edge of the roof. The first design, depicted in the photosimulation at left above, placed new Verizon Wireless antennas behind several screening panels near unconcealed antennas of other wireless carriers visible above the parapet. Planning Division staff did not support this design, finding it was not integrated into the building architecture. Verizon Wireless next presented a design fully screening its antennas and other carrier antennas with a screening wall around the roof perimeter as depicted in the photosimulation at right above. Planning Division Staff also did not support this design, finding it was too impactful and massive, and encouraged Verizon Wireless to consider a freestanding wireless facility rather than collocation on this rooftop. According to the Planning Division, this does not constitute a less intrusive alternative to the Proposed Facility. 4

37 2. West Valley Presbyterian Church Address: 6191 Bollinger Road, Cupertino Elevation: 230 feet Zoning: BQ Quasi-Public (City of Cupertino) Verizon Wireless considered this church facility located 0.15 miles north of the Proposed Facility at a similar elevation. The church currently supports small microwave antennas of ClearWire concealed in a stealth cupola structure at the peak of the roof. Verizon Wireless structural engineers determined that the church building is of insufficient structural integrity to support the weight of the 12 additional panel antennas and concealment structure required for Verizon Wireless s facility. Further, there is no space for radio equipment cabinets and a generator within the building or on the church grounds. Lacking the ability to support Verizon Wireless s antennas and available space for equipment, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 5

38 New Building-Mounted Facility - City of San Jose Lacking a feasible collocation opportunity, Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of a new wireless facility to serve the gap area. As the first preference under the Code and Wireless Policy is building-mounted facilities, Verizon Wireless reviewed the gap area in San Jose for buildings not in residential use, identifying the buildings at Orchard Farm Center reviewed as Alternative 1 as well as the following location. 3. Safeway Address: 6150 Bollinger Road Elevation: 230 feet Zoning: CN Neighborhood Commercial Verizon Wireless considered placement of a wireless facility on the roof of this Safeway store located 0.1 miles north of the Proposed Facility. Safeway is currently not allowing new wireless facilities to be placed on its stores. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 6

39 4. Studio 10 Dance Address: 6190 Bollinger Road Elevation: 234 feet Zoning: CN Neighborhood Commercial Verizon Wireless considered placement of a wireless facility on the roof of this small building located 150 feet southwest of the Proposed Facility. The total height of this building is is 18 feet 7 inches, except for the northwest corner with a total height of 19 feet 8 inches. A Verizon Wireless architecture and engineering team determined that this building lacks the structural capability to support the additional weight of Verizon Wireless antennas, transmission equipment, mounting brackets and screening panels. Additionally, Verizon Wireless engineers determined that this building is of insufficient height to elevate antennas to the antenna centerline required to serve the Significant Gap, even with the additional 10 to 12 feet in total facility height allowed under Code for a building-mounted facility at this location. With neither the structural capacity to support required equipment nor the ability to serve the gap, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 7

40 New Free-Standing Facility - City of San Jose Lacking a feasible building-mounted alternative, Verizon Wireless next considered a new free-standing wireless facility to serve the gap area. In so doing, it focused on properties not in residential use for which placement of a wireless facility would meet Code and Wireless Policy requirements, and identified the following location. 5. Proposed Facility Address: 6164 Bollinger Road Elevation: 230 feet Zoning: CN Neighborhood Commercial Verizon Wireless proposes to place its antennas on a 45-foot tower disguised as a pine tree placed near four existing evergreen trees of similar or greater height. Antennas will be concealed within faux foliage and branches, and branches will extend an additional five feet above the tower to 50 feet, providing a realistic tapered appearance. Antennas will be covered with pine needle socks for further concealment. The treepole will be placed within an approximately 500 square foot equipment area that will also contain radio cabinets and a standby generator to provide continued service in case of emergency. The equipment area will be surrounded by an eight-foot concrete block wall textured and painted to match the relocated trash enclosure on the property. To provide additional screening, Verizon Wireless will plant bushes immediately north of the equipment area that match existing landscaping on the property. The adjacent established evergreen trees offer screening and a vegetative backdrop to minimize visual impacts of the Proposed Facility. As described in the Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Brian Ung, the Proposed Facility will provide new in-building and in-vehicle service to fill the Significant Gap. This is Verizon Wireless s preferred location and design for its new wireless facility. 8

41 New Facility - City of Cupertino Verizon Wireless also reviewed placement of a new wireless facility in the City of Cupertino. The portion of the gap area that lies in Cupertino is zoned residential except for two properties. Under the Cupertino Municipal Code, wireless facilities are generally prohibited in residential zones and on parcels with residential uses. (Cupertino Municipal Code (B)). Of the two properties not zoned residential, collocation at West Valley Presbyterian Church was deemed infeasible as reviewed under Alternative 2, and the other property is reviewed as follows. 6. Hyde Middle School Address: Bollinger Road, Cupertino Elevation: 225 feet Zoning: BA Public (City of Cupertino) Verizon Wireless considered this school facility located 0.2 miles north of the Proposed Facility at a similar elevation. The Cupertino Union School District will not allow a new wireless facility on this school property. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 9

42 Conclusion Verizon Wireless has reviewed six locations for placement of a new wireless facility to serve its Significant Gap. Based upon the standards identified in the San Jose Municipal Code and Council Policy 6-20, the Proposed Facility with antennas concealed in a tower designed to resemble a pine tree clearly constitutes the least intrusive location for Verizon Wireless s facility under the values expressed by San Jose regulations. 10

43 Bollinger & Miller San Jose Alternative Site Locations 2. West Valley Presbyterian Church 6. Hyde Middle School 3. Safeway 5. Proposed Facility 1. Orchard Farm Center Collocation 4. Studio 10 Dance

44 2785 Mitchell Drive Walnut Creek, CA August 9, 2016 Revised To: San Jose 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 6164 Bollinger Road, San Jose Executive Summary Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in its wireless services in western San Jose. This area is currently served only by distant existing Verizon Wireless facilities. The nearest Verizon Wireless facility to the east is located at 5300 Stevens Creek Boulevard (known as the Cupertino site ) and is 1.3 miles away. The nearest Verizon Wireless facility to the northwest is located on the Apple campus (known as the Apple Computer site ) and is 1.9 miles away. The nearest Verizon Wireless facility to the southwest is located at 7246 Sharon Drive, San Jose (known as the Blue Hills site ) and is approximately 1.3 miles away. As a result, there is an absence of in-building coverage and spotty invehicle coverage that is particularly pronounced to the north, west, and south of the intersection of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue as well as a network capacity shortfall, particularly to the northeast toward the Cupertino site. Accelerated growth in voice and data usage by Verizon Wireless customers in San Jose has increased the demand on network facilities in a manner that compromises network accessibility and reliability. This accelerating growth in demand has already exhausted the capacity of 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 San Jose. 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 its 4G LTE service coverage in an area of western San Jose roughly bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, South De Anza Blvd to the west, Rainbow Drive to the south and Lawrence Expressway to the east (the Coverage Gap ). The Coverage Gap includes

45 approximately 4.5 square miles in area and a population of nearly 29,000 residents. The Coverage Gap also includes heavily trafficked Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue, which combined currently experience over 35,000 vehicle trips per day. 1 A graphic description of the Coverage Gap and the service provided by the proposed facility are shown in the maps 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 buildings. The areas in yellow and red depict decreasing levels of coverage, with yellow areas generally representing reliable in-vehicle coverage, and red areas depicting coverage reliable for outdoor use only. See Coverage Maps on Following Page 1 City of Cupertino Public Works Data.

46