Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01. U-2005-14 TinTin Market CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2005-14 Agenda Date: December 13, 2005 Applicant (s): William Stephens (T-Mobile) Property Owner: Pacific Rim Park LLC Property Location: 20041 Bollinger Road (Tin Tin Market) APPLICATION SUMMARY Use permit to erect a 35-foot tall, slim-line treepole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning CommiSsion deny the application due to the insufficiency of a landscape screen to blend with the proposed treepole in accordance with the model resolution. PROJECT DATA Site Area: 2.70 acres (shopping center is 4.56 acres) General Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial/Residential Zoning: P(CG) Planned Development - General Commercial Existing Land Use: Shopping Center Height of Antennas: 35 feet (-37 feet to top of camouflage) Height of Adjacent Building: 22 feet, 8 inches Distance to Nearest Residential Property: 212 feet Required Setback to Residential: 50 feet Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures BACKGROUND: Previous Commission Hearing On October 25, 2005, the Planning Commission heard this application. The applicant, William Stephens, representing T-Mobile, had proposed to erect a 35-foot tall monopole mounted with three panel antennas and a base equipment station behind an existing shopping center, the Pacific Rim Center, located at 20041 Bollinger Road (Exhibit A-I). Over the past several months, staff and the applicant had gone through several design iterations and the proposal submitted to the Commission included a slim-line monopole camouflaged to appear like an Italian Cypress and blended with several natural cypresses to be planted behind the treepole. See photosimulations (Exhibit B-1). /--1 File No. U-2005-14 Page 2 October 25, 2005 Staff believed the landscape screen was not substantial enough and recommended that the project be continued to give the applicant sufficient time to redesign his proposal. The Commission concurred and continued the project hearing. Neighborhood Input Numerous neighbors appeared at the hearing and expressed their concerns with the project as follows: · Proximity near a residential neighborhood and a child care center; · Safety of radio frequency emissions; · Degradation of the visual appearance of the shopping center; · Blockage of views of the western foothills; · Additional noise contribution from the personal wireless service facility; and · Poor choice of camouflage and landscaping - Italian Cypresses are attractive to roof rats and grow too slowly to provide adequate visual screening. A number of neighbors had other issues with the shopping center that were unrelated to the project: · Lack of physical improvements to the buildings despite verbal promises made 10 years ago; · Noise from refrigeration equipment and trucks; · Excessively bright wall lights associated with the supermarket tenant; · Odors; · Ongoing vermin problems; · Overflowing garbage bins/broken lid; and · Site drainage DISCUSSION Landscape Screening Staff originally believed that a landscape area equivalent to two parking stalls (324 square feet) was adequately sized to accommodate enough mature landscaping to help visually screen a treepole. The applicant offered to increase the landscape area to 180 square feet. Upon checking with the City Arborist Barrie Coate, staff discovered that the smaller area (180 square feet) would only accommodate one 25-foot tall pine or redwood tree (Exhibit C-1) and nearly doubling the landscape area would accommodate much less landscaping than staff expected. The applicant is unwilling to pursue the full landscaping screen as envisioned by staff, which results in staff's negative recommendation. Staff also fully understands that /-,;1. File No. U-2005-14 Page 3 October 25, 2005 pursuing a fuller landscape screen does conflict with other neighborhood concerns to preserve its views of the west foothills. Other design options that block less foothill views were visually simulated by the applicant and are presented in Exhibit D-1. Equipment Noise The applicant provided noise specifications for the base equipment to be used in the project. The equipment generates noise in the 35dB range at distances ranging from 24 to 75 feet (Exhibit E-1). Nearest residential property is 212 feet away. The City's nonresidential noise standard is 65 dB during the day and 55dB at night. While the data sheet is not a noise report, one could be required as part of an approval with the noise of the equipment measured after installation. Other Issues Several neighbors in the past have expressed concerns with the operations of the Tin Tin Market. These were highlighted in the October 25th staff report. It should be noted that all of the complaints about the market are nuisance/ code enforcement issues and have nothing to do with the merits of the proposed personal wireless service facility. Code enforcement staff responds to most of these code complaints. Noise from trucks Over a year ago, there were two complaints of loud music in the rear area of the market. The Market was notified about this noise problem and there have been no further complaints. Noise from refri~eration ec¡uipment According to Chapter 10.48.040 of the Community Noise Ordinance, individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same commercial property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding 55 dBA during the nighttime hours and 65 dBA during the daytime hours. Code enforcement staff has measured the noise levels and found no violation of the noise ordinance. Li~htin~ Currently there are several building mounted lights along the north and south elevation of Tin Tin Market. These lights do not have any cut off shields that will prevent any glare or light to the adjacent residential properties. Staff research indicates that these lights are very old and likely legal non-conforming. Staff may be able to require cut off shields when Tin Tin Market applies for building improvements. The current T -Mobile application has no relationship to this complaint. /-3 File No. U-2005-14 Page 4 October 25, 2005 OdJJrs Some neighbors have complained about the odors that are emitting from the garage bins located in the rear of the market building. Staff was able to verify the odors from one emptied bin that was missing a lid. The bin lid has been replaced. Vennin Control There have been reports of rodent problems along the back aIley of Tin Tin Market and in the yards of the adjacent residential properties. Santa Clara County Vector Control handles complaints and enforcement, not the City. Staff asked County vector control to investigate. See the November 18, 2005 letter from the County (Exhibit F-1). The investigator found no evidence of rats after several days of observation around the market and the streets in back. According to the agency there has not been a rat problem here for the past two years. Overflowin~ Gara~e Bins According to the neighbors, sometimes the garbage bins located at the rear of the Tin Tin Market are overflowing with garbage and with the lids opened. Per Chapter 6.24.070 of the Municipal Code, all garbage containers shall be kept in a sanitary condition continuously closed with a tightfitting cover. Sometimes garbage overflows, but the trash is removed daily. The broken bin lid has been replaced. The trash containers are located over 200 feet away from the nearest residential property. Rear Property Draina~e One neighbor identified the rear drainage as a problem. Storm flows appear to be captured by a parking lot catch basin and an outlet and conveyed via pipes under the rear masonry wall to the surface gutters on La Roda Drive. The typical situation is the capturing of storm flows by catch basins and the direction of storms flows directly to the storm main via underground pipes. This is a historical drainage solution when there was no masonry wall between shopping center and the residences. Apparently, the storm flows from the rear of the shopping center sheet flowed directly into La Roda Drive street gutters. When the masonry wall was built as part of the 1998 subdivision of this property into three lots, the drainage situation was not modified. It is unreasonable to expect a tenant addition to this property to be responsible for modifying the rear storm drainage, especially when landscape additions will reduce storm flows not increase them. Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner c-- Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development <::>~ 1-1 File No. U-2005-14 Page 5 October 25, 2005 ENCLOSURES Model Resolution of Denial Model Resolution of Approval Exhibit A-l: Planning Commission staff report dated October 25, 2005 Exhibit B-1: Photo Simulations of T -Mobile Monopole Exhibit C-l: Letter from Barrie D. Coate to Colin Jung dated 12/5/05 Exhibit D-l: Visual Simulations of Other Monopole Designs Exhibit E-l: Noise Specifications for T-Mobile Base Equipment ExhibitF-l: Letter to Tom Huhunin from Santa Clara County Vector Control dated 11/18/05 Exhibit G-l: Letter to Planning Commission from T-Mobile dated 12/6/05 Plan Set G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcUsereports \ U-2005-14a.doc [-5 U-2005-14 CllY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CllY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILIlY CONSISTING OF THREE PCS PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ON A 37 FOOT TALL TREEPOLE AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT CABINETS LOCATED IN A FENCED ENCLOSURE AT 20041 BOLLINGER ROAD, APN 369-34-052 SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the project's treepole is inadequately screened and blended with natural landscaping in accordance with adopted siting and design guidelines and is considered visually obtrusive in its environmental context. The project is thus inconsistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is not approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2005-14 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 25, 2005 and December 13, 2005 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION . Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: U-2OO5-14 William Stephens (for T-Mobile) Pacific Rim Park, LLC 20041 Bollinger Road I Yb PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission g:/ planning/ pdreport/ res/U-2005-14 deniaI.doc 1-7 U-2005-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY CONSISTING OF THREE PCS PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ON A 37 FOOT TALL TREEPOLE AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT CABINETS LOCATED IN A FENCED ENCLOSURE AT 20041 BOLLINGER ROAD, APN 369-34-052 SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general weIfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Wireless Facilities Master Plan, Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other· evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2OO5-14 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 25, 2005 and December 13, 2005 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. f-ß SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: U-2005-14 William Stephens (for T-Mobile) Pacific Rim Park, LLC 20041 Bollinger Road SECTION Ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "SF14949 TIN-TIN MARKET", consisting of 4 sheets labeled Tl, A-I, A-2 and A-3dated 10/14/05, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA The applicant shaIl make its mast available to other wireless communications carriers for antenna co-location subject to City approval. The ~o-location agreement shall be at market rates with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. 3. ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removal. 4. EXPIRATION DATE This use permit shall expire five (5) years after the effective date of the permit. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning Commission may review the state of wireless communication and camouflage technologies to determine if the visual impact of the personal wireless facility can be reduced. 5. TREE POLE APPEARANCE AND MAINTENANCE The applicant shall use a sufficient number of artificial branches to obscure the appearance of the panel antennas and any associated mounting framework. The mast and any panel antenna mounted close to the mast shall be painted brown to mimic a tree trunk. The applicant shall perform regular maintenance of the permitted tree pole to maintain its appearance and obscure the panel antenna from public view. 7. LANDSCAPE SCREENING The applicant shall submit a landscape screening plan and irrigation plan for the following areas: a) northern boundary of the property prior to the building permit approval. The intent is to provide visual screening for the residents to the north. Abutting property owners may waive (in writing) this landscape screen along his property line. Tree I-g selection and size will be reviewed by the City Arborist and approved by the Community Development Director. b) western sideyard of the property prior to building permit approval. The intent is to provide visual screening for the residents to the east. A _ square foot landscape well shaIl be constructed behind the treepole. Four large, commercially available trees up to 25 feet in height shall be selected by the Director of Community Development in consultation with the City Arborist and planted by the applicant. c) The applicant shall provide for the watering and maintenance of the landscaped areas for a period of one year. A covenant shall be recorded on the property identifying this landscaping as necessary for the visual screening of the personal wireless service facility and shall not be removed without City permission. . 8. NOISE LEVEL OF THE EOUlPMENT CABINETS The equipment cabinets shall conform to the City's Noise Ordinance. The applicant shall submit a noise report within 4 weeks of activation of base equipment. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission . g:/ planning/ pdreport/ res/U-2005-14 approvaI.doc { -10 l::)<, h,.Þ ;"í· Ii·· '\ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2005-14 Agenda Date: October 25, 2005 Applicant (s): William Stephens (T-Mobile) Property Owner: Pacific Rim Park LLC Property Location: 20041 Bollinger Road (Tin Tin Market) APPLICATION SUMMARY Use permit to erect a 35-foot tall, slim-line treepole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hear the application and continue it to a subsequent meeting to give the applicant sufficient time to make design changes to the proposed landscape screen area and existing trash/loading area. PROJECT DATA Site Area: 2.70 acres (shopping center is 4.56 acres) General Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial/Residential Zoning: P(CG) Planned Development - General Commercial Existing Land Use: Shopping Center Height of Antennas: 35 feet (-37 feet to top of camouflage) Height of Adjacent Building: 22 feet, 8 inches Distance to Nearest Residential Property: 212 feet Required Setback to Residential: 50 feet Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures BACKGROUND: Project Description The applicant, William Stephens, representing T -Mobile, has proposed to erect a 35-foot tall monopole mounted with three panel antennas and a base equipment station behind an existing shopping center, the Pacific Rim Center, located at 20041 Bollinger Road (Exhibit A). The antennas would be concealed within a 2-foot diameter cyclinder and . mounted on a slim-line monopole camouflaged to appear like an Italian Cypress. See the enclosed photosimulations (Exhibit B). In the photosimulations, the cypress treepole is blended with several other proposed natural cypresses. The "treepole" will be enclosed within a 16' 9" by 12' concrete block enclosure. The plan set also shows an existing enclosure used by Tin Tin Market. I ~ 1/ File No. U-2005-14 Page 2 October 25, 2005 T -Mobile is not a new wireless carrier to Cupertino. The company was sharing the Cingular Wireless network until Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless. To acquire AT&T Wireless, Cingular was required to divest a portion of its antenna sites to satisfy regulatory authorities. The sites were sold to T-Mobile. Surroundings The surrounding land uses around the shopping center are: single-family residential to the north and east (across Blaney Avenue), single-family residential to the south across Bollinger Road (in San Jose), and two churches to the west. Previous Permit History In April 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed a Cingular Wireless use permit application for a 55-foot taIl treepole for a personal wireless service facility at the Pacific Rim Shopping Center. Alternate shopping center locations and pole designs were evaluated with the neighbors before this preferred design was submitted to the Commission (Exhibit C). The use permit application for a 55-foot taIl treepole was ultimately denied by the Commission on a 5-0 vote because it felt the treepole was too visually obtrusive (Exhibit D). Neighborhood Meeting The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting to introduce his project. Staff provided the applicant with a 1,000-foot radius mailing list. Nine (9) neighbors signed the attendance sheet. Staff noted that a couple more residents attended but did not sign the sheet. The applicant introduced his project, providing photo simulations, before and after radio coverage maps, and an RF assessment study. A large majority of attending neighbors stated their opposition to the project. Among the reasons for opposition: · The neighborhood has satisfactory cell phone coverage, so they don't see a need for a personal wireless service facility; · The facility diminishes property values; · The facility obstructs existing views; · The radio frequency emissions may cause health problems; · Such facilities should not encroach into residential neighborhoods; · Applicant should look at alternative sites even if they represent a suboptimal solution to its coverage problems. "Suboptimal" includes second choice sites and higher rent sites. HJ.. File No. U-2005-14 Page 3 October 25, 2005 Cell Site Coverage & Site Selection The project site is situated in a retail center surrounded by a residential neighborhood area with poor to no wireless communications coverage. For the past six years, staff has been informally approached by applicants representing AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless and Sprint PCS, $eeking to place an acceptably-designed facility at this shopping center or the adjacent church. An antenna at this location would serve the Cupertino neighborhood to the east, north and west; Eaton Elementary School, Bollinger Road commuters and the adjacent San Jose neighborhood to the south. Four T -Mobile radio coverage maps showing the existing and proposed coverages are attached (Exhibit E). DISCUSSION: Conformance to the Wireless Facilities Master Plan Plan Goals: The Wireless Facilities Master Plan (plan) was adopted by the City Council on October 6, 2003. Its four main goals are as follows: 1) Protect community aesthetics and promote safety by planning for well-sited and well- designed personal wirekss seroice facilities that fit unobtrusively in the Cupertino environment. 2) Guide decision makers and City staffby providing a policy framework and design guidance as they make decisions about these facilities. 3) Educate the general public about personal wirekss seroice facilities and the community's design expectations in order to improve their involvement and participation in the decision making process. 4) Assist the wirekss companies and their representatives with information that facilitates their facility deployment process. Cell Site Location: The plan recognizes the challenge of providing wireless telephone coverage in residential areas. So non-residential sites, like neighborhood shopping centers, have been identified as preferred locations of personal wireless service facilities, especially when the facility can provide coverage of residential areas. The City's preference order for locations -of personal wireless service facilities is as follows: Most Preferred Existing Structures in N on-Residential Areas Least Preferred; :. New Structures in Existing Structures in New Structures in Non-Residential Areas Residential Areas Residential Areas As there is a lack of taller buildings in the area that would make a good antenna mount, the second location preference is "new structures in non-residential areas," which fits the applicant's proposal. In considering various locations on this property, the proposed site seems to be one of the least conspicuous. The tree pole would be located H3 File No. U-2005-14 Page 4 October 25, 2005 near a midway point between Bollinger Road and La Roda Drive, which is over 200 feet away from the nearest residential property line. Monopole Design/Camouflage Techniques: The Site Location and Design Guidelines in the Plan state that intrusive or obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees, which is the applicant's proposal. An Italian Cypress-type camouflage is depicted in the drawings and photosimulations, but other tree-type camouflage options are available. Other important considerations that make the pole much less obtrusive than the previous proposal are: 1) Antenna height is 35 feet- which is 20 feet less than the previous proposal that was denied by the Commission. The bottom portion of the pole and the base equipment enclosure will be screened by the 22' 8" taIl retail building. 2) Landscaped backdrop for the treepole-- the treepoles still have an artificial visual appearance to them, but the camouflage technology is improving. The Plan recommends that a treepole be set among a grouping of other tall trees to make it look more natural, less obtrusive. The proposed 5' x 15' landscaped island helps to screen, but is not sufficient in size to camouflage the treepole. Staff is recommending a landscape island about the size of two parking stalls. A larger island will allow more flexibility in tree selection, a larger growing zone and better protection from the ongoing loading and trash removal activities that occur in this area. To accomplish this the existing loading, storage and trash removal area would have to be redesigned and rebuilt to accommodate both uses. The applicant has not had time to investigate this option with the property owner and Tin Tin Market, so staff is recommending a continuance at this time. 3) A condition of approval that includes a planted tree row along the north margin of the property to further screen the appearance of the tree pole toward the La Roda Drive residences. The condition of approval would be worded such that the abutting neighbor can waive the landscaping if he/ she so chooses. Alternative Sites Neighbors questioned whether all alternative sites and solutions were adequately examined. In the past staff has looked at alternative sites in the Pacific Rim main parking lot and on the Walgreens drugstore building. In all situations the antenna pole was more visible to residents or closer to someone else's residence. In the applicant's comments (Exhibit A), they also solicited the two churches to the west /-It./- File No. U-2005-14 Page 5 October 25, 2005 of the shopping center and received no response. The applicant also looked at the Home Depot site, which is considered by the applicant to be a "diminished site" that would not sufficiently cover the target area would require another antenna in the original search ring. Home Depot declined the proposal. Radio Frequency Emissions The personal wireless service facility generates radio frequency (RF) radiation emissions for which the federal government has established specific safety levels for exposure for the general population (which includes children and the elderly) and the occupational workforce that works directly with the facilities. The attached study demonstrates that the projected RFR emissions are well below federal safety standards (Exhibit F) of 1.00 microwatt per square centimeter. The estimated maximum ambient RF exposure level at the ground is 0.58% of the applicable limit. The estimated maximum exposure for the second story of a building 90 feet away is 0.97% of the applicable limit. Closest residence is over 200 feet away. As the RF emissions are well within federal safety standards, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704(a)(7)A prohibits local authorities, such as a City, from regulating personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. Other Issues Several neighbors in the past have expressed concerns with the operations of the Tin Tin Market. The concerns are summarized as follows. A letter from the property manager, responding to the issues, was sent last year (Exhibit G). Noise from refrigeration unit During a storm, all of the insulation for the air intake/ exhaust was blown off. In addition, Tin Tin Market has replaced the doors to the refrigetation enclosure with metal screen doors that worsen the noise problem. Staff was able to verify the noises from the refrigeration unit during a site inspection. According to Chapter 10.48.040 of the Community Noise Ordinance, individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same commercial property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding 55 dBA during the nighttime hours and 65 dBA during the daytime hours. This is a code enforcement issue and the property owner will be required to submit noise analysis from a licensed noise consultant verifying the problem and recommending mitigation measures. The property manager has informed the tenant, Tin Tin, and one door has been replaced with a solid door, but other actions appear not to have been taken. {-IS File No. U-2005-14 Page 6 October 25, 2005 Truck noise According to Chapter 10.48.062, it is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to make or aIlow vehicular deliveries or pickups to or from commercial establishments by the use of private roads, alleys or other ways located on either side or the back of any building housing the commercial establishment where such private road, alley or other way lies between the building and any adjacent parcel of land zoned for residential purposes, between the hours of eight (8) pm and eight (8) am on weekends and holidays. In addition, according to Chapter 10.48.055, trucks shall not be allowed to remain in one location with the engine or auxiliary motor running for more than three (3) minutes in an hour, in an area other than on a public right-of-way. The neighbors indicate, there are occasional trucks idling at the rear of the Tin Tin market (loading area) for more than 3 minutes and loading occurs at early hours and late in the evening, especially on weekends and holidays before 9:00 am and after 6:00 pm. The property manager states that the delivery trucks are in compliance with the loading hours and truck idling restrictions. Staff observed three large signs in the rear area: two in English and a third in Chinese, notifying drivers of this noise sensitive area. Over a year ago, there were two complaints of loud music in the rear area of the market. The Market was notified about this noise problem and there have been no further complaints. Li~htin~ Currently there are several building mounted lights along the north and south elevation of Tin Tin Market. These lights do not have any cut off shields that will prevent any glare or light to the adjacent residential properties. The property manager is aware of this issue and has agreed to install new fixtures with cut off shields. Staff noted that cut off shields have not been installed on these building-mounted lights. Odors Some neighbors are complaining about the odors that are emitting from the garage bins located in the rear of the market building. Staff was able to verify the odors from one emptied bin that was missing a lid. Vermin Control There have been reports of rodent problems along the back aIley of Tin Tin Market and in the yards of the adjacent residential properties. Staff was not able to confirm this problem during a site inspection. The neighbors are encouraged to contact the Santa Clara County Vector Control for enforcement actions. The City does not have any provisions on vermin control. Overflowin<¡ Gara<¡e Bins According to the neighbors, sometimes the garbage bins located at the rear of the Tin Tin Market are overflowing with garbage and with the lids opened. Per Chapter 6.24.070 of the Municipal Code, all garbage containers shall be kept in a sanitary { -lip File No. U-2005-14 Page 7 October 25, 2005 condition continuously closed with a tightfitting cover. Staff noted one bin was missing one of its lids. According to the property manager, the garage bins are cleaned up daily around 9 a.m. The neighbors are encouraged to contact the code enforcement department when the problem occurs. It should be noted that all of the complaints on the market property are nuisance/ code enforcement issues and have nothing to do with the merits of the proposed personal wireless service facility. Code enforcement staff responds to these code complaints. A proposed condition of approval would be that the property owner correct all of the confirmed code violations prior to issuance of the building permits for the antenna. Correspondence from Noticed Neighbors Staff has received two letters in opposition to the project and additional information that a resident would like you to review (Exhibit H). Submitted by: Colin J ung, Senior Planner c::::::::::- Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development~~ ENCLOSURES Exhibit A: T-Mobile Project Description Exhibit B: Photo Simulations of T-Mobile Monopole Exhibit C: Photo Simulation of CinguIar Wireless Monopole Exhibit D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6238 Exhibit E: 4 Radio Coverage Maps Exhibit F: RFR Study by Hammett & Edison dated August 30, 2005 Exhibit G: Letter from Pacific Rim Park dated 4/23/04 Exhibit H: Correspondence from Noticed Residents Plan Set G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcUsereports \ U-2005-14.doc (-11 !:xV\' Þ it·. M ill · -Mobile-' Get rnore f!"Om life' Project Information APN: 369-34-052 Site Address: 20041 Bollinger Rd., Cupertino, 95014 T-Mobile Site No. SF14949, Tin Tin Market Zoning General Plan Designation The site is currently zoned P(CG) and consists of approximately 2.7 acres. The site is surrounded by property zoned R-1.75to the north, R-I-6 to the south R; San Jose to the east and BQ, to the west. The subject parcel is owned by Pacific Rim PK, LLC. Project Descriptions & Visual Resources The proposed project consists of (3) three antennas on a 35' faux Italian Cypress monopole, and 3) three associated equipment cabinets on the ground at the rear of the building, behind a split block screen wall. Antennas measuring 54 114"XI2"X3 112" are screened within the "branches" on the monopole, in a slim-line arrangement. At the request of the City, a planter strip is proposed in which 3 live Italian Cypress tress would be planted, for additional visual mitigation. The equipment cabinets measuring 72 516"X23 3/5."XI5 3/4" will be painted to match the building and are concealed behind a new screen wall to provide maximum visual shielding from street level. (please see attached Site Plans and Photo Simulations.) T-Mobile submits that the proposed facility will enhance the existing wireless phone coverage in the area of this commercial center, and will increase much needed capacity and will allow for the integration of new safety and consumer-oriented services into the surrounding community. Site Selection Analysis Wireless systems are expanded or introduced in a given area to improve service to customers. There are several reasons to add a new fac.ility. It may extend the coverage to new areas, increase the capacity of the system within the current service area, or improve quality. Some wireless facilities accomplish all three improvements. This location was also selected because of its position relative to existing sites, providing favorable site geometry for federally mandated E911 location accuracy requirements and efficient rrequency reuse. Since 40 percent of9l1 calls are rrom mobile phones, effective site geometry within the overall network is needed to achieve accurate location infonnation of mobile users, through triangulation with active wireless facilities. Coverage: I-I£, Coverage can be defined as having a certain minimum level of signal strength in a particular area. T-Mobile's target is to provide -76dBm of signal strength to our customers' areas across the network. This level of service guarantees reliable signal strength inside buildings to provide excellent voice quality in residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. In today's competitive marketplace, T-Mobile requires high quality coverage to be competitive and to fulfill our responsibilities under our FCC license, and comply with CPUC mandates Capacity: Capacity is the number of calls that can be handled by a particular wireless facility. When we make phone calls, our mobile phones communicate with a nearby antenna site that can handle a limited number of calls. It then connects to land based phone lines. When a particular site is handling a sufficient number of calls, the available RF channels assigned to that site are at maximum capacity. When this occurs, the wireless phone user will hear a busy signal on his or her phone. For T-Mobile's specific GSM technology, typical sites with 3 antennas can handle a maximum of approximately 150 calls at any given time. The call traffic at the facility is continually monitored and analyzed so that overloading of sites is prevented. The objective for a capacity site is to handle increased call volume rather than expand a coverage area. For this project, a coverage gap was determined to exist in the Bollinger/Blaney area. Alternative Site Analysis Other candidates considered in the area were the 2 church facilities to the west of the proposed site. No response was received ITom either facility. Other commercial structures, Walgreen's, would create greater visual impact than the proposed and were removed ITom consideration, given the positive interest of Pacific Rim Partners. Additionally, at the request of the City, T-Mobile considered the possibility of using a "diminished" network installation, by looking at the Home Depot on De Anza Blvd. A "diminished" site is a facility that would not sufficiently cover the target area, and would have to be "infilled" with another site in the same general vicinity original search ring. Home Depot declined to consider a proposal ITom T-Mobile, both at the local level and at the regional level. Eliminated ITom consideration are sites where zoning ordinances prohibit the location, insufficient room for mechanical equipment is available, required setbacks cannot be achieved or landowners are not interested in leasing property. Safety and Compliance The proposed wireless communications facility will not create any nuisance or be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare, of persons residing or working in the neighborhood T-Mobile technology does not interfere with any other forms of private or public communications systems, operating under FCC regulations I-Iq After construction of the facility, the site will be serviced once a month, during a routine scheduled maintenance window by a service technician. The site is unmanned and is a self-monitored facility. There will be no impact on parking or traffic in the area. Conclusion T-Mobile has identified this location for a proposed wireless telecomm facility for several reasons. The property provides an excellent location from which wireless coverage can be enhanced in the City of Cupertino. The radio equipment cabinets have been designed to take advantage of the screening provided by the screen wall. The antennas will be concealed by the nature of the Cypress treepole. The proposed 35' pole is not as tall as existing utility poles in the immediate area, and smaller than nearby trees, thus providing the highest measure of visual mitigation, and least impact to the surroundings. Community Benefits Since its inception, wireless communications have provided services to communities far beyond mere convenience. Many businesses and Public Safety Agencies rely on these services in order to conduct important civic and commercial duties on a daily basis. Schools rely on an ability to reach parents quickly. Commercial Wireless companies have been at the forefront of critical communications services in recent events, such as earthquakes and fires in California. Traffic issues, weather and community events, are a few of the many services now available over these same communications devices. Wireless communications are an integral part of our national telecommunications infrastructure, and each community deserves the benefit of the best and most competitive service available. T-Mobile Company Information Based in Bellevue, Washington, the U.S. operations ofT-Mobile International AG & Co. K.G., consists ofT-Mobile USA, Inc. (formerly VoiceStream Wireless) and Powertel, Inc. (together "T- Mobile"). T-Mobile is one of the fastest growing nationwide wireless service providers, offering all digital voice, messaging and high-speed wireless data services to more than 16.3 million customers in the United States. A cornerstone ofT-Mobile's strong consumer appeal has been its Get More® business strategy to provide customers with the best overall value in their wireless service so they can enjoy the benefits of mobile communications to Get More From Life®. T-Mobile has more than 24,000 employees across the country dedicated to delivering on its Get More® promise to provide customers with more minutes, more features and more service. The T-Mobile global brand name made its debut in the United States in July 2002, choosing California and Nevada as the first markets in the country to launch its wireless voice and data services. Here in the Bay Area, T -Mobile has purchased and taken control of the former Pac Bell Wireless/ Cingular System on January 5, 2005. T-Mobile holds license in the California Market as follows: 1950.2-1964.8, 1965.2-1969.8 MHz and 1870.2-1884.8,1885.2-1889.8 MHz. T-Mobile offers consumers and business customers the most advanced mobile communications services available today, including voice, text messaging, and high-speed wireless data services. T- Mobile operates an all-digital, national wireless network based exclusively on GSM technology. I -,;{O Enhanced Messaging Services - SMS, Instant Messaging & MMS T-Mobile offers its customers a variety of options for using Short Messaging Service (SMS) or text messaging and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS). SMS: Every T-Mobile customer, regardless of device or rate plan, can send text messages via their handset to friends and family, no matter which wireless service provider they use. In addition, customers and their colleagues can use the Internet to send and receive text messages between wireless phones, devices and personal computers. IM: T-Mobile customers can use Yahoo! ® Messenger, MSN® Messenger and AOL® Instant Messenger Software to interact with millions of instant messaging users worldwide. MMS: T-Mobile has upgraded its entire national network to provide MMS services. MMS enables customers to complement their text messages with sound, animation and melodies to send to e-mail addresses and compatible handsets. As part of this rich visual communications offering, T-Mobile offers handsets that let customers take a picture and send it to any e-mail address or other MMS- capable phone and then talk about it - all·ITom a single device. Additionally, MMS enables customers to send short video clips to e-mail or other MMS-capable phones, giving T-Mobile customers a whole new way to communicate. 2.5G GPRS High Speed Wireless Data T-Mobile leverages its national, standards-based GSM network to provide customers with the latest in mobile communications including wireless data access through its T-Mobile Internet service. This allows customers to remotely access the Internet; get their corporate and personal e-mail; keep contacts and calendar information updated on the go; and get popular games, news and information services such as sports scores, stock quotes, horoscopes and games delivered automatically or on demand to their wireless handset or device. T-MobiIe HotSpoëM - Wi-Fi (802.11b) Wireless Broadband Internet Service T-Mobile complements its existing national GSM/GPRS wireless voice and high-speed data network by providing Wi-Fi (802.11 b) wireless broadband Internet access in more than 5,000 convenient public locations in the United States where people already go when they're away from their home or office. By combining the benefits of these networks, T-Mobile offers customers coverage where they want it and speed when they need it. T-Mobi]e is uniquely able to provide a comprehensive wireless service offering that meets customers' needs for wireless connectivity. Backed by T-I circuits, T-Mobile HotSpot service is reliable and fast enough to accommodate a broad spectrum of applications ITom checking e-mail to multimedia videoconferencing. /-:;)" ¡::;Y-lt\J ¡¿, I J "'-' œ C G i' ¡'j ']; Tin Tin Market d~J..," 10887 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from Bollinger Road looking northeast ac sire ....... _. Ô~Y~"Q,S~s~,~~~~ ) ,- ~:r~V1 :¡;, ;.1") ,'.',1-" }-2:< ,..., 1\ IT 1 il Tin Tin Market '1" . "LVIÜÜ'e· 10881South8laneyAve. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from South Bloney Rood iooking west ar sire Proposed T-Mobile Installation & Landscaping f.\~Y;ê"~I~~~"i,,~!,~ ) f:;rnC1.9/.:; ìf,)¡¡',rp I~d-~ ¥'F"'t-c.\;;I'0c3i'·>\"f~ ~~\':n:'t'>~,,;;-~',,: ,..., , Tin Tin Market ~'J..l!1 j~ ~.. ,;.. -' 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from Bollinger Road looking northwest at site j -- Proposed T-Moblle InSfD"? & Landscoping ~,~Yê"~s,~~I~!~ ) ~. ~.~'~'-' ':\¡, ;:.;, é.'F! I~;)..+ --/" \ I . ';.. '- OPTION A: Wes' ;ide of building (red\ Jod style tree) 'a ~ o S' \It -. :I = - ~ -. o :J 2- .. J It '0 ~ " o VI It CL ;- § a :I s: :J -. Q !t o :J VI ;- ^ -. l I» \It .... It (I ::J - g ~ -. :::a o E ID ::1- ~ a i WI- . CD - 01 :::a .t h25 Exh~ b't-·. D U-2003-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6238 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY CONSISTING OF SIX PCS PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ON A 55 FOOT TALL TREEPOLE AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT CABINETS LOCATED IN A FENCED ENCLOSURE AT 10881 SOUTH BLANEY AVENUE, APN 369-34-052 SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the project is inadequately camouflaged and obstructive in its environmental context in that it visually dominates its surroundings. The project is thus inconsistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is not approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2003-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2004 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: U-2003-12 Leah Hernikl (for Cingular Wireless) Pacific Rim Park, LLC 10881 S. Blaney Avenue { - ;).fo PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following. roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVE, /~.. /_ /~ Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development i~g . aadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:/ plannmg/pdreport/ res/U-2003-12 (..-;¿ 7 '0 o H 0.- ~ H 5 s: ~ ~ .! ~ If of 8," c ¡¡;... .... i-1! ~ ~i! u !íi~ ~.; ¡¡. ~ ~ ': o¡ u¡SrJ'J ~o.s..9. ~ .....8 I c. ~ r ~ ~ 8 ¡ ft ~~ ..§ 11 ~ rJ'J ii~ ~ .s~ '': ~! œ .. ~H . . .. Bo'¡,8IT: E ,. I <. c-.. ... ~ - ! -y". II ...111\18_"0111 ~. ~ L I ; ~ ,-. 0 , I- / ,,/ ¡ . _. 1--::' .- i ! 1_./) -. ,......--··1 _n i~ i I ---,--: l~j5 ( -, ~f $" g .!I ill CI .. ¡o.-'" -a~'Hl .. 5 15 u po. Q -= -a!< j....o~8 ~ '" = ü.! ~ ......u t(I'" N ut(l~ 1!-ä.~~ Q~ ff.!i:t u 5·=" + II !'I ~.~p;. ii"oo~'à .. -5"<> u~OOtOt:dø¡l= ..s~ .1:: I > ... oS '': ... ~ 00 ~ ð . .S c.~ .. II~;UÆ J g ~~ __"ClI f-' , ~ ~- --~ ~ i i , '- ...!... --J , I I !../_. . ~ i ' II .,..-"--~-¡ - -1 ----L (-2q I t! .i ; m -, L-C) ~¡ iJ ~ "' - ti isH ð Hi ~£8",ª .a·=~j-]H¡" =:~~. :a:= "0 u ~... 11::1 Co) bD..§.... ~c::~Ø? ! ··~~~O,!j¡;c:. ~ ~ C/) ~ Q ~ I~ (3 I ~ ----j ~ '-I I_I -i --' I' . , , ! \ 1==1' -L NJ.AnI.~ I . '-r--"" ( ! I , , .:. ... Ii I j j I : ¡' -Li ( I , '. , , . , /'---1 I . '----i-! ' . ..., \." I I, I~j D ~ ...~ 00 " ¡¡¡ .¡¡;;;- ¡;~ ~¡g ~ /r-:, "~._---_.~ -ì-;O.-- . -~ 6 "~L__L." -~, ,I (',"-- ""'-< .--,- . I ! -,-- " T -;. '.~ I \ , , 0-,) i I , '- I_J I' i t, .- '-- i ..- . . .. ~ J!c> ....------; . '---t', -/" ¡----, "'- J ~ì I, ! ! ~- f- r I, I I t-- '- ", ...... "'165 L , '--' ~ ~- · · · · Î i , I ì I . ,~ , ~ 'Iii i í I -i i ¡II ,- "I 1---1 ~-L I_I -L--_L i I .-' '! i . '-- :_1 · '---ì I ,... L-! .. k " ( J i I ¡L '''"-..... , ""'---J r....~~ ..__.... ' '-----.... --, I -- r " ~ ~ r---.... Ir-- I , __·as 1-1 , I -'----~.... ., , "-. ", -', " -c., - , .., j I '- ; -Li j I ~ n¡ I \ i , , -L_ I I I i , Iii. 'I r-I, I ~i¡ ill 1 I I _ 1......... / . ! / i,~ I , ----, ----¡ ~--! , j ! '-... --r--; J .'- ------ -1--. .-> /----. ¡--..... ~- , r_____. , u c , i! £ i-- . i -L-_I Tl i ¡ ! í- ! i , '----l ¡ ]' I I" L_I 1_, !--- - "~ Ii' --! , '- .~-I i --+-- , ./ - L--1 -, r -- (-3D /' ,.~ ,-I W[ .1 PIlI,"" .......J...-sN ~, ~ :g ~ ~ 8'ö:''i:' ~ CI Co' ,¡ g u ~ ';'~~ .~ 'U:;~nt ~¡. ~.r~ ~ ~88 ~:s j..¡¡:E;;H--"~ ~ ,¡¡ rJ) .~ '3 i ~ Æ .5 ~. ~~I....,....,IQ>UJ~;t " .....id···-> 9~&1ð -- .~-/\ ~ \8 . ~ ~ , , i \- - ---j I i - 'I - " ,- - .- -. - (---.-::::. " ,--::> '~ -') \-/ \ .------¡ '. - 1~31 .- ,'y t:-'/:. ,,\ \¡» 'í: ¡:.: T-Mobile· Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF14949) 20041 Bollinger Road· Santa Clara, California . Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf ofT-Mobile, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF14949) proposed to be located at 20041 Bollinger Road in Santa Clara, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in 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 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in F·igure 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 limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio ftequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless SeJVice Personal Communication ("PCS") Cellular Telephone Specialized Mobile Radio [most restrictive ftequency range] ADOTOX. Freauency 1,950 MHz 870 855 30-300 OccuDational Limit 5.00 mW/cm2 2.90 2.85 1.00 Public Limit 1.00 mW/cm2 0.58 0.57 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts; the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") 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 about I inch thick. 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 HE HAMMEIT &; EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO TMSF14949596.1 Page 1 of3 1- 3:) T-Mobile' Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF14949) 20041 Bollinger Road' Santa Clara, California the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully fonned at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that 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 T-Mobile, including drawings by MSA Architecture and Planning, Inc., dated June 29, 2005, it is proposed to mount three Andrew Model ADFDI820-6565B- XDM directional panel antennas on a new 35-foot steel pole to be located near the Tin Tin Market at 20041 Bollinger Road in Santa Clara. The antennas would mounted at an effective height of about 33 feet above ground and would be oriented in pairs with up to 30 downtilt at 1200 spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,200 watts, representing six channels operating simultaneously at 200 watts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations located nearby. Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum ambient RF exposure level due to the proposed T-Mobile operation is calculated to be 0.0058 mW/cm2, which is 0.58% of the· applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculatèd level on the roof of the adjacent building is 3.7% and the maximum calculated level at the second floor elevation of any nearby building' is 0.97% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the T-Mobile antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure HE , Located at least 90 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Terraserver. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO 1MSF\4949596.\ Page 2 of3 /-33 T-Mobile. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF14949) 20041 Bollinger Road· Santa Clara, California guidelines. It is presumed that T-Mobile will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors 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 the base station proposed by T-Mobile at 20041 Bollinger Road in Santa Clara, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio ftequency 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. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2007. This work has been carried out by him or 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. August 30, 2005 4 P.E. . HE HAMMETT &. EDISON, INC. mNSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO IMSF14949596.1 Page 3 00 i -s4 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 ftom Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radioftequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." 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) 0.3 - 1.34 1.34 - 3.0 3.0 - 30 30 - 300 300 - 1,500 1,500- 100,000 Electromagnetic Fields (f is froouencv of emission in MHz) Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (Aim) (mW/cm') 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/f 1.63 2. 19/f 100 180/1 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2. 19/f 900/1' 180/1 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.54..Jf 1.5!NJ ..Jf/106 {¡"l238 moo j7I500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 ~ 100 .... þMS 10 0._ CJ ~!9~ ~¿¡~ I ~ 0.1 / Occupational Exposure /" PCS Cell ____I - 0.1 I 10 100 103 Frequency (MHz) 104 10S 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. HE HAMMETT &; EDISON, INC. CONSULTWG ENGINEERS SAN FRANClSOO FCC Guidelines Figure 1 /-35 TM 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 I) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margilT 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 cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: I) D > ~ 2) D> 5h 3) D> 1.6^ where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ^ = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: . S - 180 0.1 x Poet . mW 2 power density - !!BW x It x D x h' lIT fcm , where eBW = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Poet = net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: d . S 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP . mWA 2 power enslty = 4 x It x D2 ' lIT em , 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. HE HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANOSCO Methodology Figure 2 /-% Pacific Rim Park, LLC A California Limited Liability Company 5057 Forest Glen Drive San Jose, CA 95129 Tel/Fax: 408-255-4163 SteveCaserzaíq),att.net Mr. Gary Chao Associate Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014-3255 April 23, 2004 Re: Tin Tin Market, 10881 South Blaney Avenue Dear Mr. Chao: It was a pleasure meeting you at the property on April 20, 2004. With respect to the issues raised by the neighbors pertaining to the Tin Tin Market, I can provide the following. Noise Issues - Mechanical Systems I have spoken with the management at Tin Tin Market regarding noise from their mechanical systems, and advised them that they may be required to hire a consultant to perfonn a noise study and, if necessary, take appropriate action to bring their mechanical systems into compliance with City of Cupertino Ordinances. Noise Issues - Trucks and Loadinl! ODerations On my many visits to the site, I have noted that the various delivery trucks are in compliance with the City of Cupertino Ordinances, both with respect to engines not exceeding the idling time limit of 3 minutes and not loading during prohibited hours. Nonetheless, I have again reminded Tin Tin Market of these requirements. I will also advise our maintenance company to obtain one new sign to replace the aging sign on the stone wall. This is one of two signs in the loading area which outlines rules for the drivers regarding truck and loading operations. Lil!htinl! The lighting on the back wall of Tin Tin Market is controlled by Tin Tin. I have advised Tin Tin that the lights will need to meet the City of Cupertino standards, and they are having their electrician look into this matter. £)é~.~~~t: G 1-37 Vermin Pacific Rim Park, LLC maintains a monthly extennination service contract, including rodent bait boxes. In addition, Tin Tin Market maintains an additional monthly extennination service contract, including rodent bait boxes. It is the Tin Tin rodent bait boxes that were reported to be somewhat in disarray, and I have advised Tin Tin to have their extermination service correct this matter. Trash Bins Tin Tin Market utilizes two dumpsters for their exclusive use. These dumpsters are serviced on a daily basis, being dumped each lImning (not before 9:00 a.m., but typically dumped before 10:00 a.m.). On my visits to the property, I notice that the bins are not overflowing and their lids are closed. In the hour prior to our meeting, I observed two separate Tin Tin employees, on two separate occasions, bring trash to the dumpsters, and dutifully close the lids each time. I have advised Tin Tin Market to continue this practice. I have also advised Tin Tin Market to have their vendors pick up their empty delivery containers promptly. Sincerely, Steven F. Caserza Manager (-?f6 EXhilpít": Ii RECEIVED SEP 1 2 Z005 Kevin Yen Catherine Tang 1052 Arlington Lane San Jose, CA 95129 September 8, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Piasecki, We and our neighbors are strongly against application U-2005-14 by William Stephens ofT-Mobile to erect a cellular phone antenna and an equipment shelter. First all we believe the wireless signal is already adequate in the area. Most importantly, there have been researches and studies shown that microwaves, especially those for wireless communications, have long-term impact to human health. It has been reported that constant exposure, such as staying close to a wireless antenna or frequent use of cellular phone causes brain cancer and other diseases. It is expected more and more evidences will be unearthed. There is no doubt cellular phones have provide convenience to life. However, we must take extra precaution in the area that we have limited knowledge in, especially when it is about our health. After all cellular technology has only been introduced for 20 years. zours, Kevin Yen C~~ ) --- /-3g October 19, 2005 City Of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Reference: Application No: U-2005-14APN 369-34-052 Applicant: William Stephens/T-MobiIe Location: 10881 S. Blaney Ave. (fin Tin Market) Attention: Planning Commission We are the owners and residents at 20062 La Roda Cr. Cupertino, Ca. APN: 369-34-035 and have lived in this location for over 34 Years. We wish to object to the to the proposed wireless phone antenna and equipment shelter. We feel that the tower will have a negative impact on the local community, create more noise in the market area on a 24-hour basis, and overpower the surrounding area with its size. We already have good cell phone reception in this area Its proximity next to the garbage cans of Tin-Tin Market will provide close habitat for the rats that infest the area belllnd the market. We have caught many rodents over the years and find that the number of rodents caught is constant throughout the year. This leads us to believe that the food source is available year round. Another location for this tower should be found in the surrounding area that has less impact than this one. Possibilities locations such as at the new Cupertino Library or 24000 Stevens Creek Blvd (City Center Tower) come to mind. Cupertino should hold applicants to high standards while making the community an aesthetically pleasing place to live. ._J=A,w~ ~#WL ./ n!c:-~ Þ;:cl.: & Lana Wong // _ C·· FRANK & LANA WONG APN: 369-34-035 20062 LA RODA CT. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 {- t-fO Page j ot j Colin Jung From: Tom Hugunin [thugunin@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 200512:18AM To: Colin Jung Subject: Tin-Tin Wireless Colin, Please include this background information on application U-2005-14 for the planning commission meeting on October 25,2005. It provides a history on the Pacific-Rim center and promises made during the Walgreen's application in 1997. Included are the Cupertino Courier articles relating to the past wireless applications at the same site plus others of interest in the city. Attached is also a guide from Santa Clara County Vector Control regarding rats and the type of foliage they like to nest in. Tom Hugunin 20076 La Rocta Ct Cupertino Ca 95014 10/20/2005 I-t-fl \'V aJ)9 ¡;;ç:u VI U1;;::'lUI ç 100 lIlll-..IIWWW.::.Vl.; I.t.;UIIlli:1n.:ruve;:::;/t.;upe;:nlIlU(;UU[Je[jV~.l/.~ II walgreen... The Cupertino Courier Neighbors Þght plan for 24-hour drugstore Planning Commission takes up issue on ( ,~ Monday night -' -" - ® <1 \ 1'1 \ \'1 q +- By Pam Marino Neighbors of a proposed 24-hour Walgreen drugstore are gearing up to fight the project for a second time before the Planning Commission next Monday night. Last week about 20 residents appeared before the commission to voice their objections to the project, located at the comer of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue in the All-American shopping center. They left the meeting disgruntled after commission members voted to continue the issue, requesting more infonnation trom city staff and the developer, Thomas Boyd. To residents, it appeared as if the commission was finding ways to approve the store, perhaps restricting the hours as a compromise. "I'm wondering what the rush is," Billie Cramb told the commission during a meeting last week. "Sitting in the audience, this appears to be a done deal." Cramb said she canvassed the neighborhood before the meeting and found widespread opposition. The city's planning staff has recommended approval of the project, which they noted will bring needed sales-tax revenue at a time when other retail outlets are leaving the city. Planning Commissioner Andrea Harris agreed with that assessment. "We have so many businesses moving out of toWn. Someone moving into town is very satisfying to me. In that respect I like the idea," she said at the meeting. However, she said she was left with too many questions to approve the project. The report also said that building the Walgreen store will allow the aging center to be further renovated. Potential I-'-I.:? 10/19/2005 I: 16 PM Walgreen Drugstore 200 http://www.svcn.com/archives/cupertinocourier/09 .17.97 /W algreen... new owners have proposed resurfacing the parking lot and renovating the buildings that now house the Tin-Tin Market and some smaller Asian-oriented business stores, once Walgreen is completed. But residents argued that the area does not need another drug store. They said there are four drug stores within about a mile and a half of the site. They said the issues of increased traffic, noise during the night and other potential problems far outweigh benefits to the city. Residents also predicted that accidents could increase at the Bollinger/Blaney intersection. "I've seen a lot of metal come in contact on those streets," said Ken Pugh, who's lived his entire life just over the city limits in San Jose. Bob Cowan, director of community development, said about 350 cars are estimated to come into such a Walgreen each day; those trips are expected to come out of the existing number of vehicles that use Blaney and Bollinger already. Residents, however, called the city's estimates low. "I just don't think traffic has been looked at thoroughly," Scott Cowing told the Commission. Aside from not wanting the store to be built, the biggest complaint from residents was about the 24-hour designation. "Twenty-four hours, I think, is absolutely ludicrous," Cowing said. "At about 9 p.m., we all have a certain sense of qúietness." George Munk agreed. "This will be a magnet for a large number of people 24 hours a day," he said. "You've got Stevens Creek and De Anza both intended for this kind of development. Let's keep it there." A few residents pointed out that when Taco Bell at the comer of Bollinger and De Anza Boulevard was open 24 hours it resulted in trouble from loiterers. According to the staff report, the Sheriffs Department listed no objections to the hours, citing the lack of trouble at similar drug stores in the county. 9 c¡ I 'I ~ ~ ~ @ }-tf3 10119/20051:16 PM Walgreen urugstore 300 nrrp:/IWWW.svcn.cOl1llarcmves/cupenmocouner¡UY.l/..J II walgreen... By the end of the meeting, all four comrmSSlOners present, Harris, Orin Mahoney, David Doyle and Donna Austin, said they would not support the store being open 24 hours. Harris said the comments trom residents had changed her mind on the issue. Mahoney said the comer was the wrong location for a 24-hour store. The commissioners were also concerned about a plan to add two drive-through bays for prescription pick-ups. They said they would prefer one bay or no drive-up service at all. Boyd said Walgreen will not build if the drive-up window is not allowed. "That's not a threat," he said, adding that Walgreen is just not interested in building a stand-alone store without it. Commissioners said they wanted to get more information about several issues, including traffic, parking and building colors, by the Sept. 22 meeting. In the meantime, residents vowed they would be walking the neighborhood seeking more support against the project, and will be holding meetings to discuss further opposition plans. Monday's Planning Commission meeting will be held at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 10300 Torre Ave. [ Back to Contents Page I Cupertino Courier Home Page I Archives] This article appeared in the Cupertino Courier, September 17, 1997. ©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. q \ \ q II 7q +- @ 1-41 10/19/2005 1:16 PM Walgreen http://www.svcn.com/archives/cupertinocourier/I 0.0 1.97/W algreen.hlml The Cupertino Courier Walgreen developer turns to rr:::\ neighbors \ 0 \ 11 \ '1'17- ~ By Pam Marino Choosing negotiation over certain defeat, the developers of a proposed Walgreen drugstore agreed to continue their Planning Commission request for one month in order to meet with unhappy neighbors. Developers announced at last week's Planning Commission meeting that Walgreen was withdrawing its request for 24-hour operation of the proposed store at the comer of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue in the All-American Shopping Center. Angry residents had blasted the idea at a meeting two weeks earlier. Despite the withdrawal, the project was headed for defeat, with three planning commissioners--David Doyle, Andrea Harris and Paul Roberts--announcing they opposed it because of residents' complaints. Commissioners Donna Austin and Orin Mahoney said they supported the project. The commissioners gave the developers the option of appealing a negative recommendation to the City Council or continuing the issue until the Oct. 27 Planning Commission meeting. All five commissioners were generally supportive of the idea of a Walgreen coming to the fading All-American center, which would be completely renovated after the store's construction. In addition to revamping the center, Walgreen would bring welcome sales tax revenue at a time when businesses have been leaving the city. However, Doyle, Harris and Roberts said they could not vote for a project that the neighbors clearly did not want. "I'm going to vote no on this project because the homework hasn't been done with the neighborhood," said Harris, who chairs the commission. She criticized developers for meeting with city staff for six months, but never enlisting any ideas from neighbors. I-t.fs lof2 10/19/2005 1:16 PM WaJgreen hnp:/ Iwww.svcn.convarchlveS/cupertmocouner/lU.Ul.YiIWaJgreen.html Residents argued before the commission that the new store will bring increased traffic and noise to surrounding homes, despite city staff reports to the contrary. One of the spokesmen for residents, Peter Turk, presented a petition with 90 signatures opposing the store. \oj,II'1<=;1- 0-/~ The commissioners suggested that part of Walgreen's problem is the poor relationship neighbors have with the existing center. Neighbors said noise from early-morning deliveries--illegal under city codes--odors and trash have been a constant problem, with little responsiveness from the people who represent the trust that owns the center. The company planning to renovate the center has an option to buy the property from the trust if the Walgreen store is approved for construction. Mike Tevis, representing the interested buyers, promised the commissioners the center would be run in a clean, safe, professional manner by the new owners. Commissioner Roberts said he could understand the suspicions of residents based on the past operation of the center. Commissioner Doyle suggested the two sides get together. . "The new owners need to prove to the neighborhood there is a value to the neighborhood," he said. After the public hearing, the developers' representatives met with residents to detennine when the two sides could meet. The first meeting was scheduled for last night, with potentially more over the next few weeks. [ Back to Contents Page I Cupertino Courier Home Page I Archives] Thisartic1e appeared in the Cupertino Courier, October 1, 1997. ©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. 1-'110 20f2 10/19/2005 1:16 PM Wa/green nllp;lfwWW.~VÇIl.çUIIuan.;Jllvt;;::;/l;Upt:J llllU(.,:UUlll;lf I U,LL..7 II VVi:ug¡t;t;Il.IIUJlt The Cupertino Courier Walgreen, neighbors iron out differences \C\'2-""t.( 1<1'11- By Pam Marino Thanks to meetings between developers and neighbors, a controversial proposal for a new Walgreen store may get the green light ITom the Planning Commission Monday night. Last month neighbors strongly opposed the Walgreen, . planned for the comer of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue in the All-American Shopping Center. After attending two Planning Commission meetings protesting the new store because of concerns over traffic and noise, some of the neighbors agreed to meet with developers to see if a compromise could be worked out. "It looks like it's going to move forward," resident Peter Turk said last week. Turk said he and several other residents met twice with developers this month. "They did some redesign of the facility, and everybody seemed happy with that." Developer representatives were out of town and unavailable for comment. The shopping center is in the process of being sold to new owners who are negotiating with Walgreen for the construction of the store. A spokesman for the new owners told the commission in September that the Walgreen deal will allow them to renovate the entire center, which has been in decline in recent years. Neighbors of the center said they have been plagued for years by noise ITom early-morning deliveries to the Tin-Tin Market--not allowed by city codes--and from older air-conditioning equipment for the center's buildings. Turk said the new owners told residents they will be willing to prohibit center tenants ITom accepting off-hour deliveries and will upgrade the older air-conditioning equipment. lof2 @ 1-t.-f7 10/19120051:11 PM nU~51""''''''1l un}.'.11 VIIVI' W.:")VI.,;U.I.,;UlIUäI I.,;Il1Vt::S/I.,;Upt:flmUCUUnert 1 V.L.L..'i II walgreen.nunl Still at issue is what traffic impact the new store will bring to the surrounding neighborhood. A city traffic engineer said the impact would be minimal, but residents questioned that assessment. Further traffic-study findings will be presented by the developers at Monday's meeting, 6:45 p.m. at City Hall, 10300 Torre Ave. [ Back to Contents Page I Cupertino Courier Home Page I Archives] This article appeared in the Cupertino Courier, October 22, 1997. ©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. 20f2 1 0 b-~ \ lî'77- C® ¡-/fro 10/19/20051:11 PM Walgreen Drug Store lof2 http://www.svcn.convarchlveS/cupenmocouner/ll.l ':1.':111 walgrt:t:ll... The Cupertino Courier Commission approves new . Walgreen store \ \ lie, \ I î '11'- @ Developer, neighbors iron out differences By Pam Marino Once strongly opposed by residents, a proposed Walgreen Drug Store was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission last week, after changes were made to satisfY neighborhood concems. The new owners of the All American Shopping Center, at the comer of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue, met with neighbors twice after the Walgreen building faced certain defeat at a public hearing in September. As a result of those meetings, the building design was changed to reduce its impact on the surrounding neighborhood, architect Tom Boyd told the commission. The tower at the entrance to the store was lowered, and facade changes, such as multipaned windows and more planter pots, were added to give the building more of a residential feel. Scott Cowing, one of several residents who had met with developers, told the commissioners he and his neighbors were not as opposed to the building as before, but he still had concerns about increased traffic. A city traffic engineer said there will be a slight increase in the number of vehicle trips into the center, but he contended they will not be enough to seriously impact the intersection of Bollinger and Blaney. Cowing also said neighbors wanted the store's hours of operation further restricted and closing time moved from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. The commissioners made the earlier closing time a condition of their approval. Walgreen had originally requested a 24-hour operation. In response to other neighborhood concerns, developers also agreed to replace an old wall with pedestrian access between the back of the center and LaRoda Court with a new 8-foot solid wall blocking access. They also said 1-1q 10/19/2005 I :09 PM Walgreen Urug ::itore 20f2 http://www.svcn.com/archlves/cupertmocQuner/ll.1 Y.Y7/Walgreen... they would work with Tin-Tin Market to add a gate at the back of the store that would restrict delivery trucks to city-approved delivery hours. Neighbors said that trucks frequently bend the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. rule, bringing unwanted noise at very early hours. Walgreen officials were asking for two drive-up bays for prescription pickups, and neighbors did not oppose the request, but the commissioners said they wanted only one drive-up window. The Planning Commission recommendation goes before the City Council on Dec. 1. The meeting is at 6:45 p.m. in City Hall, 10300 Torre Ave. [ Back to Contents Page I Cupertino Courier Home Page I Archives] This article appeared in the Cupertino Courier, November 19, 1997. © 1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. \ \ \ \ ~ \1 c¡q 1- GI~ 1-5i) 10/19/2005 I :09 PM News Briets http://www.svcn.com/archlves/cupertmocouner/ 12. J./.':J / /Newstsnels... The Cupertino Courier News Briefs Council approves Walgreen store The City Council unanimously approved plans recently for a new Walgreen store in the All American Shopping Center at the comer of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue. The stand-alone 13,835-square-foot store will be the new home for the Walgreen now located on De Anza Boulevard in San Jose, in the same center as the now-empty Kmart. Developers of the new Walgreen are in the process of buying the All American Shopping Center. The requirements for building the new store include revamping the entire center parking lot and putting in new lights and landscaping. A development representative said his company plans to renovate the entire center within the next two years. Originally neighboring residents had protested the new store, but developers met with a group of them at the urging of the Planning Commission. The results were a redesigned building with a more residential feel and promises from the developers to remedy noise and other problems at the decaying center. Early on, residents were successful in getting the developer to withdraw plans to keep the store open 24 hours. The Planning Commission voted to allow the store to be open fÌ"Om 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. FUHSD opposes plan to reconfigure district boundary Fremont Union High School trustees Dec. 9 unanimously opposed a county plan to realign school district boundaries on the west side of Santa Clara County. Two of the boundary changes being studied by the lof2 \ 2-/1 '1 II cr'7f- ® {-51 10/19/20051:15 PM News Briefs http://www.svcn.com/archives/cupertinoCQuner/ ILl 7.':)7 /Newsllnets... county Committee on School District Organization would remove areas currently served by FUHSD. Basically, all students now in FUHSD who live in the city of Saratoga would transfer to Saratoga High School. \2./17- 1<7G¡l- ¿12- Redrawing the boundary would cost FUHSD at least $750,000 a year, according to a financial analysis. There are 278 students--most of whom attend Lynbrook High School--that would be affected. Nearly 2,000 homes--assessed at $668 million--would funnel property tax to the Saratoga district instead ofFUHSD. [ Back to Contents Page I Cupertino Courier Home Page I Archives] This article appeared in the Cupertino Courier, December 17, 1997. © 1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. /-5:< 20f2 10/19/2005 1:15 PM lne L-upenmo Lount:r I V'tl'"J I may 1£, ..::.uv't 1I~~p.11 \IV W W .\.-VII1HIUlI1tY-III;,VV3pap\.-13.\.-VIIJI al \.-111 V\.-3/ \.-UPI;,I \ IIV\.-VUII\.-I/... ~OÜRrER May 12,2004 Cupertino, California Since 1947 __..I.Hlltl;l'I<.~ News ~ -::,1 I "2...\?OO'-{ ~~ ~ Wireless company can't find spot for tall fake tree By I-chun Che Mary Abrook likes trees. She enjoys seeing the redwood forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains from her living room in Cupertino. But when Cingular Wireless proposed erecting a 55-foot-high artificial tree for its antenna facility in the shopping center next to her house, she asked them to find another spot. "The tree will stick out like a sore thumb, without any trees surrounding it," said Abrook, who lives next to the Tin Tin Market, where Cingular proposed to build the tree. "I am also concerned that the waves will affect young children." Abrook's neighbors share her concerns. At the April 26 planning commission meeting, people in the neighborhood, many of whom got to know each other because of the proposal, requested that the commission deny Cingular's application. The planning commission did reject the application, but the case also shows that the city needs more than a well-written Wireless Facilities Master Plan to help wireless providers build antenna facilities in residential areas. Cingular Wireless complied with the guidelines but still failed, mostly because of reasons that were beyond its control. To provide residents with better cellular-phone reception, the city council passed the Wireless Facilities Master Plan in October of2003. The document provides guidelines for wireless providers to build antennas throughout the city. Before that, antennas were prohibited in residential neighborhoods. For the past five years, staff had been approached by such wireless /-5S 100 10/1912005 1:00 PM .u.... .........p"'.UUV "",VLU''''' I V.If I HH"'] ....., ....VV. IHLp.1I VV n n .....VHll~lUlllly-lJç;vv3papC;1 3.'-'UlIlIal '-'III Vt;.::o/I,.;U1Jt;1 ulJu!,.:UUnt;r¡ ... providers as AT&T Wireless, Verizon, Cingular and Sprint PCS to place an antenna facility in the Tin Tin Market parking lot or on the flagpole on the property of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. An antenna at this location would serve Abrook's neighborhood near S. Blaney Avenue, Eaton Elementary School, Bollinger Road commuters and the adjacent San Jose neighborhood. The Master Plan states a preference for facilities to be located on existing structures and buildings. There is a lack of tall buildings in the neighborhood, which is predominantly made up of one-story buildings and single-family residences. The owners of the only taller building, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were not interested in having an antenna on their property. So Cingular went to its next preference, building a new structure in a nonresidential location. It originally proposed erecting the tree at the rear of the Tin Tin Market near La Roda Drive but faced strong opposition trom the residents there. Cingular then decided to locate the tree near a midway point between Bollinger Road and La Roda Drive after examining other possible sites. The sites that Cingular had considered included the Home Depot building on De Anza Boulevard, the new City Library building, adjacent city-owned land and City Center properties. But all the sites were too far away to provide satisfactory coverage to this particular neighborhood. To prevent the facility trom looking intrusive, Cingular camouflaged the monopole, a type of antenna, as an artificial tree. "A simulated tree may look goofY, but it looks better than a traditional monopole," Chao said. To address the residents' health concems, Cingular hired a reputable health physicist to assure residents that the waves would be too weak to cause any impact to health. But the residents questioned the doctor's credibility because he was paid by Cingular. Assistant city planner Gary Chao said to prevent residents trom doubting health specialists' credibility, the city will consider selecting a few consultants for wireless providers to choose trom in the future. The applicants will still pay for the consulting fee. "The applicant did exhaust all the options, and their proposal was consistent with the Master Plan," Chao said. "They haven't expressed interest in appealing the case. The area will remain a black hole of reception for a while." Meanwhile, the 55-foot-high artificial tree brought to light another issue that has long fÌ"Ustrated the residents: the code violations of the Tin Tin Market. 20f3 '?:, \ \"2. \ ¿ ÖCJ L{ @ I-54 10/1912005 1 :00 PM The Cupertino Courier 1 04191 May 12,2004 30f3 http://www.community-newspapers.cOmlarChl ves/cupertmocourler/... Their complaints include noise fTom a refrigeration unit, truck noise, light glaring into residents' bedrooms, rats and overflowing garbage bins. "We basically live with rats," said Tom Hugunin, who puts rodent bait boxes along his backyard fence. "Although it is generally believed that the rats come fTom Tin Tin, it is hard to prove." The property manager of the shopping center, the city staff and the people from Tin Tin Market have been meeting to solve the problems. "If residents have any problems, they should call code enforcement," Chao said. Copyright © SVCN. LLC. ~ \ n- 1'2-00'-( @ 1~55 10119/2005 1:00 PM The Cupertino Courierl 04291 July 21, 2004 http://www.svcn.comlarchives/cupertinocourier/20040721/cu-coverst.. . ~OÛRÌER July 21, 2004 Cupertino, California Since /947 1BIIIIIII1IIIIII:rI.;T~~~'U.~__ __ News (12..\\o~ @ Commission nixes hiding the antenna in a crucifix By Robert S. Hong Sprint PCS went to church in Cupertino hoping for communication with a higher power. The telecommunications giant had opted to place a new radio rrequency tower on the crucifix atop Redeemer Lutheran Church on Huntridge Lane. The crucifix is one of the prime locations suggested in the city's master plan for wireless services. However, under pressure by neighboring residents, Sprint's proposal was turned down in a 3-1 vote at the July 12 planning commission meeting. Sprint representatives, as well as a local consultant hired by the company, say the crucifix is a safe place, with a safe distance rrom the population. However, dozens of residents of the Huntridge area showed up to voice their opposition at the July 12 meeting. They had several complaints. Some were angry at the short notice they received about a community meeting scheduled by Sprint-at which only five people showed up. "It was very confusing when we got this notification," resident Judy O'Brien told the commission. "This has been going on for over a year, but nobody let us know until three weeks ago," she said. One resident said it was disrespectful to place a dangerous antenna under the disguise of a Christian crucifix. "God bless us all," he said as he concluded his statement. At the meeting, Sprint representative Sandra Steele explained why Sprint chose this particular location. /-510 1 of3 10/19/2005 1 :04 PM The Cupertino Courierl 0429 I July 21, 2004 http://www .sven.eomiarehives/eupertinoeouner/2004072 1 leu-covers!... "This site meets all the city and government requirements;" she said, referring to the city's regulations for a communications tower, which include setback rrom the community and proper concealment. "Sprint needs to meet our customers' demands and improve service for them in this area," Steele said. 71 2.\ \ 0,-/ 61Ð She said that the reception for Sprint mobile users in the area was not very strong, and the new site was necessary to provide reliable service to areas within a half-mile radius of the tower. She said that Jollyman Park, which is close to the church, and Monta Vista High School were alternatives but they did not meet all requirements. She said that Sprint really wanted to work with the neighbors near this project, but out of95 notices sent to residents, only five residents showed up at Sprint's public infonnation meeting. One Huntridge resident at the July 12 meeting said she suffers rrom a condition known as electrical sensitivity syndrome; which prevents her rrom being around any electrical appliance for an extended period of time. She said that if the tower was put up, she would likely be forced to move out of the area. Paul Chang, another resident, expressed his concern about having radio rrequencies broadcast so close to his home. He also said it would be especially unfair for the woman with the sensitivity to electricity to have to move out of the neighborhood. "I personally don't think we can ask the couple to leave the community... they have been living here for over 40 years," he said. He also presented a protest letter, which he said had 134 signatures from concerned citizens. Dawn Teuthorn, pastor of the Redeemer Lutheran Church, told the commission and residents that she and her associates had been approached by the city and Sprint, and after hearing the details of the proposal, had approved the antenna. However, she said that she was shocked to hear the backlash rrom the residents. "We didn't have any complaints before this," she said. In the days following the meeting, Teuthorn said her concerns about the tower grew as she listened to residents' concerns.. "It was good to spend time with the community and get to understand their fears," she said. She said that when the church was approached with the proposition, she was told the antenna would be safe and posed no serious health risks. William Hammet, a safety consultant hired by Sprint, said his company had decided the church was a safe place to mount the tower. He said Sprint's standard for this project was 50 times below the safe I-51 2of3 10/19/2005 1 :04 PM The Cupertino Courierl 0429 I July 21, 2004 http://www .sven.eom/arehivesleupertinoeourier/20040721 leu-covers!... 3 on threshold level of frequency exposure required by the federal government. Dr. Katz, an assistant professor at Stanford Medical Center and resident on Huntridge Lane, said that studies on exposure were not conclusive. "We cannot say with 100 percent assurance that [frequency exposure] is causing a problem or is not causing a problem," she said. Sherman Wong, 19, said he was concerned that the tower could cause unintentional harm to children since the church is located next to Jollyman Park where children play. The commission swayed its decision in favor of the residents in a 3-1 vote, leaving Sprint with the option to appeal the decision to the city council. Copyright © SVCN. LLC (/1..-1' 0'1 G ~ i-50 10/19/2005 1 :04 PM The Cupertino Couner I U437 I September D, LUU4 nrrp:lfWWW.SVL:rIXorruar¡';llIvt::S/L:Upe1LmUl:UW t;{1 LVV-,+V:11 J/I,.;U-j ç:W:,L.... ~ÕURIfR September 15, 2004 Cupertino, California Since 1947 _aœm:I'I~"""" News Council nixes proposed wireless antenna By Hugh Biggar '111~ ) 2-ooL{ @ ¡-sq 100 10/19/2005 1:04 PM the cupenmo couner U4J I I :)epœmDer 1:.1, LVVLf IlLLIUI www .~Vt.;II.t.;UIIV<in.;IlIVI;;~/f,,;U(Jl;;lllllut.;uur 11;;11 ¿VV,,+U:11 JIt.;U-III;;W~¿.... At a raucous city council meeting, residents of Cupertino's Jollyman Park neighborhood spoke out against a proposed wireless antenna in their area. The residents argued that the antennas and related equipment would be too much of a cross for their neighborhood to bear. After hearing their testimony, the city council agreed and unanimously denied an appeal from the Sprint PCS wireless company. Sprint was appealing an earlier decision by the planning commission that denied it a permit to erect three wireless antennas at Redeemer Lutheran Church on S. Stelling Road. "Sprint has shown there is a need at the site," Sprint representative Sandra Steele said at the meeting, while also pointing out that wireless facilities in residential areas are a growing trend. Cupertino currently has four such residential wireless facilities. "The design meets all the criteria," Steele added, noting that the proposed tower met Federal Communication Commission standards, city noise and zoning ordinance requirements and Cupertino's wireless facilities master plan. She also said radio frequency emissions from the proposed tower were far below the amount considered hannful by the federal government. Even so, residents packed the meeting to voice their discontent. "The [proposed] structure is ugly, obstructive and against the interests of the whole neighborhood," said Roger Peng in public testimony. Neighborhood resident Rita Love added she opposed Sprint's plan to place the equipment within an existing cross at the top of the church. "I feel it's adding graffiti to a holy structure," she said. And in a statement to the city council, Daniel Lee voiced the concerns of several of his neighbors when he said, "We hope you will consider our well-being more than corporate profit. " In the end, such collective dissent swayed the city council's vote. "I'm shocked by my own train of thought," Council member Richard Lowenthal said. "I thought I knew how I was going to vote, but I have changed my mind." It's too big and bulky." The addition of the antenna would have raised the height of the church tower to 55 feet. Vice Mayor Patrick Kwok also changed his mind. "I was leaning towards it," he said, "but after hearing the testimony, I strongly object. It's the wrong place to put an antenna; a cross is a symbol of faith and religion." The council, however, rejected the appeal based on the project's proposed size. "I'm not in agreement that a 55-foot structure fits in the parameter of this area. It just seems out of place," Council member Dolly Sandoval said. "We believe our project met all the requirements," said Steele in a later interview. "We were surprised by the city council's decision and certainly disappointed. " 2 00 111~1 ¿OOL( @ ¡-(po 10/1912005 1 :04 PM The Cupertino Courier I 0437 I September 15, 2004 http://www.svcn.comlarchives!cupertinocourier/20040915/cu-news2.... 3 on Dawn Teuthom, pastor of the Redeemer Church, said she now feels caught in the middle. "We thought we were helping serve the needs of the community," she said of being first approached by Sprint. "Now we are at the point ofletting [the project] go, but that's unofficial. Sprint has to decide what they want to do. n Steele said she couldn't comment on Sprint's future plans but said a meeting had been scheduled with Cupertino's city attorney to discuss options. Copyright © SVCN. LLC. C¡ \ I ;) \ 2-0°1 @ I-/PJ 10/19/2005 1:04 PM The Cupertino Courier I 0511 I March 16, 2005 http://www.community-newspapers.com/archives/cupertinocourier/ ... ~ÕURJfß March 16,2005 Cupertino, California Since /947 ...rIJ:J..~'IuU.'if~ _.."};·'I!·"~,L"'.·['" ...~'lf¡~dlWl ~..:¡.:fr..ir·J.._ News 3 \ IØ I ¿e>O~/I~ & Parents don't buy studies about cell tower By Allison Rost Pamela Hui can only use her Cingular cell phone by using a headset and holding the phone far away ITom her head. Otherwise, she says she gets headaches and feels nauseous. That's why the mother of two attended an infonnational session at Monta Vista High School on the evening of March 8. Cingular Wireless and the Fremont Union High School District set up the meeting to address community concerns about the addition of proposed cellular antennas to the Monta Vista campus. When Hui spoke at the meeting, she reflected the overwhelming opinion of some 50 concerned parents and Monta Vista residents who attended. "I don't think how many bars we have on our phone is more important than our kids' health," she said. Hui has a child attending Kennedy Middle School and one that will start at Lincoln Elementary School in the fall. "rve lived here for 13 years and I don't want to be forced to move. We have a right to choose our environment, and with this we have no choice." Representatives ITom Cingular and its engineering firm, as well as Bill Flory, the district's director of facilities modernization, tried to assure parents that the levels of cell phone signals produced by the antennas would likely not hann their children. Robert Weller, a senior engineer with the finn Hammet & Edison, explained the science of cell phone signals, saying that the ITequencies currently used for cell phones previously carried television signals. "There is a consensus among scientists--and rm talking the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, a variety of expert organizations--that are satisfied that below a certain level of exposure, 1- 1,,3 lof2 10/19/2005 12:55 PM The Cupertmo Courier I 05111 March 16,2005 http://www.community-newspapers.comlarchlves/cupertmOCQuner/.. . there is no basis for health concems," Weller said. "The acceptable level of exposure in the United States is 50 times below the threshold of known effects, and the level here would be 1.7 percent of that level." But that didn't matter to the parents at the meeting, who asked if Weller could state for a fact that nothing would happen to their children due to the increased signals. Weller said that it was scientifically impossible to prove a negative, which incensed the parents even further. Many came armed with research showing which school districts outlaw cell phone towers and studies showing the ill effects of cell phone radiation. "We never say no to increasing taxes to help the schools. We should be able to say no to this," Hui said. Trustees ofthe Fremont Union board got to hear the parents' opinions on the matter at a public hearing at their meeting on March 15. Copyright © SVCN. LLC. 20f2 ~ \(...) ¿ooS @ í -~tf 10/19/2005 12:55 PM 'SA N"-(),. C l" \2.,/,\- Cov r-J\}- V E C fuJt. (0.-.1 ìV2 0 L WHA T YOU CAN DO TO PREVENT AND CONTROL RATS GENERAL INFORMATION ROOF RAT Alias: Black Rat Tree Rat The roof rat (Rattus rattus) is the major problem species in Santa Clara County. This rat is slender and agile, and the tail is longer than the head and body. Roof rats will enter buildings if given the opportunity, and often use utility lines and fences as runways. Roof rats prefer to feed on ftuits, nuts, ivy, and pet food commonly found in residential areas. NORWAY RAT Alias: Sewer Rat Brown Rat Wharf Rat The Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), is less common in Santa Clara County than the roof rat. It is generally found in agricultural areas, creeks, sewers and occasionally in developed neighborhoods. The Norway rat is larger and more aggressive than the roof rat. The eyes and ears are smaller than the roof rat and the tail is shorter than the combined head and body length. This species usually lives in underground burrows, and feeds on garbage, meat scraps, cereal grains and vegetables. DISEASES Rats and their fleas are capable of transmitting a variety of human diseases including bubonic plague. While there have not been any recent reports of plague in Santa Clara County, the potential for an outbreak may increase as rat populations expand. Leptospirosis may be contracted through contact with water or ingestion of food contaminated with urine of infected rats. Salmonellosis is a bacterial "food poisoning" that may be transmitted when rodents contaminate foods. The Santa Clara County Vector Control District conducts periodic surveys for disease occurrence in rats and other small mammals throughout the county. 2 @ I-IpS ROOF RA T HABITAT Roof rats mav live or establish nests in: · Your home · Algerian ivy · Palm trees · Yucca · Pampas grass · Honeysuckle · Himalayan blackberries · Italian cypress · Juniper tams · Star jasmine · Other heavy shrubbery · Wood and lumber piles · Storage boxes · Yard and garden storage sheds Roofrats prefer to feed on: · Walnuts · Pet food · Snails · Oranges · Avocados · Other ripe ftuits · Grass seed · Bird seed · Vegetables · Ivy · Berries Oranges damaged by roof rat gnawing. The homeowner should be alert for these signs of roof rat activity: · Damaged, partially eaten walnuts, oranges, avocados, or other ftuits and nuts. · Broken snail shells under bushes, on fences or near nesting sites. · Signs of gnawing on plastic, wood or rubber materials. · Greasy rub marks caused by the rat's oily fur coming in repeated contact with painted surfaces or wooden beams. ~ ~ Rub marks 2 /-{P0 · Rat droppings are usually signs of significant rat activity. The droppings are randomly scattered and will nonnally be found close to a rat runway, feeding location, or near shelter. They are dark in color, spindle shaped, and are about 1/2 inch long. · Droppings found in forced air heaters, swimming pool heater covers, and water heater closets. · Visual sightings on utility cables, tops of fences, or in trees. · Sounds (gnawing, etc.,) from attic, subfloor areas and wall spaces. · Grease marks on beams caused by rats oily fur RAT CONTROL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Roof rat survival depends upon the existence of three basic environmental factors: FOOD, WATER and HARBORAGE. Good environmental management practices supplemented by the wise use of rodenticides is the most effective approach to roof rat control. Environmental sanitation and good housekeeping are the first steps in a successful rat control program. The homeowner can help control rat populations by practicing the following: · Harvest fiuit and nuts as they ripen. · Pick up fallen fiuit and nuts on a daily basis. · Never leave uneaten pet food outside overnight. Keep palm trees and yucca plants well trimmed. Algerian ivy, and other thickly matted plants should be removed or trimmed well away from the roof, walls, fences, utility poles and trees. · Store wood and lumber piles on racks at least 18 inches above the ground and 12 inches away from walls. · Storage boxes should be stacked close together and in an orderly fashion. Clean up debris pile Properly stored · Repair leaky faucets and eliminate any other unnecessary standing water. Wood and lumber When renovating the yard or planning new landscaping, ground cover unsuitable for roof rat harborage should be considered as a substitute for Algerian Ivy. RATS AND VEGETATION 1-(P1 4 Many plant species in Santa Clara County harbor roof rats. Whenever possible, these plants should be replaced with species which achieve the desirable effects of ground cover, but will not contribute to the rat problem. Characteristics to look for in a desirable ground cover are: Plants should be low growing, not more than 10" in height. They should not be climbers. Fruiting plants should not be used. Plants should provide soil stabilization. Plants should require a minimum amount of water once established. Once established, plants should be properly maintained. Plant species which harbor roof rats in the bay area and should be avoided are: Hedera canariensis - Algerian ivy Thuja orientalis - Arborvitae Bambusa spp. - Bamboo Rubus procerus - Himalayan blackberries Lonicera caprifolium - Honeysuckle Cupressus sempervirens - Italian cypress Populus nigra 'Italica' - Lombardy poplar Juniperus sabina - Tamariscifolia' -Juniper tams Phoenix dactylifèra - Date palm trees Cortaderia selloana - Pampas grass Trachelospermumjasminoides - Star jasmine ----,,'" WHERE ROOF RATS COMMONLY ENTER HOMES .¡' Broken or missing foundation vent screens. .¡' Vent screens on new structure where foundations are faced with brick. (Screens may have space at bottom or sides.) .¡' Holes in foundation vents, screens where new piping or wiring was put in. .¡' Outside crawl hole with poorly titted lid or no tight covering. .¡' During construction, space not closed where two different roof planes meet. (called "birdsnest" by carpenters). .¡' Spaces between heavy roof shakes (especially along ridge of roof). .¡' Attic vent screens broken or left off during construction. .¡' Space between roof jack and vent pipe ftom stove fan. (Also sometimes enter kitchen cabinet along side vent pipe). .¡' Enter garage under or on sides of large garage door; under side door to garage where threshold 6!i1-hß 4 is left off and through doors left open constantly. " From garage, rats enter attic or under house: Between roof boards on shingle roofs; into holes where piping enters walls or through foundation; along rafters, gnawing through common wall sheet rock. " Holes in exterior walls of house made by residents. " Holes nom new construction "add ons" around areas where new meets old. " Poorly fitting outside doors, leading to garage, patio, etc. " Open wooden meter boxes (in older homes). Brick chimneys which have settled away nom house. . " Tile roof. BUILDING MAINTENANCE Roof rats can enter even small exterior openings of a home. Important steps a homeowner can take are inspecting and repairing: -Basement windows and ventilation ports -Attic vents and louvers - Vent pipes and shafts. Openings such as these should be screened with 1/4 inch galvanized hardware cloth and inspected at least twice a year. Gaps around pipes and electrical conduit should be sealed, and cracks around doors and windows should be weatherproofed. Tree limbs should be kept well away nom the roof and walls of the house RATPROOF YOUR BUILDING TO PREVENT RAT ENTRY I Close all openings larger than 1/4 inch, to exclude rats and mic I · · Repair or replace damaged vent screens. · Screen vents, holes and overlapping roof with 16 or 20 guage 1/4 inch hardware cloth. · Use sheet metal collars around pipe entrances on wooden walls. · Use cement fill around pipe in brick, stone, or stucco walls. · Use sheet metal edging along door bottoms 6 ~ q-&q to prevent entry and gnawing rats. Sub floor crawl space entry hole must be sealed with a door or a lid that will exclude finger-size objects. Removable lids should fit so that the lid must be lifted up to open TRAPPING Trapping rodents is a perfectly acceptable method of control. Trapping is especially desirable when poisons cannot be used near food, small children, or where domestic animals or livestock are present. Traps should be used indoors to prevent the serious odor problems that can occur when poisoned rodents die in inaccessible areas. TYPES OF TRAPS Rodent 'snap traps" are inexpensive and are available in two sizes. The smaller trap is designed for mice and the larger is designed for rats. It is very important to choose the proper size trap. Several rat traps should be set to maximize trapping effectiveness. MOUSE TRAP Bait selection is important for trapping success. Peanut butter, nutmeats, bacon, pieces of apple, candy and moistened oatmeal are effective baits. For best results try several different baits to see_which is most acceptable by rodents. PLACEMENT Placement of snap traps is crucial to their effectiveness. Place traps in areas úequented by rats. Rats "":'"" = w'y' ""'g frnœ 10", "" _10 ~II, Look '" ili. """"" of œ' _"" Wh'@) 1-10 placing snap traps. Place the narrow end of trap containing the trigger against a wall or known run way. Snap traps can also be attached to pipes or studs with wire, nail or screws. Correct placement Incorrect 7ement ~! ((~; Apples . -:=~ ' jJ(/1 "!"'-. :'! ~~II hole b~1 ~ , A box or board properly placed may guide rat into trap HOW TO SET SNAP TRAPS To set a snap trap, apply recommended bait to the trigger. Pull back the bail with your thumbs. Hold the bail in place with one thumb while attaching bar to the trigger tab. Carefully place the trap as recommended above. Better results are usually obtained if two traps are set side by side. It is also a good idea to prebait, that is, use a baited but unset trap so that the rodent can become familiar with the baited trap. This requires only two or three days after which the traps can be set. HOW TRAPS ARE MAINTAINED The working parts of the trap should be oiled occasionally using mineral oil, never petroleum based oils such as 3-in-l or WD-40. These oils may act as a repellent to rodents. Never store traps near insecticides or other chemicals or handle domestic animals or pets before setting traps out. These can cause traps to take on a repellent odor. CHEMICAL CONTROL (RAT BAITS) Most rodenticides presently available for rat control are chronic anticoagulant formulations which require several consecutive feedings to reach lethal levels or newer acute anticoagulants which are @'-11 8 usually lethal after a single feeding. All placed rodenticides must be checked often and replenished immediately when the supply is low. When the job is finished, uneaten rodenticides should be re- moved and disposed of according to the label. Homeowners may purchase rodenticides at nurseries, feed stores, and hardware stores. All rodenticides should be handled carefully. Always follow all label precautions and recommendations. A Santa Clara County Vector Control District Technician can advise homeowners on appropriate baiting and/or trapping procedures, and will provide other information on the control and prevention of rodent problems. Should the homeowner wish to seek the services of a licensed pest control operator, the yellow pages of the phone directory may be consulted under the heading Pest Control. PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY e owner of the property on which the presence of rodents or evidence of rodent activity is found is responsible for the abatement of the nuisance and for the prevention ofits recurrence. ough a home and yard evaluation, we infonn the property owner of the presence of rodents d assist them in working out a satisfactory correction. In extreme cases, where the owner does ot accept their responsibility to the public, the nuisance may be abated and a lien may be filed ainst the property as provided by the California State Health and Safety Code. GUIDELINES FOR HOMEOWNERS WHEN SPEAKING TO PROFESSIONAL RODENT CONTROL I. The pest control operator should make a thorough inspection of your premises and provided a written report or diagram in which he/she: · Identifies species ofrodent(s) causing the infestation. · Locates or describes entrances and rat-proofing needs. · Lists harborage and food sources present. 2. He/she should give attention to rodent proofing needs by: · Bidding and contracting for needed work or · Providing specifications and requirements for do-it-yourself or other means of repair. · Coordinating rodent exclusion with control measures 3. The Pest Control Operator should: · Stress trapping or other capture techniques for indoor infestations (rats may die in walls or other inaccessible places and cause bad odors when poison bait is used). · He/she should not make false claims for rodenticides, i.e., "This poison makes the rats c§E)¡_ry" 8 dry up and they won't smell" or "will cause the rats to go outside in search of water", etc. 4. Tropical rat mites may become bother some when rodents are removed or controlled. Rat parasite control, if needed, should be undertaken before or concurrently with rodent control. ~'o ~~~ \.oo......y Have a block meeting soon Remember, you have rats if your neighbor has rats! You can host a block party in your neighborhood. An effective way to get rid of rats in your block is to work together with your neighbors. Organize and call the people in your block together. As a group, you can make a commitment to make your neighborhood a place where rats cannot survive. Once you are organized to get rid of roof rats in your block, you will find the same organization can be useful for other block projects. Cooperation works. The Vector Control District of Santa Clara County may arrange a speaker for your block party or supply visual aids, fliers, brochures, or other helpful materials. For more infonnation or if you are a resident of Santa Clara County and would like to schedule a free home & yard evaluation call 408-792-5010 or 800-675-1 155 8 ~ \2J2{1~ ¡:::'/..v\l Þ I J . '-' - . ,. -,"'~"~-~ r., . ¡ Tin Tin Market '~" " U" 7 0887 South Blaney Ave. site # 5F-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from Bollinger Road looking northeast at site --.-, h,?,Y?,,~.~e~.~"~ ) /-74- :p.. if n h ¡ ! fl' Tin Tin Market , _, ,. .. . , 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # 5F-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from South Blaney Road looking west at site ~red T-Moblle Instollotion & Londscop/ng ~qY?',!~S'~§Lii~~i~ ) 1-15 ~~~~'!!ò~, '" ~~. ~ ." '. ,! "nn nn Markhet ':1." l~.:· . 10881 Sout Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from Bollinger Rood looking northwest at site Proposed T·Moblle Instø/forion& f.aadsœplng / h;dYê,~"C,y§,i,~ ) 1-7& BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horncutuool GonsuIb!Inls 23535 Summit Road Lo!: GaIDs, CA 95033 4081353-1052 December 5th, 2005 RECEIVED DEC 6 Z005 E'iHI8ìT: c-\ Colin Jung City of Cupertino Planning Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: Proposed Cell Phone Antenna Monopole in Cupertino Dear Colin, At least the new electrified tree will not add to the City's pruning costs! Additional trees should probably be conifers since the artificial tree look like a dense pine. Few species of conifers will produce 5 feet of growth within two years. Those which are most likely to conform to these requirements are: Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis). Blue-gray-color; upright in habit. To obtain 25' tall specimens, you would have to plant 84" or 96" boxed trees. Sequoia sempervirens . Aptos Blue' (Aptos Blue Redwood) Similar in form to the pine but more pyramidal. 25' tall trees would be in 84" or 96" boxes. I would certainly suggest not installing more than one of these trees in a 180 square foot area. Sin~l)~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions /-17 ~, BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horti cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 4081353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. æ~~~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant /-1ß Eà\\ bit: 1H. Existing " , , q:", Tin Tin Market 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino,CA 95014 view from Bollinger Road looking northwesr or site , , proposed T-Mobile installation ~ ~';dvanceSiIT~;' , .. 0 . ~_, ')':" LI i OJ ! , ::. -. ) Ü Il I '.' II ~ .. 1- '7Q Tin Tin Market 70881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino,CA 95014 view from Bollinger Rood iooking northeost at site lL ~'~\lCìl)ilf~ ,; - ,l\dvanceS i rïB::.:_ ,~.r ". ~..,::'~. S'I'I:~1l -I ';(,11' t:¡I~ ~ I-eo m\ Ir( )·1 .) '1' . Tin Tin Market 'J." " . ~V 1 . J t-: . 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from South Bloney Road looking west at site proposed TwMobile / ;nstollorion / ,!\qYa.J~,~y~,i,~~,~ ) ,-",.-; "-.--, ,,-. I-Bt 17 Tin Tin Market 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino,CA 95014 view from Bollinger Road looking northwest at site proposed T-Moblle installation . bo~ Y¡ê"~tS~ §,~t¡m--= .~ 1- B:J (on1an1925 1]02-8507 ".-~~"'.- .' T 11 Tin Tin Market 10881 South Blaney Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 site # SF-14949 - AdvanceSi~} Ph 0\ 0 S Il11l1l ¡¡ ¡ í « n S olll ~ Ion $ """""}; ,ontðcl 1<)25 '?D?-85Ci7 f -ß?J · . ~, ,c. .! 11';--" Tin Tin Market 10887 South Blaney Ave. Cupertino, CA 95074 site # SF-14949 view from South Blaney Rood looking west at site proposed T-Mobile / installation ,~ ~o9Y¡ê,~,s~§1Io~~ } (ontac!r925i]02·850ï 1- ßtf \:¡( \II bi í ~ t:"-- l Acoustic Dispersion The cabinet noise dispersion for an RBS 2106 with Combined Climate Unit is shown in the two figures below. The figures show the noise dispersion generated by a ftee-standing cabinet and by a cabinet mounted against a wall. Note: The acoustic noise dispersion values for a ftee-standing cabinet and a cabinet installed against a wall were tested according to the ISO 9614-2 standard. Deviations from these values can be experienced due to the nature of materials in the environment where the cabinet is installed. Objects near the cabinet can reflect or absorb sound and thus affect acoustic dispersion. dB 60 60 40 30 FRONT Moonted in free field Amblent t~mperatt;re ~OOC 5 10 '5 25 BEHIND dB Mouoted io free field :~ \.bieol tempera"". $30"<; 40 "---. 30 2 4 8 8 10 12 m SIDES dB Moul1terl in free field Ambient temperature s.30oC ;~~ 30 m S 10 12 m idB ; ¡SO Iso , \40 130 ; i '-- FRONT Moun.ted in tree field Max, ambient temperature 5 10 15 20 25 m 30 35 dB BEHIND Mourned in (",e field :ç. 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 m 1,-;. SIDES Mountedìn free field ;~ K:~~ature dB 30 2 4 6 8: 10 12 m POO3941A Figur~ 6 Accustic Dispersion for a Fr~('¡-standing RBS 2106 with Çombi( ~d Climat~ Unit 1-f)5 I..-HTI U\ \ ; r - \ County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Department of Environmental Health Vector Comrol District 976 Lenzen Avenue San Jose. California 95126 (408) 792-50 I 0 FAX 298-6356 Novenberl8,2005 Tom Huhunin 20076 La Roda Ct. Cupertino, Ca 95014 .' I'm with the Santa Clara County Vectór Control District, and myself and Jeff Trybus, from the Cupertino Code Enforcement visited the Tin Tin Market on Nov. 4th. This was due to the complaint regarding rats at this establishment. We both spent approximately I hour inspecting the area including the trash containers for any kind of evidence. We inspected the surrounding area of the market and we were unable to identify any evidence. I visited the market on several other days. This happened in the afternoon and or during the morning and could not find any evidence of rats, whether by food stuff on the ground or over flowing containers. There are bait stations in the rear and front of the market. I spoke with the supervisor of the pest control agency that handles the market and he mentioned that there has not been a rat problem for the past two years. On Nov. 15th I visited the market and found the place clean. On the following day, the l6th,1 discovered some food stuff on the ground, which was cleaned up . I visited the mark~t on Friday the 18th in the morning and afternoon and also discovered no evidence of attractants for rats. I also surveyed the area of the market including the streets on the back of the market and could not find any rat evidence. , " If you feel that there is still a problem, we could meet and discuss further. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 792-5570 and leave me a voice mail or you can call me at (408) 593-6212. ~h you_ /J , . '$ø ~~·<a ario E. Ramirez. Vector Control Technician II Santa. Clara County Cc JeffTrÝbus Code Enforcement Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh. James T. Beall, Jr.. Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter Kutras. Jr. ~ - I-PJo E'-l~\£Sn·; G -\ 1855 Gateway Blvd. #900 Concord, CA 94520 (925) 521-5900 q1. .. ·Mobile·- December 6, 2005 City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014-3232 RE: T-Mobile CUP Application; U-2005-14 Dear Chairman and Members of the Commission; In anticipation of Planning Commission hearing on December 13, continued from October 25, T- Mobile would like to address certain public concerns that were brought out in the first hearing, and to hopefully provide additional information for consideration by the Commission at the upcoming hearing. We respectfully request that our application be considered on the merits of the application, and we acknowledge and respect that fact that public expression is part of that evaluation. Please let me restate the reason that T -Mobile has proposed a site at 20041 Bollinger Rd, at the Pacific Rim Shopping Center. Public Service · It is the intention of T-Mobile to comply with the mandate to provide E-911 service to all T -Mobile customers and to provide the highest level of service possible. Please consider that there were over 1000 E-911 emergency calls placed from T-Mobile sites within a 6- mile radius of the proposed location, between 1017/05 and 11/22/05. T-Mobile is committed to providing the highest standard of service in all areas. · The area of Bollinger Rd and Blaney Ave is a location that cannot sustain calls due to weak and non-existent coverage. · There are over 870 existing T-Mobile customers in Cupertino. They, and other T-Mobile subscribers, deserve to have coverage wherever they do business in Cupertino, work in Cupertino, go to school in Cupertino, or just travel through Cupertino. In this particular case, there is no other workable site for T -Mobile to provide an effective level of coverage. · Some members of the public have stated that they have good coverage where they live. Wireless telecommunications is also mobile service, and needs to be accommodated for its licensed requirements. · While T -Mobile is very happy to have over 870 subscribers in Cupertino, we would like to include more by providing satisfactory coverage to all areas of your City. This is required of all FCC license holders, and is mandated for consumer protection by the California Public Utility Commission. 1 I-{in Page 2 RF Emissions: In review of the October 25 hearing on the City's we!;> cast feature, several public concerns are expressed that are either not the purview of the Commission, as stated by the Chairman and the Planning Director, or were not related to the T-Mobile project application. In spite of advice from the Planning Director and yourself not to do so, at least 12 speakers from the public addressed the Commission primarily on the issue of RF and EMF emissions, as a health and safety matter. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that some additional portion of the public comments were also based in a similar intention, but were expressed as objections to visual obtrusiveness or other matters. Nonetheless, the subject site is over 21 0 feet from the closest residential property line, and further from any residences. Thus, is so far below any level of exposure as to be insignificant, in accordance with the RF study provided for this application, and consistent with FCC exposure limit guideline. The exposure at this site will be a factor of hundreds of times below the allowable standard. If we remove these comments from consideration, we are left with two other primary concerns expressed by the remaining 6 or 7 speakers. Shoppina Center Several people expressed their displeasure with the conditions related to the anchor tenant at the shopping center where the site is proposed. While T -Mobile is leasing a proposed space of less than 400 square feet, on a parcel of over an acre, T-Mobile is being connected to issues that have nothing to do with the application in front of the Commission. T-Mobile is merely a tenant on a parcel in Cupertino. T-Mobile has no influence on the landlord to impose requirements neither for landscaping, nor for causing the anchor tenant of the shopping center to act in a particular manner. At the hearing on October 25, in response to public comments about truck noise, waste disposal, odors and vermin control, the Planning Director and the Commission engaged in a discussion of ·code violations· at the site and how the City might tie the T -Mobile application to resolving such violations. The discussion came to a conclusion when the City Attorney advised that there were, in fact, no violations on record. This is consistent with T -Mobile findings, as we typically review such matters before making applications to jurisdictions. We ask that this discussion be kept within the aspects of the T-Mobile application, and focused on the merits of our proposal. Visual Concerns: Another item is the matter of visual mitigation for the proposed antenna mounting structure. Over a period of 6 months, T -Mobile has worked with Colin Jung, to bring forward an application that would be compliant with City regulations and would meet the intent of the City's policies regarding locating such installations in Cupertino. In that time, our proposed design was taken, by direction of staff and design review committee, from a very unobtrusive 35 ft slim line pole, to what we have now. The current design, of a treepole with planted trees as landscaping, evolved from what was once just a single thin Italian Cypress pole, 35 ft tall. Prior to that, we had originally proposed a very simple slim-line monopole, painted to blend into the surrounding ambient conditions. The original design of a slim line pole was meant to be the least visually obtrusive as it is located within 100 ft of at least 4 taller utility poles, thereby blending in with the existing conditions, as opposed to creating more mass by adding trees, where none now exist. We very respectfully suggest that this original design is still the least obtrusive and we will make this suggestion at the next hearing. Photos of such design are on file at the Planning Department. 2 1-00 Page 3 Lastly on the issue of visual mitigation, we are aware of at least nine 40-45 ft utility poles around the La Roda Drive and La Roda Ct neighborhoods. Also, there are four 40 ft tall utility poles directly along the driveway where the T-Mobile installation is proposed. A proposed shorter neutral colored pole in the driveway of the shopping center is not visually obtrusive from any angle or perspective, and blends into the poles surrounding the area. While we have not had the benefit of viewing the subject parcel from inside any of the residences, we have made observations from the entire surrounding area, and from the roof of the shopping center. We have not been able to observe any unfettered views from anywhere on La Roda or the surrounding area. The views are very nice, and they also have utility poles, trees and other buildings, in sight. The proposed slim-line pole is shorter and less visually obtrusive than any of the other utility poles on the subject parcel and in the surrounding neighborhood. We will provide photos of these observations at the hearing. However, T-Mobile is interested in doing what ever is reasonably necessary to make this location work for the City and for T -Mobile. We believe that in this case, the slimmer 16" diameter monopole is the least obtrusive of all the designs, and that in a short time, it would not be noticed among the other utility poles, streetlights, parking lot lights and buildings. We have met with staff to discuss the design issues and have agreed to accept certain conditions of approval for plantings, but have not had specific direction by staff or the Planning Director of a recommendation. We have received recommendations for open-ended landscaping. T-Mobile cannot reasonably be expected, as a minor tenant, to provide new landscaping for such a large portion of a shopping center, where we are only leasing a 400 square ft area. In closing, I would only ask that in order to address the public's objections to creating a visual mass that effects certain views of the mountains, that the original proposal of the 16 inch diameter slim-line pole be put under review. We most respectfully request your consideration for approval of the application for Conditional Use Permit. Yours truly, William Stephens, T-Mobile, Zoning Specialist Cc: Chairman Wong Commissioner Chen Commissioner Giefer Commissioner Miller Commissioner Saadati Colin Jung, Senior Planner Steve Piasecki, Director 3 /-(iII , ¡¡ ;: ¡: ¡ ISSUE STATUS telCBPIIOI IOZZIJtNI: - ...... ~ ~OMNIPOINT - DBA ,... I~ ~ IMSA - --...-- -~..- - ..- ..... ...... ,.......... - -- ...oil 'II1II A. i"" FLOOR 1855 GATEWAY BLVD 9TH CONCORD, CA 94520 SF 14949 TIN TIN MA ~BT ~ ....j ~ ~ ~fJ ",it 1;:< is'"' ~g ",8 "'z ",0 -,", " ~Ii!> o¡!Z: "_0 "~O w.u ~<~ -us ggu :~~ g~:; "0 u ~ SHEET]nE: TITLE SHEET T-l ~ .p, - i ~E-4 Z. ~ III ~il ~ ~~ ~ ~5 ~ ~.. ~EETINDEX APPUCANT-CONTACT: T-1 1I1l£SIIEEI - PROJECT PLANNER: 1.-1 OJERN.L SJr[ f\AN loUÆ: IIW6M SEPIÐlS - 1'HI>NE:(925):I21-_ ~-2 PRØ.ÆCT lID PIAN, AN1ENNA 10 EDUPHM IAI'OUI" IICBI!: (&10) &12-2511 - - F/J[> (t2S) 521-6i1Þ .... """""'" "'"" .-....-...--....... J..PJl &-34-<152. ClJIII£Nr 2DNNC< P (00) JUR!ÐC1IIJrf: ary OF aJPERnlD PROJECT SUMMARY APPUCANT {LESSEE ClMPDlN"f T4IIIILE 1855 GmIAI' BlMI. III fl2'õJR mlIXRI. CUOR.... 14SZI lELEPHare (;Z5) m-18Jt VICINITY MAP ~or..! __-:"7~:-.7"J._~,¡ i fii: ~~~!,l 'r~t: .....~ . ;... u..." .' ,F-,tI.,..~. _=._'~~:-,_.., ..-;." ,J> ",'<"', . PROPERTY OWNER. :'·~.~:l!\~~ ¡:_:l?y" ~j£ ': . ::. ! ! ...;....:.:~. .:';-=..<.. . PROPERTY INFORM: ·c _ .-". ~t " ,'. " 'i ,'-I..~,\,". ,",""'.. ~,' ' /I, :-·-·---·C'...--... i of"~ -.t ',' '.>-::-'t'.' " -'{I SltN""f:1IN'DNNAKr -.-~~~I='.'·<~!~>;··;·\·· (:~_;l;t.!~. ;.;; ;;~~~EI ~ ~~:, :?i~:~~;;~,.;-U.'i J GEODETIC COORP1NATES _w--'..~![':': ~ ~¡, f'~~~=~~r--;~- T" '*Þ IJ _!::.. \":Þt: '..-. .fI:)" .....~.1FQ _ LA1 '[,1 1t 41.r N DIRECTIONS M OMNIPOINT UIIe. Iff 01' 27.21" ATION PROJECT TEAM ARCHITECT: aINSI.I.J'ANrS NAME M5A ARDmC11.R[ AIÐ p~ItC, K. MlJIÐSi 2D8 UIJH SIREEI', 9J1f[ 310 alT, SlA1f. ZP lOIN nwœco. CI. 84-103 CONOOI. ROBERf 2!1111 PHONe (415) i5Q3-1JD OOE!nJNS FlOII HOllE arCE, 1. SlMlIi 1155 CAIÐI\Y 100 - CI) <11.1 II 2..'NIIIRIM"DNIlAYTON-ŒJD.!NI J. EM RlIJf1' !HID ~142 1iØJ1H - 00 0.1 .. 4. TAKE '1HE: IWIAIDj'SM JQSf M. Ðß CJf1D 1-8811 SOUI1t - GO 37.5 II 5.1.NC[ 1HE M!f!IDI BLVD Ðn ornD tu!lStON BLm. WE$f '1UWAIm ..UI SPMm DS!' - 1.311 So mE LEFT IWIP <IN1O HIIO SOUIH _0 SIN oIOS! - CO 12A II 7. TIKE 1HE I-4IIIQ ÐIT _ SllIIIANCISCO - CO U HI HANDICAP REOUIREMENTS: B. W::[ 1HE WOlfE RBfJ EXI1 ~ CD G.J MI 1I.1URN I.EF1 011 N. WDIfE RI) _ 00 0.6 .. rNU'T IS WIWtiED AID IØ Ita HUMAN twllATØl twOrA'PED ACŒSS 11. N. ntJ'( lID aø:rIEII UI.1Dt /lIE _ GO ( .J .. NIl ftEQII'tEIIÐßS NDr fEQURED. N AC:1Jt1WCC W1H rA.IfIIIIGI. S'TA1E ,t. TURN u;r at ID.UtGER lID _ GO Ð.5 .. AIUIIsrROM: ctIt£. PMr 2.. TIEL H.. SECIIJN 110S1.A2.. DCŒPmH 1- ILAlRMR_II1OUJfl1RRI.ÇtP[II J , ~ TI£ LEFT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CODE COMPLIANCE AIL IOIIK HÐ WiJERN.S stW1. IE PERfUIIED NIl II6INifD N ACCOftDtIC[ ... THE IllS PROJECI' COHS6'JS Of '1HE ItG'WI.AlK* #HI) OPERATJ:IN or AlJEtIWi AJÐ QRIEtfJ [8ßDG CIF 1IIE FDWIING CŒH3 as ADIPIED II( n£ UDI. ŒMRNNG ASSoeMTEJ EOUPMEIf RXllHE OIIIIPCIINT I-MOllIE TElEDClllJNl:\TIINS NEIIOIIK. _ _ " IIŒ PUNS 6 10 BE CONSlll\JQ!1> TV PEIIIT \II1II( tøT __010 !lESE CODES. 01£ PRII'OSEÐ PROEI:T INTO ·11' X 1r lEASE ofirA nH œ BfS tMNCS ~ o::JNQIEfE 9A8 AT 1iR0UNI LML. 1. ~ IIILDItG OCI)[ Cøc-2C01 s. ou:DlIfra tIS:I1IrA.. COI£ CCC-2001 eNSTN.U.1I1IC IF (1) J5" KL SUM ~E tafJPŒ.[ 'WIi 3 MJrB.. ~ 1 PEl ~ I.. tW.fOfINM IÐNINSI'RI¡M CIJJE 6. CAUfQ"" I£tWICIfL c:ax ÞI:~D' .1 SECTtftS nD., CEJIŒJlEÞ .-nIN A. 1"' C'I'UNJER MOIJNJ[D ON lOP. (NO... mrs: 24 I: 2S) m::J1 7. cuœtllt PLUIIBNC mEt 02C-.2001 .cut.X CNlIE RUNS FRDIf m: TV Nf1ENtM5 VM CNI.f TMr 3. ANlIEM-222-F lÆ WIlY CXXJ[ t. LOcaL 8UftlK: cœE(S) . 4. 1f'PÀ-101-1OI7 8. CI1Y ANÞ{t1l CCIJN1T CR~tM:ES o~ AIO nmRI:lL SBN(E FlII'L_O SCIJIIØ:~ 0"'" 1NII1~ APPROVALS APPROVED BY: OP.E:. lOPS: lEASINg: RF: lON ING: CONSTRUCßON: POfÆR/ meo: MSA iiiIiIIiiIi ----- ..~.- .--- ---- ...... ..... ......... - - '" ~ j!: ~ ~~ 1Dð; !ë< is''' ~d ~'" ..ª 180 -<> !i gE-t i- 0 IJII I r'> ¡ ~~~ ~ wcr>8 .... 5i ~ð~ ~. :105 ~ 510zo 0-< -ffi~ i!. NO ~ 0 9iEET~1IE: OVERALL SITE PLAN - A-1 ß 1 R- ~ ~ ~ ¡::;¿ Z < ~ ¡:Q . r.n 1 I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I 1 J I I ---- ~... =i I 'I '---- :j , ---. '...............,--. I I ~'............... ~-............... I - ---- '---- - ---- , ---- / ' '---- , ---- - ----, ---- I ' R-1 -----,----- '----,____, , I Eo l.I.¡,,¡ ----, ____ ____ _ -J , G¡;/¡ /¡O<l¡¡ - ---- '____, ---l JOSE) R- (SAN I 1 ! ø [J ffi " I (E) JOINT POLE· I:f (PROPOSED ~ t-MOBILE '" pOYÆR/IELCO P.o.c.) ~. f:! PROPOSED T-MOBIlE-:; U.G. POWER AND TELCO ROUTE ("""""X. 2'.1 I I I PROPOSED 1-IIOBLE -:--I PROJECT AREA. SEE I/A-2 l .. Z :J E w L o f (Q 5' (E) PROPOSED l-MDBILE 10· 'It'DE ACCESS EASEMENT (E) ACCESS .RlVE OVERALL SITE PLAN SCH.E: 1/;U"=f'-ff' Hr. WAIl. '0' PG&E EASEMENT Eill -- ISSUE STATUS . , . A IIN B~ AU õClŒÞ Bn R.1EIt4, MSA .. -- - --...-- ....-.,.- ..--- ...--- ...... ..... ....... - - ~ ¡; ~¡)¡ IDa; i:c< is'-' ~~ "'§ !s Ii ~~ ij- 0 fítI ~ 1'" 5: ~i§ ::!: 5! ~5.~ ~ ~ ¡ ~~~ ~wz N~:S ~ u SHEET1ne PROJECT AREA PLAN, ANTENNA & EQUIPMENT LAYOUT A-2 .."'1 .... a!I~"t... ..\ ~..,¡. .. . ~:; f... ,..~ ~~-~ J~~: .. t ~-W. . . . . it~~ .....,. .. p' ji" _ +:~ ~;¥:~: " . . . . . I~~~ t:" ~. .... *... ... ..r ..tr., tÞ'... "'.1 "~f.~. " d9J;::~'Y" w.\U. (E) '"', FIITIIRF"~.F" FNn MlAF í PROPOSED T-t.fQIIL.£ U.G POm!/IELCO ROUIE (APpRO)(. 210') <..,. _PROPOSED T-MOBD.E EQUIPMENT E:;;- " ~ MOUNTED ON Þ. CDNC. -.~ SI.AlI AT GROIN) LE\'EL, SEE J ~'~-2 ""- <..,. ..............£'7'-....... > SECTOR 'A' AZIMUTH 0 0 TRUENrTH~ PROPOSED T-YOBILE P»IEL ÞMENNAS CONŒLAED \flTH1N A 2'f CYLINDER MOUNTED ON A NEW 35' Hr. ITALIAN C>PR£SS 1REEPOLE: r~~n.- CYPREE lREEPDlE wmt '" 2'. CYUNDEI ....01l'nED ON TaP PROPOSED CABlE "!RAY MOUNTED ON \I!W. " -. =<u fJ AZIMUTH 120 0 TRUE NORTH +- <..,. ~JN; to ,. ... , = lREEPOlE BRANCtfE:S Har SHOWN RlR Q.ARItY. PROPOSED CABLE õRAY MOUNTED ON CONCRETE ~ - ~ .<1 /.~^ < " ^ , ( - \ , I '\', '\. I ", " , r ......", ~ ...",,, ~ ~ \. , . . ....", " j- '!3 ~ '\ " 4 ......- .. \"... .s........ \.'" \. SECTOR IC' 4:' \ " AZJMU1H 240 0 JJ-: '''''y>,,;'?! 7~U\~ l'!OR~ . . ~. ~ .. \. '4' .. zÎ ... .. \.. .. . . <l.- -A .'. . . .' q .",-. . .:' ANTENNA LAYOUT SCÞU:I 1-- 1'-0" PROPOSED T-Mœn.E PANEl. ANTENHot.S CONI%ALfI] WlIHlN A 2'. CVUND£R WOUNTED ON TOP OF A N£If ~. HIGH ITIJAN OI'PRESS õREEI'OlE .. . o .' rø¡ (f) DCUBL£ DOOR . i r J.5.-,- PROJECT AREA PLAN SCALE: '11,."= 1'-0" PROPDSED T-MDBLE 5"115' plN'lT'EJ't PROPOSED T-MOBILE METER 9AS£ MOUNTED ON (N) CNIJ w.ou. PROf'OSED T -NCBIIJ:: f'Of£R AN D 1EL.CO CABIND'S L4CUt-mD ON A UJUTY RACK PROPOSED ±30· Hr. rrAU\N CYPRESS, 1YP. or .3 TOTÞL III!Ii; AT INSTo\UA1l0N, MIN. 2Q GAL .....0 10' TREE HEIGHT" MATURE HEGIir = 30" ~, ~ 101 (E) DOUBLE OOOR PROPOSED CABLE 'TRAy ON WAlL .. ';'1 , , I I I I I I I , , . o o PROPOS£[) 5' Hr. CNIJ WAlL PROPOS£D T-t.lCBD..E EOJIPUENT CABINETS ON OONCRETE SlAB PROPCSED T-MOBlLE PDlER/IELca CABINETS ON U11UTY IW2< PMENT 1ft-· "-0" '7 -~'> --- PROPOSEO MCER MOUN1"S1 ON WALl PROPOSED CONI SlAB ISSUE STA IUS · · · < DRAINElr: AU ~ŒCIŒD BY: R.ZE~ MSA . -. - .-----. -.-.-- ........ ---- ........ --- ......... - - 0: ~ i!: m ~~ ..3; ¡¡:< 15'"' -g <!ig tå~ -,", ~ ~~ i- & ~ r" i ~!~ ffi~O ::!; ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 5 iU ~ Q SHEET 1ßE: ELEVATIONS - A-3 OIOOE '. .. . .~. . .... .". . '-" .... .- ANlSH ORADE '. :-. ...:-- ..... ." ... -. .-". ..- ". . . .. .. . '. .' "- . .. ~ .--. ...... ....; ...' :........... - . .... <: ...:..: .,-. '.- .'-". --.- . .. .' "- . ::. ~~.. .<'" .... , . -: .' ":>. ...... .~ .. ";:. ...... -:'" ." '. - ~ .' , .. . . .' ..' ..". .,. .'. ..... .. .- - , . .. .. . '. , , ...... . ", , ".- . ..' .... -. .. . Iff. .' .. -.. , PROPOSED ±JO' HT. IfAL.WoI C'I'PRE5S. TYP. or .3 TCTAL... WZŒ; AT 1NSTAL1A1JDN, YlN. 20 00. AND 10' lREE HEIGHT, M4T\JRE HElM - 30' . (E) 22'-8" BUll..... ~ " .. .. - , .' .-. .. .. - WEST ELEVATION SC1l£: 1/4"=1"-(1" 'ROPOSeD T -I.40Il11£: PN-IEL ANTtNKA5 CONC£\I.£D MTHI\I A 2'" CYlJNŒR MCUHTED ON TOP DF A NEW 3S' .GI. TREE: POLE i')~ ~ ... , .. - .....:.. ~. .- :".. ..' ... :- PROPOSED T-MOIIIL£ EQUJPWENt CABINETS t.IDINIm ON CCNCR£TE: SlAB WIIHII A II HT. CUU WAll. ENCLOSURE /liT CAOUND l£IIEL DSED 35" HIGH II1oUloN C"/PRESS TREEPOLE .. . ~.-:: u_. .... ~'PÑcFOS£U .&'" ,_ .·nt..çtAi WAI,i. '.". -. PROPQS£D T-t.lQIIL£ EQUIPMENT Co\9INETS t.tOUNIEZ) ON CONCREtE SlAB WI!HIN A II HT. OIlY WAll. ENCLOSURE AT GAOUHD !£VEL T-MOBILE PROPOSED J$ I-ØGH ITAlIfo.N CYPRESS TREE POLE "" ..- '::"...,'.-:'". .. . ~ .~'-:. ..:' .:: ... .. ..... . ~. ~ ...:,:,. ."....: .:.' ::-:..'~ '::'ir" , '. PR'OPDSED-S··HT.....· :.:.}:o !'JtI~,..<. . .... .:. PRDPOSE%) T-MOBI.f: PÞHEL AHTEN""S CONCEALEO ..,THIN A 2.", CfUNŒR t.CX.I'fl"EO ON TOP OF A NEIl 3S HIQi TREE POLE in ffi ~I ~ " Iz ::!:i ~~ ~ - '. ... ....' ., :........ . . ~., .-. , .. . PROPOSED :t3C)' HT. ITALJA.N CYPR£S!t 1YP_ OF J TOTAL. NaIr: ¡¡r lNST1.lJJ(I10M, 111M, 2n G6L NIIO 10· TREE HEIGHT, w..TURE HEIGHT = 30' .. 22'-8- BUIDING ",'" (t) Hr. . : ,~. ......."'..: :.' .'. '.. :'..' . .':., ...~ . ..... ~.' '. ........ (E:) 5'. 1\T;-OIJlolNUNK:-'-' mŒ, ENCl.ÇSpRE _. . .. : . ~" :.., ":. ':... --::...: ..... 1/4"=r-rf' ~ ~ ~ ':; ... .j '. ""' ... , ;- :<,1 '- ... .;-: ... .. - ... .-. .' ... . . . :: '. .-:-. -. .... '" . ': ..... ."-'.' .:. ",' < ". -. '.:. "....... ..... '" .... ,'. .... ..... .. .' "'. -. ..