Loading...
11 T-Mobile Appeal 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. II AGENDA DATE March 7. 2006 SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of Application No. U-2005-14, T-Mobile, located at 20041 Bollinger Road, APN 369-34-052, regarding the Planning Commission's denial to erect a 35-foot tall, treepole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless telephone service at an existing shopping Center (Pacific Rim Center). The appellant is William Stephens for T -Mobile (Exhibit A-2). RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take either of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal of U-2005-14 and approve (or modify) the applicant's request; Or 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision BACKGROUND: Prior to the first Commission hearing, staff and the applicant considered several design iterations for the monopole. The last design was submitted to the Planning Commission on October 25, 2005 and consisted of a slim-line monopole that was camouflaged to appear like an Italian Cypress and blended with several natural cypresses to be planted behind the treepole. Staff believed this 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. The applicant offered a slight redesign to increase the landscape screening area to 180 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the project because the applicant did not pursue a fuller landscape screen, which would have necessitated a reorganization of a portion of the storage and loading area used by Tin Tin Market. The Planning Commission concurred and denied the application on a 5-0 vote on December 13th (Exhibits B-2, C-2, D-2). Printed on Recycled Paper 1 \-1 U-2005-14 Appeal Page 2 March 7, 2006 DISCUSSION: Exhibit E-2 illustrates the design expectations for this project, which were transmitted to the appellant. The exhibit consists of the applicant's needed lease area for a cell site plus four large trees, 84" to 96" boxed Coastal Redwoods or Canary Island Pines clustered around an unadorned slim-line pole. The planting height of the trees is 25 feet, which can grow rapidly over several years to eventually screen a 35-foot tall monopole. Exhibit E-2 takes into account the physical obstructions presented by the building and the need to maintain truck clearance toward the rear of the building for Tin Tin Market. A portion of Tin Tin's storage and trash area would have to be relocated southerly to make this landscape screening viable. Some parking stalls would have to be removed, but the shopping center has sufficient parking resources to accommodate the parking reduction. The enhanced landscape screen directly addresses the adopted siting and design guidelines of the City's Wireless Master Plan (pages 25 and 26), which states: "A monopole should be sited among other tall vertical structures or elements to reduce its obtrusiveness, such as, among a cluster of buildings, grove of trees, or within a power substation." "Intrusive and obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger trees near the monopole may be a project requirement. " "The artificial tree should be of aform similar to the surrounding trees to which it is being visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearancefor the life of the personal wireless service facility. H "The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc.)" The applicant felt the proposed landscape screen was unreasonable given the shopping center activities already present in the area (Exhibit F-2). The City received an extensive amount of public testimony on the project at both Planning Commission hearings. Many were concerned with the height of the monopole relative to the height of the low-profile buildings, and the obstruction of views of the foothills caused by the monopole and landscape screen. The neighborhood opinions are reflected in the staff report and public hearing minutes (Exhibits C-2 and D-2). ) 1-2- U-2005-14 Appeal Page 3 March 7, 2006 Enclosures: Exhibit A-2: T-Mobile appeal information Exhibit B-2: Planning Commission Resolution of Denial No. 6343 Exhibit C-2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 13, 2005 Exhibit D-2: Planning Commission hearing minutes from October 25 and December 13, 2005. Exhibit E-2: Staff-proposed site plan for T -Mobile personal wireless service facility Exhibit F-2: Letter from William Stephens to Colin Jung dated January 30, 2006. Plan Set Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: d-b"-'££<:1Þ~'/Q~ Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningl pdreportl appeaIs/U-2005-14 1\-7 t::J.. n \ b \ -\ ~ í"i - 2- .---............. City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 \O)\IE ~ IE ~ 'W IE ~ l\r\l JAN - 3 2006 \~ CI CUPElQ1NO APPEAL CUPERTINO CITY CLERK 1. Application No._U-2005-14 2. Applicant(s) Name: _T-Mobile USA 3. Appellant(s) Name: _T-Mobile USA Address 1855 Gateway BIvd, Suite 900, Concord, CA, 94520_ Phone Number _510-612-2511 Email _ William.stepbens@t-mobile.com 4. Please check one: o Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development x Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: Mailing noice dated 12-19-05, postmarked 12-20-05; Hearing Determination 12-13-05 6. Basis of appeal: o T-Mobile's application is in accordance with City Zoning code and City Wireless Telecommunications Policy. o The Planning Director's recommendation for denial was based upon bis preference for an unspecified extensive landscaping plan. o Planning Commission offered no workable alternatives at this hearing. o PI aiming Department bad requested 3 changes to landscaping plan, over 5 months. All requested cbanges were irn,plemented, prior to bearing. o The design was recommended for denial, in the staff report, without discussion or notification to applicant beyond 2 business days. Signature(s) ~~ ¥-=.r: 1M IV( D ß I L G I fA s4- Please complete form, include appeal fee of$145.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. \-'1 I:::n..\ \ C, IT: tS·- z.. U-2005-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6343 (denial) 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 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 11 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 tree pole is inadequately screened and blended with natural landscaping in accordance with adopted sighting 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 11: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: U-2005-14 William Stephens (for T-Mobile) Pacific Rim Park, LLC 20041 Bollinger Road 1\-<)" 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: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Wong, Vice Chair Miller, Saadati Chen, Giefer COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I sl Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission g:1 planningl pdreportl res/U-2005-14 denial.doc ¡1-0 £'( \'ì\ß\T~ c.. - 2 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). 11~7 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-l) 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 II ~'6 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-l. 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-l). 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 equipment 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~htinz 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. 11-1 File No. U-2005-14 Page 4 Odors 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. October 25, 2005 Vermin Control There have been reports of rodent problems along the back alley 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-l). 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 :J~ I J-fè 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 Exhibit F-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 II -/1 U-2005-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 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 THREE Pes 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-2005-14 William Stephens (for T-Mobile) Pacific Rim Park, LLC 20041 Bollinger Road II~ "L 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: A TIEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission g:! planning! pdreport!res!U-2005-14 denial.doc 11-13 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 welfare, 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-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. J 1- } L\ SECTION 11: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: U-2005-14 William Stephens (for T-Mobile) Pacific Rim Park, LLC 20041 Bollinger Road SECTION III: 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-3 dated 10/14/05, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA The applicant shall make its mast available to other wireless communications carriers for antenna co-location subject to City approval. The co-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 1- I ':J 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 shall 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 EQUIPMENT 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:/ planningj pdreport/ resjU-2005-14 approva1.doc I )-( ¥' E- L· \~ ·T' : Pt ..1\· I.....\\¡~I 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 (I-Mobile) Property Owner: Pacific Rim Park LLC Property Location: 20041 Bollinger Road (Iin 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. )\-)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 tall 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 tall 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. 1\- <2( 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, seeking 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 wireless service facilities that fit unobtrusively in the Cupertino environ111£nt. 2) Guide decision malœrs and City staff by providing a policy framework and design guidance as they make decisions about these facilities. 3) Educate the general public about personal wireless service facilities and the community's design expectations in order to improve their involvement and participation in the decision making process. 4) Assist the wireless 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 Non-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 )-)1 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" tall 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 I -2D 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. 11- '2[ 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 allow 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. Vennin Control There have been reports of rodent problems along the back alley 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~ Garage 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 11- 2. z..-. 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. r:", 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 Cingular 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 11-23 ~'(~1 bit·. F1 œ ,·Mobile'- Get more {¡-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-1-6 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 1I4"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 5/6"X23 3/5."X15 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 facility. 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 E91 I location accuracy requirements and efficient frequency reuse. Since 40 percent of 9 11 calls are from 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: 11-2i 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 detern1Íned 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 from either facility. Other commercial structures, Walgreen's, would create greater visual impact than the proposed and were removed from 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 from T-Mobile, both at the local level and at the regional level. Eliminated from 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 " 11- LJ 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 rrom 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 inrrastructure, 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 PacBell Wirelessl 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. f 1-2(" 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 fhends 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. 1M: 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-Mobile HotSpotSM - Wi-Fi (802.l1b) 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 ITom 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-Mobile 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 appJications ITom checking e-mail to multimedia videoconferencing. 1(27 1:::y.~\lk,r t) ;..;;;.~.~:., .>;~ Ù,'!:l'!I::"¡;-· m f, ~.1.~ ~.' ,~ }- r ) . Tin Tin Market 10881 South 81aney Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 site # SF-14949 ;- :c.~..~"'.'¡,;,"""""'.""'''''r .- t,q Yê"~jIS'~§jil~~'~ ) . . 1(- "2..-? ,..., 1\ II t ¡Tin Tin Market '1" " '¡'/O Ü iJ~ . 1 OBBl South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino,CA 95014 view from South Blaney Rood looking west or site Proposed T-Mobile Installotion & Landscaping ~cqY.~"~I%y~"il~!~ ) , '; rr _',:1 .'(',~, ,-, ',C' ¡\-2~ œ"". ! p -,' Tin Tin Market 10881 South Blaney Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 site # SF-14949 view from Bo/lin9er Road looking northwest at site Proposed f·MobIle Insro7&Lonmœp¡ng ---- ,*' ÞoqYêns~~ci,I,!.~ ) 1\~3D OPTION A: Wes' -ide of building (red\ )od styl~~~~~') L ;J i o ... -- :I c: ¡¡" ... -- o ~ ~ ... :r II> "0 a "0 o :; ~ ;- I a 3 c: ~ -- â -- o ~ ... ¡: 1'\ -- ¡ ell II> II> þ /D :I f '1!:' -- :I IQ == /D VI ... - a a ~ - m ¡r ~ : (\ -? I E¥- h~ b i'A-·. 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 11 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 11: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: U-2003-12 Leah Hernikl (for Cingular Wireless) Pacific Rim Park, LLC 10881 S. Blaney Avenue [k~2.-- 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: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: AYES: NOES: r APPROVE : //#.~ / / ~·<··r··/ ~/::h// . Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /- T~g·· aadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g: j planningj pdreportj res jU-2003-12 11-13 .. o i& "'- i Jt ~ g 88 -ð.~~~e,..if :: f.I') ~ ¡.... : ... "ü,;::¡ ~.~~~~i~ ~ H:: r,:;,:'1 ¡... ¡:J. I;f.) ~ o.s .s u > ~ 1-1 8 1 '" ~ ::;: u r ~ ~ . ¡¡; .. .S ~ . ~ '"'~ 00 II ~ .¡;;o- .s~ -i!! ~ ~ ]~ . i h ËxH\BIT". E . l . i .... . L-. _. I L.-......../ · !~_. · · ~--- ,~. - y ~ ~ ð ~ 0 Jj .¡ ,~ .. l1.::::.rJ'.I ~ "2 1 6 t t l ~ ÆII<b.O£8uO N "tI¡jjC\j-u!¥ ~ ¿~ 5r~~j]~+ ~~ ~ :. ~ ~ '" ~ ~ r .s ~ ¡...¡ 'S;;¡ _ ... = I , co .","'~o.s.s'- '::0 .~ ..... 0 I .~ fN ~ '" u ~ ;:!!iðSi! ~. II IMI8IN\'-a1 : f---l I - t r--------4 ." i . 1.....,·......-·· ~ ,.....-~~i j 1-' I I ! -~--. ___l c- "" " ~ î ~ .iI 0 101 :g Jt r u 0 ~ þo Ù _-ð~""1~'¡:88.. 5¡;;~~'::~'~'': bþ .~ ft ILl ~"::: "CI rn ILl 11'" bJJ 51i:= "a ~ _¡;: Po.. cc 00 > ~ u þ;J(f) .. c: I I ,:: B ~ O..s..s è.. c;J .-- 8 . ~ I I I NWoIIIRd ~- , i ,¡_ . n__· ~¡- - I I -1 =-;tl -' " : 1í ~-.i-t' .. _: I I . . I Iii , --------¡---; .. ---" ., /----! .~. ~ II f-- ~y-. "~ -. J, J'-r _. ....." - . . . ... ~ N o;i:g 11 ~ i:;- .!i"- -:::!i - '" . ~--.~/ ~ -'-.~ ~ .-----~ -. " -. ~-- --:, - '-.._-----; "--~ ~ i ¡----- :I-.~ r i i ! ------¡-- __-1_ . -.. ----- '---- ~. r--· . '-----J.__ -:~- , . . ,j i ~ , -. - ~. '---. '" -...~ --- --....---. ',' " f ~ ~ '. L -1 - f- -. . - - ~- -- ....y "'II :__~i_ Ii ~ ~ -- ~ , L :~ , ---,------,--,-- '-' I i I-c--·- - - ....I8U11...oa. , YSJ ~ , . ' ~ .---------.J -l-L-J I ~_J , .J ~ ~-~ I . L- ---'-.. L~-}' L ~ ~. i./ . '.' ! -t-- - , - ! i i ¡ I , -....----~. L '-~ t ,- (p :,,/,) ...i ~II,OU 4'1.......I.""SN 0/ . -" : . ~r: i; ,-' " . J t .g~:¡ " ..'" ~.1i ~ . ~ ....¡ .. 11. " "' en ..~ ...... 'Õ -ð g........ = t) 0; g Q, '-"J.t.g" b.O u '-",-" j nit. ~ 8 ~ s " ..8¡ ~ s u U .~ ~ ~ ~ Æ .. ~ ~ ~ ¡- '='=0> w ~ " 1-< " .t Q ~ c. .~ ~ en .." ·.do " . , ~ (¡-Iii! ~_ 1---- t ! .' ~ --,-t ~ . ::--1 .. .!..l .~ ~ t.. /___-~~ L ft _, '/'_ :';~"'-- U-.J - :-'.--.J i I ~ ¡f l , , ---'-' ~ ~='''' """'IK I ' ¡ 1 ,I~_"",-,.,.'><tl .1 -' L 1 . I' .n=-' .. ~'¡:.\.-.; \PIT: F 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 of T-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 Figure I. 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 frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Personal Communication ("PCS") Cellular Telephone Specialized Mobile Radio [most restrictive ftequency range] Aoorox. Freauency 1,950 MHz 870 855 30-300 OccuDational Limit 5.00 mW/cm2 2.90 2.85 1.00 Publie 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 HAMMETI & EDISON, INC. mNSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO TMSF14949596.l Page I of3 / ('13 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 formed 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 calculated 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 FRANasco TMSF14949596.l Page 2 of3 1\ -'1 '1 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 frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. 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 ~ ,P.E. . HE HAMMElT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANasco TMSF I 4949596. I Page 3 of3 1\ -LfÒ FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in .1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 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: FreQuencv Applieable Range (MHz) 0.3- 1.34 1.34 - 3.0 3.0 - 30 30 - 300 300 - 1,500 1,500 - 100,000 1000 ~ 100 ~ þNS 10 ( ) ..... to) ~¡g~ <£8s I ~ 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is freQuencv of emission in MHz) Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (Vim) (Nm) (mW/cm') 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/1 1.63 2.19/1 100 180/1 1842/[ 823.8/1 4.891 [ 2.1911 90011' 180/1 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.54Vr 1.59'/j Vr/l06 {IJ238 f/300 j71500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 / Occupational Exposure ,-/ PCS , , FM , ~ /'- Public Ex osure Cell ... ____I - 0.1 10 100 103 Frequency (MHz) 105 104 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 (Augnst 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 HAMMEIT &: EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO FCC Guidelines Figure I Il-tf I RFRCALC TM 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 pennissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures rrom all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, rrom an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully fonned; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 2h2 1) D>T 2) D> 5h 3) D > 1.6ì-. where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ì-. = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this fonnula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: . S - 180 0.1 x Pnet . mW 2 power densIty - HBW x II x D x h' In Icm, where SBW = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and P net = 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 fonnula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this fonnula 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 power enslty = 4 D2 ' in mW/cm2, x II x where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and . D = distance rrom 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 fonnula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density rrom 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 HAMMElT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO Methodology Figure 2 !(-/..f?/ Pacific Rim Park, LLC A California Limited Liability Company 5057 Forest Glen Drive San Jose. CA 951Z9 TeVFax:408-255-4163 SteveCaserza(a),att.net Mr. Gary Chao Associate Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,C1\ 95014-3255 1\pril 23, 2004 Re: Tin Tin Market, 10881 South Blaney 1\ venue Dear Mr. Chao: It was a pleasure meeting you at the property on 1\pril 20, 2004. With respect to the issues raised by the neighbors pertaining to the Tin Tin Market, I can provide the foIlowing. Noise Issues - Mechanical Svstems I have spoken with the management at Tin Tin Market regarding noise ITom 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! Operations 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 waIl. 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 waIl of Tin Tin Market is controIled by Tin Tin. I have advised Tin Tin that the lights wiIl need to meet the City of Cupertino standards, and they are having their electrician look into this matter. £)(\>.~~~i-: G I ( -Lf? Vermin Pacific Rim Park, LLC maintains a monthly extermination service contract, including rodent bait boxes. In addition, Tin Tin Market maintains an additional monthly extermination 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 morning (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 { (- ,-/'-1 Ex\-.;\:'ìt: H RECEIVED SE? 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 ffequent 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~~ ) ~ J /-Lf c; October 19, 2005 City Of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Reference: Application No: U-2005-14 APN 369-34-052 Applicant: William Stephens/T-Mobile Location: 10881 S. Blaney Ave. (Tin 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 loeation 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 behind 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 Cupertin.o Library or 24000 Stevens Creek Blvd (City Center Tower) come to mind. Cupertin.o should hold applicants to high standards while making the community an aesthetically pleasing place to live. _{ Sincerely" J... - ~ /L~t1/l.J d/ W~ ~P7UL ~ n!c.yrß' ì{ici< & Lana Wong /l . c· FRANK & LANA WONG APN; 369-34-035 20062 LA ROD A CT. CUPERTINO, CA Q50t4 {(-'-fit Page 1 of 1 Colin Jung From: Tom Hugunin [thugunin@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, October 20,200512:18 AM 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 /Pf7 Walgreen Drugstore 100 http://www.svcn.comlarchives/eupertinoeourier/09 .17 .97 /Walgreen... The Cupertino Courier Neighbors Þght plan for 24-hour drugstore Planning <?ommission takes up issue?n ( ,~ Monday RIght .... . è c¡11'1\\Qq+- 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 information ITom 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 (( -l{( 10/19/2005 1:16 PM Walgreen Drugstore 200 http://www.svcn.comlarchives/eupertinocourier/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 ITom not wanting the store to be built, the biggest complaint ITom 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 quietness." 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 ITom 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 ','1 í ~ @ II-tftf( 10/19/2005 1:16 PM Walgreen Drugstore 300 http://www.svcn.comJarchiveslcupertinocourier/09.l7 .97/W algreen... By the end of the meeting, all four comnllSSlOners present, Harris, Orin Mahoney, David Doyle and Donna Austin, said they would not support the store being open 24 hours. Harris said the comments from 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 +- @ II-S-Ö 10/19/20051:16 PM Walgreen http://www.svcn.comlarehives/cupertinocourier/l 0.0 1.97 /W algreen.htrnl The Cupertino Courier Walgreen developer turns to r:-Q\ ~.\ neighbors \ 0 , , , I q ~ 7- ~ 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. J 1-5/ lof2 10/19/20051:16 PM Walgreen http://www.sven.eom/arehives/cupertinocourier/lO.O 1.97 /Walgreen.hnnl Residents argued before the comrmSSlOn 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. \O I!lqC,7- 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 determine 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] This article appeared in the Cupertino Courier, October 1, 1997. ©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. 1(-)2..- 20f2 10/19/20051:16 PM Walgreen http://www.sven.comlarchives/cupertinocourier/10.22.97/Walgreen.htm! The Cupertino Courier Walgreen, neighbors iron out differences \Q\2-<"( 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 nom the Planning Commission Monday night. Last month neighbors strongly opposed the Walgreen, planned for the corner 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 nom early-morning deliveries to the Tin-Tin Market--not allowed by city codes--and nom older air-conditioning equipment for the center's buildings. Turk said the new owners told residents they will be willing to prohibit center tenants nom accepting off-hour deliveries and will upgrade the older air-conditioning equipment. lof2 @ J I r5'3 10/19/20051:1\ PM Walgreen http://www.svcn.com/arehives/eupertinocourier/l 0 .22.97 /W algreen.html 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 PaRe I Cupertino Courier Home PaRe I Archives] This article appeared in the Cupertino Courier, October 22, 1997. © 1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. 20f2 \ 0 I 'L~ , lî97- @ I I-51.( 10/19/2005 I:]] PM Walgreen Drug Store lof2 http://www.svcn.comlarchives/eupertinocourier/ 11.19.97 /Walgreen... The Cupertino Courier Commission approves new . Walgreen store \ \ lie, \ 1'191'- @ 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 concerns. 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 II 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 ( ( -5' r 10/19/20051:09 PM Walgreen Drug Store 20f2 http://www.svcn.comlarchives/eupertinocourier/ll.19 . 97 /W algreen... 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. \ \ \ \ 9 \ I c¡q 7- GL~ 11-'i{P 10/19/2005 I :09 PM News Briefs http://www.svcn.comlarchives/cupertinocourier/12.17 .97 /NewsBriefs... 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 ofthe 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 from 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 11'1'77- CITY II-57 10/19/20051:15 PM News Briefs http://www.svcn.comlarchives/cupertinocourierIl2.l7 . 97 /NewsBriefs... 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-IIt- /7'11- ¿ I 2..- 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 of FUHSD. [ Back to Contents Page I Cupertino Courier Home Page I Archives] This article appeared in the Cupertino Courier, December 17, 1997. (Þ1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. 20f2 It -'5ö 10119/20051:15 PM The Cupertino Courier 1 04191 May 12,2004 http://www.community-newspapers.comlarchives/cupertinocourier/ ... JtOÌJRIER May 12, 2004 Cupertino, California Since /947 ....-'1.1t.I:II,J.._ _·'II..·...·a.LII [.- _·.·1..:1\'....._ '1:1'......: _·',I,'IIF..U.._ News M-A- --:' I1...\-ZOO'-( ~~ ~ Wireless company can't find spot for tall fake tree By 1-chun Che Mary Abrook likes trees. She enjoys seeing the redwood forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains ITom 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 (I '5 í' lof3 10119/2005 I :00 PM The Cupertino Courier I 0419 I May 12, 2004 http://www.community-newspapers.comlarchives/cupertinoeourier/... 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 oftall 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 nomesidentiallocation. It originally proposed erecting the tree at the rear of the Tin Tin Market near La Roda Drive but faced strong opposition from 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 from 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 concerns, 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 from doubting health specialists' credibility, the city will consider selecting a few consultants for wireless providers to choose from 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 frustrated the residents: the code violations of the Tin Tin Market. 200 ~ \ \ 2. \ L OO~ @ {(-(PO 10/19/2005 1:00 PM The Cupertino Courier 1 04191 May 12,2004 http://www.community-newspapers.comlarchives/cupertinocourier/... 30f3 Their complaints include noise ITom a reft1geration 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 ITom Tin Tin, it is hard to prove." The property manager of the shopping center, the city staff and the people ITom 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. ?:> \ \L... I LOO~ ® I {-~ ( 10/19/2005 1 :00 PM The Cupertino Courierl 0429 I July 21, 2004 http://www .svcn.eom/archives/eupertinoeourier/2004072l/eu-eoverst... ~õìJRrER July 21, 2004 Cupertino, California Since 1947 ....·..'L11.I:I.Jo;_ EJ'r...¡t.....:lI:r.4 _,'·I.~Ii·"L_ _'...U..tL_ News ( I 2-d 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 fTequency tower on the crucifix atop Redeemer Lutheran Church on Huntridge Lane. The crucifix is one ofthe prime locations suggested in the city's master plan for wireless services. However, under pressure by neighboring residents, Sprint's proposal was turped 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 fTom 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. I of3 ((-~~ 10/19/2005 I :04 PM The Cupertino Courier 04291 July 21, 2004 http://www.svcn.comiarchivesicupertinoeourier/2004072l/cu-eoverst.. . "This site meets all the city and government requirements," she said, referring to the city's regulations for a communications tower, which include setback ftom the community and proper concealment. "Sprint needs to meet our customers' demands and improve service for them in this area," Steele said. 712-1\0'/ 61D 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 of 95 notices sent to residents, only five residents showed up at Sprint's public information meeting. One Huntridge resident at the July 12 meeting said she suffers ftom a condition known as electrical sensitivity syndrome, which prevents her ftom being around any electrical appliance for an extended period oftime. 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 ftequencies 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 ofthe 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 ftom 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 ftom 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 20f3 11-l.t3 10/19/2005 I :04 PM The Cupertino Courierl 0429 I July 21, 2004 http://www.svcn.eomlarchives/eupertinocourier/2004072l /cu-eoverst... 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. Shennan Wong, 19, said he was concerned that the tower could cause unintentional harm to children since the church is located next to JolIyman 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. 30f3 -, /1-1 \ 0'-( G}~ { (-{,'f 10/19/20051:04 PM The Cupertino Courier I 0437 I September 15, 2004 http://www .svcn.eomlarchives/cupertinocourier/20040915/cu-news2.... ;f:ÕURÆ-~ September 15, 2004 Cupertino, California Since 1947 _...·..~1..1..1J.._ _'"I"I:l;IIIIGII:I~ _'·I..~n·".:L_. __ -IoI:,'rll: _',I'Jf.'~" News Council nixes proposed wireless antenna By Hugh Biggar c¡ 110 ) 2.00 L{ ® " lof3 I (-~f) 10/19/2005 1:04 PM The Cupertino Courier I 04371 September 15,2004 http;//www.svcn.eomlarehives/cupertinocourier/200409l5/cu-news2.... 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 rrom the Sprint PCS wireless company. Sprint was appealing an earlier decision by the planning commission that denied it a pennit 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 rrequency emissions rrom 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 ofthought," Council member Richard Lowenthal said. "I thought 1 knew how 1 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 of3 111.;1 ?OOL( @ I \ -{¡,~ 10/19/2005 I :04 PM The Cupertino Courier 1 04371 September 15.2004 300 http://www.svcn.com/archives/cupertinocourier/20040915/cu-news2. ... 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." 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 ;) , 2-001 @ ((-& 7 I 0/19/2005 I :04 PM The Cupertino Courier I 0511 I March 16, 2005 http://www.eornmunity-newspapers.eomlarehives/cupertinoeourier/. .. ;tOURJI:B March 16, 2005 Cupertino, California Since 1947 _1II..·..~1II.I!I.I.:_ _,..I.~~.·a.L'1I1 [_ _.·1..:..·.1...._ __._..:1,..,.._ News "3 \ IØ I ¿OO~/:J~ ~ 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 from 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. "I've lived here for 13 years and 1 don't want to be forced to move. We have a right to choose our environment, and with this we have no choice." Representatives ftom Cingular and its engineering finn, 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 harm their children. Robert Weller, a senior engineer with the finn Hammet & Edison, explained the science of cell phone signals, saying that the ftequencies currently used for cell phones previously carried television signals. "There is a consensus among scientists--and I'm 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, lof2 ( (~~ '?( 10/19/2005 12:55 PM The Cupertino Courier I 0511 I March 16, 2005 http://www.community-newspapers.comlarchives/eupertinocourier/... there is no basis for health concerns," 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 anned 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 of the Fremont Union board got to hear the parents' opinions on the matter at a public hearing at their meeting on March IS. Copyright © SVCN. LLC. 20f2 ~) 1(... -¿ooS @ J 1-& í 10/19/2005 12:55 PM ~AN""'()" Clo\\2A- CovN\ð-- VEL ì0Jt Co..-JìVloL 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 &uits, 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 offood contaminated with urine ofinfected 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 @ II.. 7D ROOF RAT 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 Roof rats prefer to feed on: · Walnuts · Pet food · Snails · Oranges · Avocados · Other ripe tTuits · 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 tTuits 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 ll~ 1/ · Rat droppings are usually signs of significant rat activity. The droppings are ~.; randomly scattered and will normally be .2_ 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.,) ITom 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 fruit and nuts as they ripen. · Pick up fallen ITuit 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 ITom 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 ITom 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 aod lomber 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 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 'ltalica' - Lombardy poplar Juniperus sabina - Tamariscifolia' -Juniper tams Phoenix dactylifera - Date palm trees Cortaderia selloana - Pampas grass Trachelospermumjasmilwides - Star jasmine WHERE ROOF RATS COMMONLY ENTER HOMES 4 '" 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 "birdsnestH 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 ITom 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 @\73 is left offand 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 rrom 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 rrom 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 from the roof and walls of the house RA TPROOF YOUR BUILDING TO PREVENT RAT ENTRY · Close all openings larger than 1/4 inch, to exclude rats and mice 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 éE) ((~7cf 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 Be sure to check under door 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 frequented by rats. Rats "":';., ru, ~" ',,"g "'œ """. '"" ,"'" " ~"". Look "... "...".. ,f'" -"'" Wh(fE) {I-7{ 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 ¡ement HOW TO SET SNAP TRAPS ball "~I \ , A box or board properly placed may guide rat into trap 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- I 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 @/('7b 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 [rhe owner of the property on which the presence of rodents or evidence of rodent activity is ~ound is responsible for the abatement of the nuisance and for the prevention of its recurrence. [rhrough a home and yard evaluation, we inform the property owner of the presence of rodents and assist them in working out a satisfactory correction. In extreme cases, where the owner does rot accept their responsibility to the public, the nuisance may be abated and a lien may be filed against 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 of rodent(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). · Helshe should not make false claims for rodenticides, Le., "This poison makes the rats c® 8 11-17 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. /J£~ ~~¡ COIqpØ.,p 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 mts 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 information 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 800-675-1155 8 ® 11-78/ B<-1r.1 b; +-: í::).. I 'F Tin Tin Market ,~ 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino,CA 95014 view from Bollinger Road looking northeast at site l . r 1 --. ~'-~", .-"., . _.,'--_......~..,~.~.,-...-:._-'-.__.,.--_. --' - -. -. ,.- ~'''h, f\cl.vé1.r,lceSin~ ) 11-1q œ·". ! .. Tin Tin Market ¡¡ ;; 1; C·' 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino,CA 95014 view from South Blaney Rood looking west at site Propo,ed T-Mobile Insrolloríon & Landscaping MjvanceSill~ ) '.,., ., ' -,' '.' ' ,- 0"'1 <','·"'I<.j['," '-,,':[1";1". II-&'Ò ,..., "." "<... ". Tin Tin Market '1"m ~. U <, 10881 South Blaney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from Bollinger Rood looking northwest at site Proposed T·Mobllo lns'07&LondsœPing <-' ¡i\c!v3!lceSill~ ) ~ ,c. ',: "'",!; : _';1:" 11- 'i5 ( BARRIE D. CJA TE and ASSOCIATES HorticutuR!lI '::onsullanls 23535 SummitRoed La" Gain". CA 95033 408135~1052 December 5th, 2005 RErVED DEC 6 Z005 Eyj-\ 181T : 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 confonn 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 fonn 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. Sinc~Jì.~ Barrie D. Coate BDClphIg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions II,'(~ ~ BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road La 5 Gato5, CA 95033 408135:>'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 appraiserlconsultant 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 appraiserlconsultant. 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. 1 a.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. cðtlhJÙf. JJ. ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant {I-'\<;3 EA,hì-h 1H 1? ' ,\hd \! I ~~8~~ ;:'~~~e~laney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95074 view from Bollinger Road looking northwest at site \ proposed T-Mobi~ installation ~ ~,..- l~dvallceS r¡~'+ " '.' ,]1'.;1 W·; ~ 11-8''-1 ~ . . '\ I' .1 I' . Tin Tin Market ',r - " : r 10881 South 81aney Ave. site # SF-14949 Cupertino,CA 95014 view from Bollinger Road looking northeast at site - Ad van ceS i nt:.S""'~ '(, .- . -',', 'Î:", .> . r I \ -'is" ') rJ' '\ r¡ ,1, '}. Tin Tin Market ']:" 0 . >v1<)U1 P' 10881South8laneyAve. site # SF-14949 Cupertino, CA 95014 view from South Blaney Road looking west at site proposed T-Mobile / instollotion , þ,dvanceS II~ ~. -- - . ~ " '.' . ~,,' " '" :J , " 'II J" I~, <,' L "_: II \ II -~4- site # SF-74949 Tin Tin Market 10881 South Blaney Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 1: view from Bollinger Road looking northwest at site proposed T-Mobile installation -. .'''-.0 AdvanceSi~ ~ PI1(,jl) SIIl,!,I" "'...'-" ~ -,¡r,\~<, ( 1-~1 site # SF-14949 Tin Tin Market 10881 South Blaney Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 ~, AdvanceSi!~) Plir.i'U Sill ',;,'1' "::C." .-".," ~"l;~t- , "-,(;~ I(-~ 1: \ ~ c ~, ! Tin Tin Market 70887 South Blaney Ave. Cupertino, CA 95074 site # SF-14949 view from South Blaney Road looking west at site proposed T-Mobile / installation , ~. Ô~,YêD,S~§"i}l,~ J -(;In~ J! - 8'1 ~~,b't~ S-l Acoustic Dispersiou 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 fTom 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 FRONT Mounted infrec field Ambient tempemfure S300C 60 50 40 30 5 15 20 25 BEHIND dB Mounled in Irœ field :~ ':bien! lemperaID'e "ao"C 40 ~ 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 m SIDES dB Mounted ìn free field :~ ~bienl temperature 530°C 40 "---... 30 4 S 10 12 m dB FRONT Mounted in Ir.., field Max. ambient temperature 60 50 40 30 1m 10 15 20 25 30 BEHIND Mounted in free field :~ ~. amblenl temperature 40 "--- 30 dB 2 .4 Ô 8 10 12 m SIDES dB Mountcd in free field :~ ç:mperature 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 m POO9~lA Figure 6 Acoustic Dispersion for a Free-standing RBS 2106 with Combined Climate Unit It -16 E~\t\b¡T: F-\ County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Department of Environmental Health Vector Control District 976 Lenzen Avenue San Jose. California 95126 (408) 792-50 I 0 FAX 298-6356 Novenber18,2005 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 16th,I 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 . íØtø ~-/ft. ' ario E. Ramirez. ð 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. ~ .- 1\ - c¡ , E-L~\%I\~ (6-\ 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 10/7/05 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 II-Q2... Page 2 RF Emissions: In review of the October 25 hearing on the City's web 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 210 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. ShODDina 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 { ¡ -q1 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 {/J1Lf ~Xi-\\~\·T: b-,2.. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October 2S, 200S November 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) A discussion ensued reg he November 8, 200S Planning Commission meeting. There will be no telecast of the Planning Co .. n meeting since the election will be televised. It was suggested that the November 8th meeting d to request a continuance on the Pennit Streamlining Act and the tentative map on Stelling Roa ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. U-2005-14 William Stephens (T-Mobile) 20041 Bollinger Road Use Pennit to erect a 3S-foot tall, slim-line monopole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the September 27, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for the Use Permit to erect a 3S-foot tall, slimline treepole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. · Reviewed the Background and Surroundings, the Monopole Design/Camouflage Techniques, and the Radio Frequency Emissions as outlined in the staff report. · He reiterated that the federal government has preempted local authorities from regulating the emissions based on safety standards as long as it meets the federal limits. · Staff recommends that the application be continued after hearing public testimony, which will provide the applicant sufficient time to make certain design revisions to the proposed landscape area. · Staff recommends that the applicant provide an improved landscape screen. He noted that they should triple or quadruple the amount of tree coverage and landscape area around the subject tree pole. The planting height should not exceed ten feet tall. · The applicant is proposing one artificial tree and three live ones. · He answered Commissioners' questions about the appropriate type of trees to providing screening for the tower. Com. Miller: · Questioned why they should consider the application from the applicant since he has over an extended period of time has refused to take care of his many code violations? · Said it was appropriate for the Commission to ask the applicant to address the issue of the code violations and how they are going to bring this site up to code compliance. Mr. Jung: · Explained that the code violations aren't related to the application itself, only tied together because it is the same property owner. Some have been addressed, others have not. Signage has been put up, and the area is cleaner compared to the past. There are still some issues that need to be taken care of. (( Ji¡) Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 25, 2005 · He said they hoped that the applicant would maintain the trees and keep up the landscaping, but he is not addressing these current code violations. Why do we assume that he would do the things he needs to do on the new application? Com. Miller: · Said that perhaps the applicant has a different perspective on the code violations. We don't just shut off all applications from every private property that has a code violation, we cannot just shut them down entirely. Com. Giefer: · Said that she concurred with Com. Miller's concern of allowing a property owner who continues to have code violations, make additional revenue from implementation of an antenna device when he is not free of the problems he has created. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it was an appropriate concern; and they would look at the nature of the violation. · He noted that if the applicant was violating an ordinance because of a sign size issue, it would not likely relate to the treepole issue. It would relate if the landscaping and trash enclosure was unkept and there were numerous weeds, since it would be the general appearance of the site and they were asking to add another feature to it. Chair Wong: · Expressed concern that it was only about 30 feet to the church playground. Mr. Jung: · The federal safety standards for exposure is for all populations, including the elderly and children; it is not one standard for adults and another standard for children. The only distinction that the federal government made in their safety standards is between occupational, who are people who work directly with it, and it has a higher exposure because they lmow what they are doing when they are working around it versus the general population which includes everyone. Chair Wong: · Tom Huganin did a good job in providing a series of articles in 1997 when Walgreens was approved and the applicant worked with the neighborhood. Ms, Wordell: · The property owner had proposed some renovations to the whole center at the time Walgreens was approved. It was to demonstrate that they could make both parts of the center relate to each other architccturally, but there wasn't a requirement they do that. Your question is could it be required as a part of this application. Staff's advice including from the attorney is that there would not be a nexus to require remodeling or a façade improvements for the strip part of the center, connected to the antenna if the applicant were volunteering and not in connection with getting your approval, then that is a possibility. · She said that there were presently no outstanding code violations at the center. Com. Giefer: · Asked if it was possible to stipulate how the applicant would use the profits from the use of treepole, such as for code enforcement and updating landscaping. /1 ,11, Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 25, 2005 Ms. Murray: · Responded that the city could not make that requirement of the applicant, but could ask him if he would be agreeable to that stipulation. Mr. Piasecki: · Explained that the concept of nexus is that there must be a reasonable relationship between the requirement on the city's part and the actual application or project before them. · An applicant could request a one cell antenna and the city would ask them to do a million dollar improvement to the center; not really reasonably related to the impacts of the antenna. · If a code issue relates to the upkeep of the back area, it is an appropriate issue because they are proposing something in the back area. A bond or cash deposit guaranteeing the maintenance of the landscaping could be required. There are other ways of defining how they would use their profits, to address the fundamental issue of whether they will maintain the landscaping. · Care has to be taken that the city does not over-extend and that it is related directly to what the outcome is proposing. The history of the Walgreens building was discussed, including neighborhood outreach, the concerns about the proposed drive-through, and the upgrading of the center. Staff answered commissioners' questions. Mr. Juug: · Said that for the current application, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting; the property owners within a 1,000 foot radius were noticed, only about 12 neighbors appeared out of the 1,000 foot radius covered by the mailing. William Stephens, T-Mobile: · Provided background information on the project, as outlined in the staff report. In response to staff's indication that further mitigation would be preferable to the city, the applicant suggested a cypress tree pole and was advised that further mitigation was a planter strip in the parking areas shown in the visual presentation. · He said he learned that staff was suggesting additional plantings trom the staff report yesterday, which is why the continuance was suggested. He said that they were in an information void for further design considerations and assured the Planning Commission that T Mobile had no interest in creating a problem for the neighborhood, itself, or the city. · The cypress tree was suggested at the DRC meeting in August. He reviewed the site location and coverage, and said in his opinion one additional facility in such an urbanized setting would not be consciously seen, unless a lot of additional mass was created. Alternate locations were investigated and the only possible one was Home Depot, but it was not available. · I have driven the area to try to get the same perspective trom some of the views I received at the community outreach meeting by the neighbors. I found it difficult to get the same perspective that I was hearing at the outreach meeting trom driving on the streets and looking west to the mountains to what was indicated to me as unobstructed views. Our facility does not impact the beautiful views in any way; there are many other structures between our facility and any of those residents that would impact far greater than anything we have proposed. · In February 2005 T Mobile acquired a larger percentage of the then existing Cingular network after Cingular and AT&T merged at the end of 2004. Cingular was before you last year with a proposal on the same site; the need still exists there because of a coverage gap. We came to Cupertino in March not with a full understanding of what happened with the Cingular site, but found clearly that they had been denied. We looked at their proposal and decided to come ahead to the city with a new application for a much smaller, lower profile design we thought II-q7 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 25, 2005 was appropriate proportionately to the center, visually mitigated by the surrounding urbanization of other utility poles. Our design at that time was a slimline monopole not a tree pole, which was backed up by tlrree existing utility poles with transformers and wires. We were advised by staff that further mitigation would be preferable to the city, so we suggested a cypress tree pole. The additional plantings brought up by staff, we were made available to that information in your staff report when we saw the report yesterday. That is why the continuance was suggested. · He said an applicant cannot go through the building process if there are outstanding code violations of any type. · T Mobile is eager to cooperate in any reasonable way to get the visual mitigation needed. · He said there are other things that are out of their control, but felt confident that they could open the dialogue with the landlord. He asked for serious consideration of the application as they have looked at several other locations, and are limited in opportunities, particularly in a highly residential area such as Cupertino. Karan Karanu, T Mobile: · In response to whether to chose a possible micro cell vs. a larger site, he explained that in a perimeter area, such as a block for coverage, a micro cell could be used to cover a small range and it would still meet the needs. In a larger concentration of people, such as a school, each of the micro cells require a certain number of radials in order to sustain all the customers who will be on the line. Vice Chair Miller: · Said it was not realistic to use a lot of micro cells as opposed to one macro cell. Mr. Karauu: · Said it was on a case-by-case basis; in certain situations where there is a small amount of traffic on a street, the need can be met with just a micro cell or a site that has fewer radials. As Mr. Stephens pointed out, they are having difficulty securing alternative locations; they focused on the site primarily to meet the needs of that limitation. They don't have the option to spread out more sites within the area; we are working with what we do have. Com. Giefer: · Relative to the comment that if the natural cypress trees are always going to have to be topped, you are going to have a disparity between the natural trees and the antenna. They are always going to be 4 feet shorter than the antenna. Mr. Stephens: · Said that the Italian cypress are forming a backdrop; they are not intended to surround the pole or hide it, but form a backdrop for visual mitigation. In at least two of the sectors, two of three antennas would be pointing out and would not be interfered with in any way. · The third sector would have to create a minimal gap, with enough low density of branches to allow a signal to pass tlrrough. A broadleaf tree could also be used. Italian cypress trees were considered because there are others in the neighborhood, and they have a thin profile. There is a limited amount of space that can be leased. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. /I-qt Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October 25, 2005 Tom Huganin, President of La Roda Court HOA: · Showed a slide presentation. · Referred to the monopole as the Tin Tin tree which he said was an out-of-character development in a residential neighborhood. · The project is surrounded by a residential neighborhood, a child care center. · Said a noise study is missing trom the report. · The site has had continuous rodent issues and nonpoint pollution issues. · The application degrades the visual appearance of the center; it js already bad and will only make it worse. · It blocks the scenic vistas of the western foothills. · There were violations relative to the trash bins before in the previous application. · There is no source point pollution fix and they will be building around the garbage cans; it is time to fix the source point pollution issues with the garbage bin area. · The overflowing dumpsters will be a magnet for rats; and they are not presently doing a good job with the rat'control. · The cypress trees will likely not grow because they need full sun to grow; the trees will not receive morning sun and only receive evening sun and will be blocked by the other trees behind them, and will not grow. · The trees also harbor roof rats; Santa Clara County Vector Control does not recommend planting Italian cypress trees in the county. · It is a poor choice for site screening. · Discussed drainage issues - When Walgreens was constructed they agreed to construct a wall across La Roda Drive; they did not hook the system up to the storm sewer system at that time. Every time there are massive rains, everything rolls off, and rolls off across the Lin's yard. · The site has a large visual impact on the community; it really shouldn't be built. The previous application was in the same location. · As far as a wireless master plan goes, this doesn't meet the best quality location that you wanted in the wireless master plan; it does not provide any co-location at all. Roger Gnertin, La Roda Court: · Said that other cellular companies in the area do not have reception problems. · Said that the shopping center continually violates codes; said that he is catching rats on the fence and the dumpsters are emptied in the late evening; the area is not kept clean. · The owner of the property should not be rewarded with additional income trom the cellular tower, since he does not keep up the present code conditions on the property. .. Jonathan Lin, Cupertino resident: · Resides about 220 feet trom the proposed site. · Opposes the placement of the wireless tower. · Said there are reports on the health impacts trom exposure to the wireless towers for a long period of time. · Said his family and other residents will be exposed to the health hazard over the years they reside in the neighborhood. · Urged the Planning Commission to vote no on the proposal. · Said he would continue to oppose the antennas and would return to the Planning Commission meetings to express his opposition. Joy Han, La Roda Court: · Relative to exposure to radiation, she asked that the city government ensure that the families 11-11 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October 25, 2005 would continue to be healthy in their homes over the years. · Tin Tin Market is known for their many code violations and should not be rewarded with additional revenue from cellular towers on their property. · Will the city allow the applicant to continue to be rewarded by negative actions, and put the neighborhood in danger. · Opposed to the application. Mr. Piasecki: · Reiterated that the Planning Commission is preempted by the federal government in acting on the basis of the EMS rrom the facilities. He asked that the speakers limit their comments to areas of authority, including screening, landscaping, and the aesthetics of the installation. Andrew Qn, Cnpertino resident: · As pointed out by a previous speaker, having the antenna on the property is a reward for the property owner who has not abided by the codes in the past. · Questioned if there was an area for the vendors to install the antennas. · Putting an antenna there could affect the future developments. Kevin Till, Cnpertino resident: · Said that it was not aesthetically pleasing to have the antenna placed in the small area; it would degrade the environment. Mary Ann Overton, Cnpertino resident: · Has Cingular service and has no problems. · The neighborhood meeting date was not selected by the residents, and many were not able to attend. · When Walgreens was constructed, they said they would work to improve the shopping center, not just the landscaping. Nothing was done and the landscaping is looking ragged. · The shopping center owner should not be rewarded with extra revenue rrom the antenna placements, when they have not complied with any of the things they previously said they would do. Srinivas Potlnri, So. Blaney A venne: . The cypress trees will take 10-20 years to grow; meanwhile the residents will be exposed to radiation. . Opposes the application Fanqu Meng, So. Blaney Avenue: · Questioned why another antenna would have to be built, since the area is serviced by many quality providers. · A similar application was denied last year and no changes have occurred since then. · Expressed concern about the risk of exposure rrom antennas. · Opposed to the proj ect. Dwight Leu, Cupertino resident: · Noted that the property owner was not present at the meeting. · Said there was a recent publication rrom Western Washington University which identified that of all the research currently out there, the vast majority shows that there are health effects, or it cannot be said that there are clearly no health effects. !l-/ðÒ Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October 25, 2005 · Said he was familiar with the scientific effects of electromagnetic radiation and cannot see how anyone in good conscience can support the tower especially with its close proximity to young children. Nancy Jing, Cupertino resident: · Said the proposed tower would block the view of the mountains. · The tower will emit pollutions, radiation which will hann the health of the residents, which may not be fully realized until many years in the future. Satish Parbhakar, La Roda Drive: · Said the tower will detract trom the view of the mountains. · Attention will be drawn to the artificial tree. · Expressed concern about the health effects; asbestos being taken out of buildings. · He said that it has been proven there are health dangers living close to electric pylons over a long period of time. People are now aware of it, whereas there was little talk about it forty years ago. Chair Wong: · Relative to health concerns expressed, he suggested that the residents write to Congressman Honda who can address the issue. Mr. Piasecki: · Reiterated the reason that the federal government pre-empted local jurisdictions trom entering the arena of health affects. Every jurisdiction would have a different standard and the industry would have a difficult time complying. Konrad Pfund, Cupertiuo resident: · Expressed concern with the noise trom the refrigeration unit with fans and the transfonners during the day. At night when it is quiet they can be heard throughout the neighborhood. Christina Papadakas, Cupertino resident: · Has resided next to the Tin Tin Market for 39 years. · Expressed concern about the health impacts trom the antenna. · Said there were rats in the area and odors from the market. Marie Garcia-Wilson, John Drive: · Asked if the area was zoned for such a tower. · Expressed concern about health impacts to her young child. · Said Cupertino was getting too built up, and the neighbors were not interested in building antennas. Mr. Jung: · Said the wireless communications facility ordinance allows with appropriate discretionary pennits, cell facilities on every nonresidential piece of property in the city, which includes the Tin Tin Market, industrial properties, commercial properties, and public institutional properties. Mary Edbrooke, Cupertino resident: · Said her property is adjacent to the Tin Tin Market, about 50 feet trom the proposed cell tower. She expressed concern about the health impacts on her children. 11-/6/ Cupertino Planning Commission 10 October 25, 2005 · She said that currently there were no problems with cell coverage in the area, and questioned why a tower was needed when there are other companies providing coverage in the area. · She said because the residential is not wooded, the artificial 1ree will stick out like a sore thumb. · She said it is going to be obvious that it is there and if a line of 1rees is put up on the north side to block the view rrom the tower, it is going to block her view of the mountains. · She expressed concern about the current noise rrom the trucks unloading at the market, and leaving their motors running for more than 25 minutes. She has had to make complaint calls to the owner of the market asking that the truck motors be shut off. She said that the air conditioner at the supermarket also is very noisy. Cecil Coe, Cupertino resident: · Suggested that there be a condition to request all the operators share the same tower. · Relative to an earlier comment that all alternatives had been exhausted, he said that because of the many commercial properties in the area, he felt Tin Tin market was not the only desirable solution. He suggested the area of DeAnza Boulevard and Bollinger Road, and asked if there was an opportunity for the city to give it to a church or a supermarket. Sam Cramb, La Roda Court: · Said he was one of the residents living closest to the proposed tower, and agreed with previous speakers who were concerned about the physiological effects of the tower. · He said there was a visual impact because of his location, but his main concern was the close proximity to the market. · Said he resided in the same home for 37 years and when Tin Tin Market took over rrom All American Market, their problems began. The odors in the summertime are ex1remely bad. · He referred to the fence as a rat highway, and said the rat problem did not exist before the Tin Tin Market took over the store. · Said his wife constantly calls code enforcement about the truck engines running. Noise is a constant problem. · As previous speakers said, why reward Tin Tin management by allowing them to have the tower to earn money rrom them, when they constantly violate the codes. Chair Wong: · Said that Mr. Coe summarized the speakers' concerns and feelings about Tin Tin Market. He said although Mr. Coe does not live in the neighborhood, he presented good ideas. He noted that the comer discussed was in the City of San Jose, not Cupertino. It was also suggested that several devices could share one tower and be cen1rally located. He asked staff if that concept was possible. Mr. Piasecki: · Pointed out that co-locatable facilities were much larger, taller and massive m order to accommodate multiple carriers, which had previously been rejected. · In response to a question why the antenna couldn't be placed on one of the taller buildings toward DeAnza and Stephens Creek, such as the Cypress Hotel or the community center, he said that there are already antennas over there. The nature of the cell sites is that they are only as far as their radius goes, and there is no more than a quarter to a half mile radius coverage for each of these antennas. If more expansive coverage is needed, taller antennas must be allowed. Chair Wong: · The applicant said that Home Depot was not interested in putting one on top of their building. 11-102.. Cupertino Planning Commission II October 25, 2005 · Staff or the residents would not be happy having an antenna atop ofWalgreens. Mr. Piasecki: · Said only one proposal that staff looked at over the years has been submitted formally. Staff has talked informally with each carrier who the neighbors mentioned. All are interested in locating at one time or another at this location. We have looked at several sites, several different design alternatives on the Walgreens building, all of them are much closer to the residential. Com. Miller: · Relative to co-location, a number of residents stated they had other carrier service which works satisfactorily. · Asked why other carriers or T-Mobile could not co-locate on one of the sites with the other carriers who are providing adequate service instead of adding another site. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that staff would encourage co-location but with co-location it would be a more ungainly structure that would likely be met with even more adamancy against it. · It does not necessarily solve the problem, and if you go to the existing sites they have to be built to be co-locatable; they have to be structurally large enough to handle the co-location; the visibility, adequate screening, obstruction of views, whatever it might be. It might not be a silver bullet that we hoped it would be. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked staff to address a speaker's comments that there was no noise study done on the equipment that would be installed at the base of the tower. Mr. Jung: · Reported that no noise complaints have been received for any of these cellular towers. He noted that some have been located much closer to residential uses than this particular one. · There would be a noise study requirement at the building permit stage. · If the equipment is at all similar to the Cingular installation proposed last year, the resultant conclusion was that the existing ventilation equipment in use right now on the market is much nosier than anything that would be added by the equipment installed by the carrier. Chair Wong: · Asked staff to address some of Tom Huganin's comments, including his concern about drainage, and the vermin issue. · He noted that the city does not do vermin control; but it will be addressed with the property owner and the tenants. Mr. Jung: · In response to Com. Giefer's desire to verify that there is no effect on the overall parking demand by eliminating the parking spaces, he stated that on the number of occasions he has been to the location, hardly any of the parking along the long part of the building had been utilized. Staff will explore the parking further. Com. Chen: · Asked if all the wireless providers in the past were interested in this site and found alternatives sites, why can't T-Mobile find a site that has taller structures that can cover the height of the I I-I t> ? Cupertino Planning Commission 12 October 25, 2005 antenna a lot better than this particular site? Mr. Jung: · Said that although some of the neighbors may disagree, the carriers perceive a coverage problem there. From the carriers' standpoint they look at coverage in different respects. Vice Chair Miller: · Said that Tom HuganJn made a point at a past City Council meeting, that the plan for wireless coverage in the city is not working. · For every application received, there is a large group of residents who come out and express their concerns. · He suggested that they rethink that and spend more time determining if there is some way to come up with a more effective plan that works for the residents and carriers. Chair Wong: · He requested that when the application returns, the property owner attend the meeting to answer questions about the tenants at the Tin Tin Market. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked the Planning Commission to identify problems relating to the General Plan, and suggest that the Telecommunications Commission address the specific targeted areas, or where they perceive some of the problems exist. Applicant: · Said it was acceptable to continue the application to December. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen to continue Application U-2005-14 to the December 21, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner, presen the staff report: · She reviewed the application for a Use Pellm demolish 15 aparhnent units and construct 15 townhomes; and architectural and site approval 15 apartments. The application also includes rezoning the site from multi-family residen' (R3) to planned residential; and tentative map approval to subdivide the site into 16 lots 15 townhome units and one common area lot, as outlined in the staff report. · A condition of approval has been included that the common areas uld be repaired and maintained by the newly established Homeowners Association. The color sc e for the front and rear elevations are under revision and a condition of approval is included the color scheme and materials be approved by the Community Development Director prior to of a building permit. 15 townhomes. Architectural and Site Approval for 15 aparhnents. Tentative Map to subdivide a I. I-acre parcel into 15 lots plus one lot held in common. Rezoning of a 1.l-acre parcel from Apartment (R3) To Planned Development Residential (P Residential) for 15 townhomes. Tentative City Council date: November 15, 2005. -2005-08, Z-2005-06 Ro ell Homes, 10716 Stephen anyon Road / I-I cy Cupertino Planning Commission 2 December 13, 2005 M-2005-04 et Moxley ( pp residence) 2192 Lindy Lane Modification to a Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) to provide access for Lot 2 ITom Lindy Lane. Planning Commission decision fmal unless appealed. Postponed ITom the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Request removal ITom calendar. Motion: by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to remove Application 4 from the calendar. (Vote 5-0-0) Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby 've, Cupertino: · Requested. postponement the hearing date to a January meeting for the Marketplace. application scheduled for D ember 20, 2005, to allow another neighborhood meeting to be held to help resolve issues such s odor, traffic, parking, and building size. Keith Murphy, East Estates Drive, C ertino: · . Requested that the Marketplace applic . on be postponed to January for the same reasons Ms. Tamblyn stated. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development 'rector: · Explained that scheduling is based on a standar chedule, when applicants provide the needed materials for their applications and all the en . ronmental work is completed, they are scheduled. This application has been in the process r a number of months, trying to get the materials together; it is always difficult to tell an applic t they will summarily be continued. · Said he agreed with the speakers that there are still a n ber of unresolved issues, and the Planning Commission may continue it, but they are aware the January schedule with many large projects which May take several meetings. It is not foolp of that if the item is continued because the Planning Commission needs more information or be use it is requested, that they will actually be heard then. Unfortunately there is a lot of project d applications before us and we need to keep moving along. · There is an unresolved problem with the parking in particular and the lanning Commission will have to deal with whether that is addressed sufficiently on the 20th. ere will also be a hearing at the City Council, hence there are ample opportunities even if pe Ie are unable to get to the Planning Commission meeting to bring up issues before the City uncil. Weare aware of the many issues in that neighborhood and will be addressing them as t application moves forward. · Given the workload that the Planning Commission will face in the next month, t consider having special meetings to provide more opportunity for input. CONSENT CALENÐ!..R. tTSB6 PUBLIC HEARING. 1. U-2005-14 William Stephens (T-Mobile) 20041 Bollinger Rd. Use Permit to erect a 35-foot tall, slim-line monopole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from the October 25. 2005 Planning Commission meeting. {(- JDr; Cupertino Planning Commission 3 December 13, 2005 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: o Reviewed the application for the Use Permit to erect a 35-foot tall, slimline 1reepole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. He clarified that the property owner was Pacific Rim Park, and that the applicant (T-Mobile) was seeking to be a tenant of the center; Tin Tin Market is also another tenant at the center. o Reviewed the Background and Surroundings, the Monopole Design/Camouflage Techniques, the Radio Frequency Emissions and the neighborhood input since the previous Planning Commission meeting, as outlined in the staff report. o He reviewed the design alternatives, to see the issues that staff deals with when it reviews the applications; all of the options are available to the Planning Commission in the event they choose to approve the application. This is a no landscape alternative 1ree pole design; a treepole that would be camouflaged as an Italian Cypress without the landscape screen; an unadorned monopole design. o He reviewed other issues including noise from trucks and refrigeration equipment; lighting; odors, vermin con1rol, overflowing garbage bins, rear property drainage as outlined in the staff report. o Staff recommends denial of the Use Permit application due to the insufficiency of the landscape screen behind the 1reepole itself that would be needed to blend in with the treepole. William Stephens, T -Mobile: o Referred to the staff report regarding landscape screening. He met with staff to discuss the specific issue of landscaping screening and tried to define some talking points to go forward with a more adequate plan, and agreed that two parking spaces should be enough to provide a much more significant landscaping plan. o The square footage that was offered with those two parking spaces was merely an estimate of pulling it out of the air; there is nothing locked in about 180 square feet; the additional number put into the staff report of 324 square feet is also fine with us; it was the two parking spaces that we were focused on, because that gave me something specific to go back to the landlord and to T Mobile to discuss, both from the space that the landlord would be giving up per se, to allow us to do the landscaping and also for T Mobile's benefit so they knew how much to budget for new landscaping plan. o Clarified that T -Mobile was willing to consider an even more enlarged landscaping plan; we just don't know what the parameters are and we haven't been able to reach that point with staff and to know what we need to design. o After the November 21 meeting with staff, they made the suggestion that they would work with an arborist consultant as agreed to by the city, to defme what 1rees would be appropriate. The December 6 letter was merely to get to some of the previous designs because I know the Planning Commission hadn't had benefit of that and since a lot of the neighborhood concern was over the mass where (or) the visual obstruction that our installation might impact; I wanted to make sure that the Commission also knew that we had some other designs that staff had considered that were much less obtrusive. o The applicant is open to any condition for approval or other form that the commission wants to put that forward in; we just don't know how far to go and what is adequate. o In my written communication I asked for your consideration to look at our application on its merits and while staff has provided a comprehensive report, there are outstanding issues there, but T Mobi]e is not in a position to do anything about those, not unti] we are a tenant, and on]y as a matter of condition of approval that this Commission would put forward. Those are not directly pertaining to our application; we would like to be considered on the merits. o Offered photos of the site to provide another perspective; provided photo simulations to show three views from the most 1rafficked areas and showed the views perceived to have the most /1-/0(., Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 13, 2005 impact. · Asked that the Planning Commission not deny the application, they are willing to consider other landscaping if recommended by the Planning Commission. · Asked for direction and guidance in moving forward. We have put forward four plans and would prefer not to have to submit a fifth plan with a specific understanding of what area the city would like to have covered. If we could find a way to do that as a condition of approval, it would be optimal, but some other form of moving forward with some understanding if that it is what the commission would like to see would be helpful. Chair Wong: · Clarified that the public hearing was to discuss the cell phone towers; there are other concerns regarding the shopping center not related to the application. The other concerns are addressed and brought to the attention of the Planning Department and have to be addressed through code enforcement. Staff ensures that they will address those issues, but tonight's topic relates to the cell phone tower. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Tom Buganin, representing La Roda Court BOA: · Said his slide presentation was identical to the one shown at the previous Planning Commission meeting. · The neighborhood believes the cell tower it is out of character in the residential neighborhood. · Said that it degrades the visual appearance of the center; it blocks the scenic vistas of the western foothills. · There is no noise study. · He expressed concern aþout the visual impacts of the project. · He said there were otr~1" locations available for the applicant to explore. Billie Cramb, La Roda Court: · Said that she had adequate phone coverage with Verizon Wireless. · Expressed concern about the health isstes she felt were associated with having a tower that close to her home. · Said that added noise from the cell tower would have a negative impact. Gene Young, Cupertino resident: · Said he had not seen enough data about the safety impacts from the cell tower in the area. · Does not like the idea of having cell towers in the area as the area is already unsightly. Joy Ban, La Roda Court: · Questioned the need for the cellular tower as her present carrier AT&T was adequate. · Expressed concern about the long term impact of cellular towers in a residential neighborhood, to the present generation as well as future generations. · Commended T-Mobile's work to make the pole uniform looking in the neighborhood; however, nothing has been shown to disguise the cellular tower, and the appearance does not conform to the neighborhood. Mr. Jung: · Said at the last Planning Commission meeting and included in the staff report, a radio rrequency study was presented that examined a worst case scenario what the exposures would be from this particular facility and compared them to the Federal safety standards. The II r {o 7 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 December 13, 2005 Federal safety standards for this type of PCS frequencies, is referred to as one milowatt per square centimeter of exposure and the report concluded that maximum public exposure at ground level was more than Y2% of the maximum permissible exposure. o According to the federal statutes 1996 Telecommunications Act, if the facility itself meets the federal standard, local jurisdictions such as Cupertino are not allowed to regulate it based on RF exposures. If they were to regulate it, it would have to be based on design, other impacts such as noise, impact on parking, but not on RF exposures. Christina Papadakas, Cupertino resident: o Said the neighbors did not want the cell tower in the residential neighborhood. o ' Expressed concern about the visual impacts from the antenna. o Asked the city to support the neighborhood and deny the application. Mary Ann Overton, Cupertino resident: o Has Cingular service and has no problems. o When Walgreens was constructed, they had to ensure there were adequate parking spaces in the parking lot; and the applicant is now proposing to remove two parking spaces. o Said that there was evidence of rats in her attic. o She said that several trucks were dumping water in the drains in the parking lot. o Opposed to the application. Janet Lin, Cupertiuo resident: o Said her AT&T cellular phone service is adequate, and questioned why another pole was needed in the area. o Said she had a rat infestation in her attic during the last two years. o Expressed concern about the impact of the radio frequency on small children. Satish Parbhakar, La Roda Drive: o Said he didn't have any problems with his Sprint cellular service. o Noted that there was still a rat problem in the area. o Said the tower will detract from the view of the mountains. o Expressed his doubt that there was no other suitable location for the pole; the applicant should look harder at finding at more suitable location for the pole. o Recommended that the application be denied; forcing the applicant to find another location for the pole. Kevin Till, Blaney Avenue: o Said that it was not aesthetically pleasing to have the antenna placed in the small area; it would degrade the neighborhood. o The AT&T cellular service he has works fine. o Recommended that the applicant find another location for the pole, perhaps in a commercial area such as Home Depot. . Opposed to the application. Roger Guertin, La Roda Court o Noted that a previous application from Cingular was denied. o Expressed concern about the noise emitted from the area. o Said that the shopping center continually violates codes; said that he is catching rats on the fence and the dumpsters are emptied in the late evening; the area is not kept clean. I' -10& Cupertino Planning Commission 6 December 13, 2005 Mary Edbrooke, Cupertino resident: o Said her property is adjacent to the Tin Tin Market, about 50 feet rrom the proposed cell tower. o The neighborhood will not benefit !Tom having another pole in the area; the present coverage !Tom other carriers is sufficient. o Expressed concem about the noise emissions; and requested that a reading be taken in the evening hours. o The area is already unsightly; adding another pole will only add to the unattractiveness of the area. Mr. Piasecki: o Clarified the parameters of the Planning Commission and what they are dealing with. The EMFs have been preempted by the federal government; we cannot make a decision based on the EMS; as shown in the slide the number is extremely low rrom these kinds of facilities. o The surest way to give the applicant what he wants is for us to make a decision based on EMS and then he can take us to court and the courts will overrule our decision and he will have his treepole. o The second parameter is we don't protect views over the Tin Tin Market property any more than we protect the neighbors' views over your house. o In terms of what is enough; there is a redwood grove behind the library that is probably 10,000 square feet, that would be more than you need to screen something. If you follow my principles; you will block views with trees and hopefully that will be an enhancement. Mr. Jung: o Relative to the noise issue, he presented a memo rrom the code enforcement officer, the measurements were taken during the day; the night time noise standard is 55 decibels; and the range of readings was !Tom 49 to 60 decibels; when a truck was accelerating. All other readings were 55 decibels or less which meets the night time standards. Com. Saadati: o Based on photos presented, the antenna cannot be blended in and not be visible. o Concurs with staff recommendation for denial. Com. Giefer o Concur with Com. Saadati. o I support wireless communications and cell phone antennas because of the high demand for better reception and devices within the community; however, we have seen two applications in the specific area and I want to give more feedback to staff and also for the vendor proposing them. o This is a problematic area; it is not large enough to plant sufficient green screening to stealth any type of tree. The issue I had last time it was put before the Planning Commission prior to continuance, is that the surrounding cypresses would always have to be trimmed or topped lower than the communications pole which is unnatural and the communication pole would stick out. o Previously asked if there were any cypress trees within the bay area to look at. o The Tin Tin Market location is not a good location for a cell tower regardless of tree type proposed. He She suggested a location that is off DeAnza in the building where the Travelsmith Travel Agency is, a two story building behind the Yasso Greek restaurant. o Do not want to hear more applications for this site. 11-1 f) 1 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 December 13, 2005 Com. Chen: · Agrees with colleagues that it is not a good location for the cell phone antenna because of the residential area and lack of landscape. · Recommend the applicant explore other possibilities within the city. Vice Chair Miller: · Concur also; aesthetically it is not a good location; there are other locations that the applicant can consider. Chair Wong: · Said he concurred with staffs recommendation. · He addressed the audience, stating that it was the second time the issue had been addressed, and it has been made clear about this particular location. · He said that moving in the new century, wireless communication, DSL is going to be the future. The community needs to learn to be proactive and go with that; and work with the vendors to provide wireless service for our community; this may not be the perfect location but eventually it is coming to our neighborhood; it may be shorter or a different device, but there are other issues we need to be proactive; we do have a wireless communication ordinance, and we need to be open to having wireless devices in our neighborhoods; how and when we do it will be around the corner. · The Planning Commission is supportive of wireless services, but this particular location, based on aesthetics, is not the right place. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny Application U-2005-14. (Vote: 5-0-0) Mr. Piasecki: · Noted that it was a final decision of the Planning Commission, unless appealed within 14 days to the City Council. Chair Wong declared a short recess. 15 townhomes. Architectural and Site Approval for 15 apartments. Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.1 acre parcel into 15 lots plus one lot held in common. Rezoning of a 1.1 acre parcel nom Apartment (R3) to Planned Development Residential (P Residential) for 15 townhomes. Continued from October 25,2005 Planning mmission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Janu 3,2006 . -2005-08, Z-2005-06 Roc I Homes 10716 Stev Canyon Rd. Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner, presented the staf ort: . She reviewed the application for a Use Permit to demolish townhomes; and architectural and site approval for 15 ap s. The application also includes rezoning the site nom multi-family residential (R3) to p ed tentative map approval to subdivide the site into 16 lots for 15 townho common area lot, as outlined in the staff report. . The revised proposal is for twelve 3 bedrooml2 bath units and three 2 bedrooml2 bath 11- II 0 :-.. ( .,E --'5 .j 3 , 3 , a- t '" ;£ V5 F-\l.\t\B\\: E.-2- STIWf"-PR.DfOSI"'D S\"TE. "PLA\\\ rbR.. T-~!\oßILE.. ! lit .uMno~VW1~Y.lH'iS '. .......,...""'DHI1>!!Odn:I ~~ . OlÇHi'V3'OIlI:OHCO 000II1/3ÐNI11OII._ ~HI.&(LI"lgA't'M1IY9Ç/¡9'1 !l8illUav1UlS ~ih N .1_ 6t6~[-1IS :::..... j oi: ilifrli . öâ I. I J.NlOdlNllOA .IIDnIVW NIl NIl. ~~ :e ". z z " ~ Il. " W '" " ~ I- '_ Ü " WÕ:!.. , - ~ .:; Il. ~ ~ -<) Q.~ i ><~G ÙJ .!J ? ~j N --,( , - ~ ~ [0- cr- { {~ ð i-~ L II (y) J 0 1/ i :;¡ ~ ..:i --.~¡;;;ø .' t . . , , ... , ä¡; t I ,s ~~ .~. i~ I . 0 .. .~. ~ I~i. Is ~ ih U.;~ ~~_~.' e h :! ~~~ dti" ~ litR~~t h I~¡ Il!ïl ~~:I l/- - L ,-....... j '" s ~~~~ !il i~ ~ -,9/ ¡¡~;g ~ - ¡¡~ ~ ~ .~~ .~, ~j :~~ n~~; m: " j~ z II ~-~ ~~ U ~~~ ~S~ t):sJ;l.1 ;<; . J;I.1~S .' "'. / U }oo. '.1 , I ~ .. I ' ~ ~~ . '" ~ /; --------- ~~ q '..~" ;;~ ~ f:i/ />:::~~}, . ., ê jf;1II I //. / ,/ ",~_' " ..r ,/ //./ v..::¡ __ ..J 'I:: < /'/ .>-- «,. ~ ;, Ó'V<..../ . ~ ~::t/"'~ Z... .~ "'~ ~ ~ ~ '. ~ '¡: i~ ""',' 0 I-< Z' "... z ! " /~~!'J~" ~!. J:~ ~ ~ : , ~ .~ N 1 I ---J ~ . ·d g~ ....-. . ---------- , ! ~ä ,- U .'. ':,~~ '0 '" I- ill~ ~ ji~ ~i~ 3:~ d~ I; n! n~ q! ~ " 6 I Ig ~~ II -III t:.):.r\iDI ¡; F-, 1855 Gateway Blvd. #900 Concord, CA 94520 (925) 521-5900 œ .. -Mobile- January 30, 2006 Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, U-2005-14 Dear Colin; Thanks very much for your letter of January 23, regarding possible outcomes of the City Council hearing of our appeal. Your advice to provide an enhanced landscape screen option for presentation to the City Council, gets directly to the point of one of our main issues of the appeal. T -Mobile has provided additional enhanced landscaping in two of the four stealth designs put forward, but were told in each case, afterwards, that it was not enough, or was the wrong type. Until the Planning Director spoke at the Dec. 13th Planning Commission, we had no idea that the City was looking for landscaping of "thousands of square feet" of asphalt parking area and delivery alley, to be turned into a small forest. Such an impact to the area behind the center that is currently used for deliveries and parking for employees, is not something the landlord can allow, given the needs of existing tenants. We are very limited in the area that we can use, since we are only one minor tenant in a retail center. T -Mobile remains completely desirous of and willing to address any reasonable requirements for additional landscaping some area immediately adjacent to our lease area, but we don't believe that it is reasonable to require T -Mobile to take over significant parking and delivery areas of other tenants in order to mitigate a 35' pole that would be already be surrounded by other, taller utility poles. It would be our hope that the City Council would, in fact, direct us back to Planning Department, and that we could reach a mutually satisfactory resolution. However, given the current requirements expressed by the Planning Director, I am not sure what design we could reasonably bring forward to satisfy his desire for a small forest. I gratefully accept your invitation to meet and discuss an enhanced landscape design, and I await your reply to set up a convenient time. Again, thanks for your assistance in this very difficult matter. Yours truly, /J.1iA:.- -~ ~ William StePhe:~alist {1-1I2.-- Mar Ub Ub 1 :¿:~4p uouglss vvngnt 415-001-2622 p.2 2~ 1-0~ Jt:/1 í- f1obd~ March 6, 2006 LEDOUX ~ QJlU1~ VIA FACSIMILE: 408777 3401 Charles Kilian, Esq. City Attorney City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: T-Mobile's CUP Aoolication: U-2005-14 for 20041 Bollim¡er Road. Cuoertino Dear Mr. Kilian: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the above-referenced application (the "Application"). This letter will confinn our understanding that the Application will be remanded back to the Planning Commission. After discussions with you and the Planning Director, T -Mobile believes there is a consensus that 20041 BolJinger Road is an appropriate location for a personal communications facility; however, Planning desires a different approach to "stealth" the facility. T-Mobile hereby requests that the Application be remanded back to the Planning Commission ...,ith the instruction that T-Mobile and Planning work together to develop mitigation measures satisfactory to all We also conf:nn our understanding that this remand is without prejudice to T-Mobile's right to appeal the matter and have it heard by the City Council, if necessary. Nevertheless, we intend to work openly and cooperatively with Planning and will do our very best to resolve the issues there. veryr;Yours, Ledo s uire c., ~. ·t··Z ~n R. Ledoux. Esq. Presidio of San Francise:o Vjs;t 38 Keyes Ave. Suite II ~ Moil: P.O. Bo)' 29426 San Fran~i5(O, CA 9<4129 þhone: 41 5.541.2584 (ox:4IS.S61.2SB7 courtiel@ledouxesquire,com redouxesqujre.com