Loading...
11-25-08 draft minutesCITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMl~~IIS SIGN DRAFT 1VIII~TUTE5 6:45 P.M. November 25, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COM1V.[UNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 2008 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Planning Intern: George Schroeder APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the October 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Brophy, to approve the October 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Rose abstained) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL C011EVIUNICATIONS: The following speakers addressed the Sand Hill Project which is agendized for two weeks. Jennifer Chang, Cupertino resident: • Addressed the park issue, stating that the park creates green space and a friendly environment for shoppers. They want the park because Cupertino has enough retail stores and there is currently vacant space around Vallco area. They would rather build a high quality project with positive outcome than build just a retail store that will sit there and not generate profit. • She said that having the park will increase the property value in the Cupertino local area such as at the Rose Bowl and Metropolitan projects. It would generate more property tax for the city Cupertino Planning Commission 2 November 25, 2008 and the homeowners would be happy. Senior citizens can walk and enjoy their retirement. • Keep the current truck loading area on Vallco Parkway because if it is moved to their project, it would generate more noise and we don't want to see the garbage trucks loading which would generate noise. Steve Piasecki: • Explained that while people have the right to speak under Oral Communications on items not on the agenda, the Planning Commission cannot respond at that time, they can only listen. They cannot respond because they have to judge this development objectively at a later date and it would be presumptive for them to take testimony on one side only. Fidelia (no last name given): • Agreed with Ms. Chang's comments, and emphasized the point about the loading dock. Said she understood that the current Sand Hill project does place the loading dock closer to the Vallco retail area, but there has been some talk about trying to move that closer to the Metropolitan community which would adversely affect those residents who do live in the section of about 30 units. Keep in mind that we would like to support and keep the loading dock where it is originally planned to minimize any noise and also to preserve property values. Emily Shieh, Metropolitan resident: • Said that the residents would prefer to have the loading dock away from the residents and to be able to control the walking path, because there is going to be high foot traffic. Safety is a major issue for the residents as there will be about 450 to 500 units there. If the town square is ever shifted, it will eliminate many of the parking spaces, which would affect the noise issues and safety issues. She asked that they make their living conditions better, not worse. Tony Lee, Cupertino resident: ~ Recalled the earlier Planning Commission meetings where the concept was sold in a certain way that dissuaded many concerns many people had. He said the residents went along with it in the beginning because they thought it would be good for the City of Cupertino, and at the eleventh hour things are being changed; the loading zone, taking away the park, key things that everyone believed in and would be delivered on; and at the last minute they are taking things away and impacting property values; it is also impacting the quality of life. He asked that they consider those things. Terry Lydon, Metropolitan resident: • Said that many of the concerns mentioned are related to additional retail tax revenue; their complex has three retail locations and only one of them is occupied after two years. Hopefully the new plan will help out. The Rose Bowl adds retail also and there is also retail in the area. An off-center loading dock would not be a good change for the area. Having a park in the area would be a place that the people could stay longer and patronize the shops. Ming Li, Metropolitan resident: • Said that currently there is no park in the area for the children to use; green space and a park for the children and residents are needed. Elaine Chung, Metropolitan resident: • Expressed concern about the walkways and traffic throughout the Metropolitan community; presently Cupertino High School students pass through the complex going to cafes and litter the area; there is vandalism and theft to the first floor units. With adding more foot traffic and more people with the Sand Hill traffic, they are worried about the safety issues and vandalism Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2008 could become worse. Also a concern about people parking in their parking area which presently is limited. • Said their community is proposing to remove the easements for the walkways through their community which she did not feel would detract from the pedestrian friendliness of the Sand Hill project, and might even help with rejuvenating the retail along Stevens Creek in the Metropolitan complex. • At the last meeting we talked to Coms. Brophy, Giefer and Chair Miller and they seemed to support removing the easements in general so we hope this is something we can move forward with. Winston Chen, Metropolitan resident: • Said that the parking is already limited and because of shifting the plan, we would like to stay with the original plan so that we have ample space. Related to the easements, if we restrict the easement space, we also maintain. Theodore Hwa, Metropolitan resident: • Said that shifting the town square was not a good idea because it would reduce the amount of parking available. Chair Miller: • Thanked the speakers for their comments and encouraged them to attend the hearing when the Sand Hill project is on the agenda. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said that at the recent meeting of the Mayor with Planning Commissioners, when the Public Safety did their presentation he raised the issue that came up at the October meeting about the concerns of the Metropolitan residents regarding the easement. Mayor Sandoval suggested as an immediate step, that the Metropolitan unit rep contact the Principal at Cupertino High School and discuss the problems to see how the school could help. PUBLIC HEARING 1. M-2008-OS Modification to a Use Permit (11-U-77) to allow a shared Jacki Horton (Mission parking agreement between two office buildings at 20400 West Properties/Apple) and 10500 Mariam Ave. Planning Commission decision final 20400 Mariam Avenue unless appealed. George Schroeder, Planning Department Intern, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for shared parking agreement between two office buildings known as Mariam 3 and DeAnza 3 as outlined in the staff report. Currently Mariam 3 has a parking deficiency of 29 spaces, while DeAnza 3 has a surplus of 66 spaces; the shared parking agreement would allow DeAnza 3 to cover Mariam 3's parking shortage. If approved, there will be a total surplus of 37 spaces between the two buildings. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the agreement, with a condition that a covenant be recorded to allow shared parking between the two buildings. Jacki Horton, Apple Inc.: • Provided a brief history of the Use Permit. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. There was no one present to wished to speak on the application. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 25, 2008 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to approve Application M-2008-05. (Vote: 5-0-0) 2. MCA-2008-04 Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.108-Wireless Communications Facilities, regarding additional siting options, clarifying review criteria and streamlining some of the minor review processes. Tentative City Council date: Januai^y 20, 2009 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.108 regarding the expansion of potential site locations, adding to the review criteria used to review and approve such sites, and misc. technical changes, as outlined in the staff report. • He reviewed the five proposals by the Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the negative declaration for the project and approval of the ordinance amendments per the attached resolution and Exhibit A. Colin Jung answered questions about the cell phone coverage, application, etc. • Said that the problem with the previous ordinance was that in implementing the ordinance, staff realized that the ordinance was not well written and there were mutually exclusive proposals where one part of the ordinance would allow something, yet another part would not allow it. An example in the current ordinance allows cell phone towers on city utility poles, yet another part of the ordinance states that you cannot locate such an antenna within 50 feet of a residential property line. • He said not every site shown on the map was not available for cell site antenna; there still needs to be a reasonable proximity to the utilities, it still has to be within coverage area that the carrier desires to locate in and there needs to be a willing property owner. He said they are allowed on elementary and middle school sites in Cupertino; however, as a matter of policy, the Cupertino Union School District will not sign a lease with any cell phone carriers although they would like to have the lease revenue. • He said that in certain cases a setback is needed. Most cell carriers will not build a site that is under 30 feet tall, because of the radio frequency emissions that are emitted from that for precautionary measures. The further away from it, the safer one is. According to the current master plan, if something is put in a residential neighborhood, it requires a radio frequency study regardless of what the setback is. • Staff illustrated photos of various examples of cell phone antennas. • Com. Rose reported that she had received emails from concerned parents about a meeting being held regarding cell phone towers on high school property. • He explained that the application would go to City Council for additional discussion and a decision. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation and forward it to City Council for further deliberation. Chair Miller: • Relative to the 50 foot distance, he said his main concern is for safety. When applications are submitted for cell towers, the public turnout is large, as there is a concern about the electro magnetic radiation. How safe they are is a function of the power in the source and the distance from the source that the individuals are standing, and duration of the exposure. He said it was appropriate that distances be defined based on something more scientific than what was given. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 25, 2008 When the towers are installed, they come as specs and he has not seen an instance of someone measuring the radiation generated at specific distances where people are likely to be. He said he felt it was appropriate to add to the ordinance a requirement that after the towers are installed, they are tested to make sure they meet specifications, and if they don't meet the specs, the city knows that up front so that the applicant must repair them or remove them. He said that public art was an interesting idea; however, along with the safety concept, his concern is that public art by definition invites people to take a closer look. He said he did not object to using the towers as public art as long as the safety distances are somehow maintained. Considering putting them on light poles and telephone poles and being close to residences is the same issue. As long as the safe distance and safe power is defined, he did not object; but is hesitant to making exceptions to being closer to residents and about exceptions to allow them in mixed used buildings, where potentially they are on the roof and the radiation can either radiate down or radiate across to an adjacent building without people realizing it. Said he was unclear when the applications are presented to the Planning Commission or not. Colin Jung: • Said the criteria established in the ordinance relies on three concepts: If it is visible from a residential area or from a public right-of--way and it is a free standing application, it automatically gets referred to the Planning Commission. There is amid-ground called "moderately visible" such as a two-story building with antennas on the edge of the building, 6 or 7 feet off the parapet. It would be at the discretion of the Director of Community Development whether he wants to administratively approve it or send it to the Planning Commission for design review. The Community Development Director has not approved a tower that is moderately visible; all of them have gone to the Planning Commission or City Council or have been redesigned to provide a full screen around the parapet of the room in order to mask it. An example is the antenna mounts on the PG&E towers at the Monta Vista substation. No negative comments from the public have been received on them. He said the distances have been measured both at line of sight and ground level. Andy Radle, TICC Chair: • Reviewed the history of the proposal. In July 2007 a wireless survey was conducted since there had been no cell towers added to Cupertino for quite some time and there were concerns about coverage issues. As a result the City Council asked the TICC and staff to work together on improvements in coverage in the city. People are now using their cell phones in the home as well as their cars, and not using land line phones any longer. The survey indicated that there was poor coverage in the homes, and the residents were concerned about the appearance of the cell phone towers. He confirmed that AT&T and Verizon dominated the carrier market; half the people surveyed have non-existent coverage or poor coverage in their homes; less than 10% of those surveyed had health risk concerns and all written comments pleaded for better coverage in the Cupertino area. He said that they have been working in several different areas to try to put coverage and the ordinance is just one piece of the puzzle; because of the ordinance restrictions, you can't entertain an application for some of the areas. In this ordinance, they are looking at increasing the possible parcels and locations that can be used; the carriers still have to make applications with cooperative land owners and go through the entire process. The additions, will enable better coverage into the residential areas without having to locate a large tower on a residential lot. The residential hillside is an exception because of the large area and the ability to locate a tower far enough away from the habitable property; but also helps them address areas in the canyons where there are no parcels that could be used today under the current ordinance. This not a solution to the overall coverage problems, but enables improvement of the coverage. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 25, 2008 The TICC recommends adoption of the ordinance, and there are subtle differences between the one they put forth and the staff changes, largely because they did not have a chance in session to review the last changes that were made. He said he could not speak for the TICC on those specific deltas; however, he does not personally have a concern with those changes staff recommended. He said a particular set of things would enable the locations, improve coverage not only for the residents using it as a home line, but also for the delivery and service people who visit the homes and need to communicate with the residents about appointments. They can improve the emergency services coverage where residents have poor coverage; they have modernized the ordinance and aligned with the wireless master plan and fundamentally have the same health restrictions that would minimize the distance from the towers that are defined at the federal level. At the federal level it forbids them as the city and state from putting anything related to health into the ordinance. They are not allowed to consider that as a factor in siting an antenna as long as it meets the federal radiation requirements, which is one of the reasons it did not appear in their proposal. The intention was that it would be habitable structures; which leaves the possibility that you could have inhabitable structures that would become a habitable structure later. There would be a constraint on the use of that land as long as that tower was present. Said that the presence of so many stucco buildings with wire frame effectively makes it difficult to work within the house, and has an impact on the WiFi coverage and Metrofi coverage. Com. Kaneda: • Expressed concern that someone in the future may want to extend their home, but the land available is not covered by setback requirements, and once the cell tower goes up, they cannot add on to their home. Andy Radle: • It has been discussed and would have to be reflected in some restrictions on future land use when that is done and it will end up being a contractual thing between the land owner and the carrier and then between that land owner and possibly his neighbors, which would be a private arrangement not a city matter. That is a thing we foresee being an interesting situation if someone was close enough to a residential area. In practicality, it has to; when you get down to an applicant, you see how that would play out. In most cases it would run into the normal setbacks you have on a piece of property if you got close to residential. It is our feeling that they are not going to be able to build closer. It may not come up as an issue. • The FCC when they defined the health standards also said that they took away the ability for any jurisdiction lower than the federal level to make any regulations/decisions about towers on the basis of health as long as they met the federal requirements. In effect the requirements you end up reviewing against are the federal standards for distances. It is a complicated document. Based on the research that I have done, federal levels are set and distances and power levels is mostly a function of how much power you are able to get over so much time. Federal standards supersedes anything else we do; the main thing the city has is all the normal planning aspects, structural and otherwise, and aesthetics is the dominant one. Com. Kaneda: • Said he was not familiar with the calculation on what those federal requirements are, but based on what they are, how easy is it to find locations in these areas that are not well covered in the southwest parts of Cupertino. If we tighten up on some of the things Chair Miller was discussing, will we unintentionally create a situation where we can never get cell coverage in those areas? Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 25, 2008 Andy Radle: • Where we are today is there are examples of parcels that are allowed by ordinance, but practically cannot be because of that 50 foot requirement. The TICC met with some of the carriers and they asked us why we couldn't fix the problem because there are some key coverage areas and part of what they said is, yes we have this parcel here, but there is no place to put a tower on site itself that we can meet all the rules. Colin Jung: • Said he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Radle about his assertion that restrictions are needed on residential properties within a certain proximity of an approved tower. I don't think you need to consider to that extreme where if for example you had a detached garage 50 feet away from an antenna that you would have to put a restriction on it that says you can't convert that. I don't think that should be the case at all; the reason is that Chair Miller brought up the idea about testing after the antennas have been installed. A particular case was reviewed where that happened; it was an antenna on the second story of an office building located across from the post office and we had a gentlemen who said you should do some testing after the fact and we did the testing and established in that approval just where it needed to be tested. We looked at the office occupancy below the antenna; we looked at the exposure on the roof of the adjacent building; we looked at the closest residential exposure which was at least 70 or 80 feet away to figure out exactly where the emissions standards; where the threshold was considered not safe by federal standards and I recall from that study that you literally had to be 3 feet away from the antenna itself; you had to be standing on the roof, 3 feet away, before the emissions level was high enough that it would be considered not safe for you to stand there while it was operating. There was no exposure to the occupants in the office space below the antenna because of the intervening roof and the exposure on the roof of the adjacent building was also within safety limits as well as the residential dwellings that were 80 feet away. Chair Miller: • Said he made his comments based on that application. He said he did not get the results of the testing and was pleased to now have them. He confirmed that the antenna was tested after installation. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she was the other Commissioner on that study and had the same recollection. Seeing that our 50 feet from the property line was an estimate made at the time based on what other communities were doing, have other communities changed that? Andy Radle: • Said he was not aware of that and had not looked into that. Colin Jung: • I know that is not the case in San Jose because I see them wherever I go; I see plenty on PG&E towers that are located up against single family homes, so I don't think they use that criteria there. I didn't review other ordinances to see if that criteria is still there. Peter Friedland, Vice Chair of TICC: • Said he moved from Cupertino to Los Altos a few years ago and recalls the Los Altos situation, which had bad coverage then in the middle of downtown Los Altos, and there was enough of an outcry that they relaxed the restriction which was based more on apre-imposed radiation survey. In the survey three areas were pointed out by residents as being terrible; the Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2008 worst by far was the Bubb corridor around the middle school and the high school. The reason for that poor coverage is that it was very hard to place a site. In answer to the question if other sites could be found, the sites that the carriers would like the city to allow them to use doesn't have to do with more residential, it has to do with the city park type areas, the open areas. There are many areas there where the regulation changes we proposed would allow towers to be placed that would cover the whole hillside area, helping both residents and emergency services that are further away from residential properties than a 50 foot; they are just not allowed right now on any of those city owned properties. When we talked with AT&T which is the biggest problem carrier now, they have over 50% of coverage in Cupertino, and they have terrible coverage in that corridor because they don't have any towers around there. They had proposed considering a site in the park areas, but current regulations don't allow that. Com. Kaneda: • Asked if the problem would be solved if they allowed cell towers in their park areas. Peter Friedland: • Not for the entire city; the TICC is not proposing that there be a blanket exception and no process; we just want to get to the point where the regulations don't force staff to say no way to these areas. The three worst sites that we found were that corridor which would be fixed most likely by some combination of the park areas and the areas like Results Way. The second biggest concern was the Stevens Creek Canyon type area; that would be fixed by the hillside area. • The third area in the vicinity of Apple was a strange anomaly; that was the third most mentioned area; it could be there as an interference area around there, we aren't completely sure about that. The two areas with the biggest problem would be fixed easily by the changes in the regulations proposed. • Relative to staff s changes to the TICC's recommendations, he said he agreed with Com. Radle and that he had no concerns. There have been no TICC meetings to discuss them, but four of the commissioners are present and two have said to go ahead, they don't change anything fundamental in their restrictions. Chair Miller: • Said he and Vice Chair Giefer were the two Commissioners who sat in front of an angry group of concerned residents and had to make a ruling on these towers. The proposals here are easing the restrictions to some extent and he imagined more of the same unless they do something to address it and that is the practical side of this. He said that is the reason he is pushing the point on what the distances are and what are they based on. Com. Radle said that the distances were based on federal regulations, but staff is saying it is based on what everyone else is doing. The more data you provide, the better it is, particularly since many of the people who are concerned in this community are engineers and they understand data. Peter Friedland: • Said that cell phone towers are extremely directed; they don't broadcast radio frequency energy all over the place; they are horns that aim down at certain areas; the power is very low compared to power transmission line incident radiation. The standards were extremely conservative; the studies he read show that the amount of radiation from a tower, if you are 10 to 20 feet away, are much less than the amount of cell phone radiation from your own cell phone. He said he was unsure where the community standards of 50 feet came from, but the federal standards and the way Cupertino applies them by doing a radiation survey from towers Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 25, 2008 • and such, is that they as a Commission are not proposing to do anything that would provide anything more than truly negligible radiation from any tower close to any residential area. Chair Miller: • Said in the ordinance he would rather have a more definitive statement of the distance whatever it was, and he wasn't clear whether the 50 feet was from point to point or was at ground level. He said to put it in the ordinance and be more definitive in the way it is specified. Peter Friedland: • Said staff said that the city took two measurements, both from the transmitter, the horn, the antenna, wherever it is. The linear distance from the antenna first to a resident on the ground, and the distance potentially from that tower to someone at about that level if another story was built on a house. Said he did not recall if any of that measurement is in the ordinance. Colin Jung: • Yes it is; the setback itself is explicitly stated in the ordinance. Peter Friedland: • Said it was difficult to believe that any of his fellow commissioners would object to adding a sentence that explains 50 feet from what. Chair Miller: • Let's make sure the ordinance is consistent with the federal standards, and let's add to the ordinance that it will be measured after it is in place so that we have two checks to reassure the residents; so that not only are we obeying the federal guidelines in terms of safety from power sources, but also we are actually measuring them. Peter Friedland: • Said he was not an expert in that area; however, he was unsure if they would be allowed by federal law to state it that way. It can be policy of the city to do that measurement; I am not sure if the federal regulations would bar you from even mentioning a separate city assessment of safety hazards. Federal law whether you agree or not, does not allow local residents to deny a tower as long as it meets federal standards which is in the regulations. Chair Miller: • Proposed that they ensure that it meets federal standards; if it is not meeting federal standards, he said he wanted it removed. If they do not measure, they will never know. Peter Friedland: • I don't think any of us would object that federal standards have to be met; isn't that part of the ordinance already. Chair Miller: • Except for the one incidence, where we required at the DRC meeting, I don't know of any incidence where the city went out and measured the radiation or required the installer to do so. Colin Jung: • All of the studies done with the exception of the one in Monta Vista were done before, as part of the application process, not after installation. He quoted the Wireless Master Plan, Policy 7-2; "the city shall require radio frequency radiation assessment for the following types of Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 25, 2008 personal wireless service facilities: (1) For building, not antennas where the building is designed for human occupancy; (2) For antennas mounted less than 10 meters which is 32.8 feet above ground level; (3) For all co-located antennas; the concern there is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC guidelines; and (4) For residential deployment of personal wireless facilities. Anything that is located in residential environment, has to do an assessment. The concern is usually when the application is submitted; hence that is when it is required. Chair Miller: • Suggested they go to the next step and do it after installation. We have to do something to make residents feel; I saw the survey that said only 10%; maybe there is only 10% but that 10% seems to manage to fill this hole, while the other 90% are not vocal; 10% sways opinions. Peter Friedland: • I was here at the last tower application and I think only 3 people raised objections. I don't think any sensible person would disagree; I would be surprised if there isn't already a regulation on the cell carriers that they have to make sure their equipment is operating properly, and I think the only thing we have to be careful about is putting something in the city ordinance that seems to impose upon the carriers more than the federal regulations allow, in which case the city could potentially be in litigation with the carriers for doing that. Chair Miller: • We are suggesting they show that they meet the federal requirements. Com. Kaneda: • Are we not already imposing something beyond what the ,federal government requires by saying 50 feet? Peter Friedland: • It can't be based on safety considerations; cities are allowed to regulate them based on aesthetic considerations; but cities have to be careful. I think either LA or Sacto lost a big court case because they were using aesthetic facade to bar all cell phone towers. Your point is well taken; the regulation couldn't say we impose a 50 foot guideline based on safety considerations. • The carriers are governed by federal law which in theory is the safety consideration guidelines. The city is allowed to regulate based on other considerations such as aesthetics and other legitimate city considerations. Com. Kaneda: • Not being familiar with the exact wording of this federal regulation, does it speak only to strength of the electromagnetic radiation? Colin Jung: • That is accurate; the federal law itself is the reciprocal where that restriction says that cities cannot regulate these based on radio frequency emissions that meet the federal standard; that is in the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act; it is not FCC guidelines. The primary criteria is the emissions levels and it doesn't matter if it is 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet or 50 feet; it has to meet that exposure standard, and if it doesn't then the separation i~ not a concern. The primary concern is the safety factor. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 25, 2008 Steve Piasecki: • For your information, every one of the pre-installation studies we have seen shows that the emf serves a fraction of the federal standards; that holding it to your ear is going to cause a greater level of electro magnetic; that doesn't get to the issue Chair Miller and Vice Chair Giefer are raising. Post check that and ask that the carriers provide that. Peter Friedland: • That's why they are 30+ feet high because the radiation at 30 feet away is trivial. Vice Chair Giefer: • Also to Chair Miller's point, I think that somebody said that the vendor does test the device to make sure that it is operating properly, so they must have that information. What we are asking them to do is share that with us. Peter Friedland: • Sometimes the vendors share information, sometimes they consider it competitive and don't. Vice Chair Giefer: • I think we need to require them; that is the crux of the argument with the angry groups that Chair Miller and I have experienced for years. We understand what is in our purview, but we also have heard the public's concern. Com. Kaneda: • He said he thought that it would calm people down if you could say how much radiation they are being exposed to by having the tower so close to them, and the number is ten times higher for the cell phone that is sitting on their head. Vice Chair Giefer: • In the EIR one of the comments made was there potentially would be tree loss impacts if we allowed them in parks, and the way it is written is that the mitigation for that is replacement of trees. If we did not go along with that recommendation and said that no protected trees vis a vis our tree policy were affected, would that be a major impact to location in city parks. Peter Friedland: • We never thought we would cut down protected trees in the parks; none of this says that the city has to approve anything for any reason, it just says that it is allowed to consider them for doing that. I personally would be against any regulation that says if a cell carrier wants to cut down trees, they can do it regardless. Colin Jung: • You are referring to the environmental assessment and I am thinking about a hypothetical situation where you are locating the park; more than likely if it is a tower we are going to want it screened someway and we are going to want it clustered in a grove of trees, because that would be the easiest way to disguise it. In similar situations, we have had a monopole in a cluster of trees and we had to do some special things to make sure none of the trees were lost. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she was not comfortable with the language "potential tree loss will be mitigated by the city's protected tree ordinance and tree removal permit process." She suggested they look at something else to make sure that the protected trees are indeed protected. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 25, 2008 Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Expressed satisfaction that the Planning Commission was taking time to examine the potential changes to the ordinance. It is of great importance to the city, staff and members of the community and the telecommunications company. She said there was a great deal of public input on the tower locations. She said she felt uneasy about some of the proposals, particularly Proposal No. 2 to "delete the exception requirement that a master tower section more than 30 feet shall have a cross section of 12 inches." She said she did not fully understand the meaning, and hoped that it did not mean there would be 30 foot poles that were wider than 12 inches. She said she was also uneasy about Proposal No. 4, which was "define rather than using the residential property line we are now using habitable structure". As stated by Com. Kaneda, habitable structures can move, and extensions can be built onto houses. Does that mean if we had a pole up somewhere, that somebody couldn't build their house on their property adjacent to their house because it was within distance of the pole. I would be more comfortable with a residential property line. • Said it was important that anything proposed in Cupertino in cell phone towers be mandated to be of the highest, latest technology and it should be reviewed; nothing is too good for Cupertino and there is a lot of new high tech material available. We want to make sure when people come in and are proposing towers in the city, that what we are seeing is the latest technology; it needs to be thinner, smaller and broader range. Also, will the new Sand Hill project in eastern Cupertino need more towers. Steven Scharf, Somerset Drive, Cupertino: • Opposes the project. • Said he felt Proposal No. 1 putting cell phone towers in public parks was a terrible idea; they did not move to Cupertino to have to look at cell phone towers in their parks. • Looking at the coverage maps of the four major wireless carriers, Cupertino is experiencing the same situation as the whole country is. Of the carriers that are operating at 800 megahertz cellular, AT&T and Verizon have excellent coverage in the suburbs and urban areas; while Sprint and Team Mobile which are operating in the 1900 megahertz PCS systems have relatively poor coverage. They need four times as many towers to provide the same geographic coverage and even with those towers, they are going to have poor penetration through buildings, especially big box buildings. If the residents who live in the outlying areas need the best coverage, they can choose the carrier that provides it for their area. There is no problem with Verizon coverage in the Bubb Road area; Sprint and Team Mobile work poorly there. • There are other solutions rather than putting up these tall towers; there are micro cells that could be put up on light poles and I would urge the Planning Commission not to allow more towers in parks and in open space areas. Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident: • Opposes the application. • Expressed concern with the survey done by the TICC; there wasn't a case of citywide noticing put out. It is one thing to have a voluntary survey done advertising it as they did but you are not giving people vital information like do you want a cell phone tower within 50 feet of a habitable building and what would you think about that; those kinds of questions were not asked of the public. When it comes to aesthetics, people don't know they have an option that it can look good vs. just be a pole; I wish the survey had brought up information asking those kinds of questions so we could have got some more feedback from the public. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 25, 2008 • Said he lived on a street next to a cell phone tower that was approved by the Director administratively, and felt there should be some type of wording put into the policy where there should still be noticing to the public. If there is an issue with the property, the public has a right to say they have issues with the property, before the cell phone tower is approved. That would be one reason why there should be public noticing and not just administrative approval; otherwise you might. set a precedent where people don't know the cell phone towers are going in until they are already built, which was the case near his home on Richwood Drive. When Metrafide came in, that was a franchise for the city and it was put on a light post outside his bedroom window on a second story building within 20 feet and there were never any of the safety and health issues addressed about what that transmitter was doing, and the city was benefiting from that. • He said he was curious where they are going to go with the cell phone towers if they end up in parks; is there going to be a franchise; is the city going to earn money to turn the parks into commercial area? Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said he was one of the enraged residents who attended the past Planning Commission meetings regarding the Tin Tin Market site. The basic question asked of the neighbors when the first application came up was "do you really want to stick your head in a microwave oven and turn it on" that is what they felt like, they were being asked to have behind their houses. They went through three gyrations of plans before it finally ended up being acceptable to them on Bollinger Road. Every proposal from the carriers was always a huge monolithic tower no matter what. The changes in this ordinance don't address the fact that the carriers just want to install towers; they don't want to explore anything else, and this will not help the situation. It will probably aggravate it and make it worse; we will have more angry crowds at the Planning Commission meetings. • Said he calculated that .12% of the residents responded to the survey; and wouldn't base anything on that survey with such a low rate of response. • We are going to encumber a large number of property owners who have not been sent a mailing about the proposed changes to these ordinances who live near parks, commercial areas; those people don't know that this is going to happen, that their properties are going to be encumbered. It is a good question; there is a lot of conjecture. • Responded to Chair Miller's request for suggestions. Said he has studied the issue over the years to see what can be done. People want to be reassured that it is safe; the federal government said it was safe, but they said the same thing about asbestos. The basic thing is people like them as far away from a residence as possible, or if it is low power. Every one of these towers have massive cables to them, they have to be pumping some watts through those things; they have a huge sign on the side of the one on Bollinger which was not to get near it, it is dangerous. • There has to be something wrong with things; neighbors look at that and say "what have we done". But the options were, was it going to be really close to our houses or farther away, and everybody judged that as being acceptable; that is why at the last meeting, there were less people there because we judged it reasonable enough, but it took a long time to get there. What I would recommend is micro cellar rays which is another technology. We don't say to the carriers, this is what we really want in Cupertino, especially on the hillside property. I think you are going to have a tough time when those people come up. Look at the Lindy Lane situation; they are going to show up here just as outraged about it another time, so I don't think we have addressed this issue by changes in the ordinance at all. Chair Miller closed the public hearing and asked staff to comment on concerns and issues raised by the speakers. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 25, 2008 Colin Jung: • With respect to public parks, currently the ordinance does not allow any cell site to be located in a public park. It is not that we haven't had requests from cell phone carriers to locate them in parks, we have had to turn every request down because it is not allowed by the ordinance. When the issue of the lack of cell phone coverage came up in the Bubb Road/McClellan Road area, and the City Manager said that towers would be allowed in that neighborhood, he was informed that the city ordinance did not allow them there. That city option of using city lands to locate a facility that is in demand in the community was not available because the ordinance prohibited the location of cell sites in public parks. • For the most part, the public parks are located in the residential areas where the coverage is needed and the ordinance prohibits from the Rl, R2, R3 and in the proposal the PRes areas, so where else are we going to locate; if you want to get coverage in those areas, where can you locate them. One reasonable place would be in public parks, I am not saying that every public park is going to be a good solution for these things; but there are situations where you could site them within reasonable proximity of trees. • The other situation which has been eluded to by one of the speakers here, is why aren't we doing the micro cells, when in fact the master plan we have here actually forces the carrier to adopt a micro cell solution for the residential areas. If anyone says we are allowing towers in residential areas, that is not true. What we are trying to do is come up with a reasonable compromise to this that will get cell phone coverage without seriously negatively affecting the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and the best solution for that would be allowing them on existing utility poles, street lights and traffic signals. Page 22 of the Wireless Master Plan shows what a micro cells looks like; it is on a power pole located next to Monta Vista Park and these are the type of facilities we envision in the residential areas. We have two very slim line antennas located up against the pole and all the equipment for it is mounted on the pole itself. That is the type of facility we want to encourage in the residential areas. • A telephone company regardless if it is a cell phone carrier or land line, has the right to locate its equipment on a telephone pole; regardless what the city considers fair or right as long as it is not blocking ingress/egress. The situation mentioned by Mr. Huganin, the fact that one of the carriers had suggested locating it on a pole at the end of the court, the carrier was well within his rights; he didn't need to make a request to the city for it; he could have just applied for an encroachment- permit and located the equipment on the pole because the carrier is allowed to locate his equipment on a telephone pole. • As far as any sort of encumbering ordinance on residential properties from shortening the distance between the cell phones sites and habitable structures, I don't think you need to do that; it is a setback requirement but it's not based on any safety standard. We had a study done after some equipment was installed and literally you have to be 5 feet away standing in front of the antenna before there is a health concern; and a 50 foot distance away from habitable n structure, as long as one of your typical installations where you have three antennas is not going to generate the type of emissions that will be a concern at that distance. • Relative to the hillside areas, the type of facility envisioned for the hillside areas and type of coverage we are going to get from that is basically antennas that are located for the most part on an existing PG&E lattice towers; there is a whole string of those along the low foothills that could be used to broadcast coverage to areas within a certain reasonable distance away. If there is not a PG&E lattice tower located there, you are not going to find a monopole there, the reason being is that once you get that height, you need a certain height to locate a cell phone antenna; you already have that height if you are located on a hill, so if you see them everywhere, on fence posts on the hillsides above the freeway; you will likely find on the hillsides a shorter height located on a 6 or 7 foot pole located on the side of a hill broadcasting Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 25, 2008 • out over the residential areas. We may not need the coverage in the parks if we can get that string of antennas in the low foothills. • Said for this meeting they did a newspaper notice and a citywide courtesy notice through the Cupertino Scene newspaper. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said there were good ideas from the TICC committee and also from the regular attendees of hearings for cell phones. She said she could support some things being changed, but still was not comfortable with some. She did not object to having antennas in the parks provided they are housed in the park parking lot, which is a reasonable compromise. Trees will not be compromised; use of chubby poles, or slim line poles whatever could get into the park if we need a tower. Said she would not support a tower in a residential neighborhood; but would support the micro cell rays. • Said she felt it was too much of a public inconvenience, it is affronting visually to have a 30 foot tower in a residential neighborhood, specifically an Rl neighborhood. • She did not object to putting any type of transmitters on towers or fence posts, or antennas in the hillside and would support RHS; and would like to see testing of it after installation. Said she was sure that the providers are testing them; they must have to report into the Feds. It is hard to imagine that sharing that information with us and we requiring them to share it would be in violation of the FCC requirements; and perhaps someone could look into that. Said she would add that; and supported that they have a right to know if they are in compliance and that they meet, or are below the current broadcast standards. • Said she did not object to having towers in a planned development environment, but would make a provisional that the homeowners association has to approve it. Perhaps there would have been a cell antenna tower built into that structure as it were planned but would the residents have purchased knowing that. Before any installation of a tower, there needs to be an HOA approval in a planned development; somehow that process has to work to have that public input that was brought up several times this evening. • With regards to property line vs. structure, she said she was not comfortable saying that it has to be 50 feet from a structure if talking about a cell phone tower, and the reason is it has future implications and limitations of the adjacent property owners in residential; and they would not tell those cell phone operators that because landowner A plans on expanding their house, it is going to be encroaching within the cell phone tower area, that they now have to remove that cell phone tower. Whose rights prevail? We are also not going to tell a residential property owner that they cannot improve their property. I would be consistent and continue to say that it is 50 feet from the residential property line. Steve Piasecki: • A reason the park issue came up is in evaluating the Bubb Road/Linda Vista area, people realized that Linda Vista park has some very steep hillsides that are not accessible to the public and are in the park. They could be a candidate location for a monopole that could provide an even better solution than installations elsewhere in that area. That is why they did not want to completely exclude parks. Also, the idea of public art in an appropriate location, perhaps in a remote corner, could be an attractive element in a park setting and you may not want it in the parking lot where you will all see it. Perhaps an ordinance could be written that would just limit it to those kinds of conditions and not allow it generally. Vice Chair Giefer: • An appropriate way to phrase it might be, I hear what you are saying about Linda Vista as a specific example, the hillside slope is a better place to place an antenna than the parking lot; you do have RHS adjacent properties. Perhaps the idea of either in anon-visible hillside or in Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 25, 2008 the parking lot, because an earlier point was made if we put a cell phone tower in the middle of Memorial Park, because we have also heard from vendors, they don't want to hide the pole with the trees. We are never going to nestle it in a redwood grove. If it is put in a park in a location that is not visible, I don't have a problem with making it public art on a street like Bollinger. Perhaps the residents would have been happier if it was more artistically done; I support that. In the parks it is somewhat problematic because the parks are for the enjoyment and the recreation of the community; if we can put cell towers somewhere in a park where you can't see it or I am willing to concede if you stick it in the parking lot as a street lamp, I am supportive of that.. Com. Brophy: • Said they were all good points. Relative to the park issue, the TICC proposal would simply make PR zones eligible for cell facilities and not limit them in the ordinance to parking lots. It would be understood that the staff would review them for the aesthetic affect on the park and having language in the ordinance is not necessarily the way to deal with it, but rather through the review process, whether at the Planning Commission level or Director level. • I suspect that the companies must have to test the cell facilities to make sure they are working as designed, but I have no problem if it is possible, to get a report from them, that they do a test after operation to make sure they meet the requirements. • Staff recommends that we exclude residential PDs, and I don't think there is a problem with that, because I don't see how that is any different than the Rl, R2 and R3 zones. My only concern is, and whether it is best to handle it in the review process or in the ordinance, is that some mixed use PDs are affectively residential PD projects, the Metropolitan project is technically a mixed use PD, but in reality we all think of it as residential PD project and you may want to look at some language that does not include mixed use PDs that are affectively residential projects. Colin Jung: • Carriers still need to get property owner permission for that, so if any carrier were even remotely interested in locating in a mixed use PD where you have some commercial and some residential, if it is located on the roof, more than likely the roof is owned by the HOA; if it is located in the common area, it is likely the HOA that controls that and there has to be signatures to the application before it is submitted. Com. Brophy: • Said it was true, but he felt Vice Chair Giefer's point is that the developer would strike a deal before there is a homeowners' association; effectively people are moving into a residential area that has apre-existing cell tower as a result. Colin Jung: • Said he felt that most developers wouldn't do that especially if there is a perception that it would negatively affect the sales of the property. Com. Brophy: • My concern is if we are setting the principle that we are not going to allow these in residential zones and we have projects that are called mixed use PD but are effectively residential projects, I think there is a way we have to recognize that issue. • Asked if the 50 foot setback from the habitable structure was 50 feet from the setback line; noting that the impression from yesterday's presentation at the Mayor's meeting was it was supposed to cover unbuildable land. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 November 25, 2008 Colin Jung: • Said staffs interpretation is from the face of the antenna to the exterior wall; the buildable structure. Steve Piasecki: • Said it was correct that if the owner wanted to build a new house that came closer, his house would effectively be closer than 50 feet. You would presume that there would be knowledge that they are doing it willingly; that they would understand that there is a closer facility. Com. Brophy: • Said he would have no objection; in effect what you are saying is that the cell tower operator is taking value away from the owner of that lot without his permission. • Said he was not enthusiastic about adding the concept of context appropriate public art; and would be willing to look at it on an ad hoc basis; however, the examples seen did not jump out as something that added to the community. What I hear people saying and I think I would agree with is we are looking for ways to make these as inconspicuous as possible and if somebody has a specific location where something unusual might happen, that would be fine; otherwise I am not sure I would agree that this clause would be appropriate. Colin Jung: • Said that although their master plan speaks to just protecting the aesthetics of the community itself, the implication is there that you can also enhance the aesthetics of the community. It is harder to get the public art approved in the city than it is for a cell phone site. Com. Brophy: • In that case, perhaps we should recognize that and deal with it on an ad hoc basis rather than put in a clause that we try to work around it. Com. Kaneda: • Said he felt they were paying a price for that initial 50 foot setback recommendation if it is because that is what all the other cities are doing, because what has happened is it has become misconstrued that 50 feet is the safety distance, not the aesthetic distance. His understanding from what was said is it is an issue of aesthetics and the height of the pole from the residences. • Is there some way to put some language in the ordinance that makes a statement like that, but that might be useful just so it is clear to people. People may think that a 50 foot setback is where safety becomes an issue and what was heard tonight is that it is not. • Generally supports the idea that more cell towers are needed in Cupertinp; and agrees with Chair Miller about calculating the actual radiation levels and hopefully getting a report back that the installation is in compliance with the recommendation. It should be done unless the attorney says it is illegal. • Said he did not agree with the idea of allowing cells in planned development if they have residential because in his mind it says if you live in a mixed use planned development then you are a second class citizen and you don't have the right to not have the cell towers on your building but everybody else in other residential areas do. It seems like it is not equitable; his preference is, if it is a planned development with residential units, they need to treat it like other residential units. Colin Jung: • Said that when carriers propose facilities where they already have agreements with the private property owners, they get all the private entitlements they need to locate the facility; easements for the mass of the antenna itself, easements for the conduit that goes to the power pole, and Cupertino Planning Commission 18 November 25, 2008 easements for the base equipment. They negotiate ingress/egress easements with the private property owners so that portions of it is well taken care of by the individual- carriers. He said it did not cover the setback distance that is required. Com. Kaneda: • Said it made sense to clarify on the deed that the area is an area that can't be built on. Said he liked staff s idea of aesthetic poles and possibly public art; it is something that could be put out as a suggestion. He commented that the pole on Bollinger Road was ugly. • Said he supported the idea of putting cell towers in park areas. Com. Rose: • Agreed that Cupertino needed more cell towers in the community. There is some benefit to trying to leverage park areas as a place to have cell towers, but would like to see approval for that come through at the Planning Commission level to make sure everything is aesthetically appropriate and the community is comfortable with it. • The testing and compliance issue is important. ~ Said she agreed with Com. Kaneda on the planned development issues; they should have the same protections as a single residence would have. • Said the property line vs. structure measurement needs to be clarified since it poses an unsolved problem. It is not realistic to expect that just because a cell tower has been put in place, that a nearby property owner is limited; perhaps the limitation should be put at the buildable property line of adjoining properties. Chair Miller: • Said he assumed that a property owner's rights could not be taken away because a cell tower was put too close to where someone might build. (Staff said that it did not happen.) • Said there are two objectives: first, to get more cell phone coverage; the Telecommunications Commission has done a good job in coming up with ideas and ways that we can achieve that. The other objective is to have the community accept what they have come up with, so that when the actual applications come up, they will be approved, as opposed to what has happened in the past. Said his biggest concern is the distance; which may or may not be the case; but he was not sure they had the distance. They can say it is for aesthetics or that 30 or 50 feet is a safe level and they can argue that data all day and it is not going to make a difference to residents. That is why he has tried to come up with ideas of ways to not only increase the coverage, but also to make it palatable to the people who are going to use the coverage, and also those who use it or don't use it, or just live close and have a fear about the safety issues. Not sure how to do that; perhaps some wider public noticing of a hearing where we talk about this and we come back and be more specific. It appears they are all in agreement in terms of providing more data, and of measuring after the equipment goes in to satisfy residents that it does meet federal standards. • Relative to where the issues do occur, it is good that they are limited in residential areas; they generally don't occur when someone tries to put something in a residential area because the people in the residential areas have control of those areas. Where the issues come in, is when we try to put one of these things at a church site, a school site, public right of way, or a commercial area. People have come in and proposed park sites before, and residents go crazy over that because that is typically where small children play. The residents are very fearful of the cell phone tower, and might be deterred from actually using the park area unless we could demonstrate that it was safe or we didn't put them there at all. I am still struggling with whether the park area makes sense or not. From an emotional standpoint of how I know Cupertino Planning Commission 19 November 25, 2008 residents are going to respond to that, it doesn't make sense; unless if it comes to a public hearing it is probably not going to be approved because we will just get too many people arguing over it and being upset about it. Said he was unclear when things go to the Planning Commission and when these types of items don't. He said he did not feel, that they had to come to the Planning Commission all the time; if there is a reasonable place where the Director can make a decision, that is fine, but as one resident pointed out, when the Director is making the decision, the public should be notified so the public has an opportunity to go and attend that meeting where the decision is being made and express their opinions. The hardest point is what distance we locate these things and I would hope we could get some resident input or perhaps we could go out and look; does staff know what the distance to the nearest residence from the installation at the Tin Tin Market is? Colin Jung: • Said that the closest residence is in San Jose, 90 feet away to the residential property line and 110 feet away to the residential structure; 300 feet from Cupertino residents. Steve Piasecki: • Explained the background; the applicant was proposing to put a facility on a telephone pole in the residential neighborhood space; they were encouraged to get away from the neighborhood toward the street. He said he did not like the look of it, they felt boxed in and felt they had to be reasonably flexible in allowing something to happen, and that they were on the verge of potentially being challenged legally, that they were prohibiting these for other reasons. It was a compromise and a good example of something to avoid in the future. Chair Miller: • In concept, the public art makes sense; there is an aesthetic component, and to that extent he said he was not sure that he would classify it as public art, but the concept of making it more pleasing to the eye is one that he would support. Steve Piasecki: • Asked if the Planning Commission would like staff to go back and work up some options based on the comments heard. He said there were common threads throughout the comments and perhaps they could return with different options and different ways to approach those issues of notice and procedure. • On the mixed use concept, we are going to run into a case like Main Street where there are seniors on one end and possibly commercial structures 300 feet on the other end. • I hear the concern about Metropolitan but I think we should have a distance where we might allow it. Perhaps use some .language in the parks to talk about remote areas of the parks or portions of the parks that are generally not accessible; some language that would allow more flexibility. Vice Chair Giefer: One of the things I have heard from some of the Commissioners is that in planned development, which could include mixed use projects, what was going through my mind was more Seven Springs, it's up against a hillside, which falls into this category as well. It is completely residential, but they do own some of the lower foothill property adjacent to it, that is part of their HOA. When I brought that up and what my comments were based on, is many of the HOAs after years need additional funding, and I would rather have them have the power Cupertino Planning Commission 20 November 25, 2008 • to make that decision than having it come to us. If it makes it through the HOA, we are not going to have people who are upset about it, and it is potentially an upside revenue for that HOA. Chair Miller: • Said he agreed, and that was the reason he said that the issues are not with the residential spaces, they are with the public and commercial spaces. Colin Jung: • Said that staff has had requests from residential neighborhoods, primarily some of the planned residential ones, and a neighborhood in Rancho Deep Cliff that wanted to have cell phone coverage in that neighborhood and offered land to a carrier to put a tower on their commonly owned property. He said he did not know of a way to allow a situation like that within the confines of the ordinance. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to continue Application MCA-2008-04 to the second meeting in January 2009. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller declared a recess. 3. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to (EA-2008-08), TR-2008-09 demolish an existing gasoline station/car wash and Rajeev Chapra (Ebrahim construct a 5-story, 138 room hotel of approx. Kaabipour) 10165 No. DeAnza 82,000 sq. ft., which will include a restaurant, bar, Boulevard lounge, and conference rooms built over atwo- level underground parking podium that contains tandem parking. Tree Removal request to remove 6 trees and replace with a comprehensive landscape plan. Tentative City Council date: December 2, 2008 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to demolish an existing gasoline station/car wash and construct a 5-story, 13 8 room hotel which will include a restaurant, bar, lounge, and conference rooms built over atwo-level underground parking podium that contains tandem parking,; and tree removal request to remove 6 trees and replace with a comprehensive landscape plan, as outlined in the staff report. He noted a correction in the staff report for the code required parking, which should read "233" spaces and not the "265" shown in the staff report. • He discussed the General Plan Hotel Allocation. Currently there is no hotel room allocation in the General Plan for the North DeAnza Boulevard area. If the Planning Commission finds merit in the proposed project, it may transfer the 78 room hotel allocation from the So. Vallco Planning Area and/or convert commercial allocation to hotel rooms. He reviewed Exhibit D of the staff report which illustrates four examples of how the development allocations can be distributed to entitle the project. • Parkin: The parking ordinance allows the Planning Commission or city decision maker to approve a different parking requirement than what is stated, if it is supported by a parking study. A parking analysis was prepared by Hexagon Consultants and is detailed in the staff report. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 November 25, 2008 Com. Rose: • Asked staff if there were any conversations about green building practices or environmental considerations for the project. Colin Jung: • Said there is a condition in which the applicant is interested in qualifying their building for LEED silver. Com. Kaneda: • There were two things talked about in the parking study; one was the number of trips that the building would generate; could you explain what the numbers mean. Colin Jung: • The peak hour traffic generation factors are based on the ITE manual and their defmition of hotels. With the hotels that are surveyed, there is always a presumption that it includes a restaurant and a bar and some of them include conference facilities; others do not, but it is lumped together. The traffic engineer can address that. Vice Chair Giefer: • If we were to convert just to be clear on Exh. D, how many rooms were requested for the downtown Cupertino hotel (Main Street) (Staff response: Between 150 and 200) • Confirmed with staff they had a total of 70 rooms uncommitted in the city; said they were also getting short of commercial squares, but could take the available squares in this area and apply it to this project if there was merit in it without a General Plan amendment. Colin Jung: • Correct; General Plan allows the city decision makers to move around their allocations from geographic area to geographic area. Vice Chair Giefer: • There is no inconsistency between hotel vs. commercial; we are allowed to make those tradeoffs without triggering a General Plan amendment. Colin Jung: • Clarified that hotels are commercial. Com. Brophy: • Said that the project appeared to be squeezing a big building onto a small site. Asked staff what they felt in terms of aesthetics and its effect on the community. Steve Piasecki: • As Colin Jung pointed out, the north DeAnza Boulevard area has very prescriptive setback requirements that are fairly extensive, so this is like any other; it happens to be a 5 story building with two levels of underground parking; it is comparable to a 4 story office building which is typical of up and down De Anza Boulevard and as you drive down DeAnza Boulevard this actually fills in and helps to connect'the buildings better together, and I think the use is appropriate. We have had comments about the fact that we don't have high end hotel space in the city and we are replacing a use that either generates roughly equivalent or more traffic. All of that is good; architecturally this building needs to be held to a high standard, that is why the architectural advisor is suggesting that we haven't got there yet, and I have to take some responsibility for getting him to this point and not all the way there because Cupertino Planning Commission 22 November 25, 2008 we encouraged them to pick up high quality materials and cited the Sobrato building which used a granite facade and has been fairly successful building over time. I agree with Larry Cannon the architectural advisor that we are not there with this, but they are putting some elements on this building that are going to become quickly dated and that is why the direction is to go with more traditional forms and architecture. Com. Brophy: • It is not a secret that we are reviewing applications in general while it is in the back of our minds how they affect the city fiscally as well as the community at large, and from that, perspective hotels have a very high value to the municipal budget. If we think these kinds of projects are important from that perspective and given that the real estate financial markets have become so much more difficult, I wonder whether the desire to impose an unending list of additional expense on the would-be developer needs to be rethought. I have raised this issue before and am clearly in a minority position on this, but I think especially if we are talking about hotels, we need to think about what the tradeoffs are between our desire to get a hotel built as opposed to just approving one and a list of things we think might be desirable in the project. Steve Piasecki • The applicant can speak to where they think they are with this particular product. This is not an inexpensive building; they have suggested that they are interested in communicating again a very high end, high quality building design which affords us the flexibility to say okay, you are arranging the granite and the forms in the building and the exterior in the relationships, and it is costlier as you are proposing it; it will probably be costly as it is redesigned and I don't know that we are adding anything as a result of that; we are not looking for gold plating on the building; we are simply looking for a building that fits in very well with the environment and with the applicant's plan. I think we are all on the same page, and the only other expense would be the certain amount of cost in the LEED silver, but otherwise this should be an economically viable project for them. Colin Jung: • When the city architect commented on the design, he said that the existing design shown on the plans did not translate to a luxury hotel. His expectation was that if it is a luxury hotel they need to pay more attention to the exterior appearance of the building itself. Com. Brophy: • As I look at the numbers, it looks like we have run out of allocations for both the hotel rooms and commercial space. We can't do both projects; is that what you are saying without a General Plan amendment? Steve Piasecki: • We have ample commercial space and you can draw that down, and you can accommodate both projects and the planned expansions at Cupertino Square. There will be a point where you are going to be bumping up against the allocations but you are not there yet, and we have suggested that one way to buy yourself some time is to utilize that discounting we have recommended in the Oaks, and that was done for the Public Storage building but discounting based on traffic generations. Otherwise these kinds of developers end up getting held to a higher standard in terms of the overall allocations than other comparable commercial developments. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 November 25, 2008 Com. Brophy: • There are things here about reducing Heart of the City retail commercial development, either depending if we discount or not, either 102,000 or 41,000 and my recollection was that they were talking about doing 146,000. Even under the largest number, it looks to me like we are running out. Steve Piasecki: • As mentioned, you can pull from other areas in South Vallco, it has a fairly significant allocation in the General Plan; the total is in the area of .5 million square feet. Chair Miller: • How many square feet of commercial space is there available in the General Plan for the entire city at this point. In the last revision of the General Plan, we specifically said we can move things around any place in the city. How many hotel allocations is there available in the city? Steve Piasecki: • It is close to .5 million, Gary Chao will retrieve the information from the book which tracks this. Uncommitted is the 78 number in South Vallco, and there is also a committed portion for Cupertino Square/Evershine that it will be very unlikely that they will be able to utilize all of that. We expect that either with the expiration of the development agreement for that area or with the Council's direction we look at the hotel allocations that the General Plan might be reinfused with some additional hotel numbers, in which Colin Jung was suggesting that we adjust the numbers later on. Chair Miller: • Right now we can't do that, so just looking at the 500,000 square feet of commercial space, what you see coming down the pike over the next couple of years vs. what we are looking at now, .. . Steve Piasecki: • Said they could accommodate all of that. Chair Miller: • Said that he was opposed to the discounting because it is not a transparent way of dealing with the General Plan that looks like a way to get around doing a General Plan amendment. If doing discounting, it should be explicitly called out in the General Plan at the next time it is updated, or do a General Plan amendment. • The other issue I have with that is I don't believe, if it is, it shouldn't be just keyed off after traffic generation because there are other services that are impacted by commercial development or residential development and I can see if we start doing it for hotel rooms, I could very easily make a very strong case for when a senior community is built that we only take half the number or a third of the number of allocations for a senior community, because they only generate a third of the traffic, and I don't know that a lot of people in town would agree with that position. By extension by doing this now, that is where we are jumping down the line. I don't really think that discounting is the proper way to go unless it is properly vetted as an update to the General Plan. Chair Miller: • Why is it important to make the entry highly visible from DeAnza Boulevard? Cupertino Planning Commission 24 November 25, 2008 Steve Piasecki: • One of the concepts that we are trying to advocate along all of our major streets, is that the buildings embrace the street; that they have an orientation to the street so that they look like they are part of that element, that they just don't turn their side or back up to the street. The most recent example is Oak Park where even though we don't have an entrance off the street, we wanted to have an entry, and that building does address and respect at least that whole orientation. Chair Miller: • Relative to the parking analysis, he said he agreed, and did not see how it work effectively without valet parking; however, when looking at the numbers, there is a large allocation for restaurant space and this application has a fairly sizable amount of restaurant space. Recalling what happened at Park Place, the restaurant was so inefficiently used that they deleted it and made it some other kind of space. In general, hotels at least in this city don't seem to generate a lot of traffic for their food facilities. Steve Piasecki: • Said he agreed; the applicant can speak to their intent; they are trying to capture the hotel guest primarily, so you are not going to generate a new trip; they are going to walk down from their room. There is an advantage to having that; we wouldn't generate a lot of additional parking space requirements; which is why we are comfortable with the numbers that have come up in the traffic study. Colin Jung: • The total commercial allocation available in Cupertino spread out over all the planning areas is 331,478 square feet, plus the hotel rooms. Steve Piasecki: • We are still comfortable with that number; the committed allocations are the ones we are considering will fit within that. Dipesh Gupta, Shashi Corp.: • The proposed hotel is a high end, luxury, Four Seasons quality hotel. He said in the last six years the world has become a lot more global with more than 50% of the revenues at Fortune 100 companies coming from overseas; a lot more people from corporate America are traveling to other parts of the world. At the same time, many people from other parts of the world especially Asia and Europe, are traveling to the USA and are traveling more frequently, especially to Silicon Valley. The hotels in the USA work as a lodging industry while the hotels outside USA, are a completely different ball game. They are lifestyle and entertainment centers, business centers, community centers, and an integral part of the community. The global travelers are demanding the same global experiences here and the goal of the hotel is to provide the global experience that travelers experience in Asia and Europe. • He described the high end amenities of the hotel. The hotel will be a green building with the goal to attain the LEED silver standards. He illustrated the hotel elevations, and discussed the building design; and stated that they plan to break ground for the hotel in June 2009, with opening in the second half of 2010. • He noted that they are providing 22 more parking spaces than the required parking study indicates is needed. He reported that site remediation began in November 2008 and is expected to be complete by December. Cupertino Planning Commission 25 November 25, 2008 Bob Sobisho, RYS Architects: • Said the company specializes in hospitality design, with a range of corporate hotels and boutique hotels. He discussed the LEER process as it relates to hotels; said they are currently working on a Kimpton Hotel in Napa which they began on working over a year ago, at which time there were only two LEED certified hotels in the US, with 200 in the pipeline. The goal of the design of the hotel is to have a technically advanced, forward looking design with clean, classy appearance using high quality granite materials. • He reported that they received feedback from City's architect Larry Cannon on the building architecture relative to the corner element, where it needs to be more cohesive and slightly more traditional, to avoid becoming dated in time; and making it more traditional. Different forms of granite will be used to create a classic design; the awning elements will be metal. Steve Piasecki: • Relative to the city architect's suggestion to change the entry element so it is highly visible from DeAnza Boulevard, he said that they want the building to give the appearance of addressing DeAnza Boulevard. There are many ways to do that, by emphasizing the awning feature, it faces directly and/or the corner element may be sufficient to address. the street, even though the development is looking the other way. Com. Kaneda: • Said that he felt a level of discomfort in telling the architect how to design the building; and he did not feel that all hotels had to look like the previous one built or seen. He said he did not feel the proposed hotel was a Four Seasons quality hotel. Bob Shobisho: • Said that referring to a hotel as a Four Seasons quality hotel related to the quality of the materials used, the shapes, the strong form and much of the sense of quality is a tactile thing. The granite and detailing provides the level of feeling one is in a higher end hotel. Chair Miller: • Said he agreed, and said that in his opinion the building design on DeAnza Boulevard is eclectic. Com. Kaneda: • Asked for an explanation of the trip generation estimates and how the existing gas station is compared with the trips for the hotel, particularly the bypass trips. Gary Black, Hexagon Transportation, Traffic Consultants: • Defined an example of a "trip" as a car that goes into a gas station as one trip, and when it leaves the gas station, it is considered another trip. • The trip data is compiled in a manual of research that has been done on existing gas stations and hotels; tubes are put on the driveways to count the cars going in and out; and compare it to the size of the gas station or hotel. He explained the data compiled on the trips and their specific purpose. Chair Miller: • Asked how the tandem and lift parking would work and whether you need to start out with valet or not. Cupertino Planning Commission 26 November 25, 2008 Dipesh Gupta: • For the kind of hotel we are creating we do plan to offer valet parking as an option. The hotel guests will also have the option of self parking. We believe that without valet parking, we could use the tandem and lift parking for employees, but for hotel guests it won't be convenient for them to use the lifts. The lift parking would be reserved for valet parking. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Maty Soha, Paulette Place: • Opposes application. • When builders built the neighborhood about 30 years ago, they were requested to construct a wall between the houses and DeAnza Boulevard to avoid direct line of sight and noise. • He said all the east side of the hotel rooms will face his bedroom, family room and kitchen; his trees are not yet dense and the street can be seen from his bedrooms. The 5 story bedroom will face all the rooms in his house; no consideration was given to the privacy of the houses facing the hotel. He said it was doubtful that anyone would sit in the restaurant facing DeAnza Boulevard with the noise and pollution from the cars. It is probably the first building on DeAnza Boulevard that is so close to the street, and should be lower than 45 feet. He said he was not sure if a four story building would be a solution or planting many dense trees between the houses and the hotel. Li Li, Cupertino resident: • Opposes application. • Expressed concern that such a large building would be built next to a small lot. Also concerned about the traffic impacts from family events held at the hotel, conferences etc. when guests will park in other businesses parking spaces, which creates problems for the tenants of the buildings. She also expressed concern about the hotel trash containers so close to the residences, and the noise impacts. Suzi Blackman, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: • In favor of application. • Said she added the support of the Chamber of Commerce to the plan submitted. The Sashi Corporation presented the plan to the Chamber's Legislative Action Committee on November 7~, and the members were very impressed by the style and design of the proposed hotel. It was obvious to the LAC members that a great deal of thought had gone into the plan; the project will serve a distinctive group of business travelers while providing exceptional opportunities for additional employment and additional community gathering places. They will add employment opportunities to the community and have already indicated their willingness to be an active community supporter. The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce supports their plan and urges the Planning Commission to take a positive vote on their submission which will allow them to proceed with their plans to build the new hotel. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Expressed concern that the building was too large for the small lot; its close proximity to residences, the severity of the building, and the potential for parking problems. She said she was not in favor of using the lifts for the parking structure. She said there has been a problem of over-building in Cupertino; the Sand Hill Hotel was approved for the Oaks Center site which is too big for the lot and the building is very severe. • She said she was not in favor of hotels charging a daily parking fee for guests. The building is too severe as proposed and does not reflect the traditional nature of Cupertino. Cupertino does not need another ultra-modern hotel, with the Cyprus Hotel across the street, it does not fit. Cupertino Planning Commission 27 November 25, 2008 • She said she hoped in the future there would be an attractive structure there; it is not a bad location, it just needs to be smaller and more traditional. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Staff responded to concerns raised by speakers. Steve Piasecki commented on the following issues: Visibility from residents on the other side of DeAnza. ® Said the tree coverage across the street is fairly dense and if you are right up next to it as the property owner indicated, you have a better view looking through it than you do 200 feet away. Just about any use on this site, they are allowed to go up to 45 feet, whether an office building that has views or a hotel. We would ask the applicant do a cross section, and maybe get up into the office building next door and take some photos and try to demonstrate, that in fact something 200 feet away through that tree covers, the windows are not going to be visible. There was a similar issue with the fourth level of the parking garage at Cupertino Square, they were 80 feet from the property line, and 100 feet from the neighboring properties and the trees blocked out essentially all the views. Spillover parking to the neighbor next door. • That is why we had the parking study done along with the traffic evaluation, and are comfortable with the numbers and the methodology they are using. There is ample parking provided, and they are not going to want to park somewhere else. Many property owners if they are concerned, will take action to make sure someone else doesn't come into their parking garage. Proximity of the trash enclosure. • Said the trash enclosure was close, which was a problem. Perhaps ask the applicant to evaluate if there is an alternate location or different way of handling the trash. In the case of the Montebello development, the trash enclosures are in the parking structure and have an electric vehicle that pulls the trash bins to another location to be picked up. It may be a solution to be evaluated. Concern about density of the site. • It is a small site and a large building, but they have followed all the rules in terms of relationship to DeAnza Boulevard and Alves Drive which are the critical public views. There will be some wall elements on the north side or west side that will be somewhat starker; they have a 10 foot setback; we hope that they will be able to incorporate some tall planting materials to help soften this particular structure. Staff said with respect to the outdoor dining area and its desirability, there are examples of outdoor dining on DeAnza Boulevard which includes BJ's Restaurant and also Bagel Cafe has outdoor dining. There are also numerous examples on Stevens Creek Boulevard with Panera Breads, Peet's Coffee, every new restaurant have placed outdoor dining and people flock to those areas. There doesn't appear to be an issue with that; if it is undesirable for any reason, the applicant is the most at risk. Dipesh Gupta: • Showed a picture from the existing gas station of the homes on the other side of DeAnza Boulevard, and discussed the existing landscaping; there are a minimum of 3 or 4 layers of Cupertino Planning Commission 28 November 25, 2008 trees, and they will be planting trees on their property which will be fairly dense and tall. If there is an impact on the other side of DeAnza they are willing to consider more landscaping. Showed the location of the trash enclosure; it is an 8 foot building with a roof and the only access it has is towards their driveway; no access from Alves or from the other side, with no visibility from anywhere else. There are also pickup arrangements inside the delivery area with enough space to provide it. They have been working closely with Public Works and Los Altos Garbage Company and would be happy to incorporate any input. Relative to potential odors from the trash enclosure, he said they would be happy to incorporate any guidelines that the city has, and they have been working closely with the environmental department within Public Works. Com. Rose: • Said it was exciting to be able to take an old project such as a gas station and replace it with a glamorous hotel or restaurant. Said she was concerned about the number of comments received from residents who were concerned about the hotel; and looking at the plans, her concern about what is before them, is that she did not feel it was the type of hotel that she would look back in 20 years time and be excited that she was a part of the approval process. There has been a change to the designs, but those designs seen as the second draft don't convince me yet that this is at a place where I can feel confident that even though it is a small lot and a boxy looking building to be put on this lot with 10 foot setbacks, I don't feel comfortable saying that we are putting our best foot forward with what we have before us now. • Said she felt it was her responsibility to the community to give a stamp of approval at this point; however, the drawings are too preliminary for her to feel confident that they are in the right direction with how this hotel should look, especially since there are a lot of people who aren't excited about this hotel going on this site. It is a very boxy, all-encompassing type building, and if they are going to go ahead and approve it, she needs to better about the look, and she does not feel they are there yet. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed with Com. Rose that the hotel did not look like a luxury hotel. He also supported conditioning a LEED silver certification, not just an attempt to do a LEER silver as part of the conditions of approval. As a group there has not been much discussion about what the different options are preferred for allocating the square footage of the hotel. Com. Brophy: • Said he wanted to approve the project, but feels that the applicant is trying to force too much building on a site that is only .8 acre, and does not feel the city's architect suggested design changes really move the project forward; if anything, some are a step backward in terms of interesting architecture. Said he would like to see a project like this, but it appears to be too much structure on such a small lot. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she agreed with her colleague's comments; the real essence is how do they feel about the use for this particular property, which she is okay with on the use permit side and tree removal and environmental. The design of the building is a concern and echoes what her colleagues have said. It is in the model resolution that it will achieve a LEED silver certification. How the square footage is allocated is somewhat problematic; she said she concurs with Chair Miller and is not a fan of discounting because it is not as transparent a public policy as they need to have. It is somewhat problematic, do they deplete the North DeAnza allocation with this project or move the hotel squares or take the rooms from another project. Cupertino Planning Commission 29 November 25, 2008 • Said she agreed with staff that they will have hotel rooms come back into the plan; in the end it will all work out. • The real issue is the design of the building; although she likes very modern architecture, this building does not feel like a high end and destination hotel for an international traveler. She said she did not want it to look like the Cyprus Hotel; it appeared they were trying to force fit the architecture into a different model. • Summarized that she was comfortable with the use permit, the EA and tree removal but not comfortable with the ASA on the project and was not hearing how they would allocate square footage to this project. More discussion is needed. Chair Miller: • Said the allocation was straight forward; if there are hotel spaces, we allocate them; if there are not enough, move over and start using some of the commercial allocations. • The intensity of use - I think I heard from staff that we are not out of the ballpark with other buildings in the area and DeAnza Boulevard is essentially the street in town where we allow the most intensity of use. • Said there were many different architectural styles of buildings in Cupertino; it is difficult to say that traditional is what fits in for the proposed hotel. He said he hoped the applicant was designing something that would fit in with his concept which would result in a profit; and he was less concerned about the design than his colleagues and less concerned about the intensity. • He said it was a project that he felt comfortable moving forward on, which is not the consensus present. Com. Kaneda: • Relative to allocations, he said he did not feel he had a good enough understanding, but would agree with the proposal to use the available hotel allocation and go from there and look at what can be pulled in. Chair Miller: • Summarized that no one was in favor of discounting. • He said he was agreeable to how staff decided to choose allocations. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she would rather deplete the North DeAnza allocation of the commercial square footage and keep it and allocate what they have, and backfill those allocations when hotel rooms become available. It feels cleaner to keep it in the same geographic district. • There was consensus to handle the allocations as stated by Vice Chair Giefer. • Relative to the trash enclosure issue, she said there was no green screen behind the trash enclosure, which if they continued their evergreen hedge down behind it, it would provide some screening for the adjacent property owner if they continued the hedge behind it (Sheet Ll). There is an opportunity to screen that; if odor becomes an issue, one possibility to consider is mitigation by using the trash compactor that was proposed for the Market Place. She said she would continue the border. • There was consensus about the landscaping in general and the proposed solution for screening the trash enclosure and the suggestion for using the solution used at the Market Place. Parking: • Consensus that it was acceptable. Cupertino Planning Commission 30 November 25, 2008 Traffic: • Consensus that traffic was addressed adequately. Green Building Practices: • Vice Chair Giefer suggested that consideration be given to asking the applicant to consider either photo voltaic or power purchase agreement. • There was consensus to do so. Environmental Issues: • No objections. Issue of hotel use for the proposed site: • No objections. Architectural Elements: Com. Brophy: • Recommended striking entire Paragraph 9 to the revisions; if not acceptable, strike Items 3 and 4; said he agreed with the concept of the entry element from DeAnza Boulevard that the department has done in other projects, but given the small amount of frontage on DeAnza Boulevard and the orientation of the hotel, any effort to try to create an entry element would be forced; therefore would recommend deleting Item 4. No. 3 the redesigning of windows and adding architectural elements such as balconies, that strikes him as trying to force it into an appearance similar to the Cyprus. Agrees with Com. Kaneda that this is not a project where we benefit from trying to have the city give the developer's architect design advice. Com. Kaneda: • Asked Com. Brophy to explain his reason for striking Item 4. Com. Brophy: • There is a limited amount of frontage on DeAnza; in the case of Oak Park, even though the project is not oriented towards it, it has a visual appearance and it works out well; given the intensity of this project and the lack of frontage, it is going to look like a forced element and will not contribute to the appearance of the building. The entry of the hotel will be unlike Oak Park, you cannot see the entry from DeAnza; it will be clearly visible just a few feet off DeAnza on Alves. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed, other than it says change the entry elements so it is highly- visible from DeAnza Boulevard. Com. Brophy: • Said he interpreted it meaning an Oak Park type concept where you get a sense of a feature on DeAnza Boulevard. Currently there is no problem seeing the entry element, it is on Alves. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she liked the concept, because she saw it as a very functional awning; most of their dining is along DeAnza and rather than having umbrellas, tables could be put under the awning, achieving two objectives; one is to activate the streetscape, but also to put the dining tables under there for dining. Cupertino Planning Commission 31 November 25, 2008 Com. Brophy: • Said his concern was that the specific recommendations don't lead toward making it a better building. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said they went up a higher level from that; and asked if they really wanted to be down so far and directing their thought on architecture. Com. Rose: • Said she agreed with Vice Chair Giefer; there is no visible plan to talk about; one was seen briefly on the laptop but that needs to come back in a full color rendition to understand what they want to do, and for us to embrace that. They are all good suggestions, but they had all agreed they don't want to be the architect on the project. It provides good ideas, and they have been clear what they think is missing in the design, but it is up to them to try to implement a second phase for them to look at. Com. Kaneda: • Said he was comfortable with Item No. 4, state the entry elements as clearly visible; it is not a problem saying you want to be able to see the entry. I don't think we necessarily want to make it look like it is what you are concerned about, have it look like the entrance is on DeAnza. • He said he did not have a strong feeling that it needs to be modern or traditional, but felt that the architectural design of the building feels quite massive for a small site. • If there is something that could be done architecturally to soften that feeling of massiveness squeezed into the site; I may be mis-speaking for the rest of the Commission, but I think we all have a sense that it is trying to stick too much onto too small of a site and one way to soften that feeling is to reduce that feeling of massiveness. That is not an architectural style issue; it is a challenge to the architect. Steve Piasecki: • One option the Commission would have is to ask the applicant if he would be willing to take a one month continuance; go back and do some schematics and work with the architectural advisor and see if he can come back and soften and offset and maybe the massing doesn't change a lot, but the building architecturally looks lighter and less intense. Chair Miller: • What was the reason for scheduling the Council meeting one week after the Planning Commission. Steve Piasecki: • The way our process works is we try to expedite everything; and we anticipated that if it can get through the Planning Commission, we tried to use the condition to address the architectural issue. I am not hearing a lot of comfort with that and we would normally go onto the Council if the Commission couldn't finish their deliberations and we are still ready to do that. If the Commission would feel more comfortable seeing a more refined plan drawn up, you would need about a month. They have been very responsive and you may get a greater comfort level on the total commission and you could draft a condition that more appropriately addresses the remaining issues. Dipesh Gupta: • Said there was one more option to propose. Since we are going to City Council and it seems like the main outstanding concern now is the design; if there is a way to get the approval with Cupertino Planning Commission 32 November 25, 2008 a condition saying that we have to come back to Planning Commission for design approval before we can proceed with building; that is something that can help us move forward effectively, and that would not slow down the project, but will accomplish the objective we have tonight. We will not be able to proceed with the permit until we come back to Planning Commission with design approval, which would take us a month or so, but at least it will not slow down the project from our perspective. Steve Piasecki: • It is a function if the Commission believes that the architectural issues are systemic to this building, that it is just too much, there is no redesign they are going to be able to do to satisfy the majority of the Commissioners and you should see that before you pass it on. If on the other hand, you think it is more cosmetic and not systemic and you are okay with the massing; if they would just dress it up properly, then his suggestion is appropriate. Chair Miller: Said that the majority of the Planning Commission is saying they want to see some different architecture and some attempts to soften the impacts of the building on the street, and the choices are to have a decision rendered tonight by the Planning Commission, and then it go onto the City Council next week; or address that issue, come back to us and then go on to the City Council. Dipesh Gupta: • Said that they would come back to the Commission, and requested some specific input on conditions, so that they know the scope of the discussion when they return. He said they needed a four week time period. Bob Sobisho: • Said one of the things where the physical constraints of the site was the whole DeAnza corridor and where the other buildings along DeAnza and that block of DeAnza were set back with the street. You saw the overall aerial where there is one building south of this that is even closer; if we get a little relief from what we have proposed on the DeAnza setback to come in a little more, two or three feet, it gives me a little bit more tools to soften those facades, because presently we are respecting that setback. One way to soften the building is to do more articulation; we cannot come into the site more because we have given a big setback on DeAnza. If that is something that would be received well, it gives me more to work with. Chair Miller: • Said the applicant is asking for some fair input; in terms of giving more specifics, is it just the visibility from DeAnza that is a concern, or is it the visibility from DeAnza and Alves that is a concern, or what kinds of things can the architect do to address your concerns. Com. Kaneda: • Said his biggest concern is not specifically DeAnza, but looking at the elevations and the perspective; it is similar to a situation where you have so many square feet you had to put in and you had a box that you were allowed to put it into. It fills up the whole box; the shape you are building is the box, it is just as much a problem from Alves as it is from DeAnza. Com. Brophy: • Agreed with Com. Kaneda that it is not a problem with architecture, but one of physics, with too much cubic feet for a given size site. If the majority wishes to move forward, he said he did not object to moving a couple of feet closer to DeAnza Boulevard if it would improve what Cupertino Planning Commission 33 November 25, 2008 you could accomplish with the building. He said in his opinion, it would not address the underlying problem. Com. Kaneda: • Said that there are things an architect can do to soften up some of those; even if the massing stays similar to the way it is now, including the shape of the building and articulation. Said he agreed that they could relax the rules to give the applicant the opportunity to provide a little more articulation. A creative architect can work with those tools to come up with something. Vice Chair Giefer: • In the past ,what we have done as a Planning Commission is we have looked at the total combined setback, recognizing that a straight line may be boring and constraining; if you averaged your setback and articulated the building more, it would not be a problem for me, especially if it pertains to solving some of the massing issues we have. That was one of the things with the second elevation I appreciated, with the awning facing DeAnza Boulevard; it softened that and there was a heavy belly band around the top of the building which I did not care for. Said she did not like the framing above the windows (the grid, faux balcony) which may have been a modern element added. • Said she was not opposed to the glass entry; most of the examples provided by staff are more traditional than what is proposed, and she would not want to say to leave it in or out. Bob Sobisho: • Said his comfort level is to lean toward more modern than traditional for a number of reasons. Some of the examples discussed with Larry Cannon included the Healdsburg Hotel and one in Santana Row. He said it is a driving experience to see the hotel, not a walking experience in a pedestrian mall; experiencing a hotel when you are driving 45 miles per hour is different than when you are walking next to it in a pedestrian square or mall. That is one of the reasons initially we went for a more modern design; it has a different scale and bigger, bolder shapes ,are appropriate. I am uncomfortable putting balconies on it. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she would not support something that resembled the Cyprus Hotel, but wanted something very interesting, and the plans did not scream out as a high end luxury hotel. She said they heard a lot about massing; what does that mean? Does it mean using lighter materials toward the top; it is unfortunately one of those, things that when we see it, we will know it. Com. Rose: • She said she shared the sentiments expressed, and was trying to find a balance of the hotels mentioned; Cupertino does not have the same feel as San Francisco. She said she agreed with Com. Kaneda; it is a very small piece of property, with a big box dropped on it. She said she would like to see something that Cupertino residents are excited about and she can be excited about in 20 years when driving by it. Steve Piasecki: • Suggested if they come back, they bring some photo simulations, or image board, because some of the problems we. are having is visualizing some of the elements and whether they are elements from another building they don't necessarily mean they are going to speak San Francisco; they are trying to tell you that the window elements will look like one component or the awning; that way the image board would help you visualize it better. Cupertino Planning Commission 34 November 25, 2008 Com. Kaneda: • Said if it is going to be a luxury hotel, he would like to see something that is architecturally stunning. Com. Rose: • Said it was the same color as the Cupertino Inn, which is not the direction they.are seeking. Bob Sobisho: • Said he knew the direction they wanted to go; although it is difficult to quantify or verbalize, he felt he had received enough feedback to work with that. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to continue Application U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 to the January 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: • Chair Miller reported that the topic of the meeting was the project discussed tonight. Housing Commission: No report. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: Com. Brophy reported: • TICC committee in addition to their work on the cell tower issue is now looking at solar energy and PV panels in particular to come up with recommendations. • The Bicycle Commission Plan is being updated after ten years; they are working on a new plan which would lead to public hearings and going to City Council. Some of the issues they want to focus on include timing of lights, improved marking and signage, and working on bicycle paths on less traveled streets. • Parks and Rec Commission is discussing the dog park issue again; and the possibility of expanding McClellan Ranch Park into include the Simms property; and working on new rules and regulations for the reopening of Blackberry Farm. • Teen Commission: Working on a Walk to School Day; Giving Tree for Teens; Teen Dances; Lounge Nights. • Public Safety • Library Commission: Circulation is growing at the library. • Housing: The Cleo Avenue project is ready to go; Senior Housing Solutions has purchased a house on Price Avenue and is looking to convert it to House 5, for independent seniors on extremely low income. • Mayor Sandoval reported that the city budget will be cut. • The City Attorney is retiring this year; the hiring of the Green Coordinator may be deferred. Cupertino Planning Commission 35 November 25, 2008 Economic Development Committee: • Apple Computers leased 102,000 sq. ft. building on Homestead. • Apple Computer is continuing to do preliminary site planning tasks. • Whole Foods Building has been leased to Staples • Learning Game will be moving from the Crossroads to former Mercedes used car lot on DeAnza Boulevard • Furniture 2000 store on Stevens Creek Boulevard has leased out a third of their facility to day care. • Carol Atwood reported that sales tax revenue has not been hit very hard. Report of the Director of Community Development: • Steve Piasecki reported that Food Court at Cupertino Square has opened. • The Housing element stakeholder group held their fourth and final meeting last Thursday. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on December 9, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary