PC 08-11-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED NQNLJTES
6:45 P.M. August 1 ] , 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa
Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Staff present: City Planner:
Senior Planner
Lisa Giefer
Paul Brophy
David Kaneda
Winnie Lee
Marty Miller
Gary Chao
Aki Honda Snelling
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 28, 2009 Planning Commissi~~n meeting:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of the July 28, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
At the meeting of July 28, 2009, the Planning (commission inadvertently approved Resolution
#6561. The appellant had already agreed to withdraw their appeal of the approval decision for
application DIR-2009-04. No action from the Planning Commission was necessary after the
withdrawal so the matter will not be appealed to the City Council.
(Information only; no action necessary from Planning Commission)
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 11, 2009
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. M-2009-06
Elaine Chong
(Metropolitan at Cupertino
HOA) 19501,19503,19505,
& 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd
Modification to Use Permit (U-2003-04) to remove
two Public Pedestrian Easements at the Metropolitan
at Cupertino condominium complex. Tentative City
Council Gate September 1, 2009
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Plannner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application to remove two public pedestrian easements within the Metropolitan
at Cupertino condominium complex, as outlined in the staff report. The HOA summarized the
reasons for their request to remove the internal easements, including vandalism and theft to the
lower level balconies and patios of the residents; the use of the internal pathways as a shortcut
from Cupertino High School students, which has added littering problems to the likelihood of
vandalism and theft. If the internal pedestrian easements are kept, it might encourage non-
Metropolitan residents and non-Metropolitan retail patrons to use the site particularly when the
Rose Bowl site and Main Street project are developed. Staff also feels that it might be better if
pedestrians are funneled along Stevens Creek Blvd. to help activate the retaiUcommercial sites
rather than having them pass through the complex not seeing those retaiUcommercial units.
• The applicants are requesting to modify I~ondition 22 of the use permit which deals
specifically with public pedestrian easements, particularly to eliminate the public pedestrian
easement that requires the easements to run through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards,
and plazas but are requesting to still maintain the public pedestrian easements along the
sidewalks which are on the perimeters of the property on the east and the north so that there
would still be future access to the future R~~se Bowl site to the north and the future Main
Street site to the east.
• Staff supports the removal of the internal easements. Since the remaining perimeter easements
are sufficient to facilitate the public pedestrian connections, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the modification application
to remove the two internal easements.
Staff answered questions about the application.
Elaine Chong, Member of Board of Directors, Metropolitan at Cupertino:
• Said they felt that closing off the two easements would have minimal impact to the walkability
of the Vallco area, but would make a big difference in the safety and security of the residents
of the complex. She said that they have had repeated problems with graffiti on a playhouse
and people climbing on the roof of the complex, and break-ins on different floors of the
complex. She said when viewing the walkways from the outside, they seem like they should
be interior walkways and part of the interior of the complex; especially with the Main Street
and Rose Bowl projects moving forward, there will be more people and traffic in the area.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak; the public
hearing was closed.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported the removal of the easement;.
Com. Lee:
• Said in the past two years there have been problems with non-residents passing through the
complex. The Rose Bowl and Main Street sitf:s will develop in the next few years and it is not
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 11, 2009
unreasonable to expect more problems in the suture. She said she supported modifying the use
permit to remove the two easements.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported the removal of the easements; stating that whenever there is an interface
between two different uses, there is the potential for issues and it is a good idea to head them
off in advance. He said the residents were justified in coming forward with their concerns.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he concurred with the other Commissioners.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she visited the complex and could appreciate the concerns of the residents. She said she
was concerned about the pedestrian traffic bc;cause as these developments were built, one of
the things they did in planning was to give sc;rious consideration as to how they would move
pedestrian traffic and integrate the entire area. She said it would have been helpful to have the
police report numbers or have access to the police reports, in considering home ownership,
they have the right to make that request.
• Said she was not opposed to the removal of the; easements, but may abstain because in principle
she would like to keep as much circulation as :possible.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-1, with Chair
Giefer abstaining, to approve Application M-2009-06 per the model resolution.
2. U-2008-03, EXC-2009-05 Use Permit to allow a personal wireless service
Phillip Thomas (AT&T/ECI facility consisting of a 74 foot tall tree pole with six
Two Results Way, LLC) panel antennas and an equipment enclosure with the
Near 5 Results Way associated equipment in the westerly landscape
Strip in the rear parking lot of an existing office park;
Height exception to allow antennas to be mounted at a
Height of 67.1 feet, where 55 feet is allowed.
Plan~iing Commission decision final unless appealed.
Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a Use Permit request and exception request to allow fora 74
foot tall tree pole with 6 panels of antenna., plus an enclosure at the base of the equipment.
The height exception is to permit an anterm~a to go up to 67.1 feet where 55 feet is allowed
by the ordinance. Staff is comfortable with the height exception; the ordinance requires 75
feet; it is well beyond the minimum required setback; because there is a grade difference of
approximately 20 feet from where the pole is situated to the McClellan Road grade. Because
of the reception the frequency needs, the pole has to be elevated to the same level as
McClellan to be effective.
• The proposed facility is within the federal safety standards in terms of health and safety
implications.
• Staff suggests that the faux pine tree pole lie a more mottled green color to conform to the
deep forest green color found on the Millc;r Avenue tree; the top half of the tree pole be
designed with a more conical form to simulate the shape of a real pine tree; and the base
equipment screen wall be clad with high qu~ility metal panels with a color to match the metal
work in the approved project. The area around the enclosure shall be landscaped with
shrubs, except the entry area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
August 11, 2009
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit and exception per
the model resolution.
He clarified that according to Federal regulations, as long as the pole meets the safety
standards, that the Planning Commission discussion should not include health or safety
concerns, but be limited to the aesthetics and whatever meets the city's ordinance in terms of
setbacks, location and placement of the facility to adjoining properties.
Staff answered questions regarding the application.
Wallace Iimura, TICC:
• Read a statement on behalf of Peter Freedman, Subcommittee member for tower applications.
"We believe that the proposed new AT&T cellular tree pole on Results Way complex meets all
the required safety and aesthetic standards for such an installation. Moreover, this new facility
addresses the coverage whole as was shown on the slide that is found in the TICC 2007 survey
to be the most important in Cupertino. At the time AT&T was the leading carrier in Cupertino
with about 45% of the market share. Given ~.he growth of the I-phone we believe that this is
still likely to be true. Of the approximate 125 comments relating to poor coverage spots made
by the 614 respondents of the survey, 65 singled out that the Bubb Road corridor area that
would be served by the new pole; the current coverage situation for AT&T customers in the
Bubb Road corridor is still very poor; from personal experience of one of the members and
homeowner in that area, we can attest to the p~~or to non-existent signal at many spots; dropped
calls when there is a signal, and poor audio quality throughout. Beyond being an
inconvenience this is a safety hazard both for individuals iu reporting accidents and for
emergency responders, particularly in the hilly areas of the Bubb Road corridor. For those
reasons the TICC strongly supports city stafi~ recommendation to approve the proposed new
facility."
Phillip Thomas, AT&T Mobility:
• Responded to questions. Said they considered placing the cell phone tower on the building
rooftops but could not locate there because the buildings onsite are all secure buildings and
they needed 24 hour access to gain access to the rooftops if needed. The second reason was
with the height; the more height they have, the more coverage they have; gaining some extra
will allow them not to not have to build additi~~nal sites in that area.
• Another question was asked regarding the location of the tower on the property; perhaps
moving it to the side of the railroad tracks. We thought it would be more visible coming
around on Bubb Road, you can see down the railroad tracks, there is hardly any trees in that
area that are very tall and it would have stuck out in that location. Another reason is that they
are also redeveloping that portion of the property so moving a site like that would be very
difficult
• Referring to emissions, the emissions documented in the report is basically at ground level. If
you are more than 30 feet away from the antennas, you are well below the federal standard; the
antennas will be 65 feet high; so anywhere at ground level, that is basically around the base of
the tower, you will be less than 1% and as yoir move away from the tower, the emissions level
drops, measuring it at the nearest residence with 160 feet away is .00 something, even at the
base of the tower, it is well below 1 %.
• He referred to Condition of Approval No. 7 and asked for reconsideration of the requirement
for cladding the fencing around the base of the tower with a high quality metal cladding. The
original proposal was for a more elaborate C:VIE block which would match the existing trash
enclosures around the property; having that type of metal enclosure would make it very
difficult to maintain especially for graffiti purposes; if we have a CME block style; the graffiti
is easier to remove by sand blasting or other similar methods.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 August 11, 2009
• Said the pole was set up for three carriers. If another carrier came on, they would have to
prepare a report and they would have to include the cumulative emissions.
Gary Chao:
• Said the adjacent boundary that is being shared next to the pole is industrial use; the setbacks
being referred to 161 feet to Imperial Avenue residents; that is actually one lot over across the
street to the residential boundary line; and that is where the setbacks are typically measured
from any nearest residential boundary, so fr~~m all three directions the closest residential is
more than 160 feet away, at times over 300 ff;et away. If mounted on a building per the city's
ordinance, the maximum height would be 40 feet, the building's out there around 30+ feet so
that is not going to get you to the height where it needs to be in order to be effective. The
reason also that they chose this location and not another area further away from the residential
neighborhood is that there is the redevelopment plan that is also entitled and any other place
would be in conflict with any of the building:; being proposed; this would be the most logical
site; and it meets more than sufficient the minimum setbacks.
• Said that in justifying an exception, they look. at the pole and usually with an application like
this, it is visual implications and they are rellatively comfortable that the visual implications
have been addressed, being that No. 1 is a tree pole and it is going to be masked and is going to
be far enough from residential areas that you ~~von't have any negative impact. The balance is
achieved and giving its proximity to industrial use, staff supports the exception.
• Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Vil~as Sacdeva, Imperial Avenue:
• Said he was opposed to the proposal from a location standpoint; the map shows the cell tower
locations for some of the carriers mentioned and they are usually aligned toward the freeways
away from the residential areas. He said he ~~as not opposed to the tower per se but opposed
to the location, would prefer that it be located along the freeway.
• He said he would still oppose it if it were on the other side of the parking lot near Bubb Road,
along the railroad.
Sherry Hsu, Imperial Avenue:
• Opposed to the application.
• Said the cell phone tower was an artificial tree, similar to a green painted giant monster, hiding
in the trees which she could not enjoy. She said she never saw a cell phone tower built right
next to the residential area; even though it is behind the Mercedes Services, there are old
houses in the area. It is too close to the children, even though the safety standards say they are
within regulation. She said it was not the right location and didn't fit in the area. She asked
that they consider putting the tree pole alongside the highway, not in the residential area.
Christina Wong, Imperial Avenue:
• Opposed to the application.
• Said she had the same objections as the neighbors; it is against the architecture of Cupertino.
She has lived in Cupertino for over 20 years 2u~d has enjoyed the landscape, but would not take
her grandchildren in her back yard in close proximity to the tree pole. She said they were
meeting the safety standards based on statistics from the past; people were in fear of what
might happen 20 years from now because of the health issues. She asked the Commission to
consider the neighbors' concerns and consider putting the tree poles along the side of the
highway and not within the residential area.
Sampata Patel (was no longer present at meeting)
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 11, 2009
Manju Chezal, Imperial Avenue resident:
• Opposed to the application to put a 74 foot till tree antenna because of the health hazards as
well as the aesthetic sense of the place. He s<<id it would be difficult to sell a home with a tall
tree pole antenna next to it; it would depreciate the value of the homes as well. Said that there
were concerns about health issues as well. H~~ objected to putting the antenna in the proposed
area and suggested putting it by the freeway, away from the residences.
Jui-Hsin Chen, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to the proposal; the 74 foot height is too high; the location is not appropriate and the
tall antenna pole does not fit in the residential area. It also poses a potential long term health
concern for the residents. He asked the Commission to consider some other alternatives, and
to consider the residents' concerns.
Whe-Jen Tu, Imperial Avenue:
• Said he agreed with the neighbors and was opposed to the proposal. He said he felt the
humans' health is more important than the structure's appearance. There was no community
meeting at all; many people do not know about the proposal. People are fearful of having such
a structure in their residential area.
Louis Liu, 10470 Imperial Avenue:
• Said he felt the cell phone tower would cause potential health hazards to humans, and he was
opposed to the tower being in the high density residential azea. He asked why AT&T didn't
consider the structure by the highway; there is one at the 280 and 85 entrance that they could
join on.
Allen Wang, Astoria townhouse:
• Said he was upset about coming to the meeting, as he was only informed about the public
hearing at 6:40 p.m. and did not know anything about the application prior to the meeting. He
said he was a civil engineer, and in his opinion there was no question that the applicant could
propose a better location neaz the freeway to ;accommodate the tower. Regardless of what the
federal regulations say, the truth is that people living nearby the high voltage towers or cell
phone towers are exposed to cancers, especially young children.
James Yeh, Imperial Avenue:
• Said the neighbors did not know anything about the meeting; there are already some cell phone
towers in the azea, why not follow the Nextel to put the antennas on the highway location; why
select the residential azea? Said he was concerned about his grandchildren's future; they have
been in Cupertino many years and do not want: the cell phone towers in the residential azea.
Doris Yeh, Imperial Avenue:
• Said she was opposed to the proposal, and did not want a cell phone tower in her backyard; the
tower is hazardous to human health.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she followed the project on Results Way to build tech buildings there; they were recently
given a five year extension for their project 1'~ecause of the state of the tech economy. There
has been no mention in the last several month:; that there was an antenna proposal for this area.
There had been prior testimony about the problems in cell phone coverage in the Monta Vista
area, particularly by the high school. It is good to be able to improve cell phone coverage
particulazly in emergency situations.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 August 11, 2009
• As always cell phone towers do present issue:; for the neighbors and community at lazge; I do
think because we are in Cupertino and are one: of the high tech cities in the Bay Area, I think it
is imperative to make sure that the highest level of technology that is available nationwide
globally for antenna trees be utilized on this ~;ite; there is an Apple installation on Bubb Road
that was the site where Apple was first founded; one of the first offices for Apple. It is a very
old tech pazk, and a high visibility arena for Cupertino; we want to make sure that if a tower
goes in here that we are exhibiting the best of the best. I don't think it is out of the question to
ask for the very best allowed here; this is a~: good as it gets globally. There aze some bad
examples of antenna trees; do we have to hive antenna trees or are there other possibilities
now nationwide, globally. I do hope that every possibility will be taken to be sure that this
looks like a tree, smells like a tree, if it does go up on the property. We want to make sure
about other surprises down the road; we dema~~d the highest possibility of quality.
Ilya Stomakhin, Imperial Avenue:
• Resides close to the proposed pole location. Said he had health concerns, and that the cell
phone technology has not been around long; enough to study long term effects on human
beings being exposed to long term radiation. Installing it next to the freeway or other side of
Bubb Road by the railroad tracks would be: a better choice for location. AT&T and the
Planning Commission should put the health concerns of the residents of Cupertino higher than
AT&T's convenience where it is more economically efficient for them.
Tom Hugunin, Cupertino resident:
• Said that he considered the RFR report invalid since there was no certification by a licensed PE.
He said he was concerned after reading the RF'R report, that there are second story buildings or
housing locations which was not noted on t:he RFR report. He also noticed that there aze
alternative locations; there is a tie-in with Apple and AT&T; one of the questions he had was
Apple has a site located azound the corner and why couldn't they locate the tower next to the
freeway. Also, regarding the site, there were no other trees of that height anywhere neaz where
it is going to be located; usually with a tree pole such as this, you want it to blend in, and there
is no way to blend it if there is nothing of the same height around it.
Keith Murphy, E. Estates Drive:
• Said he lived in close proximity to a pole tree i=or a number of years, located on Richwood neaz
Miller Avenue. It was administratively approved without noticing to the public, the residents
found out after it was installed and they witnessed all the landscaping being trimmed away by
the property owner; the only real trees of compazable height are on neighboring properties
now.
• He said it was unfortunate that they could not get more community outreach as a consequence
of heazing stories about that tree; why can't they go out and speak with the community and see
if there is a way to resolve it. He said he also beard tonight that there aze perhaps other choices
that might offer less impact to the residential community and put it in an industrial setting next
to a freeway.
• He said he hoped that those considerations might be taken heed and see if there isn't a better
site for this being that the community is showing up, even though they have poor noticing, at
least they have noticing and they aze trying to tell you that they aze not happy with what they
aze seeing.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 11, 2009
Com. Miller:
• Asked if there was a site close to here, why didn't they just co-locate the tower.
Gary Chao:
• He said it would require consenting property owners and directed the question to the applicant
in terms of their efforts and whether or not they talked to other property owners in the area. He
said that co-location has been a requirement :in recent years; an older site may not have been
conditioned to do so. He said the process ha<; changed and the additional notification process
was prescribed by the City Council.
Phillip Thomas, Applicant:
• Said that other locations such as the high sch~~ol were considered; and there is always some
other place to go; but they place the sites so that they are far enough away from each other they
don't overlap too much, and they are close enough together that they hand off to each other.
h1 this particular case they were trying to get as much coverage south/southwest and west of
this location as possible. Moving it anywhere; to the easbnortheast would take coverage away
from that area. The market has shifted where people they are getting rid of their home phones,
they are working from home more. The goal i s to get the sites where they can provide the best
coverage in the residential areas. Putting i~t on the freeways will provide great freeway
coverage, but they have sites along the freeway, that is why they picked those types of
locations.
• In response to a previous question, he said there is an existing site about 100 feet from this
particular site; on Imperial and it is on ones of the buildings next to the Mercedes repair
dealership; but it is a very frail pole sitting on top of a roof, about 10 feet above the roofline;
and is not a co-locatable site. When you build sites that are that tall, you end up building 4
sites that are high relative to one site that is this tall; it is a tradeoff and they don't want to
build any more sites than they have to.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Reiterated that under Federal law the city and the City Council has no right to make health
determinations; what is required is a study by the applicant to make sure that it meets the FCC
requirements and they have to submit it. He said in this case with a reading that is less than
1 /10 of 1 % of maximum allowable amount, v~~hich is measuring down to the ground, it should
not be a concern.
• Many people are fearful of the unknown, what is not known now that might be known in the
future, but at some point, we have to make a reasonable judgment as to what to do and to also
fulfill what is our obligation because if we turn it down on health grounds, if the City Council
does, regardless of what we recommend, basically the applicant can and will sue the city
successfully.
• As far as locations along Highway 85, one thing that jumps out that unlike Highway 280,
Highway 85 is a depressed freeway; it would be very difficult to fmd any location on 85 within
the bounds of Cupertino. There clearly is a weakness in the coverage. He said he would be
willing to discuss aesthetic issues. Mr. Hugunin's view that the trees there are much shorter
than 75 feet; my sense when I looked at it was that they were at least in the 50 or 60 foot range,
so I don't see that was an issue. I think givers those facts and given the limitations set on the
city of Cupertino by federal law, I would supp~~rt the application.
Com. Lee:
• According to AT&T and the residents of Cupertino, the McClellan/Bubb area has a lack of cell
phone coverage; and it appears that AT&T and staff have worked hard to get together a
monopole that resembles a pine tree. The ordinance states that 75 feet is the required
Cupertino Planning Commission
August 11, 2009
minimum distance from the residential property line; and this is more than 160 feet away from
the residential property line. She said shoe felt the project would help improve safety,
communication and convenience for cell phone users in that area.
Said she supports the application.
Com. Miller:
• Said he recognizes the need for cell phone coverage and also the concerns of the residents;
weighing the two he said he was not comfortable with the location or the aesthetics at this
point. He said he would prefer it if the applicant would consider moving it to the other side of
the site by the railroad tracks. If the applicant could accommodate that, there would likely be
more support from the neighborhood.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it was his neighborhood and the schools in the neighborhood are the schools his children
attend and will attend. People are concerned about radiation; but almost everyone uses cell
phones, so there is a need for cell phone coverage in this area. Looking at the coverage maps,
it isn't known if you can place the towers adjacent to the highway as suggested and get
adequate coverage for the area.
• People commented that they do not like the fake tree, and he said he would prefer the fake tree
over the bare cell phone tower. The trees in thhat area are not 74 feet high but would hopefully
blend in. He said he was willing to discuss moving the pole over toward the railroad tracks, if
it would help alleviate the neighbors' concern:;.
Chair Giefer:
• Reiterated that federal law prohibits the Commission from considering health issues because
without those laws in place, there would be no cell phone tower installations anywhere in the
US. She said she was sympathetic to the pe~~ple who don't want a cell phone tower in their
neighborhood; however, that is not part of their deliberations.
• Said she agreed that they need additional cove-rage in this particular neighborhood; she resides
in the neighborhood and is in one of the poor coverage areas for all carriers. The proposed
wireless plan had a couple of different ideas in their plans; some of them were statuary type
plans, and I don't know if those are existing or theoretical towers, but if we did relocate those
to the railroad side of the lot, which I think is a great idea, because then I think it gives the
homeowners on Imperial and other streets a liittle bit of a buffer. The buildings are not built, if
I look at the plan set, with the proposed future buildings, it looks there is plenty of room to
locate those near the railroad tracks; it doesn't look like your power requirements are different,
it looks like you actually take advantage of an existing trench.
• Said that Com. Kaneda pointed out that if it vas relocated to the other side of the lot, on the
east side, it would be closer to the point of ~~onnection, and there may be some benefits by
relocating there.
• Said she supported the relocation of the pole.
Phillip Thomas, Applicant:
• Relocating to the other side of the property woixld make it more visible, if there aren't any more
trees near the height of this tree, it would stand out quite a bit more. The site plan shows that
the property line is literally within a couple of feet of the parking area. There is no space to
put a cell site there; if a cell site was put on th<<t side, it would take up about 10 parking spaces.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 August 11, 2009
Chair Giefer:
• Recalled that the facility was over-parked; they are building a two level structure and they will
still have additional parking. She said she did not think it would impact them.
Phillip Thomas, Applicant:
• Said that in that location they are proposing it, it is in a landscaped area that is not going to
affect the parking. Moving the site would lower the emissions but to what degree, we are
already at less than 1 %. From an effective standpoint, there is no difference between where it
is now and being across the parking lot from emissions standpoint.
• Referring to cost implications to go back and replan it, he said they would have to redraw all
drawings, resurvey the entire property (with permission of property owner), and he did not
think they would want to give up parking spices. The original plan was to put the site up in
the front toward McClellan and they were not happy about that; it was moved back because
they didn't want to take up two parking space~~.
• Said that other forms of towers have been water tanks, clock towers, and other types of trees.
In conjunction with staff, they felt a tree pole was the best solution because there are dozens of
pine trees surrounding the property and there are other tree poles within the city limits, which
are acceptable forms.
Chair Giefer:
• Asked what the process was to request the applicant to put it on the other side of the lot; the
applicant would incur additional expenses to g,o back and redo the plans.
Gary Chao:
• One option is you can condition it to provide some specifics and we can work with the
applicant to make that happen. They will have to redo the RF and redo the design work, the
plans, but you could make that decision this evening and condition it so that the Director could
make sure that happens.
Chair Giefer:
• If we condition that and send the applicant away, and the owner said no, I am not interested in
that, then what would the process be for the applicant.
Gary Chao:
• The applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission only if it was conditioned
as such. Given the fact that the property owner is not here this evening, it is probably not the
best course of action. You could continue it and have them look at it and come back to you
again. I am not sure what the timing preference is on the applicant's side, but they could take a
look, consult with the property owner and corr~e back.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he did not feel conditioning it was the right path because it is not the applicant's property;
if the owner says no, what is the time frame a~Id if it is continued for two weeks, how much of
a problem would that be.
Phillip Thomas:
• He said he would like to get the sites solidified as soon as possible as they have already been in
process for a long period. Based on the conversation with the landlord, the reason they moved
the site to this new location is because they didn't want them taking up parking spaces; they
were not interested in giving up a lot of parking. That was for two parking spaces. He said he
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 August 11, 2009
could not imagine them wanting to give up 5, 6 or 10.
Com. Miller:
• Said he did not feel it was aneither/or situation, and he was sensitive to the concerns of the
neighborhood, based on aesthetics. He suggested conditioning it to move it to the other side of
the property and find out if that is acceptable or not, or perhaps there is another site on the
other side of the railroad tracks that would work for this applicant, that also meets his needs in
terms of coverage.
• Every application that comes up that gets located in the neighborhood, we have this kind of
situation and it is interesting to go back im:o the history of the regulations that the TICC
committee wrote, the original guidelines were that we were going to have low level emission
devices put on telephone poles in the neighborhoods and they were going to be innocuous and
they weren't going to be creating the kinds of issues that we are having now, and one of our
residents even proposed a system for stringing them together to make it a viable solution and
for whatever reason, that is not something that the communication companies have considered,
even though technologically, it seems like it is very feasible.
• He said he felt there were other possible solutions that might work better in terms of the
neighborhoods in general and this community. Every time there is a cell phone tower in a
neighborhood, the issue comes up and it hasn't been addressed adequately.
Chair Giefer:
• For the best solution for the community, she paid she had a preference for the other side, but
would not oppose it. She suggested that the applicant use a continuance to talk to the property
owner to see if they would be flexible on allowing it to be moved to the other side.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he was not opposed to a continuance.
Phillip Thomas:
• Said that a two week continuance would be appropriate, but he felt it was not something the
owner would agree to.
Com. Lee:
• Said she would be agreeable to continuing the item.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Lee, and carried unanimously 5-0 to
continue Application U-2008-03, I~XC-2009-OS to the August 25, 2009 Planning
Commission meeting.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Relative to the issue of the cladding, suggested that the wording in Para. 7 be changed one
sentence "The base equipment screening en~~losure shall be reviewed and approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development l:-irector." (All agreed to change)
Chair Giefer:
• Said it would be a stand-alone device in the parking lot; it would not enjoy the screening that it
does in its current location. If staff has a different recommendation, such as a clock tower or
piece of sculpture, they would be interested in hearing their opinion.
Cupertino Planning Commission 1:? August 11, 2009
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No Meeting
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners
Vice Chair Brophy reported on the meeting:
• The Bicycle Commission is reviewing the bike plan; currently 10 yeazs old; the commissioners
are doing it themselves as no funds aze available for a consultant. Their key goal is to identify
high priority improvements. one mentioned was along McClellan Road between Stelling and
DeAnza. Meetings will be online.
• The VTA contributed 12 bike racks to the city and they aze looking for places to put them.
• TICC reported that while they are still working on the cell phone issue, the No. 1 priority is
working with the city's environmental affairs coordinator on energy efficiency. Their No. 1
target is the street lights in the city and looking at various cost and energy effective technical
solutions.
• Parks and Rec Committee primary goal is Dogs in the Pazk issue; they aze also looking at the
Sims Property and Stocklmeir property. They will also be addressing the Lawrence/Mitty Park
also.
• Public Safety Committee is primarily focusing on school safety issues; looking at putting
permanent speed kiosks neaz under the high. roads that aze approach to the schools. Also
working on trying to improve their program with the school districts to encourage students to
walk, bike or carpool.
• The Library Commission is addressing the ~~oncern about parking, especially on weekends;
discussion about whether or not they should change the rules to prevent U-turns on Torre
Avenue. Reported that the new city budget allows for Sunday hours and extended hours
during the week; and City Council has chosen to fund it another yeaz.
• Fine Arts Commission aze looking to leverage the funds they were granted; trying to identify
projects that can help arts and cultural organizations within the community to use the city's
money to raise more for a variety of activiities. Announced Shakespeare in the Park (A
Comedy of Errors) this week and next week.
Economic Development Committee:
Com. Miller reported:
• Carol Atwood reported that the city is in reasonably good financial shape. The utility tax is
going on the ballot; business vacancy rate in town has gone from 2% to 14%; Semantec has
moved out of town, city staff convinced them to leave their sales tax in Cupertino; Mervyns
holding discussions with Kohls for their si1:e; Sandhill announced that office building on
DeAnza, the Landings, is the first LEEDS silver in town; Chamber of Commerce Asian
Business Council is working on a new class on how to start a business, to be conducted in
Mandarin; sign ordinance coming to us in Sept.; Cupertino Squaze has been taken over by the
banker, Gramercy and Orbit is no longer affiliated with Cupertino Square; they replaced the
management company with Jones and LaS~ille and are looking for a buyer for the site.
Evershine has done some work on the Rose Fowl and they are now vested; however, it is not
Cupertino Planning Commission 1.R August 11, 2009
clear how much more effort they are going to put into this in the near term, because they are
having difficulty getting financing. The HCD reviewed the housing element update and
accepted all of the site selections.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Asked staff for an update on the Rose Bowl; it appears they are putting in a foundation; will
that vest their project indefmitely?
Gary Chao:
• Explained that they are permitted to commend; their podium/foundation of the project which is
the work being done; they will not lose their entitlements as they have vested their permit.
There are inspections and processes that they have to go through; additional plan checks and
they are are gearing up to submit their super structure, everything above the ground next week.
• Once they are vested, they are no longer subject to that expiration concern they previously had.
Technically they could sit there with a foundation, but they would lose their plan check efforts;
there are expirations within the plan check time period and also the inspection period that they
have to make progress every so many weeks <<nd months. To that extent, while the entitlement
is preserved, if they don't move and continue to progress, they may actually have to resubmit
plans and concrete and structural elements; it cannot sit too long otherwise they would have to
go through some remediation work.
REPORT OF TIIE DIRECTOR OF COMMUPdITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional report.
Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for August 25, 2009 zit 6:45 p.m.
• ~
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizab llis, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: August 25, 2009