Loading...
PC 08-25-09CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. August 2.i, 2009 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMM[iJNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson:: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Plarmer: Environmental Planner: Lisa Giefer Paul Brophy Winnie Lee Marty Miller David Kaneda Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Colin Jung Erin Cook APPROVAL OF MINUTES• Minutes of the August ll, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: Page 3: Third last paragraph, line 5, Gary Chao : Insert "setback" after "required" MOTION: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Brophy, and unanimously carried 5-0 to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Noted items relative to the agenda items. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALIENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. EXT-2009-O1, EXT-2009-02 Extension request for aone-year extension for the Use Sing-Chung Sam & Diana Hu Permit (U-2007-OS) to construct two single family 10207 Pasadena Ave. residence:;, 2,838 sq. ft. each, in a planned development zoning di~~trict to August 14, 2010. Extension request for a one-yea,- extension for the Architectural & Site Approval (ASA-2007-09) for two single family residence:;, 2,838 sq. ft. each, in a planned development Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 25, 2009 Zoning district to August 14, 2010. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Vice Chair Brophy: • Said his understanding of the item was that th~~ applicant was asking for a year because it could be done without a public hearing; any longer request would require a formal public hearing. He suggested that since they are reviewing the whole development, the building deparhnent regulations, it would be the type of item that could be addressed in the study. He said that one year seems to be an insufficient short period of time, especially since the State has modified the tentative map law. Gary Chao: • Clarified that it was within the purview of the ordinance. MOTION: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Brophy, and unanimously carried 5-0, to approve the Con.~ent Calendar. OLD BUSINESS 2. U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS Use Perrr~it to allow a personal wireless service facility Phillip Thomas (AT&T/ECI consisting; of a 74 foot tall tree pole with six panel Two Results Way, LLC) antennas and an equipment enclosure with the associated Location near 5 Results Way equipment in the westerly landscape strip in the rear parking lot of an existing office park; Height Exception to allow ~intennas to be mounted at a height of 67.1 feet, where 55 feet is allowed. Continued from August 11, 2009 meeting; Planning Commission decision final unless approved. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Diirector: • Noted that the applicant was not present, and he had requested a continuance on the item at 3 p.m. today, stating there are some technical issues on the site that he wanted to take care of and get more information before they come back. Com. Miller: • Said that he spoke to the Lehigh representative Sandy James, and she mentioned that Lehigh was coming in for an application for a cell phone tower; and it may cover the area in question. Ms. James commented that they had already done some outreach to the neighbors and there appeared to be some favorable acceptance there. • Suggested that the applicant might want to lo~~k at that and consider whether that might be an acceptable alternate location. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they would mention it to the applicant and have a discussion with Ms. James prior to scheduling the item. Vice Chair Brophy: Said there were many people present at the meeting as it is a controversial issue. He said he was disturbed about receiving an email at 3 p.m. on the afternoon of the hearing being told that they have civil engineering issues; it is one thing to say that they are talking to neighbors and trying to resolve conflicts, but when they are saying they haven't even resolved the issue Cupertino Planning Commission August 25, 2009 between the cell tower operator and the land owner. He expressed concern at the lack of professionalism on the part of the parties. Chair Giefer: • Said that the applicants said at the time of discussion of continuing the item, they did not understand how extensive their reconsideration might be; if they changed location, it may include different drawings and other technical considerations; but at that point when we asked them to take a continuance, they were unable to scope out how large the project might be. It is disappointing, we have a lot of people who want this item concluded; but it is not out of the ordinary though it is inconvenient. Discussion ensured wherein it was debated whether or not to continue with the application and hear the public testimony because of the number of people present. Com. Miller said he felt in respect to the public, the public testimony should be heard at the meeting. Vice Chair Brophy said he spoke in favor of the application at the previous meeting, with the expectation that unless they heard something different from the previous meeting, that it would recommend a similar solution. However, asking for a continuance three hours before the Planning Commission meeting disturbed him and he suggested that they dismiss the item ar~d have the applicant refile the application. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the Planning Commission could deny without prejudice and have the applicant refile. Com. Kaneda: • Said he was willing to hear the testimony fron- the public. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Sherry Hsu, Imperial Avenue, Cupertino: • Opposed to application. • Said at the prior meeting, the applicant said they could always find a place for a cell phone tower, and she asked why they would cause so much dissent with the residents in the community if they can always find another lo~~ation for a cell phone tower. She said that there were other places more appropriate to locate the tower at, and she also felt the applicant provided incorrect information. • She read comments from Patricia Wood, Imperial Avenue, who could not attend the meeting. Ms. Wood opposed the application and stated that she felt the cell phone tower would spoil the skyline view for many of the residents and said that there was no way to camouflage or conceal a tower that was 70 feet high. Xiaowen Liu, Imperial Avenue, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to application. • Said her children would be exposed to the cell phone tower hazards 24 hours aday/365 days per year. She said there was no evidence that shows no harm to the nearby residents from the hazards of a cell phone tower. The technology is relatively new and there is no evidence to prove it is safe. • Said it would pose a threat to the value of the it home because of the perception of the harmful cell phone tower in close proximity to the house. • The City of Cupertino passed a measure in 2003; she referred to Page 13 text which states that "most of the preferred sites would be industrial areas, existing cell phone towers and the least preferred site is the residential area." She noted that it is not an industrial site any longer. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 25, 2009 • Referred to an AT&T map that showed the coverage in various areas, and said if they want to cover the poor coverage sites, they need to find another location. Andrew Wu, Imperial Avenue: • Expressed concern about the exposure from ttie cell tower to his children in the proposed area; different studies show the potential impact to the human being, particularly young children because their skull is not fully developed. • No absolute data to prove the damage, but scientific studies show from Europe, Spain, France to indicate there is potential impact to the human growth, particularly young children. • The cell phone towers will also decrease the home values. The tower will also change the mindset of the residents because of the potential impact to the population. Allen Wang, Imperial Avenue: • Opposed to the application. • He recommended that the Planning Commissi~~n dismiss the application since the applicant did not show good faith; which is why there is no updated coverage map for the cell phone tower application. • Said the proposed cell phone tower would not fit in the limited horizontal and vertical space; it would result in an unattractive skinny plastic cotton candy-like tree with funny colors and a lot of antennas. The tower would be directly in -the bike path and would not be blocked by any buildings or trees. • Said the tower would not resolve the current c~~verage problem in some areas. Agnes Fu, Imperial Avenue: • Opposed to application; resides on a site closest to the proposed cell phone tower; never received meeting notice, and majority of neighbors did not receive meeting notice. • Had a copy of petition which was circulated to residents. • Cell phone tower will lower property values. • Said she was an engineer and had done testing and dealt with the FCC. FCC requires a statement that states that the device may cause harmful interference to humans. There are many children in the area and it is dangerous to young children. A 75 foot tree is two times the height of a two-story townhome; it would be ugly in the neighborhood. Some people would say yes to a tower, because the tower is not built next to their home. Keith Murphy, East Estates Drive: • Said a cell phone tower was administrative)}~ installed by a prior Community Development Director. Said he was happy to see that there was the opportunity for public input which is a good process to experience. He reiterated that if there is more public outreach done by developers, if they go into the community and speak with the community, discuss the issues before it is seen, there is a strong likelihood th;~t these types of issues would not develop. • He said that repeatedly it is the same issue with the cell phone towers, and he felt it could be resolved by having more public outreach. Staff and the Planning Commission need to insist that it take place, especially when it was heard tonight that there could be an alternative cell phone tower. Perhaps it would have come iip sooner and the whole issue just would have evaporated. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said he supported Vice Chair Brophy's motion to dismiss the application since the applicant waited until the last minute to request a continuance when at the previous meeting they said they were prepared. Cupertino Planning Commission August 25, 2009 The Wireless Master Plan does require looking at other sites when making a consideration. In light of the fact that there may be other sites available for the tower, they may want to deny the application because there are other possibilities. Said that when the Wireless Master Plan was changed by the City Council a few months ago, additional language was added that required a further look at everything. He said TIC was supposed to do it, but he was not sure it happened, since they did not come forward with any information and they should know about this. Said he felt they should deny the application and renotice when it is ready to come back. Barry Chang, Candidate for City Council: • Said he appreciated the efforts in listening to the community concerns. The tower is close to Lincoln Elementary School, and also backs up to residences. Did the applicant give consideration to any other locations? Cupertino has many hills on the hillside, by the quarry, it would be much higher elevation-wise, and they can go higher, more than 74 feet; and wouldn't cause so much commotion and concern of the health issues in the community. He said perhaps the applicant could reconsider other locations. Tom Tofigh, Cupertino resident: • Supports application. • Read testimony from AT&T, which he said indicated they are meeting the FCC requirements. He said he did not feel there are any health issues; he has been in the wireless industry for the past 20 years and supports the application. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Chair Giefer encouraged the speakers to return. to the meeting when the application will be presented again. Colin Jung: • Clarified that it was the property owner who requested the continuance of the application. Vice Chair Brophy: • Said he was willing to continue the application indefinitely, but only on the grounds that it be started all over again, noticing be sent out, anti they have to in effect start from the beginning. Com. Miller: • Asked staff for a comment on the first suggestion to deny the application; and Vice Chair Brophy's suggestion. Aarti Shrivastava: The Planning Commission could chose to deny the application, although the applicant has requested time to look at an alternative location, and the Commission may want to look at that application prior to denying it. Said that Vice Chair Brophy's suggestion would be the norm; if it were continued to a date uncertain, they would renotice the application. Suggested that the Planning Commission wait to see what the applicant comes back with; staff will also provide information about the quan ,~. If the applicant sees that as a better site, they may decide to pull the application. In order i or staff to continue working on the application, they recommend the application be continued. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 25, 2009 Com. Miller: • Said he felt the comments from the residents were appropriate, and he felt it was warranted to look for other sites. The other site at the Lehia;h Quarry may be the solution. Vice Chair Brophy: • Said he was unhappy about the lack of professionalism on the part of the landowner and AT&T, and he was not happy about the lobbyist for Lehigh Cement making ~ ex pane comments without coming into talking about it himself. He said he was hopeful that in the future they would get better performance from the corporate community when talking about land use issues. Com. Lee: • Said she was also disappointed because on Thursday when they received the packets, it said that the applicant talked to the property owner and the owner was not willing to move the site closer to the railroad tracks and preferred to have it at the location proposed two weeks ago. Now they are hearing it is about easements, anal she was curious what it was about. Chair Giefer: • Said that before they vilify the land owner and the applicant, she would like to look at how the public process is working. The residents present know how to find them; the landowner has done public outreach before when they have come to us, prior to meeting us, and I think the public sees their lease sign out in the front of the building and I would prefer to be optimistic about this, that they understand that perhaps tl~e last proposed location is not the best one, and perhaps they are looking for something that is more acceptable to the public and the community at large. • She said she was comfortable with approving a continuance to an indefinite date allowing them to work out their business and public issues, and at that time, once they are dealing with a known issue, make a decision based at that point. Com. Kaneda: • Said he concurred. MOTION: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Brophy, and unanimously carried 5-0, to continue Application U-2008-03, EXC-2009-OS to an indefinite date, with the stipulation that tbie application will be fully noticed and started fresh from the beginning. Chair Giefer declared a short recess. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Presentation of a status report on enviro~imental affairs and an update of the Phase II recommendation from the Santa Clara County Association, Green Building Collaborative Erin Cook, Environmental Planner, presented t:he status report: • Reported that the Environmental Affairs Division (EAD) presented a six month update to City Council on August 4, and today's focus would relate to programs relative to the Planning Commission work plan, in an overview of some of the current sustainability initiatives which are listed, as well as discussing some of the future programmatic priorities. Cupertino Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Cupertino has a long history of programs that prioritize the environment and EAD staff has worked over the last several months to document some of that history. They have benchmarked some of their prior initiatives and created some baseline metrics of programs that have been implemented prior to the formatio~i of the EAD. Some of those programs were the creation of an Environmental Preferred Proc:urement Policy which City Council adopted in 2007, partnering with Apple to offer electa•onics recycling to the community, as well as implementing many facility-wide commercial energy and water retrofitting programs. There are some more stringent regulatory re;quirements coming from the Federal and State levels, namely AB32, which is the Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires public agencies to achieve 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, which was the impetus for forming the EAD as well as working on some current initiatives, primarily greenhouse gas emissions inventory in which they partnered with ICLEI to do a municipal audit of their facilities and their overall emissions impact as a municipality. She highlighted some of the results of the analysis scheduled to be released by the end of the month. ICLEI is working on a draft and they are scheduled to meet with staff with the results of the inventory; the Planning Commissioner:; are invited to attend the meeting. She said that the city's impacts come from running and m~iintaining the buildings and facilities; that shows direct impact or direct relationship to what the Planning Commission is working on; adopting a Green Building Policy. The Green Building Policy and framework has worked to standardize reduced energy consumption and water consumption over time that will help achieve greenhouse gas emissions in the fut~.~re. One aspect of the report is a checklist for cities to work on implementing over time. One additional aspect of this is growing their inventory; they understand what the city's impacts of the organization are but realize that: it is critical for them to grow that scope to focus more on the community and where the impacts lie as an entire municipality. They are collecting data in order to do a larger greenhouse gas emissions inventory of their municipality and the data collection process is intensive; they have all the software in place and have the support of ICLEI and expect that report to be finalized in early October. Another aspect of their focus has been to join regional working groups that are focused on larger environmental issues, realizing that Cupertino is a fraction of the climate puzzle, they need to have greater involvement in other rc;gional initiatives to be more aggressive and to motivate and advance their climate change ire greenhouse gas emissions goals. One specific initiative they have joined is working with. the Santa Clara county Cities Assoc. Green Building Collaborative and that group has sonne members of a Planning Commission involved as well. What the group had done initially is prioritize basically creating a consistent green building policy that would make it easier for developers to navigate when they were working across different jurisdictions. The goal of the group is to benchmark what existing green building policies were in place in other cities: and convene those cities to come together and figure out what a more aggressive policy woLild look like for their region. They invited staff, council members and commissioners from the cities represented here to join that task force; and the group has worked on identifying some policy recommendations. Phase I was implemented by cities as of February of last year; and following that in advance of its adoption, the working group reconvened and worked on identifying a more aggressive compliance standard that they brought back to the Santa Clara County Cities Assoc. on June 11'x; and that framework was endorsed by the Santa Clara County Cities Assoc. Subsequently the group will work on addressing issues identified through the implementation of Phase II and work on adopting more stringent standards over time. The working group of the GBC wanted to identify a policy framework that met the needs and the existing standards that were in place within each city and how they deal with pern-its. They have identified opportunities to work within certain thresholds, and those thresholds include permit valuation, size, FAR, and Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 25, 2009 equipment and systems that are touched as the threshold that really trigger the green building policy standard, which are listed. Another aspect was gaining a broader spectrum of what policies that had already been adopted and implemented within existing cities; many of these were incorporated into the policy recommendations of the GBC but the GB(~ in all cases with the one exception of San Francisco, is more aggressive and San Francisco is the exception because they have created a tiered recommendation approach that works over time, starting in 2012 they have identified a LEED gold standard and that is not to say that the GBC wouldn't do something similar in their Phase III recommendations, but they are not quite there yet. The expectation is that it might work toward a similar goal but for non-residential that has been the standards. The standard is also working with LEEDS so leadership and rnergy and environmental design is the standard protocol which works on a whole building approach to work on reducing energy consumption and conserving resources over time. For residential, the approach is focused on building at greens rating standards, threshold for certifi~:ation or for becoming green point rated is 50 points; most cities have adopted that framework with the exception of San Francisco which is surprising given their non-residential requirements. For municipal requirements, most cities have :adopted what the Phase I recommendation of the GBC was, which is LEEDS silver for facilities which are 5,000 sq. ft. and above. Recognizing that the city would likely be moving forward `vith the green building policy, they wanted to do some investigation in terms of where the residents are presently and where developers are presently with regard to thinking about green building. Part of the process for Phase I recommendations for the GBC were requiring cities to hand out green building checklists with each application packet for residents, developers, etc. Over the course of a year and a half, about 139 projects actually checked off green building points. She continued review of the Current Initiative Snapshot for the GBC as outlined in the overhead projection sheets attached to staff report. Following the recommendations of the GBC, the Planning Commission has identified that as part of its work program, staff has worked on developing or reviewing an opportunity to create a framework to do some outreach as it relates to developing a GBC. This may take some resources that may not have been identified pis part of the budget requirements for this year. Staff has moved forward with developing and submitting several grant applications to prioritize the development of a building policy as well as the sustainability visioning process that the Planning Commission has also identified as one of their strategic priorities. Those would fall within the two ending categories of the climate showcase communities grant as well as the community grant program through the :Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and staff is awaiting notification from those programs of the award. A block grant of $526,000 was received from the Dept. of Energy to work on municipal energy efficiency projects as well as to provide a secondary funding cycle for Acterra Green at Home programs. It will provide for more residential home energy audits, working with the home owners to identify opportunities to install solar, and working with them to do some DIY workshops;. If they don't want to have the a~ldit, they will be able to work on implementing improvements in their own homes; that will be the focus on the energy efficiency and conservation block grant. The other opportunities identified will go tov~~ards what is listed, that fall within the scope of the Planning Commission, including the building policy, as well as an ordinance, working on the land use and sustainability vision, hosting some joint City Council and Planning Commission meetings, hosting targeted focus ;soups, where community members can speak to what their goals for sustainable land use in the: city will be. The hope is to imbed that within a larger sustainability task force; the goal of this is to show that they want to engage the community in their vision for sustainability at the city and the best way to do that is by first working with the Kirsch Center to host a boot camp residents will be trained about the various Cupertino Planning Commission S~ August 25, 2009 aspects of sustainability; everything from alternative transportation to fuels, to energy efficiency, to water conservation. Residents would be able to come to the Kirsch Center in the community, and take course work on that in the effort to earn a certificate in sustainability; and that would fuel their involvement in the sustainability or stewardship planning process. The focus would then be on forming subcommittees; those groups targeting in different issue areas and developing some action items for the city to work on, implementing over time. That would require involvement on the Planning Commission with the outcome being a sustainability plan for the city. • Reported they had worked on various initiatives in the first six months since inception; ranging from performing a detailed energy audit to doing greenhouse gas emissions inventory; also educating staff on various aspects of green building so that they are well versed and prepared in the event that when the GB policy moves i:orward, they have identified ways to grow those existing programs over the next fiscal year. • She invited residents who were interested in learning more about the environmental services offered by city staff, by their programs, a~~ well as non-profit partners, and the business community, to visit the website www.Cupertino.org\ rg een. She announced the Rotary Club Fall Festival which will be held on Saturday, September 19 and Sunday September 20. An environmental showcase will be part of the event and the city is hoping to support the organization of that, so residents will be able to get directly involved in many of the initiatives being discussed. • Relative to the AB32 requirement for meeting; 1990 emissions by 2020, it hasn't actually been recommended as a requirement for city government yet; it is for State government and the expectation is that it will eventually fimne-l down to having additional requirements for municipalities. There are specific aspects of AB32 that do fall on cities, including different transpiration initiatives, waste management requirements, a whole plethora of new regulatory policies that follow AB32, but the actual greenhouse gas emissions goals are not yet required for city government. • For the $526,000 Energy Department grant, the application was specifically for capital expenditures; cities did have the opportunity to prioritize the development of an energy efficiency plan, but staff felt the city was in good shape by going through a detailed energy audit to better understand what the requirements would be or what their goals would be for energy efficiency moving forward. In addition, it was part of the ICLEI report that will be released soon, so they did not submit an application to go through that process. • Said that the State District Attorney is moving forward using portions of CEQA to enforce AB32 goal, specifically on cities as it relates to planning. If the city is going through a general planning process, and it doesn't identify greenhouse gas emissions goals as part of that, they could be held liable or in direct conflict with CEQA goals. It is community-wide, including the entire city. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Barry Chang: • Said he recently talked with Dr. Yoshida, E~sst. Secretary of the Dept. of Energy and she indicated that cities could apply for a grant for micro grid. He said he would provide contact information. He also requested a copy o~F the staff report on the status report on the environmental affairs and update on the Phase II recommendation from the Santa Clara County Association, Green Building Collaborative. • He asked if the Dept. of Energy had an economic stimulus package and what incentives were available for residents. Cupertino Planning Commission 1(1 August 25, 2009 Staff and Commissioners discussed more incemHves available: • Solar fees are $200 for residents; for commercial it is based on kilowatt hours. • City fees have been reduced significantly. • A 30% tax credit available for commercial and administered through PG&E. • Rebates on Energy Star appliances. • The City is not administering any micro grid; there available in the future but it has not been pursued yet. residential; California Solar Initiative is funding available that will be made Erin Cook: • Relative to AB811, she said she will attend a meeting where they will explore the participation at a countywide level in a municipal financing; district. The County is convening several cities that are interested in learning more and pursuing the California first model which is similar to the Berkeley model; a property taxed basis for adding solar energy and other energy improvements to your home and having it assessed and repaid at the time the house is sold. • Said the Bay Area Climate Collaborative is on the Sept. 9`~ City Council agenda for review. The group has identified some strategic priorities and has developed a list of ten actions they would like members of the Bay Area Climate Collaborative participants to endorse. Chair Giefer: • Reported that the city has funds in the budget for a person to do green certification on home remodels or newly built homes. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO:~T Environmental Review Committee:. Meeting vas cancelled. Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda reported.: • The Rotary Club has formed anon-profit club Rotary Housing Corp., and are studying the concept of building senior single family homes along Mary Ave. along Hwy 85 past Oaks Center, in the range of 18 to 20 units of affordable housing for seniors. Next step is going to City Council to present the concept. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: No meeting. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMNiUPdITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava reported: • Com. Kaneda will receive the award of Environmentalist of the Year from Santa Clara League of Conservation Voters on Oct. ls` • Relative to the city budget, the State takeaways, she said they were close to what was expected and the budget is well equipped to handle those. • The possibility of going to electronic packets for Planning Commission. A brief discussion ensued about the Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for September 9"', at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted. ~ Elizabet llis, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: September 22, 2009