Loading...
PC 02-09-10CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. February 9, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Marty Miller Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung AssistantPlanner: Leslie Gross APPROVAL OF MWUTES None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR 4. GPA- 2008- 01(EA- 2009 -05) General Plan Amendment for 2007 -2014 Housing City of Cupertino Element update. Applicant has requested a postponement Citywide Location to the March 9, 2010 meeting. Tentative City Council Date: April 6, 2010 Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 4 -0 -0, Com. Giefer absent; to postpone Application GPA- 2008- 01(EA- 2009 -05) to the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING The agenda was moved to Item 3. Cupertino Planning Commission February 9, 2010 3. R- 2010 -01, INT- 2010 -01 Residential Design Review to allow a 916 square Tracey Meng (Meng residence) foot, second story addition to an existing single family 21976 McClellan Road residence. Interpretation for the front yard of a flag lot from McClellan Road to the northerly property line. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner: • Reviewed the application for a residential design review for a 916 square foot second story addition to an existing single family residence; and interpretation for the front yard of a flag lot, as outlined in the staff report. Richard Meng, Applicant: • Said the need for the addition was to provide additional bedrooms for his children as their current home has only two bedrooms. • Said that he visited the immediate three neighbors to discuss the proposed addition; there were no objections of the addition by the neighbors. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; as no one was present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Gary Chao: • Said that a two week public comment period was provided, story poles were erected and plans were distributed to the neighbors. There were no objections voiced from the neighbors. • There can be a requirement for a construction management plan; during the building plan phase, staff will work with the applicant to make sure that Public Works is involved and that all the staging will happen on site; the noise ordinance will be met; dust control be provided in accordance with the County's Best Management Practices; and there is no obstruction of any public right -of -way; and staff will review prior to the issuance of the building permit. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 4-0 -0, Com. Giefer absent, to approve Application INT- 2010 -01, R- 2010 -01 per the model resolution with the addition of a construction management plan as defined by staff. 2. U- 2009 -03 Use Permit fora personal wireless communications facility Gordon Bell (PG &E) consisting of three panel antennas and three microwave dishes 10900 No. Blaney Ave. mounted to a new 41'4" tall monopole /light standard. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the Use Permit application for a personal wireless communications facility, consisting of three panel antennas and three microwave dishes mounted to a new tree pole and an equipment enclosure within an existing PG &E corporation yard, as outlined in the staff report. • He reviewed the location of the communications facility, noting that the closest residential property is 359 feet; and reviewed the design of the monopine which will be partially screened by existing perimeter trees. He provided samples of the faux bark used for the monopine and showed examples of monopines located in other areas of California. • He reviewed the Radio Frequency Energy (RFE) Assessment. The report concluded that the proposed faculty will meet the federal safety standards of RFE of 1.0 mW /cm2. The Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 9, 2010 calculated project ground level exposure is 0.25% of the applicable public exposure limit, and the aggregated exposure for all nearby facilities was estimated to be 6.8% of the applicable public exposure limit. There was no need to calculate the RF exposure to residential since the residences are over 350 feet away. The ground floor exposures are already more severe than what you might find at a residential level, even if it is a second floor, over 350 feet away. • Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit per the model resolution. • Staff answered Commissioners' question regarding the communications facility. Gordon Bell, Bell and Associates, representing Clearwire: • Said they worked with staff to come up with a design that fits the site well, originally looking at using the existing lattice towers that border the site, but those towers already have carriers located on them above the conductors; below the conductors would have been too low to go through the trees to get the microwave links. After looking at different alternatives, they chose the 55 foot co- locatable tree pole as a solution. It achieves their microwave objectives as well as their RF coverage objectives and has room for another carrier to still be able to shoot over the trees, should another carrier come along at this site. • He said that if the monopine did fall onto the freeway, because they have to maintain a 30 foot clearance from the existing height voltage trwismission lines, it would not fall into those lines. With the clearance and the distance from the property line, if anything were to happen, it would fall on the PG &E property. • Said that one of the other considerations was to locate it central to the property away from residential structures, but also away from thi-, day to day operations of PG &E, which is the reason it is on the southern boundary of the site. He said it fits in well with the pine trees located here. He explained the technology of the pine trees. • He said they would ensure that it is a state of the art monopine. There is a condition that staff will have the opportunity to review the construction drawings. In terms of the RF levels, they are distant from any residential structures; the cumulative level assumes the other carriers that are on the lattice towers adjacent to this site, they take the worst case antennas with the worst case radio patterns from those antennas, then they assume that all the radios in those cabinets for that site are operating simultaneously which never occurs because everybody is not making calls simultaneously; they do the maximum power output for each of the facilities and that is how they come up with that cumulative number; so you can be assured that it never going to achieve that level. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Bill Pabst, Cupertino resident: • Supports the application. • Said his company was in the business of doing broadband communication in similar frequencies and his interest was in the frequency ranges they would deal with. He said in his opinion the proposed location was a exceptional location for the monopine. • He asked if there would be options or opportunities to use some of the tower for other city, county, private or emergency use. Being in California, there are communications issues when an earthquake does occur. • An important issue with any antenna scenario is wind speed calculations, that is the other side of the physical safety issue. From the equipment standpoint do you identify the FCCID with the types of equipment that are going to be attached to the tower. Com. Miller: • Suggested that the speaker's suggestion be passed to the Telecommunications Commission to discuss if the towers could be used for emergency situations. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 9, 2010 Colin Jung: • Said that the city's Emergency Preparedness Coordinator has been working with a number of Cupertino neighborhood groups, block leaders, to look at emergency communications more comprehensively. They will be submitting a separate application not necessarily in this location, but in other locations, where there will be specific emergency service antennas being proposed; ones that serve larger areas and others that serve more remote areas. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com. Giefer absent; to approve Application U- 2009 -03. The agenda was moved back to Item 1. 1. ASA- 2009 -04, EXC- 2009 -02 Architectural & Site Approval permit to allow the replace - Dayna Aquirre (T- Mobile) ment of an existing 60 -foot tall baseball field light pole 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd with a wireless telecommunications facility, consisting of a (Memorial Park) base equipment enclosure and a 75 -foot tall monopole that will carry six panel antennas and the baseball field lights. Height exception to allow six panel antennas of a wireless telecommunications facility to be mounted on a replacement pole at a height of 60 -75 feet where 55 feet is allowed. P.fanning Commission decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for an architectural and site approval permit to allow the replacement of an existing 60 -foot tall baseball field light pole with a wireless facility, and height exception to allow six panel antennas of a wireless telecommunications facility to be mounted on a replacement pole at 60 -75 feet where 55 feet is currently allowed; as outlined in the staff report. • Reviewed the location, facility design, artwork, equipment noise, and noted that revised simulations were distributed to Commissioners. The existing 14 inch diameter tapering light pole is being replaced with a 16 inch non - tapering monopole; light to be mounted at the same height, the antennas are designed so they are in line with the pole and are above the light rack itself. The pole will be painted to match the other light poles. A sculpture art work depicting a center fielder at a baseball diamond will be attached to the pole; an equipment enclosure will be located to the south of the monopole and will be screened. • He reviewed the Radio Frequency Energy Assessment, Equipment Noise and Height Exception as detailed in the staff report. Staff is conditioning the approval to require T- Mobile to service the field lights on the specific pole on an ongoing basis. • Staff recommends approval of the architectural and site approval and height exception application. • Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application. Relative to the slats, staff has set a standard to ask for alternatives to vinyl slats because vinyl does not wear well; and the condition specifies that staff review them prior to the issuance of the building permit and work with the applicant to come up with alternative solutions. With regards to possible abandonment, Condition No. 4 contains provisions that if the pole ever gets abandoned, the applicant shall within a certain period of time., take care of it and demolish it to city standards at their own costs. Cupertino Planning Commission February 9, 2010 Dayna Aguirre, Sutro Consulting: • Said that there are many factors involved with determining the pole diameter, including constructability. The decision is made by their construction manager who determines how many cables are needed to fit in and how large they need to be. In addition there is lighting as well as the sculpture with certain bolts that will be housed within to hold up the sculpture securely. Relative to aesthetics, they try to keep it as narrow as possible so that it looks similar to the existing light poles. • She illustrated the coverage maps; they have some facilities in that area, but are not providing coverage to the specific area as far as the residential; the in- building coverage. This facility is going to alleviate some of those dropped calls.. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she recognized the reason for antennas in public places and parks to provide adequate cell phone and telecommunications coverage, and it was important to ensure that the aesthetics of Memorial Park remain because it is a public park. • She expressed concern about the safety factor of the art work sculpture, and the importance of ensuring that the artwork was securely fastened to the pole. • She asked if the city would receive the revenue from T- Mobile. (Response was that the city will earn revenue from the lease; approval needed to occur before arrangements are finalized.) Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Miller and unanimously carried 4 -0 -0, Com. Giefer absent, to approve Application ASA- 2009 -04, EXC- 2009 -02. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO Environmental Review Committee No meeting. Housing Commission • Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2009. Chair Brophy will attend the meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioner • Meeting scheduled for February 10, 2009. Economic Development Committee Com. Giefer to report at next meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Aarti Shrivastava reported that the Mary Avenue Senior housing MOU was not approved. • Sterling Barnhart Park construction began with completion scheduled for July 2009. • Reported that some oak trees in Civic Park across from City Center will have to be removed and replaced with new oak trees. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 February 9, 2010 • Proposal for PW Market has been finalized, will be presented to Planning Commission in March. • Work Program is scheduled for February 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled February 23, 2011), at 45 p.m. ' Respectfully Submitted: • ElizabeKyllis, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 23, 2010