Loading...
PC 08-26-2014CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION -- " .. AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. - AUGUST 26 204 TUESDAY -CUPERTINO COMMUNITYHALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 26 -2014, was called to order at 6:43 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tore Avenue, Cupertino; CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG - ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice -Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff present: Asst. Director of Community -Development: Gary Chao Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava Associate Planner: George Schroeder Senior Planner: Colin Jung Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting: Page 14, Com. Brophy: Delete: "Noted for the record that the meeting was not a public hearing" and replace with "Said that they did not have any public comments because there was no public attending the hearing." MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended Minutes of the July 2, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting: MOTION: Motion By Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Takahashi abstaining, as he was absent from the meeting; to approve the minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 26, 2014 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Brophy announced that Items 3 ad 4 would be considered together as they are the same item, Item 3 is a proposal for Hyatt House Hotel and Item 4 exists as separately listed areas because it covers a sliver of parcel owned by J. C. Penneys where some trees will be removed as part of the proposal. 3. and 4. DP -2014-04, ASA -2014-06, Development Permit (DP -2014-04) to demolish an existing U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, parking lot and construct a 5 -story, 148 -room hotel of approx. TR -2014-28, TR -2014-40, 102,200 sq. ft. that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and EA -2014-06, Edward Chan conference rooms built over a 35,400 sq. ft., 83 -car underground (Cupertino Property Development parking garage that contains tandem parking; Use Permit H, LLC), 10380 Perimeter Rd., (U-2014-04) to allow a 2 -hour hotel containing a restaurant 10150 No. Wolfe Rd. with interior bar; Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) to allow 8 Tandem Parking stalls and 148 regular parking stalls totaling 156 Parking stalls when 184 stalls are required; Tree Removal Permit (TR -2014-28) to levy allow the removal and replacement of 96 tree to facilitate the construction of a new hotel; Tree Removal Permit (TR -2014-40) to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the offsite improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel; and (both sites:) Architectural and site approval (ASA -2014-06) of a new 5 -story, 148 -room hotel and associated site and offsite improvements, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA -2014-06) for the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) George Schroeder, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. • He. reviewed the application summary for both sites as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the Power Point presentation„ including the application request, project data, proposed site plan, frontage improvements, architectural review, alternative option, parking, comparison with other hotels, traffic,_ tree removals, tree removal plan, tree replacements, proximity to residential/security, South Valley Connectivity Plan, environmental assessment, outreach/public comments, recommendations and new steps, floor plans, parking garage, ground floor and roof plan, guestrooms, pool/plaza area, contribution to Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement District, existing mobility conditions in So. Vallco, improved connectivity with the current mall and a Vallco Shopping District redesign, and noticing vicinity. • Staff recommends approval of the project, which will be forwarded to City Council on October 21, 2014, and recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other project applications. Staff answered questions about the application. George Schroeder: • Relative to the Heart of the City (HOC) and General Plan (GP) it specifies 45 feet for the Vallco Shopping District and also allow heights to go up to 60 feet if there is a retail component on the ground floor; the city historically has considered restaurants as retail space. The height is measured from the sidewalk grade as per the HOCSP to the top of the parapet. Also architectural features and mechanical equipment are allowed to project above the height limit provided they are restraining rooftop mechanical equipment and other mechanical features. He discussed the open space area. Staff feels that the building size is appropriate for the site; because all parking requirements are met as well as landscaping; it is within the GP allocation. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 26, 2014 Gary Chao: • Regarding parking, why is staff suggesting going with the parking study and not the parking - - - ordinance? It is referred to as alternative parking standard ordinance; staff did not recommend going this route; it is something the applicant decided. • Staff answered questions on parking, restaurant location, noise standards. The project will have to _ provide -charging stations; no mention of solar panels yet. Co6--G orig -- • LEED `silver is required for alternate standards, the project is subject to the city's new building y `- - `ordinance Staff -said that at this time there are- no plans to update the perimeter road in front of the .property; perhaps restripe it -for more than two way traffic. If the Vallco Shopping mall were to redevelop that would be considered, but there are plans to divide or restripe the road. City Mtorney: • This particular provision of the municipal code relating to parking is an alternative method for determining parking if certain findings are made; if we continue to have to use this alternative finding for hotels perhaps there should be a change in the ordinance. She said she did not know if that is currently on the horizon. Gary Chao: • Said the Council marked it as a project for staff to consider in 2015. It could be an item for discussion as part of the comprehensive parking ordinance amendment. One of the ultimate goals for the parking ordinance amendment is to look at something such as the existing prescribed ratio, and review them against performances of projects where we have learned what projects have been approved or historically written. Said they have historically supported X number of exceptions; it may be time to consider changing that rule so that the exception standards or averages become the norm. That may be the point, but the City Council has not set the scope of the parking ordinance amendment so we are estimating going back to them with your comments and input will'be conveyed to them in terms of thinking and scoping the parking lot ordinance amendment 2015. The Commission could agree to provide input to the City Council that they consider updating the hotel ratio in the upcoming parking ordinance amendment. City Attorney: • In amendments to the zoning. code/Title 19, generally speaking they come to the Planning Commission first for making recommendations on changing the ordinance; the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to weigh in on parking requirements or other requirements of the zoning code and present it to the City Council. George Schroeder: • Said there is a condition in the draft resolution addressing that if parking ever becomes'a problem in the future, the hotel could implement valet parking, increased shuttle service or other measures to reduce parking on the site. Said it is part of the application if the project is approved. Com. Sun: • Asked what the city would do in the future if the applicant applied to convert the hotel to'residential? Gary Chao: • In regards to parking requirements, residential takes on a different type of parking requirement because they are going to have to address parking if all units were converted to residential apartments; it is a different process, applicant would have to go through a different. public process Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 26, 2014 involving the Commission and Council again. They would need to get additional public testimony and Planning Commission input as well as technical reports and environmental assessment would have to be conducted again. They cannot use any part of the hotel for any other use or lease it out other than use it for a hotel. Relative to the retention and removal of trees, he said that they would rely on the city's consultant arborist for recommendations, taking many factors in mind. Com. Sun: • Requested more information on the issue of trails and pathways. Gary Chao: • As part of the Apple project the notion of connecting and enhancing the ability of citizens to walk or bike across from different neighborhoods is a very desirable one. It is a high objective called out in the GP. There is opportunity to realize the trail along the south side of 280 along the drainage culvert over a certain SCVWD land partnership partnering with them as well as contribution and help with some of the adjacent property owners. The concept is to create a trail system that will go from Tantau to DeAnza Blvd. through the south side of 280. The conversation has been initiated and it is something the Council has wanted to encourage; a study is needed to further citywide conversation including environmental assessment at a later date; more detail will be discussed at that time. In order for them to allow them to concurrently move forward in advance of the GP being approved, they would have to demonstrate that they would not hinder or impede any future possible connections. That is why they are demonstrating on the west side of their property; they are showing that pedestrian pathway that can connect from the south side to the north side. There will be more citywide discussion on the future study of the trail. Com. Takahashi: • Said he did not feel that parking was an issue, it is in the best interest of the hotel to manage their parking; assume the hotel would implement valet parking if it comes to an over -crowded situation. Was there mention of a wireless tower with the sign? George Schroeder: • Said there is a current wireless facility within the large Vallco pylon sign on 280 and there is an equipment enclosure on the ground level. As part of this project the equipment enclosure will be relocated to accommodate some new parking spaces. Relative to safety reports with regard to distance to the buildings, there will be a separate permit required for that piece of the project, during that time they will require demonstrating that it will be a safe location to relocate the enclosure. Com. Takahashi: • In the event that it is deemed marginal, is it up to the hotel developer to work with the wireless provider to mitigate that? George Schroeder: • Said the wireless provider will handle those details but also it would require the permission of the property owner. Com. Takahashi: • Relative to the trail, he said he was not clear if that is part of the development or allocation for future element on that portion of the pedestrian bike trail. Since there is a mix of trees retained and new trees being planted, is the plan to irrigate all the trees or just the new trees in place? Sounds like the health of the trees has been driven by drought and lack of water. Gary Chao: Cupertino Planning Commission 5 August 26, 2014 • Primarily over -crowding; they are fighting for water. There is going to be a future water calculation and irrigation plan developed; we have also a water efficiency ordinance, while we want to ensure that the high water usage trees get watered like redwoods, it is designed that drought -tolerant methods and strategies are employed as well throughout the project, so there is a condition to address that. George Schroeder: • Said it was up to the operator of the farmers' market to find an alternate location for the fariners' market and they would need to apply for another Use Permit. We heard they intend to. find another--.: -- location in the mall area. Com. Takahashi: • Said the stone looks bare, but is purely aesthetics; no major changes on traffic The impact given the size -of the project is minimal. It is more of a general Apple H and Main Street --and the combination of all projects going on. in that area; with the level of concern of the city=�witli-=regard to general congestion of that area in the future. Gary Chao: • Said they want the area to take up activity as it seems like a ghost town now. When Apple got their project approved there was comprehensive traffic analysis and the analysis accounts for that as well so its cumulative. The Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections cumulatively Apple'plus this and all the other recently approved projects have been accounted for, so we do value our LOS. The traffic engineer would be out there if there was a problem and there are other measures that they would be able to employ now based on the traffic consultant and traffic engineers now since they are. comfortable that the project will not degrade the LOS out there around the area. Chair Brophy: • Relative to the landscape plan, he said he was on the ERC and spoke against the redwoods; they are not made for flat lands and while overcrowding was an issue, so was lack of water and they are now requiring planting plants out of a water budget and it would seem that requiring them to put up new redwoods would just lead to future poor performance as the current ones. The issue of the map of the height limits in So. Vallco; the project includes the Vallco Mall, the Rosebowl site and some parcels; the height limit is 45 feet, however if there is a retail component, it would be 60 feet. In the Rosebowl project there is ground level retail and 4 levels of apartments above it. The question is the retail in this project that supposedly would allow 60 foot height and not 45 foot height is a 2500 foot restaurant and bar. Said his understanding from staying at such hotels is they expect very limited use of the restaurant and bar by the people other than those staying at the hotel. Is that a fair statement based on experience in hotels like that? Gary Chao: • Said it depends on the food; certain types of restaurants would become destination for customers, which they hope will be the case. The applicant can address that in terms of what their vision is about how that will be set up. Chair Brophy: • Noted for the record that all Commissioners have met with Mr. Chan separately during the past week to listen to his view of the project. Edward Chan, Applicant, representing Cupertino Property Development: • Provided a background of the company based in Cupertino; they believe the upscale extended stay hotel will bring a lot of benefits to Cupertino; unique in that they bring suites with kitchen and living area for travelers looking for more apartment type hotel rooms. There is a full service restaurant and Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 26, 2014 bar; 2,500 sq. ft. of dining area not including the kitchen area; a good size restaurant; also 2,000 sq. ft. of banquet space, cutting edge high tech board room, outdoor pool and lounges. The proposed development will be upgrading the site's interface with the existing mall as well as set up to accommodate any future development in the mall area, and the pedestrian bike trail which will connect to the future trail that will parallel out to 280. Chris Talhan, Vice President, Development Hyatt Hotels: • Said there was a high demand in the area for apartment style hotel rooms with a higher end food and beverage concept. Said the way the restaurant and bar area was reoriented by Planning Commission and staff is going to open up the bar and restaurant to outside which is very important to bring in outside traffic. Edward Chan: • Said they saw the alternative option they put together for the consulting architect, and feel strongly that the updated full limestone front takes away from the tower element. Limestone is considered a higher end material but at the same time it detracts from what they are trying to accomplish using a lot of modern contemporary materials; and stone is an older style and will clash with what they are trying to accomplish. Pointed out that the hotel does not have room service; it offers a destination place for people to come, get drinks at the bar, Happy Hour, as well as dining. • In response to a question from Com. Sun about alternative parking for special events, he said if there is an issue with parking they are open to having valet parking; also a shuttle will be available to take people around town. Com. Gong: • Two specimen trees Nos. 91 and 92 are marked for removal; is there any way to retain the trees as they are specimen trees and don't seem to be impacting the middle of the development. Any retention alternatives? Edward Chan: • Possibly, not sure where it sits in relation to the rest of the site trail. It looks like it might be hitting the transformer or getting into the drive aisle. If it is outside the area, they can look into that. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Dr. Darrel Lun, representing Concerned Citizens of Cupertino: • Said they got a late start on the analysis of the project; during the EIR for the GPA for 2014 they wrote an extensive review of the hotel in Cupertino and submitted it on June 25, 2014 with a second analysis on July 31, 2014. With regard to the property, perhaps there could be some clarification of the property lines on this diagram; will the project footprint interfere with any plans to upgrade the southbound 280 onramp which has a LOS of F, and will the trail impact the project or vice versa because it is in an area with parking, etc. so will that affect parking ratios? • With the recent fire at Vallco the project appears to have only one exit point which is from Wolfe Rd. to a constricted area and goes around the project. Will a second access road be necessary? It would seem that with a 10 ft. clearance, fire trucks would have difficulty getting through. Said they did not realize that the hotel restaurant constitutes a retail element to qualify for the 60 ft. exception. To bring some clarity to the matter, a loft hotel on DeAnza Blvd. initially was going to have a public restaurant; they decided later that they were not going to have a public access restaurant, it would be restricted to hotel guests only. Said he wondered if they could do the same thing, and if they are extended suites not too many guests would likely eat at the restaurant. Does the approval of this project constitute approval of the South Vallco connectivity plan? It seems like they are putting something ahead of the GPA and it is possible that they will refer back to this project and say that the Cupertino Planning Commission 7 August 26, 2014 South Vallco connectivity plan was already approved along with the hotel project. Said he felt more questions need to be answered and need a more detailed plan of both the project and how the studies for the Mary Ave. project from Apple is going to affect the onramps to South 280 because now there is only one access road, and one lane which expands to two; if they are going to eventually expand that area, would the project tend to curtail that? David Jeffers, Cupertino resident: '- Asked whether the brick or granite on the building will.be a fagade or something thicker which would possibly have problems with an earthquake; how is it addressed? Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Gene Fall Associates rep: • Said there are several methods of putting stone oii-a-building; typically something light in weight for the structural integrity, such as veneer on a composite panel, where it would still show the stone on the outside. If a stone product, a stone panel, composite panel that is lightweight would be appropriate. In most cases a structural engineer will do the calculation to make sure that all materials adhere to the code and life and safety of the building. George Schroeder: • Relative to the concern about the fairly low clearance on the underpass under Wolfe Road, he said the fire department reviewed the plans several times; they were involved early on to ensure that access was provided to the site and also within the site. They are looking for the most direct and quickest route to the site and that is generally from Wolfe Road and up the access road to the site. Staff worked with the fire department to meet their standards in terms of the aisle width on sites because the access has to be large enough to accommodate the larger trucks, with aerial apparatus, ladders, more of a taller building. They have reviewed it and the access meets their standards; there may need to be a few more refinements to the east driveway in terms of the radius they require but it is not expected to have to drastically modify the site plan. That condition is part of the draft resolution. • The last question raised about the possible impact of the 280/Wolfe Rd. interchange was to be rebuilt; either as already agreed under the Apple 11 campus or as a result of, he said as part of the Apple II study there was some contribution to be made to look at the further work beyond what was required by Apple. Is there any risk of making that an impossible problem if this project goes ahead? Gary Chao: • In terms of the property line question, the project will not interfere with the existing operation of the onramp to Wolfe Road. In terms of the plan referred to by Dr. Lun, the Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement Plan, is a project that will be dictated by the Council through the GPA process, and it is being considered in a study in an E1R that some alternatives refer to that, so a lot of how and when and in terms of the studies involved, to realize that it would be dictated and discussed by the Council through a public process after they decide which GP alternatives and what intensity they would like to approve. It started with the Apple project and Apple contributed monetarily toward the future study of that, but Council has to approve and give the green light as part of the GPA process and that is when it is going to be flushed out. The terms are vague because the scope is not known, so they will contribute toward that effort if the Council decides there is going to be an effort and there is going to be a project depending on the General Plan direction they end up with. Chair Brophy; • Said he felt the concern was more; are any of the alternatives being looked at, would they require the city to acquire some of this property? Gary Chao responded that it would not. Cupertino Planning Commission Com. Sun: August 26, 2014 • In the future if the restaurant is failing and is converted to another purpose, the entire base of the hotel will be non-existent; what kind of measurement would the city impose? Gary Chao: • It is a good point in terms of specifically regarding the ability for the restaurant to be closed off to the public; the Commission can discuss this topic and if they desire to enhance the condition by adding language that the restaurant shall be made to be open to the public; that would be an appropriate amendment to the condition regarding restaurants, so that if in the future for whatever reason operationally or other reasons that prompts the conversation of potentially closing off the restaurant to the public that they would have to come back to the city for review and approval. Moving forward with this approval it should be made open to the public for anyone to be able to dine, and that is the intent of the commercial or retail use. 114ur-r-io Hyatt rep: • Explained the difference between the Marriott Residence Inn and Hyatt Hotels relative to their restaurant and bar models. Residence Inn offers a complementary evening reception; Hyatt Hotels does not offer complementary reception, but has an H bar which is their signature bar, and they offer hors d'ouvres in the $4 to $10 range; it is for hotel guests but they do not limit anyone from the outside coming in. There will be people coming by after work between 5 and 7 p.m. It is open to public also. Chair Brophy: • If the argument for allowing an extra floor above the 45 foot limit, is that this is a concept that would attract people either to the restaurant or the bar; there is a conference room for 100-120 people and perhaps the parking study that compares the Hyatt to the Courtyard or Hilton Garden Inn isn't valid, and there may not be enough parking. Hyatt rep: • Said the Hyatt's concept is different than the Hilton Garden Inn and the Marriott Courtyard, but Hyatt is providing more stalls today as part of their project than what the traffic study calls for; it is closer to above one overall ratio in that sense, and if it were broken down more, they would still be fine on the parking side. Chair Brophy: • Said his argument is that perhaps the comps that the traffic consultant used, if they believe the restaurant/bar concept and the conference room concept is unique to them, you, the observations that the traffic consultant made would not be valid. Hyatt rep: • Said it was difficult to say, but it may be time of use; the parking lot is going to be full of people staying overnight vs. the meeting room unless it's a banquet, meetings are usually taking place during the day, so it's a balance. If there is a parking problem, they will mitigate it because it is in their best interest; they don't want to have a hotel that has no parking and people can't stay overnight. Gary Chao: • Addressed more questions raised by Dr. Lun Lum. What does this connectivity plan mean in the whole scheme of the future Vallco Specific Plan which also will have a chapter on connectivity plan? Said it is a conceptual connectivity plan geared towards demonstrating that the project will not be a hindrance to future possible connection concepts. It primarily was geared to making sure that they could interface the existing situation by the improvements they are proposing, e.g. crosswalk, cross Cupertino Planning Commission 9 August 26, 2014 perimeter road, frontage design, making sure to demonstrate that it fits into the existing network; and also looking into the future conceptually and demonstrating what they are proposing is also going to be fitting -into that. That is why the pathway came about in terms of a longer westerly boundary to prepare for that. • The Council will have a formal process that will consider some of the recommendations and concepts being generated by this concept connectivity plan. They can consider whether to incorporate and change or modify 'taking ori the additional public input and more of a comprehensive look at the entire region and then formulate putting that into the final connectivity plan as part of the Vallco Specific Plan later on. It depends a-greatdeal on whatever options they choose from the GPA process; if they choose one of the less intense options they won't need to change a lot. In terms of the overall access- -to the site we -agree with Dr. Lun-Lum thattheredefinitely needs to be some improvements _because it -is similar -to a-maze,`people. trying to' find: their way into Vallco; 'it -is part of the reason why some of .the stores aren't doing too well.- The ell.The property owner has no control over perimeter road or any of the peripheral roads or interfaces owned by the greater mall or the larger property owners within the Vallco district. Even if they wanted to they would not be able to dictate the outcome of it now, especially not knowing what the Council's decisions are in terms of future allocations, intensity and land use for the Vallco Mall. It will be one of the primary topics moving forward in the GP and afterwards in the Specific Plan following the GPA. Gary Chao: • Said that the project will not impact the trail in the future; it connects a pathway on their side to prepare for it. If the trail never happens, they will have a nice walking experience along the west side of their hotel site which helps buffer them from the onramp going onto 280; it takes the first step in enhancing that connection or prepares for it. Com. Gong: • Said that Dr. Ltm Lunt brought up a good point that the closure of the retail space to the public negates the reason for having the height; she suggested a condition be added that the retail space remains open to the public. Said she understood Chair Brophy's parking concern; the hotel is unique compared to other ones in the area since there is an abundance of parking spaces adjacent to the particular lot; if the hotel owner can reach an agreement with the Vallco management, their cooperation could, mitigate the parking problems and it would be in the owner's best interest to mitigate the problems. Said she was not concerned about the parking. The limestone faoade vs. the modern look is a personal preference; it should be the developer's choice, not dictated by the Planning Commission. Com. Sun: After the detailed discussion about the project, it appears the most concerning issue is still parking. He said he felt they need to amend the hotel parking; City Council in the next round of discussions can work with the applicant to do some alternative for the parking. The hotel is unique in that it is a suite or apartment style. Relative to the issue of the trees, they want to remove almost 90% of the trees on 280 and Wolfe, but he wanted to see if there is an alternative to possibly keep some of the trees. If the answer is no, they will have to redraw the entire layout map; but if they can keep some trees he said at least one-third of the trees are in good condition. Said it was not a very serious concern, he felt the most serious concern is the parking issue. The third issue relates to timing. Said he did not know when they would get into the GPA period; the hotel is one step ahead of GPA; when they have all the public hearings and the public audience coming here, they make all sorts of suggestions whether they can wait a short period for more input and put the hotel there; or the hotel can move forward. He said generally he supported the project. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 August 26, 2014 Com. Takahashi: • Said the design is well thought out, very contemporary and a good fit for the area; it will enhance the area in that south Vallco has been an area of a lot of attention with regard to how to energize that area and it is a step in the right direction. • With regard to Com. Sun's GPA comment, the chicken/egg issue, that came up in one of the study sessions, he said they cannot halt the development for the GPA, but from his perspective it looks consistent with where the GP is going and is a good fit. The site is relatively isolated especially from residents, so the fact that there really wasn't a lot of public concern demonstrated from the standpoint of privacy issues, noise issues, and traffic issues, is a testament of its location; it is well suited for this specific application. There is a shortage of hotel space in Cupertino, and this will generate revenue for the city from the standpoint of eeeupational occupancy taxes; and it is positive, as the Apple H campus opens, the demand for hotels will increase and hotel rates will increase without expansion of supply, hotel stays will be very expensive at least during the week days; it is needed. • From a parking perspective, parking is fine and the analysis looks to be sound; the study is adequate and as stated by the applicant is somewhat a self-limiting element; it is in the interest of the property owner to address the parking because it is going to impact their business. Much of the parking sensitivity tends to be driven in the city by shopping centers that have a lot of restaurants which tends to drive parking demands specifically in short durations, the lunch hour, the dinner time, and that is where much of the frustration comes. The hotel has a different dynamic with regard to a single restaurant, meeting rooms and guests, so I don't see it as a source of frustration for residents because the residents will be going there, not necessarily to stay there but to patronize the restaurant. Said he supported the project and felt it would do well in the community; there is a demand for the hotel. Vice Chair Lee: • Said she supported a hotel use for the space but had two main concerns. First concern is the parking should meet the parking ordinance requirements. Her second concern was that the square footage of the restaurant is small; there is only one restaurant in the hotel and it is not large enough square footage in terms of the whole gross building area. Said she supported the use of a hotel on the site and felt it was the most appropriate land use for the site. The proximity to other uses planned residential and existing residential of 300 ft. is appropriate; the connectivity with staff, the work that staff did to make it connect to existing uses physically linking to approved and existing development was good. Relative to tree removal, many trees have to be removed because they do want to maximize the buildup of the site and get every parking space. The exterior design of the building is an urban type style; it fits in with the remainder of the area; said she preferred higher quality building materials; she liked the limestone and different stone veneers to add to the overall quality of the project; it creates a nice juxtaposition with respect to breaking up a lot of the concrete and plaster. Said she supported the project and liked the Hyatt brand. The project is asking for parking exception; it is difficult to totally support that part and the second part is the small restaurant and meeting room spaces planned for with such a large gross building area. Chair Brophy: • Concurred with many of the points made by Vice Chair Lee. Said the site was appropriate for a hotel and for a variety of reasons pointed out. Said in his mind the restaurant and bar are not retail components; the purpose of giving an extra 15 feet was for projects like Rosebowl where what was proposed was a mixed use project with commercial on the bottom and residential on top. The patrons coming by for Happy Hour will overwhelmingly be the guests from the hotel with no retail connection to the rest of the city. • Said there were many good things about the project; however there are certain circumstances in the community that have made him decide that he would vote to deny the project. • According to the GPA currently studied and the EIR, there are already more jobs in Cupertino than Cupertino Planning Commission 11 August 26, 2014 there are residential workers in the city; with the completion of the Apple H campus that disparity will dramatically increase. Looking at some of the GPA proposals that various property owners have included, they are faced with greater increases in office and hotel allocations which would cause the disparity to grow even farther. There are proposals to increase heights on various. sites, height limitations and even beyond those it would be additional space for retail underneath and beyond that there are proposals for adding space well above that under the rubric of "community benefits". Said under the circumstances the Planning Commission owes it to staff and fellow citizens not to interpret the rules of allowing an extra 15 feet in the south Vallco area in the most lenient- possible manner. Said it -was a single use and he could not vote for giving an extra 15 feet; he would be -pleased.to see a 45 foot limit for the hotel but that is' not what is before them this meeting; therefore he was voting No. Com. Sun: Said he understood both Chair Brophy and Vice Chair Lee's comments about the heights and parking lot, and said he was concerned about the parking lot. Regarding whether the applicant is going to use the first floor as a restaurant to reach the height of 60 ft. limit, it would be wise to impose a condition to allow the restaurant to stay open to the public in the future. Chair Brophy: • Clarified he was not arguing against the restaurant, but arguing against giving them an extra floor by calling it some sort of supporting retail. MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve Application EA -2014-06 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) MOTION: Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Com. Gong, and carried 3-2-0, Coms. Brophy and Lee voted No; to approve the Development Permit DP -2014-04, to include a condition that the restaurant be open to the public. MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 3-2-0, Coms. Brophy and Lee voted No; to approve the Conditional Use Permit Application U-2014-04, to include a condition that the restaurant be open to the public. MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong, and carried 3-2-0; Coms. Brophy and Lee voted No, to approve Application ASA -2014-06, Architectural and Site Approval; Application EXC-2014-07, Parking Exception, Application TR -2014-28, Tree Removal Permit, and Application TR -2014-40 Tree Removal Permit Chair Brophy declared a recess. 5. DIR-2014-27, EXC-2014-06 Wireless Communications Facility for Cupertino High NSA Wireless/Verison Wireless School. Referral of a Director's Minor Modification (Fremont Union H.S. District to allow the construction of a personal wireless service 10100 Finch Avenue facility consisting of 6 panel antennas mounted on an Existing sports field light pole and a base equipment station located in a sports field building and an emergency generator located in a fenced area on a concrete pad as a high school (Cupertino High School). Height exception to allow the installation of 6 panel antennas of a proposed personal wireless service facility Cupertino Planning Commission 12 August 26, 2014 at a height of 74', 6" or less on an existing sports field light pole at a high school. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • He clarified that the location of the facilities at Cupertino High School, would not just benefit the high school, but would serve the surrounding area if it is approved. It is a two -fold application; one part is a referral of a Director's Minor Modification to allow for the construction of a personal wireless service facility, otherwise a telecommunications facility of six panel antennas proposed for location on an existing sports field light pole. There will also be a base equipment station and an emergency power generator. There is also a request for a height exception to allow the mounting of theantennason an existing pole 74 ft. 6 inches high where the ordinance maximum height is 55 ft. • He reviewed the project description. The pole is set back 363 ft. from the single family home to the east and around 438 ft. from the nearest residential uses to the west. There is an existing Sprint Nextel Wireless facility that was approved in 2000 located on the south end of the bleachers. Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be in conformance with certain city rules which include the wireless facilities master plan and also the wireless facilities ordinance. • The plan has a range of preferences for locations; these are siting preferences; the highest siting preference for wireless facilities is using existing mounting structures or buildings on non-residential land and a light pole fits this category. The least preferred location would be building a new structure in a residential area. It also is in conformance with the wireless facilities ordinance in that we have no specific setbacks for antennas that are located on utility poles but in this particular case we do have residential setback of over 350 ft. for this facility and over 450 to the west. • He reviewed the results of a noise study done by Hammett & Edison Inc. Consultants and a Radio Frequency Energy (RFE) Exposure Study as reported in the staff report, Page 3. He reviewed the height exception findings the Commission would need to make if they decide to grant the height exception; 3 findings, first; whether the enforcement of the ordinance would result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is twofold; one is to facilitate the development of a wireless communications infrastructure in the city that also protects public health, safety and welfare and aesthetic concerns of the public. • Verizon desires to improve the coverage in this area; we do expect coverage demand to increase, not only from the types of wireless services that Verizon provides, but we expect quite a bit of new development in this area which includes project such as Main Street as well as Rosebowl and the Apple Campus H project. In general, we find that the higher the antennas are up, better coverage is afforded to the surrounding area. It is important in getting as much coverage as possible especially when locating antennas in areas where there are few good siting options such as areas where there are a lot of residential development, where there aren't other suitable properties where you can put up structures to provide the wireless coverage that for the most part the general public demands. Last point is that, 92 foot tall light poles are already there; the visual effect is not going to change regardless of where you locate those antennas on the pole, whether it be at the ordinance maximum of 55 feet or what they are asking for which is 74 feet, 6 inches. Will the exception be detrimental or injurious to property improvements and will it not be detrimental public health safety welfare? • Applicant has offered two types of design options for consideration; Option 1 which is the unadorned option where the antennas are placed on a supporting frame and sandwiched as close as possible to the pole itself. Option 2 if trying to disguise it by putting a raydome creates much more strong visual effect than one that doesn't have the raydome on it. As a result staff is recommending if you choose a design option, choose Option 1. Other design considerations as far as mounting hardware cables, antennas, applicant will attempt to match the pole as much as possible, especially with exposed cables; and have them in conduits or bring them to the pole as close as possible to make them as visually unobtrusive as possible. Comments were received from TICC; some safety concerns related to the fact that it is a facility at a high -school and Commissioners wanted to ensure that people couldn't get into the facility. Design measures included 24-hour monitoring by Verizon, a 1-800 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 August 26, 2014 number, completely enclosed equipment so they cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel; since there are lights above the antennas, and the school district will be maintaining the lights, make sure that Verizon will train those people who were maintaining the lights and RF safety. • Said the neighborhood meeting was not well attended, but the neighbors were present at this meeting. Some concerns expressed were to make sure the antennas would not be sited on the light poles closest to the neighbors, which is the case. Also concerns were expressed in email messages about potential health risks of electromagnetic emissions. — • He illustrated the various coverage areas in Cupertino. Said in previous years there -was -a --proposed. cell phone tower on -the gym at Monta Vista High School:- AT&T never moved forward -with it and it was '6 to 7 years later that one -was finally built on the Results Way campus, within the search ring— as that AT&T was seeking. Thereis now -a tree pole there which provides coverage for -both Monta Vista HS and the entire Monia Vista -area. The federal government has said that the -..health related issues regarding radio frequency energy and Cupertino has already established standards that are well. below what are needed for safety. It is not within local government purview to set its own standards The approval of the facility on school grounds since it is a private project is within the purview of the city. If strictly a school project, the city would have nothing to do with it. The sports field light pole is a school project; it serves a school function, which is why the city never saw it. The fact that they are mounting a private facility on a school structure is within the city's purview and why it is under the Commission's consideration. If approved by the city, they will need to obtain a building permit, but the school will do on its own through the state office of the architect. • Staff recommends approval of both the Directors' Minor modification for the draft resolution as well as the height exception per the draft resolution. Staff answered questions about the project. Lease revenue will go to the high school district. Pamela Nobel, Applicant, representing NSA Wireless: • Discussed the increase usage of cell phones in homes compared to the previous ten years which results in a demand for coverage closer to the neighborhoods. When Cupertino High School renovated their football stadium, they put in 92 foot poles which are DSA approved for telecommunications, and built a facility to house the equipment. Bill Hemet, Registered Prof. Engineer, Sonoma County: • Explained that part of his practice is the measurement of RF exposure conditions for Verizon as well as other companies; including what the numbers are and how they compare to the standard. He explained how the level was evaluated as the maximum safe level. Com. Sun: • Questioned the major factor that affects the decision in choosing the set; the particular location and how many factors are put in the equation. Pamela Nobel: • There are a number of factors, including where they want to service, the map of the coverage and where the signal needs to be located. They need to find a willing property owner, location, and the local ordinance of where to site the projects. When looking at maps to see where their coverage is, it depends on the topography and the density and how the structures are; if they are very high buildings or low buildings, concrete buildings; in general they take that area and look at the different places where we are able to decide. The pole was already there, the school district designed the pole for a future carrier; it is all residential so there are no other buildings, it is the only location in that general area where a facility would be able to be placed. The church which was on the alternative analysis was not too far but wouldn't be able to have the setbacks there because their house is adjacent to the church and in addition to that there was no ground space; they have limited parking space to begin Cupertino Planning Commission 14 August 26, 2014 with, so it wasn't a viable location. Said that the pole is a viable site; it fills in a significant area with a good area of coverage. There will likely be more sites coming because that is the goal of different carriers to provide service. Vallco Verizon has a proposed site that has been approved on the AMC Building and they will work with Apple for their location. The schools as well as the surrounding neighbors are demanding more services; it is an available location. The school district made it known that they had a pole that was built for a wireless carrier; it is an available location. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. • Said that in additional to speakers, there were approximately 22 emails from various residents, all opposed to the project and all mentioned concern about health issues resulting from cell towers. He asked the city attorney what the impact would be on the city if the city ignored the federal law in making its decision and turned down a project based on concern about health issues. City Attorney: • When you hear concerns from community, federal law puts the City Council and Planning Commission in a bad position because they listen to the concerns, and understand the concerns but federal law states that you can't do anything with them. If you choose to ignore federal law then the city is subject to litigation and the court would then order that the facility be placed where the applicant requested. There would need to be evidence on record that the Planning Commission was making the decision based upon something other than environmental effects of the towers or the health concerns. Aidong Chen: • Said he opposed the project. He was aware of the rule stating no local government can do anything. He said he felt the wireless towers should not be so close to the neighborhood; they did not need more wireless coverage, they have landlines. Said that he just received the meeting notice today, if more people had known about the meeting sooner, he was certain the entire Sedgwick School and CHS parents would be present. Fan Pang Kong: • Asked the following questions: When measuring radiation, is it measured along the line of the residential area or under the tower; because the students will be playing under the tower. Is FCC rule sufficient? Is radiation the only criteria; are there any other risks to consider such as the tower may fall on the students; in the event of rain, students may get electric shock. Why does the height have to be higher? Is 24 hour surveillance enough? Andrew Neito: • Wireless coverage in the area appears to be adequate; Verizon is expecting more customers to be serviced compared to existing customers; and the higher density housing does not exist in our area so there is no way new customers will show up. The new antenna would be better suited in the Vallco Apple campus and the Main Street. It is more a business decision to put a cell tower at the school. Ruby Chen: • Opposed to the project. • Said that there is a lot of evidence saying there are no health issues, but 30 years ago the health issue of female hormones not harming women was in the forefront; but after 30 years, they found out it causes cancer and other things and the doctors advised no longer using the hormone therapy. Because there is no solid evidence saying the microwave will have no negative impact at all, it may be a long term danger to the neighborhood. • Questioned why the applicant would pick a site so crowded during the day for the students and during Cupertino Planning Commission 15 the night the neighborhood residents are at home. park, where people may go spontaneously or occasionally. August 26, 2014 Said they should have picked somewhere such as a go to a commercial area -where people shop Felix Lin: • Opposes the project. Said there were long term health impacts and it is not known how long it takes to show -up how bad they are. It is close to the crowded area where there are students during the day in a very.dense area. .The neighborhood -has very good reception; why .do they have to add more antenna there? Said he felt Verizon was looking to cover the data communication instead of voice communication for game playing etc:; and it is not a good idea .to establish such an antenna on the crowded area`to potentially harm people's -health just for the business sense. He felt it was not a goo&site; the map shows that there are -still 2 or -3 red areas; and -it doesn't solve the coverage issue at all.. They should be able .to. pick a better site and resolve the poor coverage locations. He asked if the revenue from the antenna goes to the school district or the high school. Does the revenue go to the school district or the high school? If the school districts are getting the revenue, why is the — school district not putting up a similar project in another high school? Yuke Liu: Opposes the project. Has 2 children at Cupertino High school; said it was not a good idea to install such big equipment at any school. The children need to be protected because they are the future of this country. Rui Xu: Did not speak. Alexa Sockel: Did not speak. Eric Cheng: • Opposes the project. Wireless coverage can be improved; the height of the tower exceeds the city's standard; from the map it looks like the coverage from that area is quite good; green area not red area. Sean Shao: • Opposes the project because it would affect everyone who is nearby in the neighborhood, not only the students in the high school. If a student such as a band member is on campus for a long time, it would affect them more than a student who was on campus for a shorter period of time. Huijing Jane Cao: • Opposes the proposal. Applicant states that they want the higher tower about 96 feet; according to city ordinance No. 92038, and the city has regulation regarding the height of the tower, said the tower should not exist a height of 85 feet above finished grade so that is against the city regulation. Said she resides in the designated green area and doesn't have coverage issues. The statement that CHS students use cell phones to do homework is false. Said the Planning Dept also questioned why waste the power over that area when there is already an antenna there? • There are also health concerns; the radiation power goes to 2000 high school students and also elementary schools have 400 kids and their parents. Aesthetically the pole is visible to the residential properties and public right-of-way, which is against city regulations. • Cupertino High School also holds many public events; sometimes statewide. The ugly monster, what the children call them, on top of the light pole is unattractive. Said he wanted to appeal to remove the original one and relocate it to another place. Siting Shao: 0 Objects to the proposal of building a cell phone tower there; does not want them to build the cell Cupertino Planning Commission 16 August 26, 2014 phone tower because it produces radiation. He will be attending Cupertino High School next year and wants to be in a safe learning environment. Yanping Zhao: • Opposed to the project. Has 2 children attending CHS. Said he was shocked that there was an assumption that cell towers were needed at Cupertino High School for wireless internet connection for students and for residential because residents had more hand held devices and they were demanding more wireless connections. Said that their proposal follows the federal standard, but the standard was passed 30 years ago and the last update 10 years ago. Said that he doubted the standards were updated and how could they know or guarantee that the radiation emissions would not affect the health of their children. The study of those standards are on adults only, there are no thorough studies on the effects of the emissions on children. CHS has more than 2000 students, every day they are exposed to those emissions and also near CHS there is an elementary school with 400 students, and another school with 200 kids. There is also a daycare across the street. How will they ensure the emissions of this tower will not affect the health of those small children? One side is their business needs solely to increase their business profit; the other side is the risk to the children; that is why he is strongly opposed to the proposal. Sprint has the reputation of the worst wireless coverage and Sprint has already had a tower in Cupertino HS and also the crossing of Wolfe and Stevens Creek. Said they know the effect of adding those two towers already. Shiow Wen Lee: • Opposes the project; has three children and is concerned about her children's safety. Wenguang Wang: • Strongly opposes the cellular tower in their neighborhood. The technical experts at Verizon are studying the safety issues and comply with the current safety standard; however cellular technologies is a new technology and what if the current safety standard is wrong? What if there are hidden side effects that only show up in the children after many years? We cannot put our children's health under this unnecessary risk. Look at our history, we have made many mistakes before; it often takes many years to find out the real side effects of something new, like what was pointed out in hormones for women, tobacco products people use to smoke and pesticides used on farms; all those new technologies bring the companies huge profits but the side effects to our health are only found out after many years. Are we really in a position to make such risky approval; what if after many years the children show serious health problems caused by the tower; how are we going to face them? Said he had the same question as another speaker had asked of the applicant multiple times; why put the new tower so close to existing towers which is not a good return investment? Said he demanded a direct answer from the applicant of why not put the tower further away. Feng Ye: • Opposes the project. Said it was not a true statement that most students have cell phones because whenever he has tried to reach his children at school, he is not able to because use of cell phones is not permitted. Referring to the alternatives, in the church it was parking in closer proximity to residents; with the proposed location of the antenna tower, it will be closer to the students. If it is a reason for not choosing this alternative, he said he felt the high school was worse. He challenged the validity of the map and suggested a third party do the map to provide a fair amount of the coverage. Ye Jiang: • Opposes the project. Said his home was next to the sports field at CHS, the closest home to the light pole. The posts can be seen from his backyard as they are very high, beyond the regulations and when adding those antennas on the posts he likened it to a monster atop his head. Said he was an RF Cupertino Planning Commission 17 August 26, 2014 engineer by profession and they do studies on the RF frequencies; there are no strong conclusions from the research, but from previous study it shows the research results are correlated to the sponsors. Said he wanted more data showing the new urban area, how the RF exposure looks, 'the meter by meter and what the RF exposure is closer to the cell tower, especially when right next to the post. Li Fen Lee: • Said she was a primary care physician at Kaiser Santa Clara, and resides 2 houses from CHS second - -closest to- the -tower. Every day patients are encouraged to live healthy; the exposureis inevitable every day, radiation, UV,- microwave, but -there- is avoidable exposure as well. There are knowledgeable=people to - decide- a -better, - -safer -location for the -cell tower; not on -the high- school grounds`where you really don't know the long term consequences. _ • The World -Health Organization (VMO)-said-tl -the:cell phone was carcinogenic a couple;of years ago rand everybody has been -putting the cell phone close to their ears for the last 20 years, time :will tell,-. there has to be a better location for the tower. She said there is a high health cost to the technology, but they should be able to put the cell tower in a safer location. Lauren Lin: Did not speak. Joy and Valerie Lui: Opposed to the project. Said she was certain all parents did not want their children to have cell phones unless it is an emergency. Looking back 30 years ago, do we really need any cell phone. It is not about cell phone issues, but the electric and magnetic field really can cause lethal brain cancer, which has been shown by research, especially the children who have a lifetime exposure to radiation. She urged the Commission not to approve the project; it is bad for the neighborhood. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Chair Brophy: • Asked for an explanation of the process for measuring RF exposure. Mr. Hemet: Said he authored the book Radio Frequency Radiation Issues and Standards. When they did the calculations they put in the manufacturer's pattern, the proposed location and built a computer model that shows all the houses around, all the buildings at the school, their individual heights and they projected what the exposure levels were everywhere so they calculated at every building on campus. The highest was the bleachers, directly under the pole; everything else was much further away and so it was lower. They calculated it at all the houses nearby, the maximum was 1.5% of the standard; again due to the increasing distance. One of the later speakers asked about the side lobes on antennas; the antennas do have side lobes which are taken into account and use the manufacturer's pattern which includes all the side lobes, which generates the 1.6%. It goes down rapidly if you move further away from the bleachers because you are out of that primary side lobe. Chair Brophy: • Also there was a question why the higher height? He assumed that the higher height in addition to giving better coverage also reduces absorption of radio frequency waves. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 August 26, 2014 Mr. Hemet: • Said it reduces the magnitude of those waves. He designs the sites and does the evaluation; the decision about height was made by the Verizon engineers. Chair Brophy: • Several people have asked questions if the neighborhood already has good reception and people use wifi instead of the cell tower, why the need for another cell tower to serve this general area? Response from Pamela Nobel, Verizon rep: • The technology is changing and is accelerating and as explained in her presentation, coverage is not - an issue as far as if you have your cell phone and you can say "oh I have two bars or three bars." It is one of capacity demand and when all the users are on at the same time or different time of day and people are using their cell phones for data, this tower will include data services which go through the cell phones; people are using their phones to get their email when they are not near wireless, when they are on campus. The site is not just for the school use, it is for the integration of Verizon's network and how it hands off the information from cell tower to cell tower. The product is sited Verizon, the sites are very expensive, half a million dollars to install them; Verizon wouldn't be putting a facility here and spending those dollars if it wasn't required or there was not a demand for it. As far as the siting is concerned, they sited the project in conformance to the hierarchy of the site preferences of the city of Cupertino and this is an existing tower. There was a comment about the 90 foot or 96 foot tower; they are not placing that, it is already there and Verizon is simply proposing to put the antennas on the existing structure, not adding any height. Com. Brophy: • Question was raised what happens if the tower falls? Is there a risk? Response: • The tower is 92 feet and the nearest residence is 350 feet away; if it falls it won't hit a residence. There is no ongoing power source that will create a shock from the equipment, the coaxial shielded cables that go up through the inside of the tower to feed the antenna; if those are severed, the transmitters won't push into that; there is no load; it expects to see a certain resistance to the energy coming out and if it is cut, you don't get that. They will not continue to operate if the tower fell; but they will shut down. Question: • Are there cumulative exposures beyond the existing cell tower and the proposed cell tower that should be considered in calculating exposures? Response: • For calculations, no; those are the principle sources in the area; if measurements were taken the measurements are totally cumulative; they measure all sources whether it's the wifi in the school, the wifi in the neighboring residence, the people at the game on their phones; whatever it is when measurements are taken; it includes everything. Com. Takahashi: • Said there is an overwhelming public opinion about the need, and long term exposure questions are legitimate. The American Cancer Society states that they don't believe microwave energy is damaging to DNA like other forms of radiation, UV, x-ray, etc., but in schools he felt the concerns of the public; not being able to address that or take that into account in a decision, means that they need to look at the other aspects which are even more confounding because one of them is height. While asking for an exception to be higher, in reality from a safety standpoint they would want it even Cupertino Planning Commission 19 August 26, 2014 higher than proposed because of the distance to the bleachers. • Said it was hypocritical for him to say he didn't agree with it because it exceeds the height because he would like it higher to reduce exposure, which is the public's main concern. He said it was a struggle for him; and questioned if there were other elements that should be weighed other than the height and aesthetics; aesthetics are really not a significant issue. Colin Jung: - • There is one often misunderstood aspect and that is the safety issue; looking at all the public pronouncements and it has been mentioned by the WHO they are not about cell towers, they are about handset use and the emissions generated by the handset; because for the most part the cell phone -is being pressed against one's head and that is what WHO is concerned about. It is a relatively new technology which has been around for 15-20 years and they haven't'found anything conclusive in that time period, but what's to say what will happen over a long term period? From a practical standpoint what the WHO says is the prudent thing would be to reduce the handset exposure to one's brain, and how do you reduce that exposure; you work hands free with the cell phone so it is not against your brain, you text instead of making calls, you limit or reduce the number of calls on your cell phone; another good explanation is that you don't give your children cell phones. WHO recommends that you use your cell phone in areas with good reception; because the little handset if it has to search for a cell tower, has to output much more energy than if there was one close by. If you have to use your cell phone, it is better to use it where there is not a cell tower so you are actually reducing exposure if you are using it near one vs. one that is far away. Com. Sun: • Said he opposed the project; it was evident from the applicant's presentation that there were many better alternative sites to choose from. Said he was concerned about the health issues relative to the cell tower. Vice Chair Lee: Since the Commission cannot consider bodily harm from electromagnetic radiation from the cell phone wireless facility, findings have to be made. She said she would have trouble denying the application on the fmdings of noise; looking over the noise it looks like it will contribute a minimal amount of noise from the generation of the structure on the level of the ground. Relative to siting and distance from residences, the siting seems to be preferred on existing structures; it is difficult to deny the application on siting due to the wireless master plan and in terms of what it says in terms of distances from residences which is over 300 feet in one area and over 400 feet from the west. It is very difficult to make findings to deny this application on aesthetics due to the fact that it is an existing light pole. Lastly, many of the residents came to speak on capacity and it may be the only one to consider in denying the application, since currently there is enough capacity and coverage. After more consideration it is difficult to deny the application if the capacity is already okay. She said she supported the application. Com. Gong: • Said she empathized with the parents and their concerns but the Planning Commission is not permitted to base their decision on that whatsoever; the four points that Vice Chair Lee made are valid and helped her decision making process. It would have helped to have the TICC represented at the meeting to know what the plan was for the Master Plan and how it was progressing. It is not even in play yet; it will be at least another year to two years before any conclusions will be made which is a long time in technology days. Based on what they are allowed to base their decision on, she said she supported the cell tower. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 August 26, 2014 Chair Brophy: • Said he agreed with Com. Gong. MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Chair Brophy, and carried 3-2-0, Coms. Sun and Takahashi voted No, to approve Application DIR-2014-27 and EXC-2014-06 per the model resolutions. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS; None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Brophy reported the meeting topic was the Hyatt Hotel. Housing Commission: No report. Economic Development Committee Meeting: Quarterly meeting held, Erin Cooke presented update on Climate Action Plan and stated that the draft should be ready by end of August; final review by City council by October 21St. Looking to make amendments to ordinance to comply with code and law for BMR requirements; VTA is looking at multiple solutions for transportation, e.g., controlling lights vs. dedicating a traffic lane. Apple objected to the Hamptons current request to build a new apartment complex; they want the height to be less than 75 ft. for security purposes. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: July Meeting report: TICC: Is working with green projects with Erin Cooke, to primarily increase the use of fiber optics and try to get more high speed internet access to the city; Parks and Rec: July 1St opening of part of the Stevens Creek Trail, Part 2; Jeff Paulson from Parks and Rec gave list of projects for fiscal year 2015-16, total $11 million worth of maintenance and upgrades that the city will propose, including Quinlan Center upgrades, Senior Center, Sports Center, Monta Vista Rec Center improvements, Wilson Park, Blackberry Farm play areas and golf course. Bike & Ped Com.: Bike safety program for kids; Bike Lane on Torre to Rodriguez; Public Safety: 4th of July the Commission helped serve pancakes; Fine Arts Com.: Book on art pieces in Cupertino will be presented to a city in Taiwan; 10 applications received for emerging and distinguished artist award to be awarded at the Fall Fest. Library: Oct. 18 ten year celebration of Cupertino Library; summer reading program and adults and children was well received; Poet Laureate is Jennifer Brown REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No written report ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Communit3f . Respectfully Submitted: Elizab Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as Amended October 14, 2014