Loading...
PC 08-25-2015CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPROVED/ AMENDED MINUTES AUGUST 25, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2015, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupe1iino, CA. by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Winnie Lee Alan Takahashi Geoff Paulsen Margaret Gong Don Sun Asst. Dir. Community Development: Associate Planner: Asst. City Attorney: Minutes of the July 28, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting: Com. Gong: Gary Chao Colin Jung Colleen Winchester • Requested that the first motion on Page 4 of the minutes be deleted as the motion relates to a Use Permit that was approved in May 2015. MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Vice Chair Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the July 28, 2015 Planning Commission minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Staff noted communications relating to the agenda item. There was a request for postponement of the item from Albert Hoffman. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Discussion of request from Albeit Hoffman to postpone agenda item. Com. Sun said he did not feel it was necessary to postpone the item because they have had discussion about the application; the case is clear and the public has received appropriate public notice. Cupertino Planning C01mnission 2 August 25, 2015 Colin Jung: • Said the item has been noticed two times, early July the applicant sent out a neighborhood notice that also went out to 300 ft. property owner radius of the Civic Center; neighborhood meeting was held on July 22nd; and a second notification for the public hearing. Also there was a website notification; posting of the notice on the noticeboard as well as the project announcement signs; also erected story poles to show the footprint of the equipment enclosure, which has been up for over a month. Colleen Winchester, Asst. City Attorney: • Said from a legal perspective there are two timelines that are not within the city's control; the first is the shot clock, the federal shot clock for purposes of determining a wireless application. The second is the Permit Streamlining Act; the Act requires that the city act within 60 days but there doesn't have to be a final decision within 60 days. The federal shot clock requires that there be a final decision within 90 days. Com. Gong: • Recommended that the item be discussed; as the letter requesting the postponement appeared to be due to the inconvenience of the requestor; and she felt it was disrespectful to the people who made time to attend the hearing. No other Commissioners objected. Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, seconded by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to not postpone the application as requested by Mr. Hoffman. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None (Art Cohen spoke later in the meeting when this item was closed) He did not conclude his speech. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. DP-2014-07, ASA-2014-10, EXC-2014-12 Complete Wireless/Verizon Wireless Location: 10300 Torre Ave. Development Permit (DP-2014-07) and Architectural & Site Approval (ASA-2014-10) to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility consisting of 6 panel antennas mounted on a new 80-foot tall tree pole designed for collocation and an enclosed base equipment station and emergency power generator; Height Exception (EXC-014-12) to allow six panel antennas to be mounted at a height of 66 feet on a new 80-foot tall tree pole, where 55 feet is allowed for a personal wireless service facility at Cupertino City Hall. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Development Permit, Architectural & Site Approval and Height Exception for a personal wireless service facility being proposed by Jenny Blocker representing Verizon Wireless, located in the northeast comer of the Civic Center property; the facility is for 6 panel antennas on a tree pole designed for collocation with another wireless carrier that would be able to use the tree pole to mount his antennas and there would be space in the enclosure for its own equipment. The other application is AT&T Wireless; however, they are not ready to proceed with their application at the present time. • He reviewed the project site as outlined in the Power Point presentation; in conformance with City rules; Height exception Findings, Parts 1 and 2. • He reviewed the justification for the height exceptions as outlined in the staff report. The height Cupe1iino Plam1ing C01mnission 3 August 25, 2015 exception is being requested to achieve the desired coverage for this area both coverage and capacity for wireless communications, and also to facilitate a future collocation by AT&T above the Verizon antennas. In order to grant the height exception there are findings that need to be made. The first finding is that the intent of the ordinance be fulfilled; which is to facilitate the development of a wireless communications infrastructure for the City that respects the public's health, safety, welfare and aesthetic concerns. • Verizon desires to improve particularly the in-building coverage for the Civic Center area and the surrounding area which is between Stevens Creek Blvd., DeAnza Blvd., Miller Ave., and Bollinger Road to improve the in-building coverage which is currently unsatisfactory for local neighbors, businesses, or emergency responders. • The emergency center is located at City Hall and emergency responders do not have good cell phone communications unless they go outside the building, as well as Library and City Hall users. What staff found was higher antennas will provide better coverage in capacity and is in general a pref erred thing to have especially if you are located in an area that is p1imarily residential where siting options are few or undesirable. A second finding would be that it would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Last finding would be that there are no hazardous conditions for pedestrians or vehicular traffic and this facility is located in an area which doesn't have any pedestrian ways or obstructing a public right-of-way. • He reviewed a map showing Verizon' s existing and proposed coverage. Also reviewed the noise and RF energy studies. • The design and landscaping was reviewed. The tree pole was chosen to screen the antennas from the two wireless carriers; upgraded fence enclosure will screen the equipment; and 7 trees will likely need to be removed. City Council and Public Works will be responsible for decisions on planting of trees because of the California drought issues. He reviewed photo simulations showing the existing and proposed views of the tree poles. He also discussed other areas and facilities that were considered for sites and reasons they were rejected by City Council. • He reviewed comments from various commissions and neighborhood and public meetings; comments summarized in staff report. • Staff recommends approval of both the Development Pemlit and Architectural and Site Approval for the proposed personal wireless service facility per the draft resolutions in the staff report. Also recommends approval of the Height Exception to allow the applicant to mount the antennas at a height of 66 feet on the 80-foot tall tree pole per the draft resolution. • Said the decision to use eucalyptus trees was made earlier once they had an idea of what they were proposing. A facility such as this where there are two rows of antennas both of them as shown on diagrams, 8 ft. in length, is difficult to camouflage with a pine tree. Using pine trees as camouflage for such large antemms was unsatisfactory and they have had success with eucalyptus trees which were put in at the Forum which is a newer tree pole built last couple of years by AT&T. The Forum had a grand opening for their new tree pole and the councilmembers were invited to look at them. Com. Gong: • Said she wanted to clarify that the RF report states it is less than 4%, 3% of the maximum pemlissible exposure for both antennas Verizon and the proposed AT&T; there won't be a doubling of RF exposure. She said that for the selection of the second generation, the most cummt eucalyptus is far superior for cmnouflaging over the pine pine is superior to the eucalyptus and is a personal preference which appears to be inconsistent with the neighborhood trees. Colin Jung: • The original wireless communications ordinance was a revision of an antenna ordinance that was already on the city's books for a long time and that antem1a ordinance applied to ham radio antennas. The height of the antennas was a compronlise position between ham radio operators and the City of Cupertino as a height that would meet their needs in terms of their practice avocation using ham Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 25, 2015 radios and the city's concerns over height limits. That is where the 55 feet came from; it does not relate to personal wire service technology. Relative to the heights of other Verizon facilities he refeITed to the map of proposed coverage and pointed out existing facilities. Said he did not have the specific information about the heights, but said the Verizon facility is on the Apple building. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said the RF report was vague; stating that it needed to be higher for more coverage and more capacity. A question for the applicant, just the relationship, whether or not it is a proportional relationship to height or is it an expediential relationship because a key element of what they are trying to determine is the height exception and driving the 85 ft. overall structure, is something to discuss in more detail. Are the cuITent site plans accurate that show the orientation of those antennas. Com. Paulsen: • Said as the former Director of the County Office of Emergency Services, and the one who ran the EOC during the 1989 quake, communication is vital and any EOC that has trouble with its wireless communications is going to have a much more difficult time coordinating emergency response, saving lives, putting out fires, etc. He asked if the height of the generator was high enough off the ground to stay dry in the event of a 500 year flood? Staff commented 100 year flood was contained within that drainage channel; 500 years just about all of Cupertino is under water. Relative to building shadowing, are there parcels that are zoned or potentially planned for higher buildings that would cause a building shadow that would impact the signal from this tower? (Response: No) Com. Gong: • Responded to a question from Vice Chair Takahashi. On August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a request for an exception at a maximum height of 74'6" (Cupertino High School light pole). Gary Chao: • Clarified the height referenced that requires an exception is 66 ft., above that is all foliage and faux material; the 80 ft. reference is not where the panel is going to be mounted. If interested they can talk to the applicant in terms of whether it is necessary or not to aesthetically make the tree more realistic; realizing that you don't want the tree to look unnatural; it needs room to return to its more pointed top. Jenny Blocker, Verizon Wireless: • Said Verizon Wireless is cuITently experiencing a significant coverage gap in this area, specifically the coverage gap is resulting in unsatisfactory coverage with both wireless and voice service for areas including the library, city hall, suITounding businesses and surrounding residential area. The improvements to Verizon's wireless service in this area will benefit residents, businesses, public services as well as public safety with the City of Cupe1tino. She said that normally a caITier presents designs to service only their own needs; this project was originally brought as a co-development project with AT&T so the design of the eucalyptus was specifically designed for co-location; and as mentioned will reduce the need for additional free standing facilities in the future. As well as a unique cutting edge design, the design of the mono-eucalyptus is also something new and cutting edge. • Said they normally go with a less expensive alternative such as a monopine or a faux water tower. Jurisdictions that have adopted in the past find it to be something that blends in with the area. This facility was designed to be in compliance with the code as well to not only service Verizon's needs but also to fit in with the city's preference for significant coverage gaps in terms of location and design, as well as fill Verizon's significant coverage gap in this area. Said that Bill Hemmett their third pmty RF consultant with technical background could answer questions. She reported that they Cupertino Plamring Commission 5 August 25, 2015 held a community outreach meeting in July 2015, came with RF consultant, only 3 people attended. Addressed their concerns; in addition the city asked them to erect story poles that would reflect the leased area so that residents and passersby could visually see what it would look like. They did so at their own expense. Com. Gong: • Said that from the rep01is and Vice Chair it appears that the higher the antennas are the greater the coverage; asked applicant why they were allowing the AT&T antennas to be placed there. Jenny Blocker: • Said when they proposed this project as a codevelopment with AT&T, AT&T was taking the lead, Verizon agreed to put their ante1mas at a lower height. Since then AT&T has encountered some budgetary restrictions which has halted their development plan for this year and is no longer moving forward. Verizon is carrying the project forward but still respecting the agreement with AT&T to have Verizon' s antennas at a lower height. • She said if it was up to them, they would want to take their position but those negotiations have not gone well and they are respecting the agreement they had with them in the begilming. Chair Lee: • Asked applicant why the search ring was not encircling an area of deficient coverage and said the search ring was in an area of moderate coverage. Jenny Blocker: • Said they tried to find the least intmsive alternative. There are some open areas in parks that are enclosed with residential areas; those are not normally preferred by the cities because residents use that facility; children use the facility and placing free standing cellphone towers often invite nuisances where children will try to climb it somehow or at least be intrusive to the use of the parcel. As a park it may not fit in well with just the function of the park itself. They tried to center in an area that was more of a conm1ercial area; as mentioned City Hall in this area has a lot of users so this facility would fulfill both a coverage gap and a capacity gap; the capacity meaning that at high traffic times customers are not able to use their cellphones; they may get the message where your call is dropped or it doesn't go thru at all, so the facility needs to be located in an area that will service that high capacity, so the coverage maps show more the lack of coverage where capacity is not illustrated as well on those coverage maps but the facility needs to be centered near the users. Bill Hemmett, registered professional engineer, Sonoma: • Said a regular paii of his professional practice is the calculation or measurement of RF exposure conditions; they do work for Verizon, Verizon's competitors, cities, and landlords. Said their job as engineers is straight forward, what are the levels, how do they compare to the standard. Some detailed questions were asked about the results of those calculations; first question related to the directionality of the antennas which show in the drawings was the directions that they are oriented. For purposes of calculations it was assumed it was maximum power in all directions, so numbers will be conservative by that factor. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Asked if they took the output power of the three ai1tenna and then apply it over 360 degrees or do you weight the power a little because you are spreading it over 360 degrees. It is the absolute power you are dissipating out of the antenna; Then you take 1000 watts for convenience; 3,000 watts and divide it into 360 degrees to assume that is the maximum coverage. Cupertino Plam1ing Conunission 6 August 25, 2015 Mr. Hemmett: • Said no, that would be reducing the actual power. They take the actual maximum in any direction which by their example would be 1,000 and apply it in all directions. The second question related to the distance from the base of the pole; it's about 65 ft. so the 3.9% figure, 25 times below the standard, occurs about 65 ft. from the pole at ground level; if you are closer it is less; if further away it is less. All the numbers are calculated numbers which we know includes several conservative factors so actual numbers we know will be lower. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Michael Soland, Cupertino resident: • Has been a licensed ham operator for 10 years. He is opposed to the project based on the fact that it will not provide the most public benefit at the particular location selected. Said he felt the lack of follow-up on alternative sites shows a lack of diligence and he believes AT&T has conducted RF interference studies around the Cupertino area in particular South Blaney and Stevens Creek and Torres and Rodrigues. They had RF sampling antennas up for a couple of weeks out of the past year, and he has not seen the analysis from that report in the agenda packet. Also a source of interference may be the antennas on top of City Hall; has anyone looked into that? Also not included in the report there was a high voltage line on site; it is likely going to be 10 feet away from the proposed tower location; will that cause a source of interference? What about flooding? A wet year is expected; what impact will that have? AT&T is not present here, doesn't look like they have plans to initially be on the tower, so the only benefactors are going to be Verizon Wireless subscribers and the people who will suffer are anyone who has AT&T or another carrier. He pointed out emergency services will not be served by this antenna like the mass emergency services, those are operated by hams in case of a massive emergency because towers will be overloaded by customers. The people who won't benefit are the vacant office spaces around here, all of the Apple employees who will be at the Apple campus once it becomes online; that should be taken into consideration when picking a new site. Phil (no last name given): • Said the coverage from City Hall was not adequate and more was needed. Said he was not sure if studies were conducted relating to antennas and health problems. There were concerns about children in the area and them getting sick. Said you don't have to be an engineer to see that the position of the antennas should be more in a park or in green space far from residences. When you are a resident you don't want to live near an antenna. He said he wanted answers. Suzane Lyle, Cupertino resident: • Said she felt the notification of the July meeting did not clearly state what was being proposed; she felt it was deceitful as it did not show a true picture of what was being proposed. Said attendance at the Planning Commission meeting was low because one of the area schools was holding a Parent Night meeting. She said she felt the outreach could have been better. Anna Soland, Cupertino resident: • Concurred with the previous speaker; just learned about the meeting a few days ago because a community member took it upon herself to notify people. Said although she lives outside the 300 ft. radius it affects her and many people who don't know what is going on. Poles may indicate the space that it will take up, not the vertical space and that is significant. • Expressed her opposition to the project; they own a prope1iy across the street from the proposed site; and walk and drive by it every day. Said she is a Verizon customer and gets horrible cell phone coverage. However, the proposed faux eucalyptus tree can only be described as a monstrosity; it will tower over the trees around it and has no place in this residential neighborhood. How does this tower fit into the Civic Center renovation plans? How will the space change when the new Civic Cupe1iino Plaiming Conmussion 7 August 25, 2015 Center is built? The site is the most ilmocuous choice because of the surrounding vegetation; the faux tree at a height of a 7 to 8 story building, will tower over the surrounding trees; just because the site offers more visual coverage than other sites does not mean it offers enough visual coverage. Fmihennore, whlle the arborist report dated April 2015 for Verizon lists the surrounding trees as in fair to good condition, the arborist report prepared by Debra Ellis only few months before for the Civic Center project lists those same trees as in fair to poor condition and reconunends their removal for safety reasons if certain actions are not taken. Will these trees be slated for removal in the near future elinunating the so-called natural screeni11g of vegetation offered as justification for the site? • According to the documentation provided by Verizon and City Council, numerous buildings were considered and approved by the engineer as possible wireless facility sites but were ultimately abandoned. One of those buildings was the Cypress Hotel wluch was considered in 2011 but was rejected because no agreement could be made with the owners. The hotel now has a new name and new owners. Another building listed was an Apple building which was said to be non-responsive to correspondence. These are avenues worth reopeni11g; it is the responsibility of City Hall and Verizon to make these conversations happen before committing to an alternative that will visually tarnish a good neighborhood. The top of the building is the logical and appropriate place for tlus equipment; not the backyard of many good citizens and homeowners of Cupertino. There are several acceptable candidates just blocks away; surely the city can make one of those happen. Art Cohen, Cupertino resident: • The intent of the speaker was to address the Commission in Oral Commmucation category on community benefits. As that portion of the meeting was closed, he did not continue ai1d left the podium. Lisa Wang, Cupertino resident: • Said she opposed the application because it is too close to the residential area. Medical studies do not keep up with the new wireless teclmologies. There are health concerns on long time exposure to the radiation causes of hlgh risk to cancer, especially for children. Said she had various reports from universities, studies from the American cancer organization and WHO and papers from the President's cancer panel showing that there are higher risks of cancer caused by the long term exposure to radiation. She read some text from a Gern1an study in 2004 stating that living withln 400 meters of cell towers increases the risk of developing cancer by 300%. Said she would choose her fanuly' s health over picking up cell phone calls. Said the height exception was m1acceptable; it is too close to the residential area. Said she would send the Commission copies of infonnational materials. Amit Karkhanis, Cupertino resident: • Said he agreed they needed good cell phone coverage but did not agree with the proposed location of the cell phone tower. Said he lived across the street but didn't receive any formal conmmnication about what is happening until the community member alerted the neighborhood. The neighborhood needs to be better informed about what is happe11ing. Said he did not feel due diligence was done on alternative sites; talked about Wilson Pai·k; things were said that it nught impact residential, the current location, there are residents as well so it's the same thing. Many cluldren visit the park and it would impact them; how can that be justified when two of their towers are on lugh school campuses. The third thing is having an open area away from the residences; looking at some alternative sites would be helpful. Andrew Brumm, Cupertino resident: • Said the residents of Cupertino ai·e not well informed about the cell phone tower issue. They need more time; postpone it, educate themselves. The technology is relatively new; once the tower is there, it is harder to take it down. Need to slow down, put the brakes on; what are the ramifications of this Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 25, 2015 EMF? Said he did not feel the need for more coverage in this area, it seems to be more of a priority for the people to be safe and healthy rather than have more coverage. Need more time to assess the situation; lot of studies from Europe on effects of low level radiation; not to mention there are schools in close proximity; they should put it in the mountains; people are not educated about the technology. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Bill Hemmett: • Responded to questions relative to the effectiveness of the signal; if the tower were twice as tall would coverage be better? Said it was a network question that he didn't have expertise in because he did not know the network design that Verizon uses; but said if it is too tall it will cause interference to the other sites. As the systems mature and they add more sites to the system to fill in gaps, those are operating at lower powers because they are covering a smaller area and if it was a higher power or taller, then it would interfere with the other sites. It is a complex network design, so perhaps a hypothetical question that wouldn't apply here in terms of twice as tall. He said there was exposure at ground level; if moving twice as far away, it goes down by a factor of 4; 10 times as far away it goes down by a factor of 100, so the power levels drop rapidly with distance and if you increase the height then your distances are greater by that magnitude. Jenny Blocker: • Said they had not spoken to the new owners of the Cypress Hotel; since 2011-12 there has been no further communications. Consideration was given to locate the antenna on City Hall. City Hall height is not tall enough; Verizon antennas are at 66 ft. which is not the height of the building. The new freestanding tower would provide more coverage because the ante1mas would be higher. Chair Lee: • Asked attorney to explain what federal law would prohibit the Connnission from making a decision; some community members spoke about their concerns about health issues and whether or not they can make a decision based on those health concerns and what kind of findings they are allowed to make relative to their decision tonight. Colleen Winchester: • With respect to the RF einissions, federal law preempts the city from denying any application based on concerns about health provided that the design meets federal guidelines. There was testimony about the design meeting federal guidelines, so there cannot be a decision made based upon the health risks. When you are looking at the decisions, you can be looking at other types of criteria not related to health; design criteria. In this particular case, City Council will make a decision based upon whether or not to lease the property. So whether or not it is on this property here in one location vs. another location those lease tern1s are all up to the City Council; it is not before the Plarnring Commission. The findings you are going to make are whether or not the literal enforcement of the provisions of the chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit intent of the chapter, whether or not the granting of an exception will result in a condition that is injurious to public prope1iy or property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Chair Lee: • Asked if they could make their decision on whether or not to approve or deny the application on the finding that not enough sites were evaluated or evaluated enough or exhausted further. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 August 25, 2015 Colleen Winchester: • It is a two-step analysis; the first step analysis whether or not there is significant gap in coverage; the second analysis is whether or not the least intrusive means have been established for purposes of this particular site. If burden shifting we say you haven't shown us this site; you haven't exhausted sites; then we need to say here are proposed alternative locations. It goes back and forth with the burden shifting. It is for the city to identify other potential sites if you are looking at a site analysis. Com. Paulsen: • Asked if they could make a decision based on what would provide the most effective coverage within the scope of federal law. In other words being at the top of a tall building might provide better coverage; if they were told that and now don't know that; but if they were told that they could say they would like it on top of the tall bldg. because it provides better coverage rather than starting at ground level. Colleen Winchester: • Said no, if they demonstrate that there is a significant gap in coverage, then you are saying there is a better way to address the gap. Said they need to look at the evidence with respect to whether or not there is a significant gap in coverage and then the least intrusive means, not necessarily the business decision as to whether or not there might be a better business model. Com. Paulsen: • So least intrusive might be putting it on city property rather than telling a business owner that they want them to put it on top of their building. Gary Chao: • At the end of the day you need a willing property owner as well; that is part of the equation. • Said that in 2013 the City Council had a conversation at their level about the City Hall site as a possible location, southside for a carrier and they looked at various locations within the Civic Center property, and at the time provided preliminary feedback to the wireless carrier. There have been conversations at the higher level City Council in terms of looking at pointing directions to them to have a facility at this stage but the attorney is c01Tect, they would have another chance to look at the lease and they would have to bless it in order for things to move forward. Colin Jung: • Staff and City Council have also looked at ways of improving wireless coverage at City Hall in the past and these are mechanisms that just improved coverage at City Hall area itself. There is a distributed ante1ma system that brings the signal from the outside of the building inside the building, and it is still poor inside the building because the outside signal is bad. He said he has AT&T coverage and must go outside to answer his phone and move around to find a spot that works and that is true for everyone else. Com. Sun: • Relative to the Planning Commission's decision today to grant the application or deny it, does the application still go to the City Council? Colleen Winchester: • Said it does go to City Council because the ultimate decision to lease the property is the Council's. The application for the cell tower, that decision is the Commission's at this point subject to appeal. If there is an appeal it is heard by City Council but regardless if there is an appeal of the Plamung Commission decision, the City Council has the ability to either approve or deny the lease as the property owner. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 August 25, 2015 Com. Gong: • Said there are two points they need decisions on: significant gap and least intrusive means. Asked for a definition ofleast intrusive means. Colleen Winchester: • Said there were two different issues with respect to least intrusive means; the first one is the site location and when you deal with site location you are talking about here vs. a hotel on top of a hotel down the street. If it is for the city; the city is going to deny based on the least intrusive means; there needs to be a burden shifting that the site is technically feasible and available and that goes back and forth. When talking about design criteria, you are talking about not liking such things as height; you explain why we don't like the height for example; you explain why, what is it about the height, where is it located, proximity to residential, colors and materials, etc., and how it integrates with the surrounding areas. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Regarding height, their hands are tied from the standpoint of health assessment; said he had questions regarding their RF radiation from the standpoint of making sure he understood how the analysis was completed. • Looking at the height he envisioned the 80 ft. tall eucalyptus which will be very large, prominent, with not much blending. It will be more challenging based on the sheer magnitude. • Said he was trying to assess if it were lowered does it increase exposure and therefore create an alternative issue because it would be increasing exposure which is not something he wants to do; however from aesthetics and fitting in to the site, he would like to hear other commissioners' input about height. Com. Gong: • Said she appreciated the 'before' and 'after' simulations which enforced her opinion that it sticks out above the existing canopy not even taking into factor that some of that existing canopy is going to go away. Said she agreed with Vice Chair Takahashi that it is going to be very tall. Com. Paulsen: • Said he liked big trees; he felt in the long term if they planted tall trees nearby along the street and other places, eventually their sticking out of the tower would be diminished; however it would be a significant feature in the near term. Said he did not personally have a strong opinion on the height presently because it could be screened over time. Com. Sun: • Said it was the third or fourth time he discussed the cell phone tower and each time the public has a different opinion but focuses on health issues. They are forbidden to discuss health issues, and he has voted yes on some and no on others. Said he agreed with Com. Paulsen that they don't need to think about the height of the tree, most cell phone towers are important for daily life. Said he was opposed to cell phone towers at the other sites because applicants didn't do good work on outreach, but for this one in City Hall and Heart of the City it is the heart of the entire city to operation and is critical to have this cell phone tower. Said he was inclined to grant the application. Chair Lee: • Said she has heard many applications on cell phone towers since 2009; each time voting yes; the applicant on this one gave reasonable answers to questions which is to say that they are trying to fix capacity as well. Said she was a customer as well and does not have coverage in this area. It would help; in the ill11l1ediate vicinity there is nothing 80 ft. tall but in their general vicinity there are some Cupertino Plaiming Commission 11 August 25, 2015 plans to build a parking structure or what it is currently there. The only way is to build up in Cupertino; the Commission cannot make any decision regarding health risks, only aesthetics ai1d siting. Com. Gong: • Said she agreed that the applicant has shown there was a significai1t gap; the tree will be extremely tall in the existing canopy and she felt that there could be less intrusive sites that the applicant has not explored since 2012, but there are plans for the City Hall/City Center development. As far as future aesthetics go, there is one constant, which is change. Com. Paulsen: • Conm1ented about the functionality of the tower; many people are abandoning their land lines ai1d going to cell service only. In case of a household emergency it is sometimes better to have good cell service inside the home. He corrected comment that the amateur ham radio person said about the cell tower not being useful during a big earthquake. As long as you have power to the cell tower which is assumed with the generator, certain phone numbers are given priority for a dial tone over the general public and those numbers are in City Hall, so the BOC would be able to make use in the cellphone tower during an emergency; therefore it is an importai1t function of that aspect of city government. Com. Sun: • Said he was inclined to approve the application, but the difference is whether to consider the height as one factor ai1d address it if they can modify the condition and set a height restriction. Com. Gong: • Relative to height restriction, is the 80 ft. which would actually be 85 ft. with the foliage, the minimum required; how low could it go? Colin Jung: • Said according to the information submitted by applicant to meet both their coverage and capacity issue that they added will get much worse in the next 18 to 20 months, and to achieve the coverage they want to achieve, that is the height they need and the coverage. Pointed out that it's the area that is covered and it is true that while this facility is in the yellow area and people are saying why is it in the middle of the red area, the red area is primarily residential and there is another Verizon contractor that is looking to put another facility in that area around Miller Ave. The facility marked as Cupertino is actually a San Jose office building; that site is near capacity and that is why Verizon pursued an application at Cupertino High School to take the load off that and expand the coverage that they want to achieve in the Main Street area. The proposal is consistent with the wireless master plan because of the consolidation, collocation, so you are asking if we can go back to the single; only if AT&T decided they did not want to collocate. Said AT&T does have an application on file; they prefer being on top; Verizon asked to be on top and were told no. Gary Baum, Special Counsel for the City of Cupertino: • Has been negotiating with Verizon and AT&T on behalf of the city on the lease. It is important to the city and to the Communications Master Plan and the cell master plan for the city that this be designated as a collocated site because we don't want two towers there. If it is not AT&T it might be a different carrier. The Commission should do as they please ai1d within their own jurisdiction; it ultimately is in the city's ai1d public's best interest that this be a collocation site. It was the subject of ve1y heavy negotiation because we are encouraging collocation to reduce the impact on our residents as well as to enhance our own communications. If it is not AT&T it is likely to be another caITier. We Cupertino Plamung Commission 12 August 25, 2015 would request and discourage the Commission from deleting that because it is ultimately for the city and the public's benefit. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said the intent wasn't to create a conflict with what the city is trying to do with regard to consolidation; it was just in the unlikely event there was only a single carrier on the pole; would it be possible in the future to make the tree smaller. It wasn't to undermine what the city is trying to do with consolidation because that is obviously in the benefit of reducing the number of towers. Com Gong: • (Was asked if her concern was the height as well?) Said she did not get a definitive answer, is the 80 ft. tower with the additional 5 ft. foliage the absolute minimum height that the applicant needs to aclueve the collocation antennas? (Yes) MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Applications DP-2014-07, ASA-2014-10 and EXC-2014-12 per the draft resolutions. S-te¥e-Gary Chao: • Said there was already a condition that requires the applicant to work with the city on landscaping and this is on city property so it is governed by public. Com. Gong: • Said she asked that the applicant reapproach the Cypress Hotel; they are under new ownership and it is close enough where it would fit with City Civic plan. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: • Received the Economic Development Strategic Plan update and an update on new activities in Cupertino. • Vice Chair Takahashi reported he attended presentations by the developers of The Oaks as well as Marina Foods; it appears moving toward fonnula of sidewalk eating, walkability, plazas, apartments, condos. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: • Vice Chair Takahashi reported that there was a 3:2 vote to proceed with a new City Hall with underground parking, 2 story, 26,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. with 10,000 sq. ft. of meeting spaces. Seismic risk was the underlying rationale for moving forward. Also a program room for the Library with separate entrance; current building is 50 years old; new building will be 90% more energy efficient; $68 million budget. Cupe1iino Planning Commission 13 August 25, 2015 • Potential change in the development process, make it more of a competitive process with a one-year cycle; any developer needing General Plan amendment works to meet the requirement, transportation, schools and community space benefit; propose to start next year • General Plan Amendment -no office in the current allocation -only 1700 sq. ft. and 122 hotel rooms left. • Transportation fomm hosted by Mayor; attended by Apple, Stanford and Uber. • Planning Commission working with the Safety Commission to address security. • Public Safety -neighbor complaints about auto and home burglaries. Cupertino is in top 5 safest cities. • Parks and Rec planning a retreat for the Planning Commission to work on a Master Plan for the parks. • Parks and Rec Commission: Report on Blackberry being opened for foot golf. • Shakespeare in the Park report. • Discussion of a new Collins ball field; Fall Fest Sept. 12 • Library Commission -Poet Laureate selected • First Hackathon in the Library was held, over 100 students attended • American Library Conference held in San Francisco in June, 11,000 attendees; two Commissioners attended REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No written rep01i. MISC: • Chair Lee announced a Pancake Breakfast to be held at Original Pancake House on DeAnza Blvd. and Highway 85, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Sat. Aug. 29 1h; 15% of proceeds benefit disadvantaged women and children (sponsored by QUOTA Club of Cupe1iino) ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on September 8, 2015. /'j ( ' /J !;} I ,...-:z.. ~~<7 .,-· E...-,~ /-:' .-!' fAfy f /j · c..k . .>"'• /·•<,,,CU.I ··~''--" ·~ Respectfully Submitted: ---.<'-/_,"",__ __________ _ Elizihe{h Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: September 22, 2015