Loading...
PC 07-12-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES JULY 12,2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY The Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Angela Chen Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Gary Chao Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting: Vice Chair Wong: Page 2: middle of page: Change "Sequoia Avenue" to read "Pacifica Avenue" Page 14, Motion: The Planning Commission meeting with the direction that the applicant look into tandem parking spaces; No.2 - to give flexibility so that applicant can work with staff to meet Com. Giefer's concerns about green space, meaning that they could either reduce the total FAR or increase the total FAR, and No.3 was to investigate the parking on Alhambra Avenue. Vice Chair Wong: Page 21 and 22; regarding Rl - Old Business, discussing the staircase, I asked staff to bring it up in the next meeting to discuss a typical staircase and then in the R I, I will talk further that it shows that all the commissioners agreed to the square footage, but that wasn't true. Page 26, second paragraph: Change "long process" to read "longjourney" Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 12, 2004 Com. Giefer: Page 7, 2nd bullet, Line 2: Add the word abut after changed. Line 3: Add the word that after wall, Line 3: Add the word as before No Parking. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the June 28, 2004 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairperson Saadati said he received an e-mail regarding the RI application. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 1. U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10 Danny Lee 10078 Santa Clara Ave. Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two- story single family residences in a planned development zoning district. Architectural and approval for two new two-story residences, each 1,120 square feet, in a planned development zoning district. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to July 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10 to the July 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote 4-0-0) Chair Saadati noted that Item 5 would be discussed before Item 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. U-2004-08 Sandra SteelfThe Alaris Group; 940 Stelling Rd. Use permit to locate Sprint Wireless Communication antennas and equipment within an existing cross tower at Redeemer Lutheran Church and to extend the height of the cross-tower to 55 feet. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: · At the request of Vice Chair Wong, staff provided copies of the city's Master Wireless Plan and a list of all previously approved antenna sites. · Application is for use permit to locate Sprint's wireless communication antennas and equipment within an existing cross tower at Redeemer Lutheran Church and to extend the height from 44 to 55 feet. · PCS proposes to mount 3 antennas to the existing church cross tower located in the front courtyard area of the church; proposed antennas will be mounted approximately 50 feet high on the cross tower. Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 12,2004 · The general design of the tower will be preserved with cosmetic upgrades to screen the antennas and the wirings. · The proposed cables and antennas will be completely screened from public views. · Equipment cabinets will be located near the southeast corner of the church property, enclosed by a 6 foot wood fence approximately 60 feet from the nearest residential property. · The antenna equipment and antenna panels satisfy the city's noise ordinance. · Applicant's objective in the antenna location is to address the poor service and cellular coverage experienced by Sprint PCS customers in the area. · Said that neighbors expressed concerns at a June 22 meeting. o Potential health risks or safety issues from the antenna facility. ~ Applicant's radio frequency emission study performed by consultants, the project RF emission at the ground level is .19% of the maximum allowable public exposure levels set by the FCC. The second story level project RF emission is .082% of the allowable federal exposure levels. The figures assume the nearest houses are 70 feet away, and in actuality the nearest house is about 140 feet away, which would result in less exposure. o Neighbors wanted to know how the proposed antenna facility compared to other Sprint PCS stations in the area. ~ The proposed antenna facility is similar to other Sprint PCS stations in the area in terms of power output and RF emissions. o Some neighbors questioned whether sufficient alternative sites have been considered by the applicant. ~ Ten other sites have been considered and analyzed against Sprint's coverage objectives and suitability standards. The proposed church cross tower has been identified as the most ideal and viable site. · Said the proposed antenna and equipment are consistent with the city's Master Wireless Plan, because the proposed church site is an antenna candidate location based on the master plan, and in general, religious facilities are also listed as appropriate antenna sites. · Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the use permit with the attached model resolution. Sandra Steel, Sprint PCS: · The site meets all the city and government requirements. · Applicant worked closely with staff on design, in keeping with the existing structure, aesthetically pleasing, mitigating any negative visual impacts. · A pre-application was submitted to staff, and Sprint incorporated all the city's design suggestions into the final design presented in the use permit application. · Presently, optimal service is not being provided to the Sprint customers in the Cupertino area and the church location is necessary to provide service to the areas illustrated on the city map. · Two alternate sites identified are Jollyman Park at Tuscany Place, and Monta Vista High School. Both sites failed to become viable candidates because they did not meet the RF coverage objectives and Jollyman Park did not have any existing vertical structures to locate the antennas on. · A list of 8 other alternate sites was also submitted after the community meeting, which is contained in the staff report. · Sprint sent out 95 notices of a community meeting to a radius of 500 feet from the site, and only 5 neighbors attended the meeting. Sprint conducted RF readings at the 5 homes and provided reports and documents to the residents answering questions they had at the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 12,2004 Vice Chair Wong asked the following questions: · Why a second community meeting was not held? · Was there any indication after the first meeting that there were more concerns and more neighbors who were concerned, as many neighbors are present at this evening's meeting? · Explain the noise level rrom the cabinet in the rear of the church and how it meets the standard. Ms. Steel: · Said a second community meeting was not held because there was such a small number of people present and the type of information they requested was given to them directly; there was not enough time to schedule a second meeting and staff recommended it be approached in that manner. · Said she received one phone call from a resident referred from the Pastor of the church; she was called and no response was received. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked staff if there was a requirement for two community meetings; and if the noticing procedure was for 300 feet or 500 feet coverage. · If the first meeting, the community was not available to attend it, would it be appropriate for the applicant to have a second meeting. Some neighbors felt they were rushed into this. · Did staff receive any concerns after the notice? Mr. Chao: · Said the community meetings are voluntary on the part of the applicant, although staff encourages at least one community meeting. It is standard practice to mail out to the neighbors within 500 feet of the proposed project. · If there were a lot of neighbors that were not available or not able to attend, staff usually suggests the applicant have another meeting. The decision is up to the applicant whether or not to have another meeting. · Said there were some phone calls regarding concerns that some of the neighbors may not have received notifications of the meetings. Some neighbors expressed concerns about the safety issues also. Vice Chair Wong: · Said a denial was recommended for the last applicant. · Where is the list of things the Planning Commission can look if that route is chosen? · Asked why the previous application was denied. Mr. Chao: · Said if the Planning Commission chooses to go that route, they must make findings that there is something with the design or appropriateness of the site according to the Wireless Master Plan; they cannot deny the application if the facility meets the federal standards in terms of health risk or RF emission exposure levels; it would have to be from a design perspective, a siting perspective. · The previous application located at Tin Tin Market was denied because the proposed simulated tree pole was out of place, and visually it would create a negative impact in the neighborhood; therefore the application was denied. Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 12. 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Said the applicant mentioned there was a list of 10 sites that the applicant tried to approach and for various reasons, he felt that they did a good job, but also they mentioned Jollyman Park and Monta Vista High School. · Said at one point he was considering Jollyman Park, the Sports Center or a city facility. Could they be accommodated since there is a budgetary concern; perhaps it is a way to rent space toward telecommunication facilities. · Is there any particular site for future applicants or this particular applicant that we can find, and why not Jollyman Park? Mr. Chao: · As previously mentioned by the applicant, there isn't any existing utility facility high enough around Jollyman Park to locate an antenna that reaches the coverage objectives of the applicant. For your information, we have come across another carrier, Pac Bell, regarding potential antenna locating at Jollyman Park, but because the rent demands from our Parks and Recreation Department were higher than market value, they could not afford to locate their facility in Jollyman Park. Vice Chair Wong: · Why not have it identified at Highway 85. Ms. Steel: · The question of why a new pole along Highway 85 came up at the community meeting. There were two candidates investigated along the highway; Highway 85 at South Stelling Road was identified as a possible candidate, but there were no existing tall structures at the site and no utility. Also we would not meet our RF coverage objectives as the site was too far to the south of the search ring. The second candidate was also along Highway 85 at McClellan; unfortunately a previous carrier was recently rejected by CalTrans in getting a lease application; Sprint was unable to find a willing landlord there. · Relative to the noise from the cabinet; she read an excerpt from a report: the background noise was at least 10 decibels below the measured noise as indicated, therefore the product is in compliance with the specification acoustical noise suppression. Com. Miller: · Was consideration given to the possibility of creating an artificial tree at Jollyman Park? · Was there an economic reason why an artificial tree was not considered? Ms. Steel: · Because there were no existing vertical structures and there was already one at the church that complied, it was recommended by the Master Plan, and they chose the church. Mel Douglas, Sprint, RF Engineer: · Said they looked at Jollyman Park and it was found that in order to meet the coverage objectives, it would have to be a much taller structure in the form of a tree pole, to build something there. · The antennas would have to be taller than the existing trees to give clearance to the signal. Com. Miller: · There were two other sites, DeAnza College and the site near the corner of Bubb and McClellan formerly Measurex offices; were the property owners contacted? Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 12, 2004 Mr. Douglas: · DeAnza College; that is outside the search ring area that we were trying to cover; the other site is also pushing a little bit off center out of the search ring, too far out. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked the applicant's engineer if the RFs from a tree pole at Jollyman would be significantly different than the RFs from the cross pole at the church. Mr. Douglas: · They would be about the same; the only difference would be the overall height of the tree pole in the park would have to be taller than the existing one. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked the applicant to focus on the issue of federal pre-emption of this area, some people have the impression that we can wave a magic wand and RFs will go away, when in fact we are pre- empted for the very reason that these are not popular things to locate anywhere because of the fears of RFs. Also, this is a 1000 watt facility, if this was a tree pole, what would the wattage have to be to get coverage; but also the RFs that come from this facility vs. the RFs from your television, your cell phone when you are using it; all the other appliances that surround us daily; asked the applicant to comment. Bill Hemmett, registered professional engineer: .. Said that a regular part of his firm's practice is the calculation and measurement of RF exposure conditions; hired by radio and TV stations, and by carriers such as Sprint, by cities and counties, and by neighbors. · As engineers, their role is to evaluate what are the exposure conditions and compare them against the standards. Responded to the following issues raised: · Pre-emption is the text of the act of congress which said "no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the standards." The FCC in response to this adopted standards and in the report on this proposal, when we say that it is .19%, 500 times below the standard, that is what we are referring to, a standard that was adopted at the behest of congress. · Comparisons with cell phones: Cell phones will emit, depending on the phone and model, levels comparable to the standard, approaching the standard; the highest level any place for this facility calculated would be 500 times below and that is a conservative figure; with actual measurements, it was lower. · Conditions inside a home: we do a lot of measurements inside homes, apartments, a lot of places have these kind of facilities mounted on them and we often go inside apartments very near antennas. A meter is given to the resident to walk around the home and measure a variety of locations. When they are done, I always say do you have a microwave oven; put something in the microwave, put it on, vastly higher levels for the microwave oven, still compliant with the standards, but it is a very graphic qualitative distinction for people to make; the exposure levels from a bay station are very low ambient levels compared to the concentrated levels from radio frequency devices. Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 12, 2004 · TV sets generally don't emit radio frequency energy; sometimes fluorescent lights will be emitters, they will use radio frequency devices to trigger the fluorescents. There are many devices, baby monitors, consumer electronics use radio frequency energy. Mr. Piasecki: · Could you address if these facilities are running 24 hours a day and emitting 1/500'h of the federal standard, would the longevity of that impact change any of the federal standards or change in light of what all the other frequencies that we are feeling. Mr. Hemmett: · The standards are based on decades of research; in a variety of situations, it may be ecological research of watching populations over longer period of time, research that is done in labs, research in animals over several generations all of those have shown in the opinion of the people who set the standards that it is threshold occurrence, that when you are in a field of certain level or higher you can start to see effects. Those may be behavioral effects, reversible effects, but it is a threshold; exposures below that level show there are no effects. The safety standards are shown with a 50 times safety factor in it; when I say we are 500 times below the standard, the standard itself it set 50 times below that threshold level, and the standards are intended to cover populations of all times, young, old, healthy, infirm, for exposures 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, continuously. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked why the federal government would pre-empt local authority in this area. Mr. Hemmett: · As a professional engineer, it is a legal or political question. · Noted that at the time the FCC again at the behest of congress was assigning blocks of frequencies for this service that they wanted to have available to commerce in the U.S. that was the same time at which they adopted the pre-emption, so the logical conclusion would be that this was in order to facilitate the rollout, but it is speculative. Mr. Piasecki: · That is a reasonable speculation that if given an opportunity, especially when neighbors come forward with many fears about RFs, local jurisdictions as a rule would deny them; the federal standards have probably been established and local discretion pre-empted so this industry could proceed ahead, because the industry would be severely compromised if we were making the decision at the local level. Mr. Hemmett: · That was the case prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act that contained the language read; prior to that, the standards would be eXplained and how it was adopted, because every commission, council had to be its own decision making body on the validity of the standards. That is no longer the case. Com. Miller: · Want to clarify that the comparison between your individual cell phone and the radiation from this tower; if I use my cell phone five or six times a day for a total of Y, hour, how does that compare in terms of amount of radiation I would receive that day, in comparison to being exposed to this tower for a full 24 hours. Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 12,2004 Mr. Hemmett: · The standards are based for non-ionizing radiation which is radio frequency energy; they are not based on an accumulating doses, that concept is used in ionizing radiation such as you would get with x-rays or other medical uses of very high energy; there is a band of wave lengths that our eyes are sensitive to called light, above that are ultra violet and the top of the ultra violet starts to become ionizing, those waves have enough energy to go into a molecule and break off an electron, that is called ionization. Radio frequencies are below light, below infrared; then there is the radio frequencies; these are considered non-ionizing, so the research tells us the science tells us it is not a cumulating effect the way it is in ionizing radiation; so long as it meets the standards, time is not an issue. Com. Miller: · The cell phone gives basically 500 times the radiation that this tower will give. Mr. Hemmett: · Said it was a typical number; in the studies done and the studies that get the press, they are talking about the use of a handset rather than a placement of the towers. Chair Saadati: · Would the RF change with time as the equipment gets older? Mr. Hemmett: · It shouldn't; the units are not variable; they are put in and they run, said he knew of no circumstance under which that would occur; that might be a maintenance question but studies are based on the maximum condition. The carrier may chose not to run it at maximum, but studies are based to be conservative on the maximum capability. Vice Chair Wong: · So the federal government says that we can't deny it as long as it meets the standard, but what about location. Com. Miller mentioned some locations; what about the retail area along DeAnza, as long as it is within that circle; I think Jollyman Park is a good idea if the neighborhood community wants it; you can put an artificial tree not too closely where some dense trees are, could that work as long as they are within the circle of your applicant. They don't necessarily have to chose this particular location as long as they are within the circle; it just meets RF standards Mr. Hemmett: · The question of siting within their search ring would be a question for Sprint. · Interpreted the question to be, "would antennas on the tree pole comply with the standard?" Said there was no reason why they couldn't. Com. Miller: · Some of the concerns of the community relate to the exposure that their children are receiving, and in terms of the standard, was it done on adults, or was it done on children. Can you address that issue? Planning Commission Minutes 9 July \ 2, 2004 Mr. Hemmett: · Much of the research was done on populations of varying age, much research was done on generations; part of the reason the standard has such a large safety factor in it is precisely to make it applicable to the young as well as the adult population. Mr. Piasecki: · He has yet to talk about how the RF declines with the distance from the source; we talked about the 1/500'h but what happens at ground level, right underneath it, what happens when you are standing on Stelling, what if you are in the middle of the play area at Jollyman Park, do you have a sense ofthat? Mr. Hemmett: Science tells us and observation at hundreds of sites tells us that the energy drops off as the square of the distance. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Judy O'Brien, Orline Conrt: · Opposed to project. · Have had some community meetings within the homes. · Addressed the small number of residents at the June 22nd community meeting. · Felt the notification was confusing; nothing said they were looking at 1000 watts radiation communication tower; only that one was coming and there would be a meeting the next week. · Said it was an inconvenient time to hold meeting because of graduations, end of school year, starting of the summer. · Understood that Sprint has been discussing the location with the church for over a year and neighbors were not informed until the applicant sent notification three weeks ago. · Neighbors don't feel they have had ample time to respond and signed a petition. · Neighbors are concerned that one property owner, the church, can agree to the location; property owners feel they are being held hostage that one property owner can make the decision about the location. · Another concern is that the church was also concerned about the radiation levels in the beginning; and after reading the documentation supplied by Sprint, made the informed decision to move forward with the location of the antenna. · Said she was concerned although she did not return Ms. Steel's phone call. Paul Cheng, Dumas Drive: · Opposed to project. · Said he would speak also on behalf of Pinky Lee and Anthony Wong. · Said he was requesting denial of the permit because he felt it was a public nuisance. · Presented petition signed by 134 residents for the record. · Major concerns are health, stealth antenna, impact on property, appearance, debt issue, money, and moral issues. · Health: According to Sprint group, proposed antenna and equipment uses a maximum of 1,000 watts of effective radiation. We believe that although the antenna meets all FCC standards today, which are only a guideline; it has the potential to cause injury to the human body, particularly children. The FCC may be able to make such a claim today, but there is no guarantee they will be able to guarantee such a claim until a formal study on the effects of radiation has been fully completed. There are numerous studies underway currently; some of which are listed on petition letter and some of them will be discussed letter by other citizens. Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 12, 2004 But tonight I want to bring to your attention about the facts that currently, there are about 2,000 such pending cases in Europe ~lone, but closer to our hearts, in our neighborhood there is a example of the horrific effects of electrical wave on human body. There is a very well liked couple who has been living in our neighborhood since 1961, the lady has been diagnosed with electrical sensitivity syndrome, she cannot expose herself to electrical appliances such as microwave over an extended period of time; she sleeps in her garage every night; the couple is here tonight and will talk about the pains they have to go through and this situation cannot be taken lightly. If her health deteriorates after the installation of this antenna, there may be long term liabilities and legal consequences to the city. I personally don't think we can ask the couple to leave our community because of this problem, since they have been living here for over 40 years. Another example we face daily is x-rays which we go through once or twice a year; but with the installation of this antenna, we may be exposed to the radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and I wish somebody could tell me the cumulative effect of radiation. · Stealth antenna: we have concerns about a potentially dangerous antenna, which is disguised under the umbrella of a Christian crucifix. The impact on property, we believe it is a seller's nightmare; if the antenna is installed, any sellers of property may have to disclose there is a potentially dangerous antenna hidden somewhere maybe as close as 300 feet from your property. The appearance is not clear to us, how big is the antenna, what is the diameter of the dish, the tower, it could be a huge eyesore. · Asked why they were bringing back a dead issue. The Planning Commission unanimously voted down a similar installation in the Tin Tin Market, and said they did not understand why they are trying to sell it as a different idea with a crucifix to a different group of citizens. · The money or moral issue: While we in a church congregation may be suffering by this installation, the non profit seems to be the only one who profits. · Respectfully requested the city to consider other residential locations. Said it did not pay, and was not fair for all of them to give up their lives, and their enjoyment of Jollyman Park to risk their children's health for this installation. Com. Miller: · Asked Mr. Cheng what he would consider a safe distance to locate the antenna. · Noted that the applicant had a consultant to determine the safe location ofthe antenna. Mr. Cheng: · Said he would have a consultant study where the safe distance would be and paid for by him, not the applicant. · Said he would prefer the antenna not be located in his neighborhood. Ervin Cantwell, Huntridge Lane: · Opposed to project. · Said he visited a location where there was an artificial tree used for an antenna location, and it resembled a beautiful tree. · Questioned whether it was possible to have one go up to 55 feet. · Resides about 100 feet from the church. · Said that because of his wife's illness of electrical sensitivities, they wanted to go on record opposing the installation of the antenna as it could affect not only her health, but others in a negative way. · Although Sprint has stated there would be no significant change in the amount of exposure to individuals, how can they be sure; it is a comparatively new technology, no one knows what the long term effects will be and additionally there are already antennas in the Cupertino area. Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 12, 2004 · To put an antenna in a neighborhood next to a heavily used park on one side and residences on three sides, seems inconceivable, as is the decision of the church to allow this antenna to be installed on church property where many people gather daily. · If this installation is allowed to proceed, there is no more they can do to their home of 43 years to make it livable for Mrs. Cantwell; there is no computer, no microwaves and no cable tv. The circuit breaker to the 220 oven is turned off, never used; the refrigerator is unplugged when she is in the house; and they sleep in the garage and have been since 1994. · Stated for the record that they sincerely hope that the Planning Commission will take the above-mentioned matters in consideration in making their decision. Robert Simon, De Foe Drive: · Opposed to project. · Proposed the Btibb and McClellan site be considered rather than the church location, since it is not a heavily residential area and obviates the need for controversy. Hengfu Hsu, Huntridge Lane: · Opposed to project. · Has two small children that use Jollyman Park as a playground. · There are numerous studies clearly showing that EMF damage from cell phones and transmission towers can happen to children and teenagers; said he was concerned about the proposal of bringing cell phone antennas into the residential neighborhood and next to the busy playground. · Los Angeles Unified School Board in June 2000 passed a resolution opposing the future placement of mobile phone communication towers on or adjacent to school property because ofthe potential health effects. · A parent advisory committee in British Columbia, Canada also passed a resolution banning antennas in residential areas. · Quoted several articles in reports and magazines that discussed health effects on adolescents and children. · Said he did not want children and grandchildren to become the radiation guinea pigs for cell phone antennas. Daniel Lee, Jollyman Lane: · Opposed to project. · Said he felt to put an antenna on the church cross desecrated the holiness which the church stands for. · Resides next to the church, and does not feel comfortable with the antenna beaming down on his home 24 hours a day, which negatively affects their quality of life. · Asked for support to deny the application for the installation of the antenna. Rex Tsou, JoIlyman Lane: · Opposed to project. · Has resided in Cupertino 17 years. · Before receiving the notification recently, had no idea about the application for the antenna which has been going on for about a year. · Said it was unacceptable that the antenna would be installed only 200 feet from his home. · Questioned whether the applicant or the church has made a full disclosure to the neighbors, the church attendees and the people using Jollyman Park. Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 12, 2004 · Said he felt the disguised antenna on the cross that may be harmful to people, even though the applicant is arguing the level is acceptable; they are only guidelines and who can guarantee them. · Devalues the property and puts negative psychological impact on people in the neighborhood and city of Cupertino. · Urged the applicant and the church to withdraw the application. · Said "Shame on you" to the applicant and church if they insist on moving forward with the application. · Urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Dr. Katz, Huntridge Lane: · Opposed to project. · Said she was a medical doctor, board certified in occupational and environmental health; doctor at Lawrence Livermore Lab; and assistant professor at Stanford Medical Center. · Said that the notice of the meeting was short notice. · Lives next door to Ervin and Elaine Cantwell and has treated Ms. Cantwell for seizure disorder numerous times. · The neighbors want the Cantwells to remain in the neighborhood and the project would increase Mrs. Cantwell's risk of seizures. · The June 22'd notification was not received by many, including herself. · Said that she respected Mr. Hemmett's professional opinion, but deferred on some of his comments. · The study on radiation exposure and studies on RF exposure are inconclusive; we cannot say with 100% assurance that this is causing a problem or not causing a problem, in order for something to be conclusive, we need to do a double blind study, which means expose two similar individuals and one would be exposed and one would not. Since there is suggestive evidence that this is causing cancer, and specifically leukemia in young children, no physician with the right frame of mind, would do a double blind study. · She said that she stays away from radiation frequencies, even though she is a doctor for Lawrence Livermore Labs; she uses a cell phone headset. Studies are coming out about brain tumors from cell phones; we know about radiation exposure to magnetic fields, we know how Mrs. Cantwell responded to it. · She urged the Planning Commission not to pass this antenna, not in a residential area, and definitely not in our neighborhood. Cupertino has quite a few areas, it might be a little more costly, but I would like you to pursue it, because we are all voting citizens here and as a voting citizen living 15 years next door to Mr. and Mrs. Cantwell, I can guarantee this will effect our city, our voting, and 1 am willing to sign a petition that none of us will have Sprint cell phones if this wi II pass. Charles Shih, DeFoe Drive: · Opposed to project. · Said the proposed antenna was too close to children, many children and families use Jollyman Park. · Urged that a 1000 watt radiation emitting device not be installed so close to the children. Chris Cheng, no address given: · Said he was confused how Sprint could claim decades of research on radiation, if cell phones have only been used for about 15 years. · No one really knows what the effects are. Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 11, 1004 · Said his father informed him that the Tin Tin Market proposal was denied because it was ugly; but he felt the present project was similar to that proposal; even though there is an existing structure, they are going to build another taller structure that is increased by over 20%; the proposed structure is uglier than the Tin Tin Market. Tso- Y ee Hsu, DeFoe Drive: · Contacted neighbors on Dumas Drive last week, visited 29 homes and was able to contact 22 residents; 21 of the residents, representing 96% of the people contacted, were all outraged by the project; none ofthem were aware of the proposal. · Due to the short notice, some of them could not attend this meeting. · Said he hoped it would be taken into consideration. Dawn Teuthorn, Pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church: · In favor of project. · Said she appreciated the community response. · Said she was disturbed from what she heard. She was not aware of any negative comments until Friday, and thanked Judy O'Brien who called her. · The church feeds seniors throughout the year and provides a school program for children and their first concern is safety and health. · Said it was her understanding that it is a part of a master plan and it was a need to meet the community's demands and requests. · Whether or not we will continue to be a people of faith and a people for the community, we honor the decision that has to be made tonight and all the different things that bind us, we opened our doors for the community for this meeting and it is our understanding that people 500 feet all understood and people have been responding as best we can to the calls once we first got them; I really have only received three calls and it was just this weekend. We have done what we can; · Said she feared for the people who are on the site, not because of the antenna, but because of how fear is running rampant and seniors today were put into a state of great fear because of misinformation and that saddens my heart; they matter to me and they matter to us as a community. We will continue to open our doors to the community, the money, any that is given or received is for the community; the people I serve are an honor to serve, and I hope you get to know them. · The church was trying to be a good citizen by supporting the City's telecommunications master plan. Roger Peng, Orline Court: · Said he would would not like to see this event continue to evolve and cause the church to lose more face and trust from the community and neighbors. · Many people have been talking about scientific approach and evidence, what is the impact to the health and safety; he said he was looking at it from a different perspective, because scientific approach has not been conclusive yet. · All those present have a common concern; fear and perception of this psychological effect on our safety and our health and it is something that can be as harmful as the physical impact to our health. · Felt hurt when the nuisance was put on the church, a face of God. · Urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Ghen-Dung Chen, Jollyman Lane: · Opposed to project. Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 12, 2004 · Resides about 200 from the proposed church site. · Said that not enough residents received notice of the June 220d meeting. · Questioned how much Sprint would pay the church for the installation for the antenna. · We have Sprint PCS service for over 5 years; are near the center of the proposed site and were not sure the proposed tower is necessary. · They are happy with their service and don't think they need the new tower to improve its coverage. Sherman Wong, Dumas Drive: · Opposed to project. · Said they did not receive a notice either. · Said in addition to the excellent points raised, he was 19 years old and has lived much of his life in Cupertino and is an avid user of Jollyman Park. · Expressed concern about the safety of the crosswalk with the large cross as a distraction to the traffic. Amy Yang, Red Fir Court: · Opposed to project. · Said that she agreed with previous speakers. · Resides across the street from the church and did not receive a notice. · Said that she had no faith in what Sprint said at the meeting. · Urged denial of the application. Edward Yu, Huntridge Lane: · Opposed to project. · Said he was a mechanical engineer and works with company that builds satellites which test at a lower wattage than the proposed antenna. · Expressed concern that RF is not a safe thing. Scott Hughes, Huntridge Lane: · Opposed to project. · Since the improved coverage objectives seems so difficult to achieve without this location, I think you might want to consider that the objective might be unreasonably large; maybe this location was chosen only for a lowest cost solution. · Because of that, the applicant may not have explored the alternate sites thoroughly enough; such as the overpass at McClellan, Bubb and McClellan, and a new building at south side of DeAnza which is of significant height. · The height increase is significant; there is no other structure in the residential area of that height. · The crosswalk is a major issue with speeders and people that don't stop; do not need additional concerns in this area. · Asked how many existing structures were in city parks today? · Is placing wireless antennas in city parks a precedent that the city wishes to set? · If the antenna is approved, and future studies reveal stronger evidence of health issues, how would the city perceive that? · What protection would the residents be offered to know that in the future if FCC allows increased power, there won't be increased wattage out of the antenna? · It is dangerous to proceed for this location so quickly. · Recommend pursuing alternate locations more thoroughly. Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 12,2004 Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chair Saadati asked that Ms. Steel respond to: · Reference of the Los Angeles Unified School District ban in 2000. · Dr. Katz's remarks on Mrs. Cantwell's health problems, and would the antenna have an effect on her health. . Clarify how much research has gone into the issue. . Asked staff to respond to the process for notification of the neighbors; several indicated they did not get notification. Mr. Piasecki: · The list that the applicant utilizes for the meeting notification, which is voluntary on their part to hold neighborhood meetings; was a list of residents within a 500 foot radius which the Planning Department also used for their notice, and the residents received their notice. · Said he did not know if a second meeting would have been beneficial. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: · Said that the 1996 Telecommunications Act specifies that one cannot regulate based on health issues, fear of cancer, those sorts of things. · Cities according to the Act, can regulate the use of their public rights of way, streets, public properties, as far as telecommunications; but it is almost like time, place and manner of things, and not content; relating to free speech. Because the whole field is preempted by the FCC, and they set up the regulations on the emissions, safety, but where the antennas are, this is something the city can dictate. · There are legal cases now where telecommunications companies are fighting that based on interference with their ability to carry on business if we are too restrictive; it is a fine line here and mainly the ability is to regulate public use of the streets. Com. Miller: · It is in the proximity to a well used park; is that within the purview of the city to regulate uses in a public area such as that? Ms. Mnrray: · Said it was within the purview of the city to regulate it, but you have to make certain findings and they cannot be based on health issues, and electric magnetic field exposures because that is not a proven field, and it is in your purview if you make appropriate findings. · Appropriate findings in the last case could have been the tree antenna or inappropriateness of the height. Vice Chair Wong: · Relative to time, place and manner, could you further it, in that we can make findings in regards to that, specifically when you are talking about time, place and manner. · What about location; is it within the purview of the Planning Commission? Ms. Murray: · Said that time, place and manner is criteria for how we regulate speech issues and there are certain things we can regulate within the city, which would be the use of a street, how it is done, who can if it were a fiber optic cable, when someone can dig up the street and where equipment can be placed as far as safety issues; that sort of thing. But most of the arguments Plannin~ Commission Minutes 16 July 12.2004 we have heard tonight are based on health, fear of health issues and there isn't any conclusive proof one way or another, and you cannot regulate based on that criteria. · Yes, location is within the purview ofthe Planning Commission. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked about flexibility in terms of locating wireless antennas, do they have the ability to locate two 500 watt facilities that would have lower frequencies or three 333 watt facilities. Ms. Steel: · Regarding the noticing of 500 foot radius, notices were sent out to all neighbors within a 500 foot radius, from a list issued by the city staff. Not sure why certain neighbors did not receive notification. · A two week notification period prior to a community meeting is a standard time frame for these kinds of applications. · It was surprising to have so many people turn out tonight as there was only one phone call previously. · Regarding the design, the structure will be painted to match the surrounding buildings; the actual tripod part, the base of the structure existing and the center part would be painted the same beige brown color to match the surrounding buildings, and it is difficult to distinguish on this photo, but the actual cross which we tried to enhance because the cross is actually very minimalist on the original design, we tried to enhance that and it will be a darker brown to accentuate the cross on this particular modified tower. · Worked with staff on design, went through at least three design modifications to reach this final one, which does meet all the city and government requirements and we believe is more visually aesthetic than the original. · Regarding property values, there is no conclusive study in place, no evidence to substantiate that property values will decrease in any manner. · Two main alternatives are Jollyman Park and Bubb and McClellan Roads. Jollyman Park as stated previously, would need a 65 foot high new monopine or monopole structure which does not comply with the master plan, which recommends strongly that we find an existing structure to locate on. It appears that at least 30% or 40% ofthe neighbors present do not wish us to locate at Jollyman Park either. We would need that particular height to meet our RF coverage objectives so that the signal could shoot through the other trees as stated by the RF engineer. · Regarding the second alternative mentioned at Bubb and McClellan, around that area all the buildings are very low and it is very far to the west of the coverage objective; it seems that area would cover mostly the freeway and that is not the main coverage objective for this particular site; the main coverage objective is to get the residential areas in between the two freeways, in response to calls and letters from dissatisfied customers and are trying to meet those demands. · Said they were not building a site just for the sake of it; but proposing to build a site to satisfy the demands of the customers who contact them and tell them their service is not adequate. · Regarding the question about locating on school properties, she cited school sites in Palo Alto School District, Sequoia Union High School District in Redwood City, Mountain View Whisman School District, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, and Foothill College. · Noted for the record that not only Sprint PCS but all of the other carriers do locate on churches of different denominations; it is one of the preferential locations according to the city ordinances because it is a public facility and in this case again, they met all their requirements because there is an existing structure there. · Asked that the Planning Commissioners support staffs recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 12,2004 · Said that not all the sites were discussed, but there is a list of 10 alternative sites submitted, and for us to have a viable candidate, we do need to meet the four criteria and all of the other sites considered and the ones raised this evening, they do not meet one of those four requirements, whether an RF coverage objective, city ordinance, or willing landlord or constructability. We feel this is a great site; we want to be a friend to the neighbors, we want to improve coverage to the residents of Cupertino; and we ask that you approve this project. Com. Giefer: · One of the residents said that the FCC standard is actually a guideline, can you comment on that Mr. Hemmett: · Said it was a guideline, which means that there may be other ways to comply with their limits; for instance, the obligation on all FCC licensees is to limit human exposure to radio frequency energy; and if you meet their guideline levels, you are presumed to comply. The guideline isn't meant to say that it could be tighter, what it is meant to say is that there may be other ways in which you could be exposed in higher fields. · A 1000 watts is not a lot of power; we work routinely around millions of watts for our TV station clients; I have on my property closer to my house than this would be to any other home 2-1/2 kilowatts of power for an FM station broadcasting from my property; Mr. Shui mentioned international standards, specifically the WHO standard, this proposal would meet that WHO standard. · Mr. Cheng questioned whether there were really decades of research on this; and said in looking through the actual standard, there were hundreds of studies listed in the back, many dating from the 70s, 30 years of published research in the field. Dr. Katz suggested that the studies are not conclusive and indeed you can't always prove a negative. Read two conclusive sentences from the standards; Mr. Yui mentioned occupational settings in his work at the satellite company; we have done a lot of work in manufacturing processes that use RF heaters to weld vinyl, our expertise extends into those areas as well; Mr. Hughes asked if the FCC should change its standards; Sprint as an FCC licensee is always obligated to comply with the FCC standards; if they change their standards whether you take any action or not, they are required to comply with those standards. Mr. Peng who spoke earlier and could not identify any distance at which he would feel safe, I would note that any professional engineer is going to come up with the same answer; it doesn't answer who is paying the bill; the answers are going to be the same from the engineering aspect as to whether or not it complies with the standards. · Relative to Mr. Piasecki's question about two 500 watt, three 333 watt, he said from an engineering standpoint it has been the natural growth of the industry which used to have a few tall antennas to cover large areas; as they have had to reuse the frequencies more and more, they end up with lower antennas closer to the areas they want to serve; in this case they are serving about one half mile around. As they come down in height, they may come down in power, but you are getting closer. From earlier remarks, that distance was the most important factor; so it is not necessarily the case that multiple sites of half or third power would have lower impact, it would have to be studied depending on the particulars proposed, but it is not necessarily going to be the case that the exposure levels would be lower. Com. Giefer: · It was brought up that when the residents nearby sold their homes, they would need to disclose the fact that they are living near an antenna; can that be confirmed. Planning Commission Minutes 1& July 12,2004 Com. Miller: · Said there is no required disclosure on cell phone antennas at this time. (Noted that Com. Miller is a realtor and deals with this on a daily basis). Vice Chair Wong: · Asked applicant if they considered having two 500 watt towers; and is that in the wireless facilities master plan? · Has Home Depot or anything along DeAnza Boulevard been considered, since it is within the circle of sphere. Randall Schwabacker, site acquisition for Sprint PCS: · Said that the Home Depot site was closer to another site and would not work for their purposes; the height of buildings and other guidelines was not a consideration. · A very extensive search ofthe whole area is done and the small area called the search ring and there is a search area that is larger; the search area is in the circle, the search ring is much smaller and we try to find something because that will generally offer the best coverage from computer models. We have gone way outside, we gone up Stevens Creek Boulevard, we look all over, but there are a number of other sites and we have many criteria; it is quite a puzzle to put together because the network is called cellular because these fit together like a honeycomb, they are cells and so each one relates to another one, and it is difficult to just quickly say there is a better site over here because it may impact other sites the way the whole network works; so it is a complex network. · The height of buildings and other guidelines was not a consideration; we submitted an extensive list of those that would potentially work when we first go out and look, would work and then we do computer models and look at other factors such as trees, heights of buildings and most significant is the planning, our process is guided mostly by the planning that we can meet your requirements. · Said the requirements are the most strict after the RF, after we get what we need to make the network work, the planning is the most difficult; and we look at parks, churches, at places, and various carriers and Sprint in particular locate on churches; almost primarily it is the preferred place in a residential area to locate a site because it is meets almost all planning requirements. · Parks: some cities like us to go on their parks; we looked at Jollyman and it was a consideration, but there are a number of factors that made the Redeemer Church fit; it fit better into the guidelines of your Planning Commission, staff concurred and that was the preference. · In response to the first question, the 500 watts; the network is designed in certain ways and it is an RF consideration that we are given the parameters from which to work and I cannot speak to the technical reasons, but the system is not designed to have two in the place of one; there are circumstances where it might be preferable, but it is a technological issue. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if a higher building such as on the corner of DeAnza and Stevens Creek, and if you got permission from a landlord, would that reach your target area? · In other jurisdictions and cities, when you locate these towers in neighborhoods, do you also encounter these types of problems from neighbors? Mr. Schwabacker: · No it would not; we had looked and it causes trouble with other sites. We have quite a few criteria. Planning Commission Minutes 19 July 12,2004 · Said that health was the largest concern; occasionally it is aesthetics and usually a question of whether it is a steel pole or whether it becomes a tree pole. Any time we can make a site like this one where actually people driving by would never know it is a cell site, that it is contained within a cross structure, we have them on Buddhist temples, Catholic churches; that is the preferred, because the public would never recognize it and planning commissions do have the power to regulate these based on aesthetics and that has been throughout not only the Bay Area, but California and across the country. Planning commissions generally prefer if you can hide the antennas within a structure behind something, over a new tree. We felt this was a great project for the city; met all the requirements and hope that you agree. Sun Hu Yung, Sprint RF engineers: · Relative to splitting the cell site, every cell site is designed with the same specification, it will always have the same set of antennas, same set of base station equipment, regardless whether it is 100 feet tall or 20 feet low, and in the case of splitting the cell site, you have the same power density but twice the swat. You would need to increase the power to make sure that you are covering the same area but twice as much in the same area effectively. Com. Miller: · It is unfortunate that the applicant did not meet with the residents or spend more time attempting to meet with the residents in advance; I am not sure we would have had a different outcome, but if part of the reason people tend to get upset is because they don't think they are being properly noticed and they don't think they are being heard properly, that is why we get a large group of concerned people coming out to the meeting ifthey haven't had a chance to talk to the applicant in a reasonable amount oftime and discuss the issues openly. · Said he was concerned for whatever reasons the placement of this cell site would have some negative impacts on the neighborhood, in terms of its uses of the park, uses of the church. It is a stretch that someone brought up the issue that it could impact real estate values and there are no required disclosures today, but the rules do state that you are expected to disclose anything that might impact the value of the home, and if people were not buying homes close to cell sites, then that in theory could be something that would impact the value of the home. · If I look at the regulations or policy for the master plan, policy 5.2, says only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods, and policy 6.1 says personal wireless service facilities shall be cited to avoid visual intrusion impacts as viewed from the right of way and from residential neighborhood, and 6.2 says personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and the neighborhood. I don't believe the proposal meets those guidelines at this time; I think that in terms of the mass and height, they are out of place with the surroundings and would be considered obtrusive. Com. Giefer: · It is a very difficult application to rule on; it is a very emotional issue; a large residential population has expressed their primary concern to be health, although it is an issue we cannot rule on based on the federal guidelines; said she was not comfortable ruling in favor based on the emotional plea of potential health risks, and understood and is sympathetic with the residents. · Said the applicant has met the conditions in the Wireless Facilities Master Plan; and does not find that aesthetically inappropriate for the area. · Suggested that the applicant paint the equipment cabinet to match the church buildings instead of leaving it a utilitarian gray. · Supports the application. Planning Commi~~ion Minute~ 20 July 12, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Thanked the community for attending the meeting and sharing their concerns for their community. · Can also understand where Sprint is coming from; they are looking at four different things; they want to meet an area coverage where Cupertino community with Sprint wants coverage; it does comply with the law; it is feasible and the hardest part is finding a willing landlord. · The other concern is that regarding the safety and fear factor; the attorney has already answered that question about the fear factor and there is a federal statute regarding telecommunications. · Said another concern is in the Wireless Facilities Master Plan that Com. Miller presented, regarding design aesthetics; even though when it was first presented, staff said it should not be on a flagpole out of respect for the flag; when it was presented to us to put it on a church cross, Buddhist temple, Jewish or Muslim temple, he said he did not think of it thoroughly, but seeing the picture feels it is disrespectful to the cross. · Said he had respect for the church coming out here; they provide good community services for both seniors and children, but putting the antenna on a tower with the holy cross really bothered him and he was not comfortable doing it. · Said his not voting for the project was based mainly on aesthetics; he does not feel you go from a 45 foot to a 55 foot and also the policy that Com. Miller raised. Chair Saadati: · Said notification was a voluntary procedure and said they should work on that to see if we can require people send notifications because it does help to notify the public as much as possible, and inform them as early as possible; not that it would have an impact on the outcome or concerns that may be raised by the residents of Cupertino, but I think we need to extend as much courtesy as possible to inform people. · This is a tough one; federal regulations, I am an engineer, and based on the data I have read, I cannot find anything that tells me this is affecting anybody's health; assuming the data is correct. I haven't seen anything else to the contrary. I know the demand for cell phones keeps going up and every family and child has a cell phone; maybe in 20 years the outcome would be different. · Based on that, the city attorney clarified, we cannot rule based on the potential of health safety Jssues. · As far as aesthetics, it is different than the original cross structure, but when you look at this photo, you have a street pole, the tree is taller than the cross, the diameter is much larger, and we turned down an application at Tin Tin Market because it did not blend in with the neighborhood. There was much stronger justification; it was an artificial tree and was the only artificial tree there. · As much as I appreciate the people coming here and speaking and expressing concern, I have a difficult time to go against this, because aesthetically I do not see a structure that is off place; I tried to convince myself that it doesn't fit; it is not that obvious. · It appears that there is going to be a tie vote; one option would be to continue the item and send it back for Sprint to go back and communicate with the neighbors, look at the items, and the other option is to go to City Council and the City Council will make a final decision, depending on the outcome of the vote. Planning Commission Minutes 21 July 12, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Said that the applicant had said (hey talked a lot with staff and worked closely with staff planners to get an item that is pleasable to the criteria that you wanted; they also wanted to try to meet the master plan at the city level as well as the state and federal level. · Heard from staff that even with a second or third community meeting, there is no certainty that they would please the surrounding community. Asked staff what the process was with a 2/2 vote. · Said he wanted to convey to the community or any future applicant that it is very important to talk to the community and have as many meetings even though you work with the staff diligently, you need to work with the community. Mr. Piasecki: · The first part of your question is relating to the community; whether it is viable to have another community meeting or whether it would go onto the Council; the motion is 2/2; it fails because there is not a majority vote; the Planning Commission is faced with options: continue it until you have a fifth member which would be Com. Chen; you could find out if any of the Planning Commissioners would want to change their opinion and give a 3/1 vote; this is a final decision at the Planning Commission; it can only be appealed to the City Council depending on what your decision is. · We encouraged the applicant to have another meeting; it is a voluntary procedure; they felt they wanted to move ahead of the meeting tonight; and likely did not anticipate the turnout at the meeting. · You could ask the applicant if they would like a continuance so that they could hold another meeting or wait for the fifth commissioner. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to deny Application U-2004-08 (Vote: Corns. Miller and Wong: Aye; Corns. Giefer and Chair Saadati: No; 2-2-0) Failed. Ms. Murray said that the decision can be appealed to the City Council. Ms. Steel: · Requested a continuance ofthe application. · Said that they would have another community meeting. · Noted that the applicant followed all the guidelines put forth by the city in terms of notifying the neighbors, and only five residents attended the meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Chair Saadati, to continue Application U-2004-08 to the August 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Vice Chair Wong: · One of the reasons I am so concerned about continuing this item, rather than voting No, is because we spent almost two hours talking about it, and am not sure by having another meeting that you can convince your neighbors that this will be a successful site. · Based on what the city attorney says that aesthetics, location and looking at the policies is reason enough for me in my purview as a commissioner to vote the way 1 am. It was ironic on how the applicant says that they worked closely with staff, but we also heard they weren't working closely with the neighbors, and I am not sure after listening to an hour and a half, when we come back in a month and a half later, will we really have changed anyone's mind in this room. You might even double this room; that is what I am concerned about. Planning Commission Minutes 22 July 1~, ~ßß4 · By continuing the discussion it will just prolong it. Chair Saadati: · That is the only way to deny it; then it goes to the City Council and the City Council makes the decision. If we are in deadlock, I will change my vote and it goes to the Council and they decide. Com. Miller: · Said he felt it was the best way because when will it be scheduled; I assume the applicant will appeal, and when will it go on the Council agenda. Ms. Wordell: · They have to appeal and once they appeal that is scheduled, it is usually three weeks after they appeal. Com. Miller: · Moving it onto the Council, if they chose to do so, would give them the opportunity to meet with the neighbors if they chose to do that in advance of the City Council meeting. Com. Giefer: · Withdrew the motion to continue the application. Chair Saadati; · Agreed to withdraw the motion. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Chair Saadati, to approve Application U-2004-08; Vice Chair Wong: · Said he wanted to appeal to his colleagues that he would rather vote No based on the reasons Com. Miller and he expressed, and state it for the record before the vote taken. (Vote: 1-3-0) Com. Giefer: Aye Corns. Miller, Wong and Chair Saadati: No Motion Failed; application denied; applicant can appeal within 14 days to City Council. A separate notice is sent out on appeals that go to the City Council. Chair Saadati declared a recess. 3. U-2004-11 Scott Winole (Elephant Bar Restaurant) 19780 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use permit to operate a separate bar in an approved retail building under construction (Marketplace) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Peter GiIIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Application is for a use permit to operate a separate bar in an approved retail building under construction (Marketplace) on Stevens Creek and Portal. · Two issues are the parking and appropriateness of bar at the site. Planning Commission Minutes 23 July 12, 2004 · There is sufficient parking on the site. · Staff feels that there is not a significant impact from the bar in the restaurant since the Elephant Bar faces the parking lot, toward the street and not toward the residences. · Staff recommends approval of the use permit. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if the application met the parking ordinance passed by City Council. · Looking on the site plan map, Page I, there is a parking area for Building B; asked if it is meant as a designation for that or can they park throughout the Marketplace area. Mr. Gilli: · Said that the parking ordinance approved did not change the parking requirement on restaurants or bars; having a new ordinance has no effect on the application. · Said they could park anywhere in the shopping center; the owner of the center makes agreements of how much parking is available. · Said he checked and the area had enough parking stalls for the use. People can park further east but this is the parking that is immediately adjacent to the use and is most likely going to be used. · It will not impact the other retailers or other lessees. · Because the plan for the center has the building permits already, they don't have to meet the new parking ordinance which calls for all unisize spaces. Mr. Gilli: · There is an emergency exit and service exits. · There will be no parking on Portal Avenue. Steve Coil, Elephant Bar Restaurants: · Hours of operation will be until 10 p.m., Monday through Thursday; Friday, Saturday and Sunday until II p.m. · Will be serving food at all times. · There will be a panic alarm at the back door. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Alan Roth, Portal Plaza: . · Opposed to the project. · Thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work. · Said he lived in Portal Plaza for 23 years. · Concerned about increased parking problems, if there is an overflow of parking, they will use the street; many Portal residents use the street for parking. · Concerned about noise, since the restaurant is outdoors. · Expressed concern about trash and sanitation; it is important that any food items be put in a sealed container; there were no barrier walls that contained garbage containers or any dumpsters back there and assume they are going to use the dumpster behind Longs Drugs. · Concerned about sanitation, there are pest control operators trying to control mouse problem and roof rats. There are three units that face Portal and some other units with windows facing that area; it is the back of a building and will not look very good especially if there is garbage out back. Pl:mning Ccmmiggicn Minuteg 24 July \1, 1ß04 Wayne Occubo, Evershine Group, addressed some of the items: · Parking; the current plan in place is that they are expanding the center; he is correct it is taking a part of the parking area that was there before; but it did take up some of the landscapes areas, one actually we have increased the parking where we went from about 425 spaces to 560 spaces so we are actually increasing a tremendous number of spaces. · The outdoor dining area on Stevens Creek is a small area, about 1,000 feet with very few chairs and tables; there is a retaining wall that restricts the area and has gates to prevent people from coming in or going outside of that area into that area. The area is accessed through the restaurant itself. · Relative to trash, the Elephant Bar went to great pains to carve out an additional area in the interior of the building that had to be added on for trash, staging area, different types of storage. Mr. Gilli: · The right hand corner of the floor plan of the restaurant has a service area, that would be up at the end of the tenant's space with trash bins and a wash area; as the landlord said, it is not going to be stored outside. Mr. Piasecki: · If the Planning Commission wishes, they can apply a condition that stipulates that no trash or debris from the restaurant or bar shall be stored outside of the building, on the west side of the building, but they shall use all approved trash enclosures. · Noted that there was a similar facility in Campbell on Hamilton Avenue, near Highway 17, adjacent to an apartment complex. · Said he was with the City of Campbell and went through the process with that facility and was not aware of any significant issues relating to trash or noise related issués. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he visited the Campbell restaurant and it was family oriented and a great place for kids. · Will be a good addition to Cupertino. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application U-2004-11 Mr. Piasecki: . Asked if they wanted to include a condition related to outside storage. Vice Chair Wong: · Said it appeared that one would have to step outside the building to come inside the building; asked if it could be connected through the building so that the residents of Portal Plaza wouldn't have to see people going in and out. Mr. Occubo: · Said they looked at connecting the building as far as having the additional space, unfortunately the electrical room is right next to it, and in addition to that is a shared wall which didn't allow to provide a penetration to go straight through; we looked at trying to put an access way through the ends of the shared wall, but that put it too far in front of the restaurant and so this is the only way we could basically create that accessibility; it also has area for washing mats. It is set up for basic cleanliness. Planning Commission Minutes 25 July 11,1004 · Could not go thru the office because that is where the shared wall is. · The restaurant employees would have to step outside on Portal A venue and then enter the service area to take out the garbage. Mr. Piasecki: · Staff feels it will suffice if the condition is included about not having any trash outside the building. · Suggested wording: "The applicant/operator shall not store any trash, trash bins, or trash bags outside of the building at any time and shall properly dispose of trash into the approved trash enclosures" Added language to motion accepted by Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller. Com. Giefer: · Asked if it was possible to put some lattice screening around the exit and into the entrance into the other area for trash. Said she agreed that trash should not be left out, but seeing that you are exiting the building towards Portal and then re-entering the building, can we put some screening there, so that the residents don't see people walking out carrying trash. Mr. GiIIi: · Unfortunately there are no elevations, but there is the addition of a trellis, and any kind of accessory wall or such would have to be far enough from the wall so that you could open the door and get out. That starts to put it into the setback; unfortunately that was not anticipated as an issue so we don't have the plans showing this section ofthe building in that detail. Mr. Occubo: · There is lattice work on the building itself, but not further off to screen people from going in and out. Likely an advantage is that this is a controllable single tenant, a chain restaurant that has tremendous amounts of practices in place and they have basically all these procedures that allow them to maintain not just integrity of the food, but also how they operate their facilities, and that is the reason they were selected for the space. · Because of that there should be a better chance of controlling trash and disposal especially because the landlord went to great lengths as far as to provide additional space to the tenant at no extra cost to them. · Said if staff recommended moving the lattice work on the building further out, they would be happy to comply. Mr. Piasecki: · Another way of handling that would be to ask that they put in landscaping that would screen the walkway area; that gives the same objective; it doesn't put a structure out there. · Add to the condition that the applicant shall work with staff to add landscaping to screen the access to and from the service door. Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller concurred with the added condition. Vote: 4-0-0 Chair Saadati moved the agenda to Item 5. Planning Commission Minutes 26 July 12, 2004 NEW BUSINESS 5. Brett Moxley 21949 Lindy Lane Consider a hillside zoning designation for 21949 Lindy Lane. Postponed from June 28,2004 Planning Commission meeting. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: · The discussion was triggered at a meeting some months ago when the property owner was requesting an extension of a tentative map; the item was pulled because the final map was approved by the City Council and an extension was not needed. · It raised some questions among the Planning Commission about new houses being built on this property, and it having hillside appearance and yet it was in RI. Staff brought back as the suggestion at the last meeting, that if the commission wanted to recommend to the City Council that this concern be addressed, it could be done through a General Plan and a zoning amendment for this property. · lllustrated the site plan. · Said the original recommendation was to treat this property with a General Plan and zoning amendment and not expand that change to a broader area because it would be a much bigger project, and due to staff limitations such as working on the General Plan and also on the RI and losing a planner, staff did not feel they could take on a bigger project. In the meantime, there have been some concerns raised about just zoning or just general planning this property both by the applicant and among staff; staff recommends before proceeding further, the applicant have a proposal for an alternative. Com. Miller: · Asked for clarification, if the applicant already has a final map approval which is in effect, how the Planning Commission or the City Council could go back and make changes to that. Ms. Wordell: · It would not be to the map, it would be to the zoning in the General Plan; and that could be initiated by the city. Mr. Piasecki: · It doesn't change the lot configuration or the number of lots or lot sizes, it does change the rules about how you develop on those lots, maximum building size, maximum amount of cut and fill, that sort of thing; design standards. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked Ms. Wordell to explain the notification process on this particular item. · Also for the benefit of the television viewers, why weren't these particular 23 properties zoned RHS. · Some of the 23 parcels are zoned RI-20, which means they can have parcels up to 20,000 square feet. Mt. Crest Drive and Mt. Crest Place are zoned A I. · As stated earlier, there were concerns that because of understaffing in the Planning Department, it was felt that going through the process of notifying the 23 parcels and have them rezoned to RHS would present a hardship. Ms. Wordell: · It was a New Business item, staff worked with the applicant; no noticing was done as it is not a public hearing item and no other properties are involved. Planning Commission Minutes 27 July 11, 2004 · It is a history of several decades, in the 80s and this area in particular where previous planners said that there was a Jot of resident resistance to that, and they were not zoned for hillside. · Said it would be difficult to notify all 23 parcels and have them rezoned to RHS. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified what Ms. Wordell was eluding to was they did not provide notice for this meeting: it is not a rezoning meeting, it is only the Planning Commission considering if they wanted to make a recommendation that the City Council open things up; the scope is not known; if it was confined to a few lots, it would be easier to manage. If opened up to all 23, it would be difficult to manage, and that was what was referred to. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he understood, but questioned why it could not be done through the General Plan review. Ms. Wordell: · It is a question of timing, according to the records, these are the only vacant lots and they are the most likely to have new residences that potentially could be quite large, might have other impacts; it is the most expedient way of getting at that timing issue. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it was not the staff that brought up the issue; but a Planning Commissioner. Vice Chair Wong: · Correct, but I just wanted to ask the proper procedure that if we are going to do it for this one lot which has subdivided into three, I think that the Rei¡;khoRR¡; adjacent neighbors should also know what is going on. It was discussed at the last meeting about notification that some people don't get notified at all; the more you notify, the better off you are. Com. Giefer: · The reason I brought this forward was based on neighborhood response; and also the survey done as part of the R I was very revealing that the individuals who live in what looks like the white background area (referring to slide illustrated), had as high of a discontent level as the residents of Rancho Rinconada did with development in the area, and the only significant building that is going on in this particular neighborhood is in the hillsides. This has come up time and again as the hill that is zoned RI continues to be developed; and these lots are for sale today. · The other lots that are developed are not vacant and there will be no effect on them at this time. When we do review the General Plan at that time I think it is appropriate to notice and get everybody involved, and let them know that at that time their lots might be affected. Right now we have an opportunity to work with the current owner and make some changes and help the residents who do live in the area be happier about their circumstances and their quality of life. Owen Bird, representing Brent Moxley: · Provided a review, that the Moxley family grew up on this property, owned it for decades, one house on about 1-1/2 acres; the family's use of the property has reached the end of its line, family chose in 2001 to subdivide the property into three to prepare for their exit from the property; the family took its time processing that map and that map was final in June 2004. Around that same time, the family also ramped up efforts to sell the impending three new lots that are now three legal lots. Planning Commission Minutes 28 July 12,2004 · In April went into escrow with the first of three buyers. That buyer was due to close escrow on June 30'" when this possible rezoning of the property emerged you can imagine how the buyer reacted, and the buyer came in and talked to staff about how that possibly could affect that buyer's proposed project, and it turns out that in fact even though in the Rl you have the .5 FAR, and so a 20,000 square foot lot you could build 10,000 square foot house. For many reasons relating to these three lots, and their specific characteristics, that is unlikely, and furthermore at least on this first lot, that is not the plan. · The plan is to build 4700 feet with a 500 foot garage, so now we have got a nervous buyer, an escrow that has been delayed and at the same time, I have the family's authority to say that if the family is still owning three or two or even one lot, as the General Plan process progresses, it certainly is not going to be resistant to that deliberative regulatory look at what is the appropriate General Plan designation and rezoning for all 23 properties. The Moxley family has no intention of participating in a process that devalues the neighborhood that it cherishes. · He respectfully requested that the Planning Commission not vote to advance a minute order to City Council initiating a rezoning of this property; and that instead the more appropriate course as Vice Chair Wong referenced, is the General Plan process, and that you can through that look at redesignating these properties to hillside, and in turn if that happens, look to conforming the zoning with it. · If that still doesn't provide enough reassurance for the neighbors that Com. Giefer referenced, and we are aware that the anxieties exist, we know that there has been a house under construction, that is a remodel and an expansion of an existing house up the hill that has caused some concerns; we tried to figure out a way to address those concerns now, still respect the process of the General Plan review, while allowing the Moxley family to preserve its existing escrow and sell the other two lots. · He presented the following proposal: We will add deed restrictions to the three lots which we will do voluntarily; the city doesn't have to impose it on us; it cannot as the map is already final, but we will volunteer to add additional CCRs on the map to limit new house size to 5500 square feet per lot. Functionally that allows the first buyer to close escrow and build his 5200 square foot house. · It ensure that what you get on lots 2 and 3 will also be 5500 or less which in the opinion of those concerned about house size in the zone; if the advocates of rezoning this to hillside with its 6000 foot cap fail through the General Plan process, we will still be your three favorite lots, because we will be the only three that have an FAR restriction of lower than .5; so we are willing to work with the city to achieve an outcome that respects the process, respects the concern and still delivers a timely close of escrow. · We have talked about this with staff and were encouraged to bring this to the Planning Commission, for purposes of full disclosure on the record, said he contacted Councilmember Sandoval to seek her advice on how to handle this matter, so she was involved in some of the conversations. Com. Miller: · I would suggest that you do not have to go to 5500, but only the recurrent requirement for hillside, which I believe is 65. Ms. Wordell: · Yes it is, although it diminishes as the slope of the average slope of the lot increases so it would be something less than that. Mr. Piasecki · Under the hillside, he would be down around 47; 55 seemed to be a reasonable compromise. Planning Commission Minutes 29 July 12, 2004 Mr. Bird: · Added that one of the reasons we tried to sculpt it as tightly as possible, because all things being equal, being lot sellers we like the bigger envelope, is to honor the spirit of the hillside zoning without getting into the subjective elements that are contained in the hillside zoning, such as doing the slope density and design review and those other issues. We want to keep this RI objective process in place. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked property owner if they were suggesting a deed restriction of 5500 square feet and will it still be zoned RI or RHS? Mr. Bird: · It would still be zoned Rl. We don't want to burden all these properties with all the restrictions contained in the hillside zoning. If we did, we would just say go ahead and move a minute order to City Council and proceed with rezoning and we won't oppose it. · There are portions of that, that we find burdensome, especially our buyer finds burdensome and he won't close escrow if you include design review and the grading limits and some of the other limits contained in the RHS, so the tradeoff to honor the General Plan process, honor the neighbor and area concerns about over building and still preserve the rights that were vested when the map was approved, was to limit the most significant issue. Vice Chair Wong: · There will still be design review under RI if you build a two story home. · It won't be as strict as RHS; asked staff to confirm it. Ms. Wordell: · That may not be so; the lots are so large, that if it is under 35% of the lot size, it would not go toDRC. Vice Chair Wong: · Confirmed with Mr. Bird 5500 square feet, but under RI. Com. Giefer: · Said she understood they would also provide screening. Mr. Bird: · Said yes, they discussed it with staff as well; and if the signature issue is the aesthetic appearance of potential overbuilding on the hillside, and one way to limit that is by limiting FAR, the other would be through landscape screening which still doesn't reach the design of the house, which is where they want the regulation to end. · Said that would be appropriate, but would ask that they up with an objective standard. Said he and Mr. Piasecki discussed the possibility of X number of trees, 24 inch box; to avoid being left with screening that is someone's pleasure. Com. Giefer: · Said it could be an item left to the discretion of the Director. Planning Commission Minutes 30 July 12,2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Said they discussed no more than 20 evergreens, 24 inch box trees per lot, and he would review it for screening of mass and bulk. It would not be a privacy type screening but rather a screening of the mass. Com. Giefer: · Complimented Mr. Moxley and his representative for remaining at the meeting so long, and for his willingness to work with the Planning Commission and staff to come up with a very reasonable compromise that will address the issue of over-building in the hillside area. · Said she would withdraw her request to send a minute order to City Council and accept the proposal of self-imposed restrictions offered by Mr. Moxley's representative. · Said she would like to give a month to come back with acceptable CCRs which will include tree plantings that the Director will approve at his discretion; with the acceptable information regarding the house size. Mr. Bird: · Said that they were trying to preserve the escrow and were willing to work with the city attorney to get the CCR drafted quickly so it can be recorded. Asked that the motion be amended to allow them to work with staff who has heard the commission say 5,500 square feet plus screening. Mr. Piasecki: · Staff can do an informational item to the Planning Commission informing them when it is clarified; no motion is necessary; direction to be provided to staff and they will work with the property owner. Com. Giefer: · Commented that it was not meant to be punitive; at the time she stated the motion, she did not understand that there was a buyer, and she did not want to do anything to jeopardize the sale of the property. · Said she had no issue with building on the lots. · Expressed appreciation for their cooperation. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if there were 20 evergreen trees recommended. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it would be up to 20, the determination to be made after we see the house and the lot and the landscape plan that would go along with those trees, 24 inch box minimum size; the purpose for screening only. Com. Giefer: · There are also additional trees on the lots that will remain. Mr. Piasecki: · Said for the record, he and Mr. Bird talked earlier and he is aware that this does not preclude the city at any other time deciding to move ahead with a rezoning; it doesn't take away any of the policing powers or the Council's; it simply is a voluntary action, and the commission would just not deal with the issue as it has been brought forth so far. Planning Commission Minutes 31 July 11,1004 Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Saadati moved the agenda back to Item 4. 4. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continued from June 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council Date: Not Scheduled. Mr. GiIIi presented the staff report: · Said it was the 12'h meeting on the RI ordinance. · Topics for discussion will include: Design Review - What is reviewed; tools for review process; who does the review; where Cupertino should be on the spectrum. · Reviewed Exhibits E - Alternative I, Expanded Review; Exhibit F - Alternative 2, Streamlined Current Methodology, and Exhibit G - Alternative 3, Reduced Design Review Vice Chair Wong: · Said other items for discussion included story poles, design review guidelines, and notification. · Asked for staff report on notification; what does sending out the II by 17 plans entail, and how far does that go out? Mr. GiIIi: · Said that the issue of poles and notification, because they are both on the exhibits, will hit at the same time. · There are certain times in each ofthe alternatives that story poles are required and that certain levels of noticing is required. · Currently, exceptions require noticing 300 feet; it is a piece of paper that has legal language saying there is a hearing; · Two story over 35% FAR, they have story poles and the noticing, and the story poles have to be up at the time it is applied and remain up until the action. Vice Chair Wong: · Regarding the guidelines, do you want to tie it into the process? Mr. GiIIi: · Said you could not talk about these items individually, e.g., if you talk about story poles, are they good, bad; that depends on what we are talking about, story poles are useless for one story houses; you do have to talk about it with the other things. · In the case of two story, that's typically where story poles are more useful because people can see it; so we can try to talk about it separately, but I think they are also interconnected; it is extremely difficult. Vice Cbair Wong: · Said he felt story poles were dangerous, a safety issue. · Said he met a year ago with former mayor Chang, Com. Miller, Cary Chen and Maika Negel, and recalled that staff had no ties to two story poles. Asked if it held true today? Planning Commission Minutes 32 July 12,200<1 Mr. GilIi: · The issue of story poles is not something staff needs; the survey indicated many people liked them, but staff does not need them, not important for their review. There have been cases where story poles have fallen, and not constructed properly. Mr. Piasecki: · Said they were a hassle to install on an older home; the survey indicated people liked them; however staff does not need them. · Said it was the call of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wong: · Referred to Exhibit A, Page 4-6, Question 16, and discussed the breakdown of the responses from various homeowners with different levels of experience with the process. · Regarding guidelines, based on the three processes, that is how staff will make the recommendations on guidelines. Mr. GiIIi: · If the idea is to remain status quo, you may need some level of guidelines, if the idea is to move closer to having less review, you may need less, you may reach the point you don't need any. If the idea is to move towards more review, all the towns and cities that have more review, have detailed guidelines and they enforce them. · If you look at the three options: more review, less review, or remain status quo; likely would not need guidelines for less review; for more review, you would need to have them and expand on them, and for status quo, you could reduce them slightly, increase them or change them a little, depending on where you want to go in the spectrum. Vice Chair Wong: · Said that the City Council let the Planning Commission look into design guidelines. · Also let the Planning Commission look at residential design approval; Page 4, but was limited to two story, on the second story that is over 35%. · If you look at your process review here, you are also looking at one story and that was not in the scope of work, so if you want to follow that direction, he recommended a minute order. Mr. GiIIi: · If you would like to and you believe so; but what was presented to the City Council was the Planning Commission would look at the whole review process, what was reviewed, how it was reviewed, who reviewed it. That was presented to the City Council in those words and they agreed to that. · Said he could provide a copy of the minutes or tape ofthe meeting. STORY POLES Com. Miller: · Would like to add comments on story poles, having been on the DRC and heard the comments of some concerned residents when they came to review that, said he found that the story poles in a number of incidents actually give a misrepresentation. · People have come to the DRC and said the story poles frightened them, but he said with the actual design, he felt more comfortable. Planning Commission Minutes 33 July 12,2004 · Questioned how valuable the story poles are in terms of neighborhood notification; Said he felt it was likely better to notify them and/or give them some kind of picture of what they are looking at; because story poles don't represent what is actually going to be up there when it is constructed. · Noted that only Los Gatos and Cupertino are currently using story poles in the surrounding area. (Others commented that Palo Alto and Los Altos also used them) · Concurred that there was a lot of expense in putting story poles up, there are some potential issues in terms of damage or other problems, and it is not clear given some ofthe comments seen at the DRC how beneficial they are. · Said he was not certain of the value of story poles, particularly since staff doesn't feel they need them, and we have talked at a Planning Commission meeting before, and the commissioners in the past hadn't felt they needed them. Com. Giefer: · Read an e-mail regarding story poles from Cary Chen, regarding dangers of story poles. · Said she felt they were a good noticing tool, and supported the use of them. · Said they repeatedly heard that the people didn't get the notices, they either didn't understand what they were when they came in the mail; they are not clear enough; but for some reason the message is not getting out. · While the story poles don't provide the most accurate definition of what the proposed home is going to look like, it at least prompts the neighbors to understand that there is some action taking place and that something is going to change on the property. · It is a strong visual cue, if nothing else, to explain to the neighborhood that something is happening. · There was a high number of survey respondents who expressed support for story poles; said she was in favor of them also. Vice Chair Wong: · Said that Com. Giefer had good points; many neighbors are concerned. He has on the DRC for two years and currently is the Chair on the DRC; and a lot of people who do come in either through notification seeing the story poles or word of mouth, and are most concerned about not knowing what is being built, and once they come in and see the plans and have the regulations explained, they are calmer. People need to take the time to contact the neighbor and ask them what they are doing and the neighbor will show them. · There are other ways to notify the neighbors; we are taking one notification away by taking away story poles which is a health and safety issue, but you can also notify people by sending the application and plans, elevation only to the immediate neighbors and if they really want to learn more, they can either contact the applicant or go to City Hall and contact the professional planner. · Other concern is money-wise, it is very expensive; some folks know how to do it correctly, some do not. Other cities don't do it except for Los Gatos. · One constituent talked to me about when they put the story poles, they hammered them into the building and it caused damage to the building, if you put it up during the winter months, water can go into the building and damage the building; it is not a good process. · Want to streamline the process, and especially staff is willing to use another way of notification and not have story poles. · Does not support story poles. Planning Commission Minutes 34 July 12,2004 Com. Miller: · Said he understood that some residents paid as much as $7,500 to $8,000 to have story poles put up; and said for that expense, plans could be mailed to the residents in the 300 feet radius and provide a better way of noticing. · As Vice Chair Wong pointed out, they can cause damage to the building. Chair Saadati: · It is challenging to put story poles on an existing building; on a new building it is easier to do it because you can support it, but other options are available. · Have expressed concern before about story poles and said coosideFtltioo WORld be gi\'eo to he would consider a three dimensional elevation that shows adjacent properties. When people look at that they can understand it, most people cannot read plans and don't understand them. · As long as appropriate drawing is provided, it enables the neighbors to understand and be able to visualize what is built, relative to the adjacent homes. · Said it was an alternative that he would accept. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked for the definition of "an appropriate drawing" Chair Saadati: · Three dimensional perspective drawing showing the adjacent homes; usually if the architects do the plan on a computer, there are programs that they can utilize. NOTIFICATIONS Com. Miller: · No question that we want to expand the notification. · Support doing that in whatever method deemed appropriate; it adds more information and reduces confusion. Com. Giefer: · Agree with Com. Miller; would like to see notification expanded. · Would also like to ensure that we include unincorporated areas that are adjacent to properties who are pulling permits and becoming Cupertino so they received notices also. · We are talking about sending them an 11 x 17 elevation as part of the noticing. · The idea in some of the options, depending on the spectrum, is in some cases, to send adjacent neighbors an II x 17 plan, not just the elevations. Com. Miller: · Suggested using legal size paper as II by 17 is difficult to work with. · Said it was not clear why a neighbor would need to see the floor plan, but just should be concerned with the elevations and not the interior of the house. It is inappropriate for the neighbors to comment on the interior of the house. · Later in the discussion, he said that if there are copy machines to easily copy 11 x 17, he stood corrected. Mr. GilIi: · Asked if there was agreement to have the site plan with it. Planning Commission Minutes 35 July 12,2004 Com. Miller: · Said the site plan is fine. Vice Chair Wong: · Also concur with Com. Giefer as well as Com. Miller to have a site plan; the elevation, no floor plans; it is the property owner's rights; the main concern is mass and bulk and we want to make sure that we address that issue. · Regarding privacy, if they are concerned, they should make the time and come to city hall to look at it, when they get the noticing for the DRC, it is a second opportunity for them to come. · It if raises a concern to the immediate neighbor, they should come and see the full set of plans at the counter. · Want to make it cost effective for the applicant. · The other concern is no story poles, but if we increase that notification for the DRC to more, they can also get the notification to come to the DRC to see the second story addition. · It is very important to keep the DRC so that it is another way of notification. · Recommend legal size, much better for economic reasons. · Summary: Will have a site plan, the elevation, the renderings, no floor plans; and also a contact information from staff. Mr. GiIIi: · Commented that legal size paper will end up being very small with a large amount of white space on the bottom, whereas II x 17 is a better fit because the plans generally start out at a certain aspect ratio that works better with II x 17. Chair Saadati: · Also in favor of expanded noticing; the site plan; the more people who reeeive as more people receive notification, hopefully there will be less outrage and surprises. Mr. GiIIi: · Is there any discussion on courtesy noticing; or is this the courtesy notice? · There are two levels of notification; one is there is an action that the city is taking, in which case, in the alternatives, staff has this as one of the elements and then the other is right before a permit is about to be issued, it would be a letter saying the owner of this address is receiving a building permit to do an addition. Vice Chair Wong: · Do the courtesy notices. Com. Miller: · Generally feel that rather than create a new review, expanded, or reduced review, to stay with the current development process review and make some small changes; I am in favor of staying with Exhibit D. · One of the things with Exhibit D I would like to review is the design guidelines and one of the issues that we have had that we have heard about with design guidelines is that there is an inconsistency between some ofthe design guidelines and the existing ordinance, and I would like to take a look at that and perhaps fold some ofthe design guidelines into the ordinance and do away with the rest of them, and so that to the extent we can, we have more of the design guidelines in the ordinance, but you also iron out the discrepancies between the ordinance and the design guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes 36 July 12, 2004 · The other place where it might be potentially a good idea is staff's suggestion to have more architectural input and adding an architect to the DRC has some merit; although it is not clear that the architectural consultant would do it because that is going to be an added expense. Said it was not difficult to get architects to volunteer to participate. · I would like to stay with that process; suggest we modify, get rid of the design guidelines, incorporate the good points into the ordinance. Propose adding more review from an architectural standpoint to the DRC with a member that we could add from the community at large, which would not be an extra expense to either the applicant or the city. Chair Saadati: · Basically you are keeping the 35%. Com. Miller: · Yes, leaving it the way it is. Mr. Piasecki: · On the point of adding a volunteer architect, you may have to go outside the city to get one; we would normally go to the Santa Clara County AlA. Com. Giefer: · I am somewhere between keep it where it is today, but I would like to suggest modifications to that: I agree with what Com. Miller said in terms oftaking the highlights and strong points from our guidelines, and incorporating them into the RI, but I think one of the things that I appreciate about some of the other guidelines that we have, is they are more illustrative of the do's and don'ts and I would actually like to see ours enhanced and not just go away. · Also am in favor of having more professional participation in our DRC, instead of having Planning Commissioners on the DRC, I would recommend just having professionals, architect and staff on the DRC to make those reviews and decisions. That is potentially an added expense and I understand that, but this is not the right year to advocate adding additional expense and I am not quite sure how we would go about getting people from an organization to support our city that we would not have to compensate. · I would also be in favor of having our current design review with some architect participation on that as well. Vice Chair Wong: · Agree with Corns. Giefer and Miller, that the current process is working; but don't want to majorly change the process. · Suggested that in next meeting regarding processes, is to give some guidance to staff on what particular guidelines we would like to see folded in, and what we don't. · Not prepared at this time to say likes and dislikes; vs. having staff second guess us; perhaps do it via e-mail. · We get money from Sacramento; Com. Giefer's idea would work, but it should be community generated. · Find an architect in Cupertino, who lives in Cupertino, who can feel what it is like to be in Cupertino, and can see the issues here; use the Santa Clara County AlA, but I feel that the City Council needs to appoint that architect from Cupertino because we want to make sure it is a community person here in Cupertino. · Said he wanted to see Exhibit D, the current RI development process; need to give some guidance to staff regarding which guidelines that we like or which ones we don't want to see and these guidelines would be applied equally. Planning Commission Minutes 37 July 12, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Said that once before they discussed the design guidelines and his view was if they can fold the design guidelines itt into the ordinance, that would be more straight forward, but it would be good to have handout with some information that the general public can get when they are planning to design a house; at least that handbook gives them some information to supplement our ordinance to some extent; some brief information from the ordinance with some sketches or drawings that helps them to understand it better. · Also Exhibit D, having a professional on board would be an added benefit. · Finding an architect in Cupertino may be difficult; different professionals to sit on different matters, but you may not find the same pers9ÐRel person all the time. · Sometimes the benefit is if you get somebody from outside, you get an impartial opinion. Mr. Piasecki: · One ofthe best architectural advisers we had in Campbell was an instructor over at West Valley College; he did not live in the City of Campbell and he was excellent. You may get somebody in your own city, but you might not get the quality. Vice Chair Wong: · If there is concern about not being able to find someone in the community or their impartialness, whether or not the person may be in the community or not in the community, if it is a non-voting member, there would not be any worry about that particular issue. Chair Saadati: · Already have an architect who is a non-voting member and expresses his opinion and who reviews all the plans. Mr. Piasecki: · I have seen both models work; the one that Com. Wong is talking about is just an advisor at the meeting who can help you work through the plans, that is one way to do that, you can have him voting, you can even indicate that your preference is to find an architect in the community. · In the event that you don't find one, then you would select one outside the community, still the best qualified; but you would encourage community architects to be involved. Vice Chair Wong: · By making it non-voting, it addresses the Chair's concern about having a quorum. Chair Saadati: · It may lower the interest level of the architect wanting to sit on the committee; if they are a voting member, they may be more interested to come on board; it could go either way. Com. Miller: · I would just like to add, even if there was a meeting where the architectural member could not attend, one would hope that the architectural member would provide his input so that the other members would have the benefit of that even though he was not present. Mr. GiIIi: · Larry Cannon's comments are incorporated into the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 3& JI1\)I \1,2004 Chair Saadati: · That won'1 change anything, but having a professional at the meeting, there is a dialog; that is different than having just a comment coming in. Com. Miller: · I understand that, and most of the time you would expect if we had someone participating as a member of the committee, he would be there and it is not the ideal case that he is not there; but it is somewhere in between; if he still reviews it and provides his comments. · You would expect that he is not going to be missing meeting after meeting, or else he wouldn't have signed up in the first place. Chair Saadati: · I think there needs to be more than one on our list in order to make sure there is continuity. Mr. GiIIi: · Summarized that the commission wants professional review at the meeting, to look more at design; maintain the same number of meetings which is the cost of the applicant; but the commission is interested in going for having better design. · The only reason you would want a professional architect is because you want more input on how to make the design better; Vice Chair Wong: · Said he did not recall saying he wanted more design. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Kwon- Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive: · Commented on having an architect in the DRC process. · There is already a consultant architect to review the design, and he is going to make comment; I assume that when the applicant brings forward a plan, there is a review and in working with staff to make the plan workable for the city of Cupertino, that the recommendations reviewed by the architect should have been incorporated in the plan before it comes to the review process. · By the time it comes to the review process, it should be clear whether it is a good plan that the staff is recommending or not, and if the staff is recommending with the guidance of the architect, then do you want another architect to review the comment of the first architect? Asked for clarification. Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion ofthe meeting. Com. Miller: · The speaker raises a good point, and in fact the only reason for having an architect is that issues come up after the initial review by the architectural consultant to the city, that particularly at the DRC meetings, that potentially could be facilitated easier. As to how much value, that in itself is a good question. · In terms of should we be moving towards more architectural review, I am always hesitant about what level of architectural review we are going to do into single story houses; because it is hard to get two architects to agree very often on architectural issues associated with the house; and it is not clear that we are going to be adding to the process if we put people through further architectural review, or we are basically opening up another whole new issue to explore Planning Commission Minutes 39 July \2, 2004 and then create guidelines for what architectural items we are going to review and not going to review. · Not sure I am prepared to support that, right now we look at mass and bulk and periodically there are some other issues that come to mind where architectural input is important but not necessarily to the point that we are going to have an "architectural review" of the house structure. Mr. GiIIi: · From my experience ifthe commission believes and is comfortable with still maintaining the focus on mass and bulk, if that was the philosophy the Planning Commission wanted to pursue, I would agree with the speaker, that you don't need the architect at the meeting, and in many cases you don't need the meeting because the ordinance rules and the very basic guidelines which the commission can spend more time at a later meeting, going through, takes care of the mass and bulk issues. · If mass and bulk is going to continue to be the main focus then a process like Exhibit F or G would be what we would recommend; it would save the applicants significant time and money; it would save a lot of staff time as well and we can give you the same output as you get right now. · If the wish is to have more professional input to get a better design and so on, then you have to have hearings. Vice Chair Wong: · By suggesting what you are saying, you are fundamentally changing the process and the process is currently working and one of the reasons why the 1999 ordinance passed, is because they wanted the DRC. · Ifwe are going to eliminate story poles this is another alternative for folks, because you have to notify people to come to the DRC; this is your second opportunity; once you just do the notification, with II x 17 or legal size, they will be dealing directly with staff, they wouldn't be directing the Planning Commission. · Said he wanted it to come back to the Planning Commission and not to staff, and let the Planning Commission take the hits, not staff. Mr. GiIIi: · As the commissioners know, in the last year, there haven't been any hits at the DRC, there haven't been any issues that haven't been about trees and that is something that past commissioners who have been on the DRC have said, why are we meeting ifthe only issue that comes up is a tree, because it is cost to everybody to have the meeting. · The idea was if we are just trying to get the output that we currently get out of the process, this is faster and cheaper and I spoke to architects about this and knowing they have an appeal right, they would prefer this process because it is faster. · If the purpose is to stay in the current concept of what we are reviewing, we can do it better, and faster and cheaper. Chair Saadati: · Suggested because ofthe lateness of the meeting, they could put a dollar and time figure on each of the processes, how long it takes, and what the cost is. Mr. GiIIi: · Generally it will cost an extra couple of thousand dollars if you go to hearing at applicant's expense. Planning Commission Minutes 40 July 12,2004 Chair Saadati: · I sat served on the DRC for almost two years and with the exception of privacy, a lot of applications went through without a lot of problems. Mr. Piasecki · What Mr. Gilli was saying, it gets back to what your philosophy is; if it is mass and bulk, the last thing you want to do is bring an architect in to talk about architectural details and ifthe roofleaks. · You want to keep it focused and keep the messages pure and unmixed. Vice Chair Wong: · It should be about mass and bulk and I appreciate the person staying here so late, but we even decided not to cancel a meeting to continue discussion about this, but the emphasis should be mass and bulk, and design compatibility, we can discuss it at a later time. Mr. Gilli: · Based on what we heard, the next meeting we are going to bring back a process based on Exhibit D, with information about guidelines and minor changes as discussed regarding story poles, notification. · After one with the possibility of an architect, I will put the possibility of an architect into it and just know that if you decide later it can be taken out. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he wanted the DRC meeting to stay in, and see the cost breakdown. Com. Miller: · Would like to see what the costs are. Mr. GiIIi: · At the last meeting, all the commissioners were unanimous on a number of minor issues; rear setback on the first story having it reduced; going to Director's approval; that is reflected in the Exhibits E through G; is the commission still on board with that or going away from that? · Exhibits E through G have a process for minor issues including the rear setback reduction on the first floor, having a gable end height over a certain amount outside the building and below. · Second story decks, and extension of legal non conforming building lines, at the last meeting it was unanimous that the concept of having this at adjacent noticing with a Director's action after hearing if the neighbors have problems with it or not; there was agreement then, I just wanted to know if that is still agreed upon. Vice Chair Wong: · What is it currently? Mr. GiIIi: · It is different for each item; if it is a second story deck it has to go to a public hearing, but the only issue is privacy, the thinking was it didn't need a hearing; extension of a legal non conforming building line needs the neighbor approval but we have had cases where a neighbor has not agreed to approve in a seemingly harmless case; and in the other two the issue of the rear setback reduction and the gable end height currently is allowed, but we had people who had concerns with that. Planning Commission Minutes 41 July 12, 2004 · Should that stay in this model or is that off the table now. Vice Chair Wong: · I think we should take it out of this process and address it differently, because I remember clearly the second story decks were going to be a Director modification; it wasn't going to go through DRC, because it saves money on that. · Can't respond on the others because of lateness of meeting. Com. Giefer: · Suggested that it be continued to help review entire process and be able to see that it really will help streamline the process and makes it easier for the applicants. Vice Chair Wong: · Requested that the staircase issue be discussed at the next meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) to the Planning Commission study session on July 26, 2004 at 5 p.m. in Conference Room C. (Vote: 4-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF mE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Saadati noted there was a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 14'h Housin!! Commission: Com. Giefer reported on the July 8'h meeting; the Vallco Rosebowl development was reviewed and she was asked to share the following comments: The Housing Commission recommends that the applicant maximize the density of units per acre and possibly request a density bonus in favor of adding more low cost housing to the project. They feel that it is an ideal situation because the project does not impact an existing neighborhood or cause additional crowding to an existing neighborhood. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!!: No Report. Com. Giefer asked if someone could attend the August 17'h meeting in her place; Vice Chair Wong volunteered to attend the August meeting; Com. Giefer will attend the September meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No verbal report given. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 5:00 p.m. on July 26, 2004, followed by the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: ~ A. Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: July 26. 2004