Loading...
PC 02-08-05 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chair Wong Vice Chair Miller Lisa Giefer Corn. Saadati Comrnissioners absent: Commissioner: Angela Chen Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Eileen Murray Chair Wong wished the community a Happy Chinese New Year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 2. DIR-2004-05 David Perng (Tian-Hui Temple) 7811 Orion Lane Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor Modification for minor additions to an existing church. Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 2005. Tentative City Council date: April 5, 2005. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to postpone Application DIR-2004-05 to the March 8, 2005 meeting. (Vote:4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission 2 Pebruary g, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: 1. GPA-2004-01 EA-2004-17 Citywide location General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan. Subject: Lane Use. Tentative Council date: Not scheduled. Ms. Ciddy WordeD, City Planner, presented the staff report: · Explained that Parks and Trails and specific properties proposed for change on the land use map of the General Plan would be discussed. Ms. Therese Smith, Parks and Recreation Director: · Provided a history of the document; in 2001 the Parks and Recreation Commission made recommendations that were incorporated into the administrative draft which was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in joint session in early 2003. · The City Council's concem revolved around the total acreage needed to keep Cupertino in balance at 3 acres per 1,000 population, the distribution of the acreage and how it is used. · She reviewed the total park acreage and distribution as outlined in the staff report. · Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the document on January 6, 2005 and made no changes to their original recommendations. · She answered Commissioners' questions. Com. Giefer: · With regards to the joint agreement with the school district, what would be the circumstances where they may not wish to continue that joint powers agreement. Ms. Smith: · Should they want to surplus some of their sites, they may not want to enter into that agreement again. The biggest threat might be the demographic changes and that there aren't school age children in the neighborhood anymore. Com. Saadati: · With reference to Calli Mill Plaza and Civic Center, he asked staff to explain the logic that the part of the public open space was not counted overall. Mr. Piasecki: · He said it related to distinction of park type and whether it is serving neighborhood needs or not; while they would like to add private space, it is not necessarily counted against the 3 acres per 1000 of neighborhood serving parkland that they would like to see and the General Plan calls for. Ms. Smith: · Said that it was not publicly owned land and was not sure they should take credit for it in meeting their goal of 3 acres per 1000 population; school sites are publicly owned but Calli Mill Plaza is not. Ms. Wordell: · Said they acknowledged it as a public resource, as a park or open space resource. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 8, 2005 Com. Saadati: · Said is was something that may have the potential to become a park in the future along the railroad tracks; and asked if any thought was given to plan for the future for the potential to be converted to a linear park. Ms. Smith: · Responded that the City Council adopted the Union Pacific Trail feasibility study and it was acknowledged that the corridor was important in the future should the railroad no longer need to run to the quarry. She said that it was shown in the Plan as a future corridor, likely in about 20 years. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he assumed they had some input on what happens to school sites, but questioned if they had any decision making authority. · Questioned use of the property if not surplus. Ms. Smith: · Said that the city is putting over $1 million a year into maintenance of school sites, so it is a mutually beneficial agreement. · She said as long as those fields are being used by the school district, she couldn't imagine why they would want to pull out of that and try to maintain them on their own. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he did not understand why there should be a distinction based on whether parkland is considered private or public; there is no reason that it would not remain as parkland just because it is private. · If considering school sites as parkland, there is the possibility that in fact they might be termed surplus and disappear into parkland. Mr. Piasecki: · Said he felt the concept is one of how do you utilize that space and does it serve neighborhood park needs for fields and for picnic grounds and children's play yard space. · The parks are designed with very specific objectives in mind to satisfy neighborhood needs; which doesn't mean you cannot account for the other space, but he felt they should. There should be a full inventory of open space that is available, including the open space in the hillsides and owned by Peninsula Regional Open Space District or the County Parks, even though it is a different kind of open space. · Relative to satisfying the 3 acres per 1,000 requirement and the Quimby fees that are applied, it is intended for neighborhood park serving needs. · He said there was private open space in Seven Springs not available to the non-residents, and there is a lot of private open space that is project specific, serving the project needs, and a separate category can be accounted for. It is not serving general public needs otherwise. Chair Wong: · Asked how the park needs were met for developments such as Saron Gardens, Trevenia, and the proj ect on Imperial Avenue. Mr. Piasecki: · They are required to pay a park dedication fee equivalent to 3 acres per 1,000. Those park needs were met based on the most proximate park already built in some of those Cupertino P1anning Commission 4 February 8, 2005 neighborhoods, it is a way they are providing funds to the city, so they can buy parks in deficient neighborhoods where those neighborhoods are already satisfied in terms of the minimum park requirements. In some cases there are not any opportunities. Ms. Smith: · Clarified that Blackberry Farm was funded through utility user fees. · The Simms property and the Stocklemeir property were both opportnnistic purchases; they went on the market and the General Fund fronted the money, and those developments are now paying back the General Fund. · The City Council has allowed councils over past years when a good acquisition opportunity came available, they have released reserves in order to make those acquisitions happen and then as the developers pay the in-lieu fees, the General Fund has been made whole. Chair Wong: · He asked for confirmation that in-lieu fees for Saron Gardens, Trevenia, and Imperial Avenue, are dedicated for parks in the future, to ensure that new residents get services vs. over- crowding Creekside or Memorial Park and others. Mr. Piasecki: · Confirmed the accounting that Ms, Smith was referring to that they should obtain to know where they stood; has the General Fund been reimbursed for the Simms Stocklemeir purchases, and are the funds now going into new parks? · Said he understood that they either had paid, or were close to paying off the fronting of money from the General Fund. · He explained the distribution of funding for the new parks. Chair Wong: · Said there were many opportnnities for trails in Cupertino; but it was not detailed in the staff report if the Stevens Creek corridor trail will be a multi purpose trail or any of the other different trails. · Asked if it should be in the General Plan or how would it be addressed? Ms. Smith: · Responded that it should not be in the General Plan because there is so much public input that has to go into the level of design detail. If they had to address that for every trail envisioned in the General Plan, the document would never get approved. · She said they have debated for the last four years whether Stevens Creek trail should or should not be a multi-use trail; and she felt that level of specificity needs to be set forth in a more specific planning document. Jeannie Bradford, Parks and Recreation Commission: · Said she was available for questions and thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration of the issue. Mr. Peter GUU, Senior Planner: · When the previous General Plan was adopted, the land use map was hand drawn; not parcel specific. Over the years the computer systems have produced a GIS system, where in 2000 it was a guess as to what the hand drawn map looked like, which is the existing land use map. · With the General Plan update, staff is going one step further and trying to make it parcel specific and address some oversights in the previous maps. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 Pebruary g, 2005 · For example, Rancho Rinconada area which is shown as a change area on the map, presently it does not meet its land use designation of 1-5 units per gross acre; it is presently higher. What is being proposed is a new category that is 1-6 units per gross acre. It will not allow more units; it will legalize what is there. It is a large area on the change map, but just a correction on the map. · There are many properties owned by either the water district or another public agency along city creeks, and since the city can be site specific now and parcel specific on its land use map, staff proposes to make those into either a special creek or riparian corridor definition. · He referred to maps of the hillsides, and illustrated the areas showing the designated changes, and topography ofthe aerials. · Showed 3 photos of views from Lindy Lane, Mount Crest and what the standard residential low 1-5 units per acre looks like. · Reviewed the proposed land use map change from what it currently is, which is more appropriate for a valley floor area, to residential low , half acre slope density; to make it match what is on the other side of Lindy Lane. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked what the history of the zoning in the area was. · Questioned when someone builds on the hillside, is there a restriction based on the amount of dirt that has to be moved, or the amount of cut and fill that is done to the hillside. Mr. Gilli: · In the 90s, most of the area was RI, and the City Council drew a line on an old land use map where the transition was between the hillside and the valley floor area. He illustrated the portion of the city that had been on the hillside part of that line. When it was brought forward earlier, it was taken off the list of sites to rezone to RHS. · Said that under the hillside ordinance, there is a trigger point for requiring a public hearing; in general it discourages too much grading in the hillside. There is a preference to keep the hills as natural as possible. The purpose of that exception trigger is to have a public review at that point. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that the concept of the slope density formula has been around since the late 70s or mid- 70s. Seven Springs Ranch was part of the slope density formula which is why the hillsides are so bad; the Seven Springs area was left untouched and the development was clustered down below. Chair Wong: · Requested that staff research the date that City Council decided this portion was RI vs. RHS. · Currently we pass the RI ordinance and we get addressed a little bit, and I wanted to find out that with the RHS and Rl do you have to fall into both categories. · If approved and they fall into RHS, one downside for these 27 property owners is that they couldn't subdivide ifthey did not meet the requirement shown on the screen. Mr. Gilli: · If the average slope of the lot is over 15%, they have to meet the development regulations of both. · Four of the properties might not be able to subdivide; of the 27, only four could presently subdivide. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 February 8, 2005 · Said that if in R1 but near the geologic fault line area, it would still have to go through the geologic issues. He said at the January 26th community meeting, the subdivision impact on the four properties was discussed in depth; many property owners are present tonight and may speak. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it was a two-sided coin; the other side of the coin, is that ofthe 27 properties, there are 23 that do not have potential for subdivision. They will have greater protections should subdivision occur on those four properties and greater oversight when development happens, presumably protecting their hillside property interests and perhaps enhancing their property values in this sensitive area. Chair Wong: · Asked if the implementation of the new RI ordinance is not until March l't or sometime in March; if the four property owners had concern, should they submit an application before they implement the new Rl? Mr. Gilli: · Said it would be true if subdivisions in hillside areas were easy; there is a lot of engineering work involved, it is not something that you can apply for and have everything set in a short amount of time. Vice Chair Miller: · Clarified that the current requirement is that they meet both the Rl and RHS, and asked if the more restrictive requirement applied in each case. (Answer: Yes). · The only change proposed is to eliminate the Rl requirements and that the requirement for subdivision is the RHS requirement, which is more restrictive than the RI now. Mr. Gilli: · Said it was an issue that staff has been discussing. There is a section in Rl that says buildings proposed on sites with an average slope of 15%, have to meet RHS. It is questionable if it would apply to a subdivision, because the subdivision doesn't propose buildings yet; it proposes building pad, but no building. · It is an area with two possibilities: The properties even though if they built a house and filed quickly, it is not ironed out at this point. They could build a house, but the house would háve to meet RHS and Rl. If they subdivide legally and it is determined to be legal, which has not been finalized yet; you could build a house on a substandard lot; you always can in Cupertino. Discussion ensued regarding the Moxley lot. Ms. Wordell: · Said that one of the dilemmas when the Moxley property came to the Planning Commission was that there were concerns that it was hillside and perhaps the Planning Commission should be looking at hillside designations. The problem was they were going through a General Plan review and to intetject that did not make sense; so the property owner did agree to record a covenant limiting the size of the houses as a way of addressing the Commission's concems that they were really hillside lots. Having it come forward now as part of the General Plan review was anticipated. · Announced that a land use study session would be held Monday, February 14th; and the Planning Commission will decide where they are headed on the issue. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 February 8, 2005 Deborah Jamison, Rumford Drive: · Commented on the draft General Plan, trail linkages and open space. · Referred to the trail linkage map and said she was a proponent of the completion of the Stevens Creek trail for many years, and voiced her opinion that the trail linkage coming from where the Stevens Creek trail comes out of the Snyder Hammon House to the county park should be prioritized higher to make the linkage over to the county park from where the trail will come out. · Recommended that under the Stevens Creek trail section of the draft General Plan change "formal urban trail" to "maintained rural trail" or something similar, as she did not feel it was appropriate to use "urban" to describe the corridor, as the purpose of the corridor was to honor, enjoy, interpret and appreciate the natural and rural history, and keep it rural in nature. · Said that when the County acquired 133 acres of open space when the seminary property was developed, the Cupertino residents were promised public access to the property, which has not occurred. She asked that it be addressed or prioritized in the General Plan. Richard Weaver, Rumford Drive: · Said he concurred with Ms. Jamison's comment about the trails. · Expressed concern with the lack of Hot Topics in the General Plan on school playing fields. · Stated that in 2003 the State of California passed a law that a new school could not be built within 500 feet of a particular pollution source; and Cupertino contains such a source. He said that if they could not build new schools there, they did not want to preserve the playing fields where the damage comes fTom, and that is why the new schools cannot be built. · He said if the Homestead playing fields came up for discussion, the objective would be to close them, not perpetuate them. · The pollution source is missing entirely from the General Plan. There are ten pages of discussion on noise, but the pollution source causes death and illness. · He asked why the pollution source is not addressed in the General Plan, and asked what the residents have to do to get it there. Ms. Wordell: · Said that the draft Environmental Impact Report would be a good avenue. Chair Wong: · Suggested that Mr. Weaver put his concerns in writing to Ms. Wordell and staff would contact him. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Suggested that a non-profit fund be set up in the city to purchase parkland. The fund could receive bequeathrnents and be invested on an ongoing basis; the revenue could be used to purchase parkland. John Knopp, Lindy Lane: · The Planning Commission considered rezoning about 10 years ago and decided to do nothing. · Expressed concern about the value of the land; said he would like to subdivide his land eventually and preserve that value. · The January 26th meeting was informative and he welcomed the opportunity to have a discussion with staff and address the issues. He said the letter said they did not foresee any negative impacts, but it turned out that they probably are. It was a surprise to them that the Cupertino Planning Commission g February 8, 2005 properties were rezoned Rl within the past year. Now it is being proposed for RHS and they would now be subject to both the zoning whích presents a problem if they are building or trying to subdivide. · They would be interested in and receptive to a proposition of allowing them to continue in the future to elect to subdivide under the present conditions. · With the change to Rl and RHS within a year, they cannot move that quickly. They would be open to possibly preserving the ability to subdivide in the future. Luciano Daile Ore, Lindy Lane: · At the January meeting, eleven property owners were surprised to leam about the rezoning one year before adding the RHS restriction. They were not notified before or after the change. · Said his property was approximately one acre; and he was interested in preserving the value of his property. A point was made that if they don't subdivide the property, the value for somebody else is going to grow. It is not an option to buy more land surrounding his home. · Said he understood the importance of being a good neighbor in terms of RHS, as one big house was just built in ITont of him. He said to some extent he concurred with what was said that it makes sense to make the appropriate rules so that there are not huge eyesores on top of the hill; but at the same time would like to ensure that the fundamental property values are preserved. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: · Said Mr. Knopp had a good idea and asked what Mr. Knopp should do relative to his proposal to see if staff was open to his idea. Ms. Wordell: · Said it would be appropriate for him to attend the next meeting and present his ideas if he would like to have it discussed further. Vice Chair MiUer: · Relative to trails, he referred to an earlier comment about some open space in the diocese property not being made available to Cupertino residents as promised; and asked if it was contiguous with the Rancho Rinconada park area. Ms. Wordell: · Said it was the Oak Valley development, and they had 2/3 of the church property as public open space, taken over by the County. They are doing park planning. · She said she thought the first phase was accessible to the public, but did not know the status. Mr. Gilli responded to Vice Chair MiUer questions: · Relative to changes a year ago to Rl, he said the properties in the area that are currently Rl have been Rl for quite some time. The speakers may be referring to changes in Rl; in 1999 there was a requirement that if sites had a 30% slope, they had to meet both rules. · Relative to having to meet both the Rl and RHS, he said there was rule stating at a certain threshold you have to meet both, which has been in existence since 1999. · The proposal is now to put them all under RHS and simplify the process for the property owners who do not have the potential to have a lot split. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 February 8, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: · Asked if everyone was put under RHS and someone had a larger parcel that may be missed by a few feet, and staff hadn't done the calculation to know it was an issue; could they still apply and go before the Commission for them to decide whether or not it was reasonable to subdivide. Ms. Wordell: · Said it would have to meet the subdivision requirements; it cannot come in under. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that the reason why they are hearing from the property owners who have roughly one acre; they are most at risk for losing the potential of the larger lots where you would still have to go through the calculation. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked Mr. Knopp when the changes were made in the general area to RHS, why these particular lots were left out of those changes. Chair Wong reopened the public hearing. Mr. Knopp: · Explained that they suddenly received notice that the Planning Commission was proposing the change to the zoning, and at that time it was just nine properties; it is now eleven because of the Moxley split. They went to the Planning Commission and the question was asked why this hillside; and the answer was that they would get around to all of them at some point, and to look into the issues there. They looked at it and fInally decided it didn't make any sense and decided to drop it. They went on to Regnart and rezoned it, and then some other pockets. That is the reason it is the only one that remains as it was back then. · He said he questioned why one of the Planning Commissioners picked those hills to rezone, because he sat on the steepest property in all of Cupertino; his back yard dropped to the 15th fairway at Deep Cliff. His response was that they wanted to be consistent. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he felt if there was a rule that says over 15%, and there are properties that exceed 15%, they should try to have consistency. However, in this particular case there were only four properties and another approach is to treat the four properties on an individual basis, recognizing that a precedent was set; but part of that precedent was that they were required to reduce the size ofthe development on the property. · Either way there is going to be give and take as to whether it is rezoned and goes according to the RHS, or treat them as individual properties, knowing that they are not going to get the full benefit of what they might have. Com. Giefer: · Relative to Parks and Recreation and trails, there was interesting discussion with regard to prioritization of different trails and parklands. · Ms. Griffin's concept of a not-for-profit to establish a fund to build future parks was a good idea. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 February 8, 2005 · Parks and trails remain an important aspect of our community for all our residents today and for the future. · Said she felt there was an inconsistency currently with the hillside properties relative to rezoning Rl to RHS. She understood the opportunity loss that the four lots may feel they have, but the hills are hills, and she saw erosion within that neighborhood. She expressed concern that additional buildup along the hillside is going to cause additional hill slides, mudslides and the like. · Said she was sensitive to over-developing all the hills in Cupertino; concerned about the entire area and expansive soil. She said she felt they should come up with a scheme equal for all property owners regardless of what side of Lindy they are on. · One of the concerns presently is they are not certain there is a problem because their properties haven't been surveyed. Until it is known, all property owners should be treated equally and she would prefer to make it clean and straight forward, rather than have special deals with special property owners. · Property owners have rights to develop their own properties, and there needs to be a balance. They are in a hillside area; the hills are equally steep on both sides of the street on that particular street; and the other side of the street is zoned hillside. Com. Saadati: · Concurred with Com. Giefer comments on parks and trails; they are important and they will continue to focus and expand on them as much as possible and keep their eyes on future properties as they become available, including smaller parks where possible. · Relative to the four properties, without looking at numbers, how can one tell a difference between 20,000 square foot lot vs. a 21,780 square foot lot. Mr. Gilli: · If the average slope of the particular lot is only 22% or less, then staff concurs that it is a minor difference. If the slope of the lot is higher than 22%, then the minimum lot size gets bigger, as outlined in the appendix of the General Plan. · It is not an issue of 20,000 vs. 21,000; because it has to factor in the slope as a wild card. Com. Saadati: · Said if the slope is 50%, the lot size may double or triple, compared to a lot which would have been suitable for a 20% or 15% lot. · If the margin is very close, if there are two or three lots, at 22% slope, one can be subdivided to meet the 22,000 square foot lot, and another one can be subdivided 20,000. · Questioned if the difference would be significant that one would not allow the subdivision of the smaller lot. Mr. Piasecki: · When looking at the Moxley subdivision those lots were roughly 30% in terms of the overall slope, and that is not doing the full slope density calculation, just a cut section and looking at the slope of the land. Staff presumes the other lots, the one acre lots in particular, were roughly in that range, but rather than have an academic discussion about it, since there are only four, staff will look into whether they can do a calculation and come back to the Commission and inform them if the lots are definitely impacted or not. Chair Wong: · Concurred with the speaker on connectivity, that they should look into that and also requests from Corns. Miller and Giefer that staff look into those four properties and report back. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 February 8, 2005 · The value to the property is important to those property owners. · Although the comment was true that the south side or the other side is still a hillside, since they are in transition, they want to listen to their residents and try to accommodate them as much as possible; and protect the environment and the hillside. · Asked staff to provide reports by the February 14th meeting. Ms. Wordell: · Reviewed the meeting schedule and discussion oftopics that would occur. Chair Wong: · Asked staff to list questions and do a matrix similar to the R I. Vice Chair Miller: · Relative to the trails, he concurred with Ms. Jamison's recommendation to give priority to real hiking trails over trails that follow a busy thoroughfare. Ms. Wordell: · Said she would get feedback from Parks and Recreation, and get their reaction to that and bring it to the February 14th meeting. Chair Wong: · Thanked the audience for participating in the General Plan land use study, and noted that a recommendation would be made on February 14th; and the meeting would be televised. · Also thanked the Parks and Recreation staff and commissioners for attending the meeting. Chair Wong declared a short recess. 3. INT-2004-01 Simon Lin (Cupertino Estates) 22291 Cupertino Rd. Interpretation for the front of the lot of a single-family residence to change from Cupertino Road to Hillcrest Road. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a request for interpretation of the front yard of a lot of a single- family residence to change from Cupertino Road to Hillcrest Road as outlined in the staff report. · In November 2004 the Planning Commission approved a two lot tentative subdivision map for the property and deIried a tree removal request to remove four specimen size cedar trees and an oak tree. An appeal was filed and the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission decision by denying the appeal. · Staff recommends reinterpretation of the front yard setback from Cupertino Road to Hillcrest Road per the model resolution. Simon Lee, applicant said he had nothing to add. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Com. Giefer: · With reorienting the home, from 8 to 12 feet of the house is under the deodora cedars; asked if it proposed y issues for sustaining those trees. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 February R, 2005 Mr. Jung: · Said that it did not; part of the arborist report required that they do some end weight reduction of the limbs of the cedars since they have not been well maintained over the years. · Staff's main concern was to try to get the garage and the driveway away from the trees because they function as a single living unit with all their roots intergrowing with each other. · There is enough flexibility in the building envelope itself to move it away from the trees. The applicant is willing to do so. · Said there is an oak tree located on Lot No. I; it is a 10 inch diameter oak; the applicant has permission to transplant the oak tree. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he felt it made sense to do this. He said they were doing a better job of preserving the trees and also making the site more workable from a functional standpoint for the house. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application INT-2004-01 per the model resolution. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) Chair Wong expressed appreciation to the applicant for working with staff and also preserving the trees. 4. DIR-2004-29 Dayna Aguirre (Velocitel, Inc.) 21840 McClellan Rd. Director's Minor Modification with referral to Planning Commission to construct a wireless communications facility at the Monta Vista High School gymnasium, with six antennas and equipment cabinets. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Mr. Jung presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for referral of a director's minor modification request to allow a personal wireless service facility, proposed by AT&T Wireless, now Cingular, consisting of six panel antennas mounted on a parapet wall of Monta Vista High School gymnasium, as outlined in the staff report. · Reviewed the site plan, showing the location of the high school, adjacent residences, and the elementary school. The diagram illustrated the distance of the antennas from the residential property lines and showed the proposed location of the antennas on the buildings. · Staff looked at the impacts of the project itself including the noise exposure, the PCS equipment has a noise level of approximately 35 dbas at 25 meters. There is a lot of HV AC equipment on the roof; when the equipment was measured during the day, the range of noise was over 70 decibels on the rooftop; however at the residential property line which is some distance from the building itself, there is a range of decibel levels from 49 to 55 decibels. The city noise standard is 65 decibels; the equipment itself is well within the noise standards of the community. · The applicant hired a radio engineer to examine this particular facility and his report determined that the maximum public exposure, at ground level in the open, a general population exposure, at being a fraction of a millowatt per square centimeter, equating to 1.7% of the maximum limit allowed by the federal government. · Staff recommends approval of the director's minor modification. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 February 8, 2005 Com. Saadati: · Why are they proposing six antennas rather than one. · Did they explore to locate the antenna in the middle of the gym roof. Mr. Jung: · The applicant will address that. They typically try to get 360 degree coverage for any of their antenna sites, with a minimum of three antenna. · To get the height requested, putting it on the center might make it more visible and more difficult to screen. · They are sensitive to the community's needs and did not want to exceed the height of the building itself. Com. Giefer: · Would other vendors be able to co-locate? Mr. Jung: · Rooftop co-location is easier to do than a monopole location because the vendor does not own the rooftop of the building, and it would be up to the school district whether they want to have additional carriers; which would also require additional antenna placement. Vice Chair MiUer: · Asked if it was a coverage or capacity site. · Is there a difference in power output between the two types of sites. Mr. Jung: · Said it was both; the extra antennas are likely there for capacity. · Said the applicant could address the questions. Chair Wong: · Asked why there was an expiration date on the model resolution on Page 4-5. · Asked staff to explain why the application is to the Planning Commission and not the school district; and what is the school district's input. Mr. Jung: · Said the expiration dates were included since they know that the state of the technology and the technology of the camouflaging techniques can change rapidly in the industry, they want to have an opportunity to go back in and make things better when possible. · The reason the application is before the Planning Commission instead of the school district, is that schools are not allowed to approve anything that does not have to do with the school's mission. They are a government agency and have a right to carry out their mission and do things without interference from other government agencies, but it is a private lease they are entering into with AT&T Wireless, does not affect the education of the school and must get city permission to erect the antennas. · Relative to the school district's approval, the application form is signed by the school officials. Chair Wong: · Asked staff to review the health issues and the telecommunications document that the city passed, and explain why there are some things that the Planning Commission can address and some they cannot address. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 February 8, 2005 Mr. Jung: · The Federal Communications Act passed in 1996 recognized the city's rights to regulate antenna structures for these types of facilities within certain limits. · One of the limits established was that cities cannot regulate these types of facilities based solely on the emissions generated from the radio frequency as long as those emissions meet the federal safety standards. That cannot enter into the Planning Commission's discussion; it is a matter of design only. Ms. Dayna Aguirre, Velocitel, representing AT&T Cingular Wireless: · Said that currently Cingular is experiencing some coverage difficulty in the area causing its users to drop calls or have difficulty placing calls. The proposed facility would alleviate these problems providing coverage primarily to those residing in the area as well as those commuting within the vicinity. · Wireless communications is necessary within residential areas, not only for those working or telecommuting from home, but for security reasons, allowing residents in an emergency situation when landlincs may not be available, to place a call to emergency services or to check with family members. · Locating a wireless facility within residential areas is a sensitive issue, and attempts were made to locate beyond the area, but were unsuccessful. The one location considered was One Results Way, a two story commercial building which did not provide enough height for the RF objectives, which is why they chose Monta Vista High School. The new gymnasium has the most height in the area and it was an opportunity to locate on an existing building rather than to locate on a new pole. · Applicant has worked with staff to come up with a design that works well; met with the community; and prepared MF studies as well as noise studies and feel they are complying with the regulations. · The antennas will be stealth and will not be seen and will be screened with adequate architectural elements to integrate with the new building. · This is viewed as a good solution and opportunity for the school to generate income and enable Cingular to service their clients, working within the city's development standards. · Responding to an earlier question, she said that six antennas is standard on a facility; for budget reasons, if a site does not meet certain standards, they will not approve it because it is costly to put up a site, and they have to be certain it makes economic sense. · Relative to co-location opportunities, other carriers are welcome to co-locate if it works for their needs. They have their own antennas and would have to do intermod studies to ensure there was no interference. · She said that the coverage would not necessarily be increased, but is primarily for the residential areas which covers approximately one mile. · The height of the antennas is 43 feet; and will not go beyond the parapet. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Joanne Lee, Olive Avenue: · She asked if multiple wireless companies could co-locate on the pole, and also asked if the Planning Commission would evaluate the impact of the combined vendors locating on the same pole. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 Pebruary 8, 2005 · Asked if the Planning Commission considered a height factor, where the 42, 2 inches maximum height was derived from; if it could be increased; and if any other options were considered. · Said she would prefer a higher antenna rather than less visible antennas on the gymnasium next to the student buildings. · Recommended that the antenna be increased in height 10 to 20 feet. Dennis Yau, Hyannisport Drive: · Opposed to the application. · Expressed concern because there was no space between his back yard and the building on which the applicant is proposing to mount the antenna; there are 6 antennas, 2,000 watts each, in constant operation. The impact relative to interference is not known yet. · Expressed concern about long term health impacts on children. · Recommended that the school be involved in the discussions and the concerns be expressed to them of the potential negative impacts. Sherry Hsu, Imperial Avenue: · Said that a previous proposal for an antenna placement in Jollyman Park was denied; one argument being the negative impact on the children using the park. · The high school and schools in the area have a high population of students attending as well as many teachers who are in the buildings all day; she expressed concern for the health and safety for the attendees as well as the neighbors. · Asked the Planning Commission to consider the serious issues of health concerns relative to the RF emissions. Tom Huganin, La Roda Court: · Said there were two previous applications that were denied and had a lot of public outcry. · Asked if the city would use their RFR experts to do the study and bill the applicant; the applicant paying for it may have a biased judgment that was brought up at the last tower application. It would be better if the city was handling the issue. · Said he felt it would be wise to have a study re-done to reflect that there is an elementary school nearby. · Relative to co-location, he asked if the applicant would be able to put their antennas behind the screen mesh and have the same installation they presently have. The applicant is willing to co- locate; it should be put in writing that the applicant agreed to co-locate, to ensure clarity in the future as the competitors in the market become more competitive and lock each other out. · Asked how the night time numbers were derived. · Applicant stated that each tower would cover one mile; to ensure adequate coverage the city would need one tower per mile; is that what the city wants? Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Jung responded to the previous speakers' comments: · Relative to the question if the Planning Commission has considered putting multiple antennas on the building, he said it was a possibility; however they presently do not have another carrier interested in co-locating on the location. Sprint is another carrier located on Imperial Avenue. · Said there would likely be some demand for another carrier to locate on the premises; the rooftop is available to them. · The reason a co-location requirement was not placed in the resolution, is staff found it was a problem with the monopoles, because they are owned by the carrier and they have a Cupertino Planning Commission 16 February 8, 2005 competitive interest not to locate another competitor on their pole; in this particular case they do not own the roof, and another carrier could go on the roof. · Staff would not objective to a condition stating that the applicant shall allow another carrier to co-locate behind its architectural screen. · Relative to a question if it was safer the greater the distance of the antenna ITom the exposure sites, why not make the antennas taller on the building. He said he had not heard that before. Increasing the height of the antennas would make them visible and there would be concern on residents' part and they would have been showing up at the hearing. He said in general, the preference of the public is not to see them, whether or not you can make it taller. The applicants would not object to making the antenna taller, but the overall community does not appreciate seeing them. · The wireless master plan does call for stealth installations or something that is relatively unobtrusive. · Relative to the concern about interference with electronic devices, the communication devices are required to operate within certain specific ftequencies, and in most cases the problem is with the electrical device owned by the complaining party that is not operating within the ftequencies it is supposed to operate in; as a result it is capturing other stuff from devices that are operating within their assigned frequencies. · Relative to the school being involved in analyzing the issue, he said they had a signed application from the school district on the proposal; Fremont Union High School District has allowed antennas on other of its high school campuses; one is located at Cupertino High School and some located at Fremont High School. The school district is involved, not certain to what degree they involve the parents or other staff. The city has consent from the school district to proceed with this application. · There is no separate exposure limit for elementary school students. There are two different exposure limits; the occupational limit, which is higher for people who work in the industry setting up the equipment; they have a higher exposure limit than the other group which is referred to as the general population group, with the uncontrolled exposure because they are not working around the equipment. Dave Minger, Velocitel: · Said he supported the applicants. · The search ring radius and antenna propagation radius is a one-quarter mile radius for a one- half mile diameter; that is the primary area sought to be served. · There will be some additional signal effects that will go out some beyond that, but primarily is a circle one-half mile in diameter. Com. Saadati: · Said that he did not feel there were any architectural issues related to the antennas. · Noted that his daughter attends Monta Vista High School. · Supports the application. Com. Giefer: · It is a well screened, stealth designed antenna; if the application is passed, would like to stipulate that other vendors be allowed to co-locate behind the screening. · Noted that she had a child attending Monta Vista High School also. · Supports the application. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 February 8, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: · Asked if a noise study was done at night as opposed to the daytime. · Asked for clarification on power output as a previous speaker indicated that the power output was 2000 watts, but his text on the discussion said 200 watts, Mr. Jung: · Noted that the noise measurements were made during the daytime and the main focus was the air conditioning equipment; what is actually analyzed is the noise of the PCS equipment itself and that is much quieter, 35 decibels and that meets both the daytime or night time standard. Bill Hammett, Hammett & Edison, Engineers: · Authored the report on RF exposure considerations. · Said the data he was provided indicated 2130 watts as the maximum toward the horizon from the antennas, which was the basis for his study and staffs conclusions. · Explained that the 200 watts may have been the total amount of input power to the antennas. He said it was studied as a worst case scenario, the figures for the compliance of the federal standards were based on the higher level. · The percentages were based on the 2000 watts, not the 200 watts. Vice Chair Miller: · A number of speakers referred to previous applications at Jollyman and Tin Tin Market, which were denied. · He clarified that the Planning Commission is to look only at architectural and noise issues relative to the location of the antenna, and not to look at issues relative to power output or the environmental effects. · Said he understood the neighbors' concerns, but felt the neighbors should speak to the school because they are the ones allowing the application to go forward. · The Planning Commission is limited in terms of what they can and cannot approve. · Supports the application; from a design standpoint, it is very nicely designed and is almost invisible to the public. Chair Wong: · Said he concurred with his colleagues; and understood the neighbors' concerns as well. · Agreed with Vice Chair Miller's comment that the concerns should be addressed at the school district level since they are the landlord. · The Planning Commission is to address the architectural and noise aspect only. · Said he felt the applicant did a good job architecturally in screening it, had good community outreach and two speakers explained the RFs and other concerns as well. · Said he supports the application. · The public has the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application DIR-2004-29 as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) Mr. Piasecki noted that the Planning Commission decision is fmal, unless appealed within 14 days to the City Council. The appeal fee is $140.00. OLD BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 18 February 8, 2005 NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Wong reported that the meeting was cancelled due to lack of business. Housinl! Commission: Com. Saadati said the next meeting was scheduled for February 10,2005. Economic Develonment Committee Meetinl!: Will meet quarterly. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported: · The City Council met February 4th to review their goals for the upcoming year. When the Planning Commission goals are brought forward, the City Council's umbrella goals will be discussed. · On February 7th, the City Council had a meeting to discuss land use policies, clarifications, procedures. City Council decided that they would consider amending the ordinance that requires them to review any General Plan amendment request before they can move forward into an application format. · Said there would be an opportunity for Planning Commissioners to have e-mail reception at City Hall; however, messages going out ITom there would go out on the personal e-mails. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: · Quarterly meetings held first Wednesday of the month, quarterly from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room C. The meetings for the year are: Wednesday, February 9th, Wednesday, May II th, Wednesday, August lOth, and Wednesday, November 9,2005. · Ms. Wordell said that she would veritY if the meeting February 9th was still scheduled. Other: Vice Chair Miller: · (I) Asked staff to respond to comments made by a speaker at a February 7th meeting, who suggested that the city may want to look at alternate sources of revenue, and provided an example of Palo Alto having control over some of the utilities, delivering utility services, and getting some revenues ITom that. · (2) Asked staff to claritY the discussion about the cost of housing; in comparison the revenues received ITom housing. One of the projects coming to the Planning Commission is the Hewlett Packard site for 350 housing units for that site; which will generate approximately slightly less than $2 million in property tax revenue; generating about $70,000 for Cupertino, equivalent to approximately $200 per unit. How does it compare to what the cost of services is those units, and if the cost is higher, does the commercial offset that or are there other ways to recover those costs. Mr. Piasecki: · (I) Said it wasn't feasible for Cupertino; Palo Alto started up their utility functions many decades ago when it was easier and less expensive to establish it and built it ITom there, and charged for that service. He commented that it wasn't impossible, but Cupertino would have to purchase and market rates for those facilities and try to recoup those purchase costs. Cupertino P]anning Commission ]9 February 8, 2005 Cupertino is under a very difficult and constrained budget presently. The City Manager will be addressing the comments. . (2) If calculated on a gross overall basis, the cost to run city government divided by the population; what is the population that will come from this project; not certain what the costs are to provide all the services; an analysis could be done for that; it is a good exercise to go through. · A secondary issue raised by the General Plan Task Force is that the city should not provide ownership housing on a site that has the potential for retail sales tax generation; that is reviewed as more of an opportunity cost to the city, and it should be reserved at all costs. . Staff has been discussing the feasibility of doing some type of in-lieu fee to level the playing field for residential and retail; the thinking being that the rules for retail are handed down from the state. Staff is looking for different ways of funding the services it provides and they can do some fiscal analysis along the lines suggested. · Mello Roos can be considered, but they are difficult to form. Ms. Wordell: · Said that the Planning Commission discusses once a year their work plan for the year, based on City Council goals for the most part, which staff will bring forward next month. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the General Plan study session on Monday, February 14,2005 at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall. < SUBMITTED BY: -Q-~ is, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 22, 2005