Loading...
PC 11-13-01Planning Commission Agenda of November 12, 2001 ?a~e -~ OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Committee Mayor's Breakfast REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenOa, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. G:Planning/Asendal 1-13.01.doc2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 DRAFT SUBMITTED (408) 777-3308 blINUTES OF ~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COblMISSION l~I,n ON OCTOBER :2:2, 2001 SALUTE TO ~ FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Pateoe, Chairperson Kwok, Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin .lung, Senior Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M~mutes of the October 8, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr noted that on Page 5, Paragraph 5, "PW Market" should be deleted, and "ihe Department of Public YYorks" inserted. Com. Patnoe noted that on Page 4, second last paragraph, line 2: "DeAnza Creek" should read "DeAnza Boulevard." MOTION: Com. Corr moved approval of the October 8, 2001 Planning Commission minutes as amended SECOND: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 W1LITTEN COMI~4-U-NICATIONS: Chair Kwok noted a letter received from Gary Schmidt dated October 19, 2001 regarding Application 09-U-01 (Item 5). ORAL COMIVIUNICATION: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 4. Application No.: 07-U-01 Applicant: Tom Swarner (PEN Co. for MetroPCS) Location: 10602 No. Portal Avenue Use permit to construct three fiat panel antennas on a monopole and four outdoor equipment cabinets. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2001 Request postponement to November 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 22, 2001 MOTION: Com. Patnoe moved to postpone Application 07-U-01 to the November 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Application No.: 20-DIR-01 Applicant: Monica Epst0in Location: 11486 Lindy Place Director's minor modification to remove a specimen oak tree and plant replacement trees. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 20-DIR-01 of the consent calendar SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC ~I~ARING 3. Appllcation No.: 10-U-01 Applicant: Diocese of San Jose (St. Joseph's of Cupertino) Location: 10110 No. DeAnza Boulevard Use permit to construct an approximately 2,100 square foot conference building and covered walkway at an existing church Staff oresentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, explained that the two concerns from the previous Planning Commission meeting related to some of the landscaping around DeAnza Boulevard, and whether anything could be done with the wide driveway he illustrated on the map. Mr. Jung said the landscape options were reviewed with the landscape architect and he illustrated the preferred option which preserves a circulation aisle and some parking along the frontage of it for the church, and provides a 16 foot landscaping strip. He noted that it would not involve any relocation of utilities, merely removal of the asphalt, and some curbing and irrigation line extended to it. He said the loss of five parking stalls would not present a problem as there is ample parking to meet the needs of the church. Relative to the easement, it is an easement in favor of the adjoining property owners. Staffrecommends approval of the project. The applicant had no comment. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Kwok closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 10-U-01 SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 22, 2001 S. Application No.: 09-U-01 Applicant: Gary Schmidt Location: 19961 So. Blaney Avenue Use permit for continued use ora shopping center parking' lot for car storage Planning Commission ~lecision final unless appealed Request postponement to October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Ghair Kwok indicated that a request for postponement had been received from Mr. Schmidt, and the applicant was requesting that a site visit be conducted with staff. Staff presentation: Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, said that staff did not feel a continuance of the application was warranted, and that he felt it would be highly unusual to continue a project of this scale for the purpose ora site visit. He said both staff and the applicant could adequately explain the progress of the project without the need for a site visit. Ms.' Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report. She noted that the intent of the various use permits over the last two-and-a- half years were for interim use, not only for the dealer that wanted to store the cars, but also because the " applicant was pursuing other uses for the property. She noted that staff cited a General Plan policy addressing the Stevens Creek area and the Heart of the City Specific Plan area as being a unique pedestrian oriented area; and it was considered through these various procedures as all interim use. Staff feels there are problems with compatibility with the area, as there are residential uses nearby and also the long-term use for something more appropriate for Heart of the City. She said that it has not caused problems in terms of the area, and no complaints about the use had been received. She pointed out that there are numerous properties throughout the city, particularly ill the Heart of the City where other people have been discouraged from applying for storage o1' automobiles or any kinds of storage activities because of the more desired use for the area. Ms. Wordell said that staff feels it is a public policy issue at stake for a more desirable use for tile property. Staffrecommends denial of the extension of the use permit for the property. Mr. Gary Schmidt, 10071 So. Blaney Avenue, distributed photos of the property and adjacent areas. He illustrated the area of the existing use permit for a 28,000 square foot buildingissued in 1988, which runs with the land, noting that it was a two phase use permitl the first phase tbr a. major remodel on the building exterior, in addition to putting in all the Stevens Creek landscape according to the Stevens Creek landscape plan, taking out the entire parking lot, regrading it, putting in storm drains, and undergrounding all the mechanical/electrical. He said hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to upgrade the Stevens Creek area, and it is one of the few parcels on Stevens Creek that fully complies with the Stevens Creek landscape corridor plan and has been in compliance for 12 years. In rcturn, the city granted an unlimited time period .to build a buildiug in the rear and partially due to the fact that they were long-term leases on the Blaney Center running up to 10 years, which made it difficult to do it more timely. Mr. Schmidt pointed out what he said he felt were numerous errors or nomenclatures in the staff report; such as the use parking not being compatible with adjacent residential and commercial uses. He illustrated tile property where he had full ownership and the areas where he had only partial ownership in tile past. Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 22, 2001 Mr. Schmidt reported that since the last one-year extension, he has submitted four potential plans for approval. He expressed his willingness to put in temporary vegetation, which would soften the area in the rear parking lot of Hamasushi. Relative to the reference in the staff report to Stevens Creek being a unique pedestrian experience, and it not being an appropriate use on Stevens Creek, he pointed out that it fronts on Blaney Avenue, not Stevens Creek. He said he felt he, along with other partners, contributed as much or more than any other parcel along Stevens Creek to the unique pedestrian experience. He referred to the Imperial Avenue parcel and said that it was not comparable to the application property, as it was a non-improved dirt lot, on the street, with no landscaping; and again stressed that a visit to the sites would be illustrativeofthat. He said that there have been no complaints; and it was within the .discretionary power of the Planning Commission to grant the use permit, and the claim by the city that to grant the use permit would somehow delay ultimate development of the property was no offer of proof; and as conjecture he said to deny the moderate economic return on this parcel would be what would delay the develOPment of the property, since he was using all the money to submit plans and deal with staff. He requested that the application for an extension to the use permit be approved and a walking tour of the site be.taken to discuss the corner. He said he felt it was important not to develop it fast, but to develop it right. Mr. Del Osland, attorney, representing Gary Schmidt, said that he felt the point made by the Planning Depa,hnent that denial of the permit would enhance or speed up the development of the property into some sort of planned development or redevelopment was not correct. He said that the present agreement with the Honda dealership is on a month-to-month basis, and could be cancelled at any time, and they would be looking to see the highest and best use for the property not just to generate the smallest amount of income; but the money would help in developing the property rather than leaving it completely vacant. He pointed out that prior to the cars being stored there, it was vacant for many years. He requested that the letter he wrote prior to last year's meeting be made a part of the records, as it was not presently on file. Chair Kwok oPened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Corr said that he was not concerned with the particular use being obtrusive or bothering anybody, as it was well hidden. He expressed concern that the use was counter to the uses in the Stevens Creek Plan, and noted that it was not just that it was on Stevens Creek, but it was in the · Stevens Creek Plan area. He recalled that it was the third time in two years that the applicant was asking for an extension; and what started out as a request for temporary help has turned into an expectation from the applicant to continue granting extensions of the use permit. Com. Corr said that he was apprehensive about supporting the extension of the use permit. Ms. Wordell provided a history of the use permit, noting that the Hamasushi development was approved as a phased project; Hamasushi was phase 1 and an office building was phase 2, with no time limit on when it could be built. Phase 2 has notbeen built, and is still vested since it was part of the original use permit. She noted that if the applicant provided a valid building plan, the Planning Commission would have to accept it. Ms. Wordell also pointed out that the applicant is proposing a change in plans, and has been working with staffon a different set of plans. Mr. Piasecki said that the city receives no sales taxes from the storage of the autos on the property, and it was presumed the applicant was referring to the economic benefit to himself and also indirectly allowing him then to pursue plans for development of the property, which ultimately· could result in an economic benefit to the city. He suggested that concern not be focused on Planning Commission Minutes ~ October 22, 2001 whether or not it enhances development, but rather is it an appropriate use, and is it equitable to other property owners since other applicants are discouraged from doing the same thing. Chair Kwok said that the issue was where to draw the line, as there were two policy decisions; one relative to equity and the other compatibility. He said he concurred with Com. Corr that a period of two-and-a-half years for extensions of the use permit was ample time to secure the perm it, and another extension with no assurance that it would be the last request, was not in the best interest of '. the city. Chair Kwok said he felt staff provided an excellent detailed presentation about the site, and he did not feel a site visit was necessary; and would not support continuation of the application for the purposes cfa site visit. Com. Auerbach said he learned about the use of the site as a result of the application, and noted that since it is so well hidden, there have not been consumer complaints about the use. He said initially he felt that the project did not fit inwith the Heart of the City plans, as outlined in the current General Plan and most likely not the future General Plan amendment. He said lie tblt it was an inert thing, and could be canceled at any time. He said he was more concerned with what was more appropriate for the site if they did not want the car storage there. He pointed out that it was a suburban style development, each building an island with ingress and egress of the street, and not pedestrian friendly. Com. Auerbach said that the Pinn Brothers development across the street was more in character to their liking; but the question of parking would always be an issue. Com. Auerbach said that in layouts such as Mountain View, Pale Alto and others, cars are parked in lots back behind the buildings. He said it was ironic that a future use could be a parking lot, which makes it difficult to argue new cars/used cars as there may eventually be cars back there. He said it was conjecture on his part as to where the General Plan goes; hence he was conflicted over a relatively innocuous use of the site. He said he felt there would not be any development in a year; but was conflicted as he felt it did not meet the General Plan requirements, but lie did not see it doing any damage at this point. Mr. Piasecki clarified that if the extension was denied, the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council, and iftbe City Council upheld the decision, the applicant would not be allowed to store cars on the property. He reiterated that the applicantwas asking for a one year extension of the use permit. Chair Kwok summarized the pros and cons of an extension, stating that an extension would provide more time; since the site is a suburban setting, more time is needed to look at the site to · review and come to a conclusion what the best land use is for that particular site. In light of the development across the street, he said it should be as compatible as possible in a sense that the applicant does not rush into a plan that would later have to be changed. As to where to draw the line on extensions, he said it might give a three-month extension to work with staffand come up with a better plan, but it would be the final extension. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant has provided drawings and has been talking with staff, but said · three months would not provide enough time to come up with an agreeable plan. He said if an extension was granted, the period of time in question should be one year; either grant the extension or deny the extension. Com. Auerbach said that the drawings shown did not depict what he felt belonged on the property. He added that he was not pleased with the approved current use, and he felt things had changed over time. Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 22, 2001 Mr. Piasecki said that the approved plan could proceed as is; however, if the applicant intended to change the plans, they would have to be presented to the Planning Commission. He said that the applicant was considering both options, to build the approved plan, or build some other plan, but evaluating what is a good use for the property. Chair Kwok reviewed the options: support staff recommendation to deny the permit extension (applicant could appeal to City Council); grant an extension for one year so that the applicant could come up with a better plan; or grant an extension of 3 to 6 months so that they could continue to work on an approved plan and give them more time to come up with a plan consistent with the neighborhood. Com. Corr said that another alternative may be to approve the extension for the one year period, but stipulate that it is the last one. Com. Patnoe said that the applicant had suggested as part of the approval that he would be willing to add greenery on a portion of the fence that is exposed, located directly behind the restaurant; which might be considered if the application is extended. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the Planning Commission ask the applicant that if given one more year, would he agree not to pursue further continuation at the end oftbe year extension; which is a right he retains; but if he states that it is his intention not to pursue the extension further, it would be a matter of record in the event the issue came back in another year. Mr. Piasecki said that staB' was concerned with setting a precedent, and emphasized that all people have to be treated fairly and equitably; and cautioned about making the distinction of what is visible and not visible and allowing storage of cars, in the event another applicant wanted to store boats. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to approve' Application 09-U-01 for a one year extension of the existing use permit as shopping center parking lot for car storage SECOND: Com. Corr Com. Corr asked the applicant if he would be willing to state this would be the last extension requested. Mr. Schmidt said that he would make every effort to move forv~ard with the parcel. He questioned if the Planning Commissioners were willing to meet at the property the next day to discuss the matter in detail. He reiterated what he felt were his constraints on developing the property as he did not own all the parcels. He said there were other considerations involved relative to the possibility of changing office to residential on the second floor of one of the buildings and perhaps adding a third floor of residential. Com. Auerbach said that the comer speaks for itself, and he felt there would be'no benefit from taking a tour of the site. He said it was unlikely that the same group of commissioners a year from now would grant a further extension to the use permit; but the present Planning Commission was seeking feedback on whether the applicant would be amenable to the idea and would work to find an alternate use for the property. Mr. Schmidt said that he would continue to work diligently with the hope that the city, including the Planning Commission and City Council would continue to do so. Planning Commission Minutes ? October 22, 2001 Chair Kwok said that it was important to note in the use permit that they recognize all the roadblocks, concerns and constraints in the project; and that the applicant is aware that it would be the final extension. Com. Corr said that the use was no~ related to the development of the property, and he said he tblt if the extension was not approved, the property would still be developed in the same timeline had it been approved. He said it was a question of whether they should allow the storage of cars tbr another year. Com. Patnoe said that CoTM. Auerbach could choose to amend the motion to include the portion with regard to some greenery on it, but he would not support the application. He said lie did not like the use of parking, whether for 10 or 40 cars on the empty lot; and he felt the city has the, opportunity to take a stance and not allow the continuance on and on. He said he would rather leave the area vacant and possibly work to encourage some other use for the property. He reiterated that he would vote to deny the application, as he felt the applicant has had plenty of opponun!ty. Com. Chen said she concurred with Com. Patnoe; and she did not feel the extension of the use permit would help the project to move on, and it would set a precedent for future applicants, putting the city in the difficult position to say no to future applicants for a different use of the lot. She said she would not support the motion to grant a one-year extension. Chair Kwok said that he would not support the project as indicated earlier; and stated that two- and-a-half years was ample time, and by denying the request, it might move the applicant to expedite the project faster. Com. Auerbach withdrew his motion; Com. Corr concurred. MOTION: Com. Patnoe moved to deny Application 09-U-01 SECOND: Com. Chen VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Chair Il. wok noted that the applicant had 14 days to appeal the decision to City Council. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Kwok noted that the last meeting as well' as~ the meeting scheduled for this week were canceled. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that he had no formal report; but noted that the committee would be busy in the next months relative to the City Council approval of the housing element, particularly the BMR program. Mayor's Breakfast:. Com. Auerbach reported on the use of the public library, noting that the Cupertino library ranked third or fourth in circulation in the state, behind Los Angeles and San Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 22, 2001 Francisco; which justifies the need even more to build a new library to facilitate the tremendous volume that the current library is experiencing. REPORT OF ~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki distributed copies of the Development Activity Report; reported that the housing element was approved by City Council last week, and reported that the city received approval of the drafl housing element from the State Housing Department of Housing. Community Development. He pointed out that a first round approval from the State is a rare occurrence, and he thanked the Planning Commissioners for their input and effort. He reported that a library meeting would be held October 24th to discuss the library design concepts with the consultants; CCS groundbreaking is scheduled for Thursday, October 25; the Railvolution conference has been rescheduled for November 29 to December 2. Chair Kwok reported on the recent Community Concourse and the Sports Center Workshop. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 07-U-01 Agenda Date: November 13, 2001 Applicant: Julie Walker for MetroPCS Property Owner: California Water Service Company Property Location: 10602 No~h Portal Avenue Application Summary: USE PERMIT, file no. 07-U-01, to allow an array of 3 panel antennae on top of a slim- line monopole and four outdoor equipment cabinets. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission: 1) Discuss and continue the use permit application, in order to advertise for a height exception to accommodate a treepole, 2) Direct the applicant to design a collocatable treepole for this site, and 3) Submit a request for a height exception for the proposed treepole. If the Commission wishes to approve the use permit, file no. 0T-U-01, as is, a model resolution for approval is attached. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (1 -$ DU/C-r. Ac.) Zoning Designation: A1-43 (Agricultural- Residential Zoning Distric0 E~i,~ting Land Use: water well site Parcel Size: 0.79 acre Proposed Antenna Height: 54 feet Maximum Antenna Height: · 55 feet Environmental Clearance: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission last heard this item on September I0, 2001 (Exhibit A). Despite the monopole's slim line design, color, and tree setting, several Commissioners were dissatisfied with its visibility and suggested different locations for the pole and screening trees. There was also a concern about the Commission's consistency when it discouraged a monopole at the City Service Center in favor of a collocated treepole. Ultimately, the Commission continued the item and requested the applicant prepare a feasibility report for siting a collocatable tree pole at this location. DISCUSSION: The consultant was replaced by a l~etroPCS employee during the preparation of these materials. In addition to the infoa~ation on the treepole, the applicant conducted additional vis-a! analysis of the proposal and studied an alternate option. Treepole: According to the consultant's information (Exhibit B) the treepole is feasible at the preferred location without harming the roots of the surrounding trees. However, any collocation would probably be higher on the pole since the lower portions are obscured by surrounding tree branches which the applicant says will block the radio signals. An antenna Collocation, would most likely occur around 60 to 65 feet, so a taller treepole would have to be approved at this location if the Commission was interested in a fumm collocation. Staffhas requested that the applicant provide a photosimulation ora ' treep01e at this location, which should be available at the hearing. A height exception will be required for the treepole, so staff recommends that the Commission discuss and continue this item if the treepole is desired. Staff'feels this is a preferred site for an antenna collocation for several reasons: 1) Large distance from residential uses and superior tree cover, 2) Proximity to the freeway where most wireless carriers desire to locate, and 3) Lack of suitable "tall structure" sites in the vicinity. Other VisualAnalysis: The applicant conducted some additional visibility tests using a large balloon and determined that the previous photosimulations viewed by the Commission were in error, in that the simulated monopole was too tall and the southern view was wrong. Exhibit G shows the visual tests with the balloon. According to the applicant, the most visible southern view is a position on Drake Drive between 19756 and 19751. The monopole view could be blocked with a tree planted north of the service driveway. It will take awhile for the tree to grow and obscure the monopole effectively as it appears a screening height of 25 feet is needed to fully obscure the monopole from the south. Flipping the location of the base equipment and monopole appears to solve most visibility problems both north and south, but the applicant indicates the tree cover is too tall in the alternate location to allow adequate signal strength. 07-U-O1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE PCS PANEL ANTENNAE ON A 54 FOOT TALL SLIM-LINE MONOPOLE AND FOUR ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT CABINETS AT 10602 NOKTH PORTAL AVENUE SECTION I; FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Pla~nlug Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the 'applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has Satisfied the following requirements: l) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated.in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. 07-U-01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 2001 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 07-U-01 November 13, 2001 Page-2- SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: 0T-U-01 Applicant: Tom Swamer of PEN Co. for MetroPCS Property Owner: California Water Service Company Location: 10602 North Portal Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. ' APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval' ' ' ' ' " ~s .based on Exhibits titled: CWS-NORTH PORTAL, #SFA-C07-133A, 10602 N. PORTAL AVE., CUPERTINO, CA 95014% consisting of 3 sheets labeled T-I, A-I.1, A-2.0 dated 7/17/01, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNAE The applicant shall make its mast available to other wireless communications carriers for antenna co- location subject to City approval. The co-location agreement shall be at market rotes with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. 3. ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removal. 4. EXPIRATION DATE This use permit shall expire five (5) years after the effective date of the peru,lt. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the use pemfit at which time the Planning Commission may review the state of wireless communication technologies to determine if the aerial facility can be reduced in height or size. 5. MONOPOLE COLOR The monopole and radome shall be painted a fiat vegetative green color to blend with the surrounding tree foliage. The color shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 6. LANDSCAPE SCREENING The applicant shall plant two 24" box coast redwood trees and extend irrigation to a site south of the monopole'location. The purpose of the landscaping is to provide additional future screening of the aerial from southerly and northerly views. The locatlous shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Resolution No. 07-U-01 November 13, 2001 Page-3 - PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of November 2001, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONEKS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ' AFl'EST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Patrick Kwok, Chair Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission g:/planning/pd~por~r~s/res07u01 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 07-U-01 Agenda Date: September 10, 2001 Applicant: Tom Swarner (PEN Co.) for MetroPCS Proper0~ Owner: California Water Service Company Property Location: 10602 North Portal Avenue Application Summary: USE PERMIT, file no. 07-U-01', to allow an array of 3 panel antennae on top ofn slim- line monopole and four outdoor equipment cabinets. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the use permit, file no. 0T-U-01 in accordance with the findings in the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.) Zoning Designation: A1-43 (Agricultural- Residential Zoning District) Existing Land Use: water well site Parcel Size: 0.79 acre Proposed Antenna Height: 54 feet Maximum Antenna Height: 55 feet Environmental Clearance: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: Wireless Communications Master Planning Work on the master plan is underway. Staff is considering antenna siting and development criteria for the master plan. The criteria include: · Proximity to major thoroughfares · Usage of latest stealth techniques · Opportunities to add landscaping to improve site appearance and screen facilities · Avoidance of concentration ofmonopolcs. · Significant setbacks from adjacent resident/al areas. The subject aerial meets thc preliminary criteria staffis developing for the master plan. J¥oject Description & Site Context The applicant is representing MetroPCS, a new wireless communlcat~ons carrier, to this area (Exhibit A). The proposed aerial installation consists of: 1. 3 panel antennae, each measuring 56" long by 6" wide by 3" deep flush-mounted on slim-line monopole at a maximum height of 54 feet. The antennae will be covered with a radome (stealth screen). 2. Four outdoor radio and power cabinets mounted on a concrete base. The cabinets range in size from 5-6' tall, 2-3' wide and 3-3.5' deep (See plans and Exhibit D: photosimulations.) The aerial is proposed on a 0.79-acre, California Water Service Co.-owned parcel used as a water well site. The site is accessible via a flag lot driveway offPortal Avenue. There are many mature trees on the parcel, particularly on the westerly and northerly boundaries (Exhibit B). The monopole and base equipment are proposed midst the trees along the north property line. Further north is a fence, then.a masonry sound wall and Highway 280. The monopole is set back 85 feet from the Portal Avenue residences and 140+ f~et from the Drake Drive residences. The adjacent land uses are single-family residences to the south and west, and Highway 280 to the north and east. DISCUSSION: Permitting: The wireless communications facilities ordinance prohibits such facilities on residentially-zoned properties, such as the A1 z~ning district when the property is also currently used for residential purposes. The subject property does not have any residential structures at this time. When the property is used for a non-residential purpose, such as the current water well site, then the antenna use can be allowed with a use permit. In addition, the zoning district allows television and radio towers and other communication structures as a conditional use subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Screening: New advances in monopole construction have noticeably slimmed down the pole diameter. With a diameter of only 10", compared to the older monopoles with diameters of 24" or more, the new pole is less visually obtrusive than the older ones. One drawback though, according to the applicant, is the lack of pole strength to accommodate a set of co-located antennae. Staff believes the standard antenna co-location condition should be added to the resolution, in the event that advances in antenna technology enable lighter weight antenna to be co-located on the pole. Although the monopole appears well- screened, staff believes screening improvements are possible from the southerly and northerly view. Staffis recommending the applicant plant two 24" box coast redwood trees south of the monopole to improve the visual screen from Drake Drive at a future date. The trees will also act as a background tree fo~ Highway 280 views and thus improve the screening effect ~rom the north. Review by the Telecommunications Commission: Commissioner Ernest Tsui typically reviews these applications for the Telecommunications Commission and he has received a set of the plans and in~brmation. To date staffhas not received his comments, but they will be reported at the Planning Commission hearing if received by that time. Radio-Frequency Emissions Testing: The applicant submitted a report detailing the radio frequency exposure conditions associated with the antennae. Like other PCS technology, the radio emissions are well below federal exposure safety standards (Exhibit Enclosures: Model Resolution for Approval Exhibit A: Applicant's Project Information Exhibit B: Aerial Photograph of Project Site Exhibit C: Hammctt & Edison, Inc. Radio Emission Study dated July 24, 2001 Exhibit D: Photosimulations Plan Set Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~.,~_~. g:planning/pdr~port/pc/pc07u01 3 EXHIBIT A llff etroPC$ - ireless Communlcatlons Networl Primary Product: CDMA Wireless Communications Services Facility Type: Signal Distribution Antenna Network Design Footprint: Cellular Topology Tl~ MetroPCS wireless network ~nabl~s subscribes to agc~'ss an inf,,mv~on network aad it's voice ,and ~ on-linc services from a remote non-wire linc locafio~ MotroPCS plans to imple~neRt a service ~h~ offers the hishest disital quality and reliability at tho most ~t~fordable rate in order to satisfy customer dem~md for access and low price. (Antenua Facility description below). The antenna facility at 10602 N. Portal Avenue in Cupertino will provide continued and cxpaaded wireless service in this comm,mlty. This antmma site will be part of a n~iw~rk that will 8ire the area expmded wireless technology, ease of informstion access and more efficient direct commnnic4~tions for local business, personal ami emergency services. Antenna F,,dlitv Dmcttt~n The proposed facility is called a distribution site and consists of 3 directionnl flat panel connected to a 4 cabinet radio and power unit, one (1) new ele~rical panel and one (1) new telco panel. Directional antenn~_~ are srr~sed in mvsys (in thi.~ caso, 3 ~ with 1 panel ante~m~ pointed in ~ directions, flush mounted to the existing monopole and covered with a radome stealth screzn) which talk to other antennas in the local network. Each directional antenna measures 56" long x 6*' wide x 3*' thick connected by a land 5/8 inch conduit to the radio cabinet. The free-standing radio and pow~ cabinets range from 5-6' tall, 2-3' wide and 3-3.5' deep. Normal installation of the entire facility takes about 20-30 days. Po~er Unit Connea~ons Th~ power specifications call for a 200A, 120/208V sec'vice with a total connec~ power load of 10.5 KVA/240 on ~insI e-phase connection. The pow~ lmit ~ radios d~aw loss thlm 100 ~mps of ~lecUicity paid directly to the local electri~ utility provider by MetroPCS. The facility is plugged into th~ telephone system and requires connection of 8 pairs misted standard POTS wires. Me~roPC$ makes all connections per local t~lco specifications sad pays for telephone service directly to the local telephone provider. Maintenance and Access ThO facility is ~m-m~mned and the. equipm~t requires a staudard check only a few times a year. The equipment runs continuously and silently and in case of an emergency power outage bas batte~/back up for about four hours. Mostly due to emerieacy situations, Mo~roPCS requests the need for unrestricted access - 24 hours/day, ? days/week, 365 days/year. MetroPC$ .... ?reposed Base Station (Site No. A-C07-133 10602 North Portal Avenue · Cupertino, California Exhibit: C Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of MetroPCS, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the proposed base station at 10602 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino, California (Site No. SFA-C0%133A), for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). A summary of the exposure 1/mits contained in NCRP-86 is shown in Figure 1. Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kI-Iz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency ("RF') .energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal W'Lreless Service Approx. Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/em2 1.00 mW/cra2 Paging Services 900 3.00 0.60 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the .radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the HE HAMMi:I-I' & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING l~'qGn~RS 010427-133A S~N V~V~,USCO Page 1 of 3 ~ -/Y~ MetroPCS' 'Proposed Base Station (Site No.' A.C07-133A) 10602 North Portal Avenue · Cupertino, California frequencies assigned by the NCC for wireless service-~, the antennas reqnire line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with thc low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum pe~rissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 55, "F. valuating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human F. xposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodology, which reflects the fact that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from the source (the "inverse square law"). The computerized technique for modeling particular sites is also described, and the conservative nature of this method for evaluating expected exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon info~ation provided by Metro, including zoning drawings by On Design Architects, dated June 27, 2001, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model RR6518 directional panel antennas on a 621/2-foot pole located at the intersection of 10602 North Portal Avenue, near Drake Drive, in Cupertino. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 60 feet above ground and would be oriented toward 0°T, 100°T, and 210°T. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,890 watts, representing six chahnels operating simultaneously at 315 watts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications facilities installed nearby. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the proposed Metro operation is calculated to be 0.0013 mW/cra2, which is 0.13% of the applicable public exposure limit. It should be noted that this result includes several "worst-cage" assumptions and therefore is expected to overstate actual power density levels. HEHAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 010427-133A s~ ~c~sco Page 2 of 3 ~-/~ MetroPCS . ?roposed Base Station (Site No. A-C07-133,4,) 10602 North Portal Avenue * Cupertino, California Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting location on a tall pole, the Metro antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Metro will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. Conclusion Based on 'the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by MetroPCS at 10502 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this s~tement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13025 and M-20575, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge .except, where noted, when da~a has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. William F. Hiirhrnett, P.E. HE HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 010427'-133A s~ ~.,~c~sco Page 3 of 3 Notional', ouncil on Radiation Protection al. '.' Measurements Report No. 86 (Put~lished 1986) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Racliofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" Radio Frequency Protection Guide Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Contact Currents Applicable Electric Magnetic F4uivalent Far-Field (mA) Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cmA) 0.3 - 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 200 1.34- 3.0 ' 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/f~ 200 3.0-30 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2.19/f 900lf~ 180/f~ 200 30- 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 no limit 300-1,500 3.54/'f 1.$9~" ~[7106 ~1r/238 fl300 fi?SOO no limit 1,500- 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 LO no limit Note: f is frequency of emission, in MHz. Occupational Exposure Public Exposure lO00- Power 100 - Density 10 - (mW/cra2) 0.1- Contact 1000 - Current (rnA) 100 - I I I I I I 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) H HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. NCRP-86 Standard CONb-ULT~IG I~NGINEBi~S s~a~ ~a~sco Figure 1 ~ -/~- R~-.,.GROUNDTM Calculation MethO~,~iogy Determination by-Computer o! Compliance with Human Exposure Limitations The U.S. C~ngress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluat~ its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 199'/, the FCC adopted the hurnor~ exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1956 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz~" includes nearly identical exposure limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for ali persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not .exceed the limits. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 199'/) gives the formula for calculating power density from an individual radiation source: power density S = 2.56 × 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 × [VERP + AERP] in mW/cra2, 4~D2 , where VERP = 0.4 × to~l peak visual ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts for NTSC, = average power (all. polarizations), in kilowatts for DTV, AERP = total aural ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 × 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropie radiator. The factor of 0.4 converts NTSC peak visual ERP to an average RMS value; for FM, cellular, and PCS stations, of course, the value of VERP is zero. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This fon~mla has been built into a computer program by Hammett & Edison that calculates, at each location on an arbi~ary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from ~y number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of the actual terrain at the site. to obtain more accurate projections. Exhibit: B PEN Wireless, C.ble, & Fiber Site Development · Land Pl.nning · Design · Documentation · A&E Planning & Engineering ~ Colin $.%o (h:tober 18, 2001 City of Cupertino Commn~y Developmem Deptu t~ont 10300 To~o Awnue Cupertino_. CA 95014-3255 RE: Fik~No. 07-U-Ol -Proposed slim-line polo at 10602 lqmthPmtal Avenue This is a follow up to the previous letter dated 9/28/01 in order to provide the following additional inforrnatio~ · Certified arborist report that addresses the effects ofm__onopole project affects on existin~ trees and requirem,mt* to premn've eomlitiom during eo~t, aetion · Copy ora lette~ from our oonsmmfion rrm that states the foundation requi'ements of a larger locatted pole with gA" diameter at tim bas~. The oonc~ i. that n larger tree fozmdntion footing would t~ iznm~liste nre~ Also, 1o underline some of'the dis~ssion polnt~ at the initln! Ptnnnin~ Commission meetin~ t~ proposed pole loc~tion was ~bosen ~ecording to tec, lmienl engineez~ req~iren~ for the antwnns. TI~ ant~s trees allows for good antenna per~rman~ in all t~ree dim~tiom nnd the proposed beig~ allows for ~leanmce over the tz~es in Ix)~ fzeeway directions. Tho gonoluaioll i~ tha.t this speoifiO public utility site is the best bcafion in order ~o offer the highest qualit~ and most affordable wireless infmmation services in the community. This is a state of the an slim pole by reducing the physical size of tho overall fa,zility. The idea of the slim pole design is to lessen the visual impaot by rodudng bulk and lessen the eonst~.~tion requiremems by reducing weight and wind-load. I~huPC_.S would like to thank the C~'y of Cupertino plattnins staffand gov~rping bodies for th$ir review of this i,~pona~ project This l~'ticadar Cupertino site is part of the overall infi~tslrt~t~e needed Io supply the most affordable wireless PCS servi~e to the local ~onununity. MetmPC8 feels thnt it is impo~nm to provide mo~ people with greate~ access lo services nnd n ehnie~ of wif~l~s,~ produ~t~ with ~ ~ M ~ Thank you once ngain for your assistan~ in this matter and plense forward this ~ to the Plannin2 Commission $inc~ely, Tom Sw~m~, ~ ~I Crow~ C~I~ Int~rmtion~l 1624 Telegraph Ave. · Oakland, CA g4612 · Ph: (510) 663-4690 · Fmc (510) 663-4689 · E: tomnte75~hotmail.com BID~~: 12962 Professional Tree Care Since 1973 - .C_.U..S_.T_.O..M...~.R_'S_.N. ,A...M...E.; DATE: Wednesday, 10/17/2001 Tom Swarner Home Phone: Metro PCS Work Phone: 435-3595 1624 Teleg~'aph Ave Other Phone: Oakland, CA 9461 2 Fax Phone: 663-4689 D,..E.S..c_R.,!..P..T_!.O..LV__o.E_.W_.,.O..R...K. _.,, .P.R, ...O.,P.. O_.S_E,..D_.'. ..... '~W~-North P8'i:{'~.i:."~1"~'{~i3'~ North P'8"Ft'~T~q~'~'~'~'Ftino ,CA, 95014 ........................... 1) Concrete for antenna will not violate dripline of Deadora Cedars or Carob tree. 2) Construction equipment must be prohibited from causing soil compaction in the · driplines of Deadora Cedars/Carob trees. Some signs of compaction should be corrected and the area mulched about six inches deep. So if trees in vicinity of antenna are mulched and if tapes are set up to keep construction 'equipment away from driplines and if I meet with construction crew and havea chalk talk about how to utilize the equipment without compacting soil,breaking trunk or branches and staying within the tapes then there should be no adverse affects from this construction project on the health of the trees in the area surrounding the antenna. Very important-concrete must stay localized- no washing cement truck any where near trees etc.- keep concrete away from trees. Hans Waller Certified Arborist WC-1138 (510) 693-4631 - Questions ????? SPECIAL ClRCUMSTANCES: NONE TOTAL PRICE BID: $ CALL HANS WALLER AT: California State (51 0) 524-1 00 7 Contractors License #661049 ,.<-,,tI Frmn: "flubbe, .left" To: "'tml~leTS~H1c~mall.mm' <tmnaleTSGh~,,,dll.c~m> Subject: C7-133B Nort~ Poflal To/~.,. Per your request, listed below are the minimum foundation requirements for a 70 ' monopine. The caisson (foundation footing) 36" - 48" in diameter this footing would require a min. depth of 30 Also, the cost for a co locatable tree would be $70- $100K depending on manufacturer and options, i.e.; bark and the n,,mher of stealth l{mhS. Should you require any add/tional information please do not hesitate to call or Sincerely Jeff Nubbe Crown Castle Site Acquisition/Construction Representative 10/15/01 9:59 PM Exhibit: C Novemb~ 2, 2001 MI:. Colin j,,,,~ ~ City of Cul~tiflo 10300 To~e Aventm Cu~o, ~ 9~14 ~: ~ Ho. 07-U~1 1~02 N. Po~ A~/~P~ ~ ~ 7-133 ~ ~ ~ ~b~ a ~m~ of~ ~ ~ ~in~ C~mi~m ~cfi~ 19.108.070 ~ ofi~p~ ~ ~ of~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~i~ To ~ ~ ~ D~ Dfi~ md ~w~ l~k~g ~ [wo hours 097M & 19751 ~ p~ jm flo~ of ~ ~ss ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ph~s. 0~ pom~ ~ ~ D~ C~ ~ n~s~t ~ ~e ~ ~, ~ s d.& ~ color, ~ not ~ m ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~st ~md h~es of I-2~ 1~-~ ~, p~ C-1. I ~ ~ ~ p~m ~fi~ ~t ~ a~y ~ ~S' ~t does not ~e ~om bz ~e ~t ~ ~ md mo~ ~pom~, ~fi~g ~ ~k · e ~n~ ~ f~t ~ ~ ~e ~s~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ no~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ As s ~ ~ passes ~ foli~ ~ ~ ~ M~ ~ a ~ of at ~m 10 ¢Le. bn of 9~/o of ~ ~a~). 1080 M~rina Village Psxkway, 4a Floo~, ~l~,neda, CA 94501 Telepholxe: 510.523.2550 Fax: 510.748. 1823 I~ 75¥o). This i~ ~ the ~-o~ should not be below the I~etop height Secdon 19.108.070 o~the code mqu~es tl~t tim me of l.,d~pin{~ color~, m~J~l~ ~ ~rmms be used ~ sczee~ ~he sim ~zomits sum~,-di-~. M_etml0CS' proposed iast~hfiou meets this s~dzzd fl~mgh use of ,~i~,i~g md proposed v~ufio~ o~ &e subject property ss ~ ~s proper phcemmt md painting of the pole. Consm~,,~ ~ fske ~,,~ m~e (mono-l~e) at this loc~fio~ ~ pm6de ~ stmcu~e tint m~mhes frae _,~i_~i~g pines on si~-. Mono-pines s~e extremely m~ssi~ structures that ~e ,tlm~xlt to construct The sre~ ~ ~ ~e sound w~lin bemeen m e~is~-g ~ee ~d fl~e ex~-g d~i..~ sy~ w~l ~o~ it ai~ncult to b.,'iel without d~a$~ th~ ~si~ing live tr~s. Pus*h,'L moao-l~Ue, ~m best twa~d in co-lo~atio~ si~.s because &e £slm ~e brmches ~ multiple sets o£ ~atemm~ Due ~o the h~o~t ~esui~iom ia dxe W'~less code s~:tion it is hi~hhr. ,,,lil~l~ that mothe~ c,~-t would wmt m locate below Metto's ~o s. The roms would ,i,~ply ~bsorb ~ny s~ ~t this lower height MeuoPCS believes ~h~t d~e proposed ,l;,~-line pole ,~e most ~te~t photo s~m~tt~o~s ~ d,.~oustml~ t}~e pxx~pos~t ~us*~lla~n ~ b~ mlni~-mll~ vi~bl~ ~o ~esklmt~l pmpe~lies ~d public fi~ht-o£-w~ys. ~e mtidl~te s~ffs' zeco~m~hfio~ fo~ ~l~ov~l Tk~k you ~ your ~ ~d ~ssist~ce, Co~. Should you l~ive m~ quesm o~ m i~fos-m-tioa do not hesits~e to constrict me ~t 925J66.1572. 1080 Mu6na Vilhge Paxkwst¥, 4~ Floor, fihmeda, GA 94501 Telephone: 510.523.2550 Fax: 510.748. 1823 J R.- 3'3 ~ ~ ~ ON DESIGN ARCHITECTS 49'-0' . 51'-6' $4'-0' OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Consideration of cancellation of the December 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Agenda Date: November 13, 2001 DISCUSSION: Traditionally the City Council and the Planning Commission cancel their second meetir~gs in December due to the holidays. The Commission's schedule consists of two items:6n the December 10 meeting, so staff does not anticipate a heavy schedule at this time. The Commission should vote on cancellation oftbe December 24 meeting, if it so chooses. Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ~.---~. Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Commxlnity Developme~ g:planning/pdmport/pdcanc~112-24-01 CITY 01~ CLrpI~RTI~O 10300 TORRE AVENUE~ CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 9~014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 The City Council cancelled their meetinl~ of November 5, 2001 and met on October 24, 2001, to di.seuss the library de.~i~n: 1) Library Meeting: Thc City Council received a presentation from the project architects on the building program and civic plaza concepts. 2) Next Meeting: The Council will meet on Thursday, November 1 $, 2001 to swear in the new council members and say good-by to out-going council member Don Burnett. The Council's next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, November 19, 2001. Other Items of Interest: 1. City Council Election: Congratulations to Sandra James, Patrick Kwok and Dolly Sandoval for their successful election (re-election for Sandy) to the Cupertino City Council on November 6, 2001. 2. Planning Commission Vacancy: With Patrick's election to the Council, the Planning Commission will need to elect a new chair and vice chair. Patrick's resignation from the Commission is effective November 14, 2001. He will attend and chair the Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 13, 2001. Vice-chairperson Corr will act as chair of the Comntission until the election of officers is completed. Staff recommends that the election be scheduled for the meeting of November 26, 2001. 3.. Rail-Volution-Reminder: The Rail-Volution conference has been rescheduled to November 29-December 2, 2001, in San Francisco. 4. Development Activity Report: The development activity report has a direct link from .. the front page of the City's web site (www.cupertino.0rg). 5. Garden Gate Annexation: November 6, 2001: Garden Gate residents voted 186 to 150 to annex into the City of Cupertino. · Effective Date of annexation: The election must be certified by the County and should become effective within the next month. The annexation brings in 372 homes and an estimated population of approximately 1,000 persons. Cupertino's population will increase tO 5 i, 546. Thanks to Colin for all of his work in coordinating the pre-zoning and annexation.effort. Enclosures: Newspaper articles {3: Plannlng/SteveP/Dire~lor's Report/2001/pdl 1.13.01 The Cupertino Courier Wednesday, October 31, 2001 ¥ocu~$4, Num~a41 CtmntTmO, CALmOamA Oc~omt 31, ~1 ·. Me ure D exafion .on the GEORGE M~ 6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W~, ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~: ~ ~a~t~ ~t~d~ ~ mt u ~t u ~m~ha~~ ~ ~N~6~ ~bh ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ kmart- ~not~n~,~ ~ ~ me~ ~ ~ ~p~ t a D~ 4 · a~ ~ ~ ~l~ that ~p on ~e o~ ht Continued.from page S not," Jung said. would reduce the allowable size of new But Jung ~d he thinks the county homes. Wedea could not say whether ' ' supen~sors ar~ commltt~l tO th~ pro- 'the board of supervisors will Mopt it, gram of reducing the number of pock. but said he thln~s thero is a h~h probe ets, because it is inefficient for the court- · ' bility that it would. ~ ty to serw so few people scattered over The Floor Area Ratio such a inrg~ area. .  (FAR) under county Those in favor of annexation say it atanda~s would drop would create a more accessible and from 45 to 35 percent for responsive local government, better both one- and two-s~ory neighborhood services and no increase homes. This would n~an in property ~ Those p_an~t snn~t. tbe maxima~ ~ of a ation ~ it would not guamate~ bet- home b. uilt on a 10,{Xl0-square.foot lot ter services or major benefits or notice- would be red,_l_,m_d from 4,.~00· to 3,500 able improvements in the annexed ~uare feet. Cupertino standards allow a Rancho Rincunacla neighborhood; that percent FAR for one-story home-~- a 35 percent FAR without .design lca government equals fewer restric- ap~ovai for two-story homes, and a 45 tions; and it would create additional percent FAR'with design approval So fees. incledinga utility-user's tex, a busi. ' roi. der Cupertino standards (wi_th deaign nero license fee and a store drainage approval) lal~r homes can be built, service fee. Voters m,, x~vicw rebuttals Colin Jun~,senior planner for the cit~ to arsuments for and npinst Measure of Cupertino, said thc county es,n_,, up D at ht¥.//www, cupenino.org. ,, with the 35 pe~nt FAR because it does R~idmt~ with qne~tion~ conc~rnin~ not want to poffm~ design reviews.,' ttn~_~tion can co~_.,_~ Colin Jung at ~l'be question remains whether the 40& YY'/.~2~? or Don Wedm at county is serious, about doing that or 408.299.2~21, ert. 2.~. BIISINESS JOURNAL &~t,,adevdo~t ~.,.,,~- BBs dential . hlllm wa~ to p,,Mnt trw ,,,d Mixed-housing plans Cultivating San Jose urban living means starl.;n§ from scratch 'Um41~ thin ~n~ the San.,.TMe ~mhn~ A~n,,n~ (h]z'J[ni Ired nflmt' the abe d the atkk --k~Jl& %mt~ 'in I~m~m~:acl tbs mGKl~m~ d m d~nmlaSxG' -- Mw ~A:rk. a 8R'uat~a. that at'~ M~q,4-'h. p-Id,mM and m~t-M. to Th.t~ steers. end ~n,,- end. 10% ~hn ht'naado, b IIX~ IIE, PNI M /~IIBLE: k k Fnndm, ndh~ [aa [nd~ midi a M beed. Bringing' new-ud~an housing to San Jose's downtn~ depends on the transit bmx~t The News ~,emt'al.mm THE BUSINESS JOURNN. ~ Clustering homes, shops dates back to.. '.Roman' grid system ~ b-.~-- ~J~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:::.~~. · ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~~~~WW~Wm~m~mmm :....,...~.,, ...?..........: ..........,.....? ..... .........:...:".'.:...., ...}.... . . . '. ..... ....' '.....-...'~. .'.~".~'.' },.:'.-'....':.: .'...-...'.... · . .......... .....· ... .'......, ,~'.,..'~'..",.'" .:' ..' :' .' :.'..' . ~ ' :..:.':...'... '.. , "' '" ' '?'. ',' ~'..".'.', "-.' ..'.."'.' ,... ' '. '..'i..' ',...'." ' '.~" .... -'., . . . . · . .. .:....... . :~ . ,...~... ......... ...... :; · .: .. ' ~':~"..',:' :' .'..": ..'.. ~ .~ ~ . '.'.':.. ~ ... ~...' ~..~..~...~.i.;.~..~`~.~:.¢;:>;.?...2~a~.~.~.?`..~.~.~.~:~.~.~:...~....~;i~....;..~;~:~.>~i:'' .:.', ::.. '.~ %,'.',?.; ;.. :. '. "...:?.~ Jv.'.-.~.. :.... ...... ..'. ' ' '~ · .....~...~..,...~ ........ .:... . ... 5;~'?...?',~.?:~?~..??~. ',;...,?~-?>..?.?.~ .~;,.~::..',,.:.~:.. ?.:.:....,.~ .:?...:,?.~.~...,.: .> .,..~ ....% .,....,..... :,.. ,,~:.................~ ....,: ....,........,.................. ,.,. ,.. ..... .~ . .: ..... .~..`~...~`.......~..~..``.~`...?.~.`.~.~?`..~...~....`~.`~......``.~.`.`??~:...~.::.:..~.......:.:.~......~... ..................... . ............ . ........ .._. ............ .. ::..:...',:..:.:..,.:...'..'.::~:...:::'.::....'-.:.?'..:.:..;~-'~'.__ .... . ....... ..... .... . .. .. The News NC~BER ~ ~001 ~ 'fl4E BU~INE88 JOURN~J. 11 8hopping enter mkeove oombJne taJl and Jdential ~ _flt,~ ~ ~ ~'' '.. '..' · '.." · · '. ' '. '. ' - '. .".. ~' .'..' :'" -. ' .'. ~. ' · .' ~ '... '...:" ...... . .. . '.,'., · . ~ ~ ~ ~ m ..'.............. · ..... ~~ .... . ." .:' .......:: ...;. '.. ,.............~ '.'.....'......,.....'. .~ ...:.~...... -. 2.... ......... . · · .. .. , . . . . · ........". ? :).'.':,/.: :...~,. ,,.. .. ; ...... . .':..'.'.' :.( .: ....., ..... .... ~. ....., ... ...... . .. ..... ..... .... ~....... ·. ?...,. '.....: .'.... ....... .. . .~ ...~.... '............,...... '..: .~...;...,.,. ~... ..... ............. . . .- ... ~s ~~ ~', "'". . '"'. ::'''~' '".. " ' " ' ' '" ':' ~~~ ....... .'............... .... .. . ~~~~ .... ...... ~~~ .. .... ..... ~ ~ ~ ~m~g ~ ~ . ,'. ~, ...: ...,...-....... ....... . . :. The Cul rfino Courier Wednesday, November 7, 2001 !..' Goundbreaking: Heart starts, beating ~abr6 Continued.from page I the project, inclu~fing costa related to the · . · iasuance of bo~d~ The housing project munit~ occopying a seat on the board of CC, S. includes a new 4,500-square-foot office · as well as the building committee. He said he was hnpr~____~,d with the involve- for CCS, which previously had its head- ', quarters at the Quinian Community ment of the corn .reunify and the recep- Center. One possibility for the vacated tivaness of its heighbors, space at Qulnlsn is'a new youth center. , 'Many communitie~ str~g~le hard · Burnett said neighbors of the pro- g~J,i~g support with these type of pro- ject's site were taken on a tour of other ~ jeers," Lowanthal said. 'Issues the . Iow-income facilities to break any ~t! neighbors had were worked ou~, and in stcrantypes people may have had : the end they were very supportive. I'm regarding such projects. . ; honored that we have people like thh !n "They were shown just how nice this t the community, and I hope others show type of development can be," Bumett !~ this kind of spirit. Tais project should said. '*rlm design is a reflection of what :, serve as an example for other dries." they wanted." :.! Don Allen, chai.rpersoa of the The new neighboring fire station ~:.. fundra!~ing campaign, said the wants to get involved with the project, ;~ Cupertino community has come of age, possibly building a playground area ;; recognizing that it raised $1.8 million ia within it. The grating and roads for the :.~ less than four months for the project, new development should be completed '., 'The folks who are going to reside in a few weeks, and the buildings them- ,i here are part of the group who make selves should be finished in about a year. Cupertino the nice place it is to live," James said it's a good. feeling to be ..' Allan said. involved with something at the idea '"" Carol Atwood, director of adminis- stage, to watch the evolution and still be .~.i trative services, said the project was there at the end. " dearly a regional fundraislng effort, "The reason I was able i, sell it was .'~. with neighboring cities like Sunnyvale, because I always talked about the part- ~" Los Altos, Saratoga and Santa Clara nershlps," James said. :~. contributing. In return, she said con- The collaborative efforts of the part- :i~ srituents from these dries are eligible nerships and the hundreds of individu- ~ tenants of the housing project. ' als and groups involved in bringing the ~ Atwood said it took two years to proiect to fruition give true meaning to .; secure the $7 million needed to finance its name--The Heart of Cupertino.. ., mod .'io: