108-G. CC meeting minutes of 11/1/10.pdfATTACHMENT G
November 1, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 7
Jenni Griffin said that the site is a good location for a high class hotel and close to the
restauran in the area. She wanted to make sure parking in Cupertino isn't compromised
and to keep 1 parking on -site. She said she was concerned about the reduction of
banquet space b was glad to see the hotel would be high class.
Robert McKibbin sai at every development in the last 10 years has had inadequate
parking in Cupertino. He id he was concerned about valet parking and using adjacent
land for employees to park. urged Council to go to .9 parking spaces as was required
for other hotels in the area.
Steve Scharf said that it sets a bad prec ent to reduce the parking and urged Council to
keep the parking as was approved a year o. He said he was unhappy that the hotel
would be just another business class hotel with t a restaurant.
The public hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m.
Council asked questions about the public art requirement. ty Attorney Carol Korade
explained that there is no way to waive the requirement but that re may be flexibility in
working with the Fine Arts Commission to discuss what art wouXrcq
noted that if
art wasn't feasible, the applicant could apply to Fine Arts Cfor in -lieu
application, but that is discouraged. Council also discussed the parement ratio.
Action: Mahoney moved to modify use permit U-2008-02 to incorporate an al ative
plan to keep the same number of rooms, reduce the amenity space, reduce the p •ng
ratio to .75 requiring valet parking, and to review the parking plan after one and two ye
of operation. Wong seconded. The motion carried with Chang voting no.
.
"i
26. Subject: Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way
Recommended Action: Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a
personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a
74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results
Way office park
Description: Application Nos: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31; Applicant: Dave
Yocke (AT&T); Address: Results Way (rear parking lot) APN: 357-20-042
Written communication for this item included an amended Attachment J and a letter of
support from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce President Lynn Ching.
Discussion: Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report.
November 1, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 8
The appellants made a PowerPoint presentation regarding their appeal as noted in the
staff report.
At 11:10 p.m. Mayor Wang opened the public hearing.
Zvi Ashkemazi said he was in favor of the wireless service facility because it's important
for people to not just be able to use their phones to talk on, but to also be able to connect
to businesses in the area and get information across the airways.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the wireless service facility:
•
Xuena Xu
•
Amy Xiao
•
Agnes Fu
•
Huang Shang
•
Cid Pereira
•
Bo Choy
•
Andre Chiu
•
Wen Chen
•
Xiaowne Liu
•
Jeannie Kimura
•
Ramani Narayan
•
Mark Ma
•
Vikas Salherhra
Andrew Wu
•
Ken Young
•
Sherry Hsu
•
Chris Ho
Their comments included:
• The monopine is too tall for the area
• It is located too close to a residential area and a school
• ' There is a flaw in the application
• The area is a bad location, the applicants should find a different one, perhaps
adding to an existing tower at De Anza College
• The monopine would be visually intrusive, and artificial trees look ugly
• This application is premature, and is inconsistent with the ordinance, and it
violates the Wireless Master Plan policies
• There is not enough data
• Who will benefit from the facility
• The coverage will still not be enough
• This will be a hub for all the other companies to build their towers
At 11:55 p.m. the public hearing was closed.
Leon Beauchman from AT&T said the tower application came about as a result of
customer demand and the Manta Vista area was the number one area noted from the
survey. He explained that they have been working for five years to come up with a
solution and it's not a quick fix.
Scott Longhurst from Trillium Companies representing AT&T noted that this has been a
collaborative effort with staff and the Technology, Information, and Communications
Commission (TICC). He noted that the area focus was that around Monta Vista High
School which was shown to be substandard from the TICC report.
November 1, 20tO Cupertino City Council Page 9
Peter Friedland from the TICC gave a brief history of the survey of cell coverage in
Cupertino done three and a half years ago. He noted the key findings: 65% of Cupertino
citizens thought cell coverage was inadequate; three areas were identified as having poor
coverage including Bubb at Mcclellan, Foothill Blvd., and Apple. He said that the TICC
worked with staff and the Planning Commission, talked with the different carriers, and
proposed an ordinance change around cell towers to include hillside areas and parks. The
ordinance changes were approved. He said that the TICC and staff have worked the past
three years with AT&T to find a place for a tower in Cupertino. He noted that the Sheriff
and Fire Departments also expressed a desire to fix the coverage issue.
Council asked questions of staff, the applicant, and the RF (radio frequency) engineer
from AT&T.
Rashid, the RF Engineer from AT&T, responded to a question about the coverage map
and said that the map the appellants were showing is an old one that showed a 2G
network. He explained that since the iPhone, the network works on 3G.
Mark Newman from Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, who prepared the RF
exposure analysis for the site, answered a question from Council regarding near and far
field calculations. He said that for this particular antenna it would be in the 20-30 foot
range directly in front of the antennae.
The property owner from Embarcadero Property responded to a question from Council
during a discussion on another location for the antennae, and he showed on a map where
a new development is being planned on the property.
Action: Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to deny the appeal of the Planning
Commission approval with the adjustment that the decision on the trees is left up to the
Planning Director, but should be at least a 36-inch box of the fastest growing redwood
variety with good irrigation to provide maximum growth, and monitoring. The motion
failed with Chang, Wang, and Wong voting no.
Council went into closed session at 1:47 a.m. regarding Significant Exposure to Litigation
pursuant to subdivision (b) of GC Section 5495.9.
Council came back into open session at 2:05 a.m. and the City Attorney announced that
Council received legal advice on the standards for approving or denying this particular
appeal and the requirements of Federal law.
Chang moved to uphold the appeal. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to continue the item and send it back to the
Planning Commission to discuss the feasibility of another alternative near Site 4 and to
bring the results back to Council. The motion carried with Chang and Santoro voting no.
November 1, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page
10
City Attorney Carol Korade explained that Council is keeping this application on the
table and remanding it back to the Planning Commission to see if there is a feasible way
to deal with the gap in coverage that is less intrusive, for example within the height limit,
and then have the original application and the alternative brought back to Council for a
decision.
The applicant and Mr. Beauchman from AT&T asked some procedural questions.
The City Attorney clarified that the applicant does not have to start all over again.
Council has listened to the appellants concern and the appeal is on -going, but the Council
is trying to find an alternative location to address the concerns. The hearing will be
continued and will be brought back to Council for a final decision. She noted that this is
in interim step and the Planning Commission will notice and hear the consideration of an
alternative location and bring a recommendation back to Council. She also noted that a
time limit does not apply in this case.
The appellants said that they are found the process acceptable.
The property owner noted his concern that if the alternative site is near the front of his
property than it would need to be visually appealing.
V7rl'Il\1p11L' L L V �711\L' .7 FJ - 1\�/11�. -
NEW SINESS
27. Subject: onsider scheduling a Study Session on current Capital Improvements Program
Projects.
Recommended A on: Schedule a study session for November 16, 2010 at 5:00 pm.
Discussion: City Man r David Knapp reviewed the staff report.
Action: Wong moved and Sant seconded to hold a study session on Dec. 21. Mahoney
added a friendly amendment to can the Dec. 21 meeting if the study session is the only
item on the agenda. After further disc ion, Wong withdrew his motion and Council
concurred to have a report come to them in t weekly Items of Interest.
ORDINANCES
28. Subject: Amend the Cupertino Municipal Code to revise d re -title the existing
Franchise Ordinance to be consistent with the new waste mana ent and recycling
Recoiogy Franchise Agreement.
Recommended Action: Conduct second reading of Ordinance Nos. 10- and 10-
2070.
Description: a. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amen
Chapter 6.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to revise and re -title the existing Franchise