Loading...
PC 01-27-09CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED D/IINUTES 6:45 P_M_ January 27, 2009 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMM[iJNITY HALL The Special Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Vice Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Vice Chairperson: Jessica Rose Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairnersoaa_ • It was unanimously voted to elect Lisa Giefer as Chairperson and Jessica Rose as Vice Chairperson for the current year. • Newly elected Chair Giefer chaired the meeting- Housing Commission (Meets 2"d Thursday at 9: 00 a.m.) • Com. Rose moved to elect Com. Kaneda to the Housing Commission; second by Com. Miller- (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Kaneda abstain)_ Design Review Committee Chair and Membei_: (Meets I" and 3'd Thursdays at 5:30 p.m) • Vice Chair Rose will serve as Chair of the Design Review Committee_ • Motion by Com_ Miller, second by Com. ]Kaneda, to appoint Com. Brophy to serve as second seat on the committee- (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Brophy abstain) • Alternate representative will be first available commissioner for the particular meeting. Economic Development Committee: (Meets Is` Wednesday, Quarterty beginning in Feb. at 3:30 p.m.; 2009 Schedule: 2/4, S/6, 8/8, II/4) Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com_ Rose, to appoint Com. Miller at the representative- (Vote: 40-1, Com_ Miller abstain) Cupertino Planning Commission APPROVAL OF MINi7TES- January 27, 2009 Minutes of the January 6, 2009 and January l3, 2009 Planning Commission meetings: Motion: Motion by Com_ Kaneda, second by Com_ Miller, to approve the January 6, 2009 and January l3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Vote: S-O-O) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC fIEARING- None OLD BUSIIVESS- 1_ MCA-2008-04 Municipal Code E~rr>endment to Chapter 19-108-Wireless City of Cupertino Communications Facilities, regarding additional siting options Citywide Location clarifying review criteria and streamlining some of the minor Review processes:. Continued from November 25, 2008 meeting,- Tentative City Council date: February 3, 2009 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background of the application for Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19- 108, Wireless Communications Facilities for the expansion of potential site locations, and adding to design and siting review criteria for cell facilities and misc. technical changes to the ordinance. The wireless ordinance work was initiated by the City Council based on the Technology Information Communications Commissions (TICC) survey which indicated little to no cell phone coverage in many parts of Cupertino, and also because of a lack of cellular communications during the Cupertino hillsides fire in 2007. • He reviewed the Planning Commissioners' comments and directions to staff from the November 25, 2008 meeting outlined in the staff report_ • Reviewed the Federal guidance on siting antennas to comply with RF emission rules for non- building mounted antennas (free-standing) and for building mounted antennas, as detailed in the staff report. He also reviewed the survey results of monopole setback standards of local cities; staff s response to inquiries from residents and representatives of residential and mixed use planned developments who expressed interest in locating cell sites on their common interest property; and information relative to post-construction testing for RF emissions compliance with Federal safety standards_ • Staff recommends approval of the revised wireless facilities ordinance with the following changes: (]) Allow cell sites in RHS, OS and PR (public park) zoned areas (2) Allow cell antennas on non-city utility poles and towers regardless of zoning district so long as it is consistent with Federal RF emission safety standards; (3) Allow cell sites on common interest areas in residential and mixed used PD zoned projects, subject to city use permit and HOA approval; (4) Delete exception requirement for mast or tower cross-sections more than 30 feet high with a width of 12 inches or less in di~uneter; (5) Adding additional design and siting criteria, including potential public art criterion; and (6) Defining antenna setback from residential property. Staff differs with TICC on this point and recommends defining antenna setback, whatever it may be from the residential property line and not the habitable structure. Staff requests that the Planning Commission look at excluding existing utility poles and towers that are used for cell sites from the setback requirement because the vast majority of the street Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 27, 2009 lights and poles are located in residential areas, and there cannot be a setback to a residential property line if it is already in a residential area. • Other areas that the Planning Commission is considering in looking for cell sites, RHS zoned properties, residential and mixed use PDs, by defmition or residential zones, and staff is recommending that they be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as far as the setback goes. • Star recommends no additional requirement for post-construction RF testing. The federal government said we do not need to do RF testing for these types of facilities as long as it meets certain criteria. For those sites already in ser~sitive areas or close by the residential areas, we are already requiring apre-application RF assessment and feel that having them to a post- construction assessment would be redundant- . Relative to the additional noticing of Director's approvals for cell sites, staff is not recommending this change be made as they do not feel it is fair to separate one set of the approvals that the Director approves and isolating those for neighborhood noticing. The Director is very judicious in his use of his aF~proval for cell sites; by and large all of the cell sites approved by staff have been in non-residential areas, on commercial and industrial buildings or at a substation and there are very few approved by the Director; and all of those are in isolated or non-controversial areas. Stair is not recommending neighborhood noticing- • Star recommends that the Planning Commission approve a negative declaration for the project, and approve the ordinance amendments with any suggested changes by the Planning Commission, per the attached Exhibit A with changes. Colin Jung answered Commissioners' questions about the application, relative to public art, noticing, federal testing requirements, setbacks,, etc. • Relative to pre-application and post-application assessment, he said that the radio engineers when doing pre-approval testing they have knowledge of the energy outputs of the equipment being used by the carriers. It is specific to the: type of equipment they are using and they also obtain information from the carriers in terms of what power outputs the carriers are interested in. They also use aerial photos to measure the distances to the nearest residential properties and also other occupational exposures that may be more severe than those. When an RF report is done, staff has specific criteria to look at not only the distance to a residential, but also the assumption that there is going to be a second story on that residential as well. • The pre-approval assessments are all assuming a worst case full power output for all the equipment and when they do the post-construction testing, it is never operating at full power; the result being something already lower than what they are assessing in their initial report. • Said that follow-up testing has not been required by staff or federal to ensure that the equipment is operating according to specifications. Most of the carriers operate under a blanket license. • Relative to Director's approval and noticing, he said that there is a level of approval called minor modifications which is limited to projects of the least consequence; minor modifications of buildings, sites, landscaping, parking that the Director routinely approves and they have little or no consequences or impact to the neiglhbors. If the Director feels it is controversial, he will not approve it and refer it to either the Planning Commission or Design Review Committee for review or approval. • Relative to some concerns about having towers in parks, he said that the exposure standards set by the federal government is a general ea:posure standard that applies to all ages and all activity levels- Gary Chao said that the Commission can require that if such pole was to be located in the park where it will be subject to traffic and children, they can require that it be located in a more screened location or bui~ered location. • Staff has done research on DAS; the ordinance changes particularly related to allowing them on existing utility structures would accommodate the DAS technology- He said that carriers cannot be mandated to use a particular technol~~gy to provide their communication services. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 27, 2009 • Relative to setbacks, he said that existing ul:ility poles and towers would be the sources of potential cell towers and would be the first c:hoice for carriers rather than going through the entitlement process of trying to do geotechnical studies to establish a cell site- Peter Friedland, TICC Chair: • Noted that one of the reasons the FCC does not require post-testing is that they are amplifiers, they are measured at full power output; it is not possible to go about full power output unless the city voltage system doubles. • Said that current cells phones are about 101) to 200 milliwatts and no one has found any evidence that low power level anywhere close to a human causes any danger. • He discussed the survey results of the survey conducted from May through June 2007 of the community regarding cell phone coverage in 1:he Cupertino area. 614 responses were received and Verizon and ATBcT appeared to be the two main carriers for the area, with a small penetration by Team Mobile, Sprint, Nextel and Metro PCS. Quality of Coverage: about 50% of the city had adequate coverage 50% doesn't. Some people thought that spotting cell phone coverage may be a security problem, because some people don't have land lines any longer and some were beginning to believe that way and it is starting to be an issue as more and more people are using the cell phones only- About 1 O% of those surveyed indicated they had safety concerns about radiation from the towers themselves. Some were concerned about tower aesthetics.. Big areas of concern were Bubb/McCllelan corridor; the area along Bubb around Kennedy Monta Vista; up in the hills, much worse for ATBsT than Verizon__ • He discussed the Distributed Antenna System (DAS) briefly. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Rose Grymes: Cupertino resident: • Spoke in favor of amendment; and expressed her concern about cell phone coverage in Cupertino. It is a daily frustration and en~onmous inconvenience whether it is family or business or routine activities where people need to call you back. • Concerned as a safety matter, whether it is getting emergency responders and medical emergency or file or car accident; I live in the Bubb/McC lellan and corridor and there is little to no coverage there. I am concerned about people trying to reach me also; many of the places in Cupertino they won't be able to contact me_ I don't have any coverage when I am at home; concerns all relate to connectivity. I do not have any concerns about health consequences. Darren Merritt, Boardwalk Investment Group (Managing Company, agent for the Verona Owners Assoc., mixed use development on the corner of DeAnza and Stevens Creek): • Spoke on behalf of the ordinance and specifically allowing siting on mixed use developments and associations. The Board has taken this up and have been tracking this as it has been going forward. They see multiple benefits for the community: better coverage, we have gotten a number of our members report back to us that they also have coverage problems. In addition, there is a fiscal benefit in anon-profit organization being able to subsidize their reserves for major repairs in the future which are expensive. The income strain produced by these types of cell sites allow to build up those reserves without having to assess the members themselves for that- We have some experience with my company in getting these for other organizations and associations outside of Cupertino, and it has been very lucrative and awin/win situation for everybody- Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said his issues with the ordinance and neighbors issue with it, is that it is a very tower centric approach; it is not going to fix all the coverage issues and they have never been presented with Cupertino Planning Commission January 27, 2009 any other solutions. Said he felt that towers closer than 50 feet to residential are a big problem- solutions need to be found. It is difficult to place the material in the city., there is no commercial area; where do you put them; residents close to them don't like them. Other issues are commercial butting residential and that is where we get into these problems. Said he has investigated other cities and what they have done; they did not want the towers because they did not blend in with what they had. Some municipalities found a way to make everybody happy by doing service with less towers. Many communities are using distributing antenna system (DAS); lots of small nodes up, they look like the Metro Fi system; and are located in the public right of way, on our streets, fiber optic back to a central location, there is a basic hub_ The system supports multiple carriers; E, 911 support and a low visual impact which is irnportant to the community. Where do we go from here; more study on these options, some city partnership with the providers; possibly a city managed network or a city run franchise; other municipalities are able to do this; why can't we. The real problem is this; when you have a house like this, every time we turn around this is what the carriers ojFfer us; doesn't look good. Com. Miller: • Asked for clarification of the issue of fiber optic overhead or underground. He said he also read that one of the issues is potential problems in the public right of way_ Tom Huganin: • You could do it any way that it works better; 1.here is a lot of portion of this city where a lot of over ground utilities are, so strategically you could probably place this stuff so you could run it overhead, and that would totally lower the cost of these device. • There is always an issue with the city and the public right of way and what happens when you give the right of way to a carrier. Currently the proposal in front of us there is an issue because right now we are saying they can locate them on poles, but there is an issue with it; when we give that away we lose control, so we want to think about how we are going to do this, that is why I believe it is better the city has some sort of franchise where we can control it. Like Metro Fi; we had an agreement negotiated and did it that way; it was a control thing; the city has to control it. This has to be done with a lot of planning and forethought. Jonatbin Lin, Cupertino resident: • Said he agreed that they need to have better coverage; the issue is what kind of technology is best for Cupertino. There are several objections from Cupertino residents on the proposed wireless tower in the past. Said he understood that the amendment will move to the opposite direction of the Cupertino residents' opinion. • Said that the distributing antenna system is moving in the right direction, closer to what Cupertino residents want_ He supports Tom Huganin's proposal to further evaluate the technology_ • He said he did not support the amendment, and would like to see more codes moving in the direction aligned with Cupertino residents' opinions. Sam Cramb, Cupertino resident: • Said he was in favor of Tom Huganin's comnnents; his property is pie shaped and focuses on the proposed antenna behind the Tin Tin Market. • He said both visually and with some discomfort about government guidelines regarding radiation, he was opposed to a tower any closer to his house than it has to be. A change in the ordinance would allow the tower to be closer to his property; 50 feet toward the building rather than 50 feet from the lot, or giving an exemption to move it closer. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 27, 2009 • He said it was a "not in my backyard" issue, especially when he could see it and he had concerns about the radiation. Their sleeping quarters are close to the proposed tower and they also have a small grandson who spends a lot of time in their backyard. • He suggested that a clock be placed closed to the speakker area, so that speakers could see how m any minutes they have used when speaking. Steve Shed, Cupertino resident: • Said he spent a lot of time up in the hills out on Bubb and McClellan, and did not experience problems with cell phone coverage in Cupertino_ Initially he had another carrier and switched to Verizon Wireless. • He asked if the city had an obligation to give an advantage to companies that have chosen the wrong technology, either in terms of PCS vs. cellular of CDMA vs. GSM_ • Commented that the TICC survey; was a presentation on how statistically accurate this was because of the number of respondents, but it was not a random survey; it was a push survey of people who chose to respond. What needs to be done before putting towers in parks and hillsides is that the city or TICC needs to go out and do an actual coverage survey of all the carriers and the dead zones, publish the inforration and help the residents make an intelligent choice on carriers. The presenter showed it was pretty well divided between ATBiT and Verizon and very few on Sprint or Team Mobile, and there is a good reason_ If you go to the Sprint or Team Mobile websites and check their coverage, it is horrible in Cupertino. They would need four times as many towers to get the same coverage as Verizon and ATc4zT and that is not going to happen; they relate to the party, they got the less desirable spectrum and it is just too bad for them. I don't see why we Dave to be putting towers next to playgrounds to solve the problems of Team Mobile and Sprinr_. • Encouraged the city to look into what Tom Huganin discussed, with the distributed antenna system (DAS), which is less objectionable to residents; there would not be the masses of people in here whenever a tower is proposed, trying to fight it. • Expressed concern about the proposal where noticing is not required for new towers and said it is not acceptable. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said there was a lot of interest from the conununity about adequate cell phone coverage in Cupertino, but also concern about the towers. Said that at the eastern end of Cupertino, the Welsley Hotel across from Pancake house on Stevens Creek was demolished and a cell phone tower behind it; located in Santa Clara_ • Said that it was important that anything the city does with this, that it demand the highest level of technology. With Apple and Hewlett Packard in the city, she said she would not expect anything less than the latest information on what is the most current thing in antennas, towers, distributed systems, etc. The city should demand that someone tell them what the latest technology is. • If the towers are put up somewhere, go back a.nd make sure, look at them periodically or have their carvers periodically come back and tell the city if they can do better_ It is important to screen the towers. • She said Tom Huganin presented some interesting points. Jan Edbrooke, Cupertino resident: • Support what Tom Huganin said- resides near the other speakers backing onto Tin Tin Market, and also support what they said. Said the~/ have met about five times with the various proposals for the towers on the Bollinger corridor over the last few years, and it was encouraging to finally get some solution with the relatively fat monopole on Bollinger. Cupertino Planning Commission January 27, 2009 Said he was alarmed to see the potential of this ordinance where there wouldn't be a need to solicit the residents' input on towers, particularly if it is going to be 50 feet from the residents_ He said he supported what Tom Huganin said; making some good points about the need for a thorough investigation of the available technologies and review of cities where there have been systems put in, where they could learn what would apply to Cupertino_ It would be good to stop going round and round about the problem_ Said he was not personally concerned about the health issues, and felt they had been explored ad nauseam in these various meetings. He said his concern was more for the negative perception people have of towers, particularly people considering moving into Cupertino and looking at the towers around the city and close to residences that abut onto commercial properties. Said he did not support the ordinance; but w~~s more in support of a thorough investigation of technologies that are available and deployed successfully in other cities around the country. He said they can get a more random approach to what can be seen, particularly from the residents who are affected by being close to the commercial properties_ Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident: • Resides on E. Estates Drive near Richwood Drive by a cell tower. • Said he felt the TICC is out of touch; and he had hoped the TICC would have showed up in force to show what they are going to present; that they really do stand behind it and not fight over 4% positive or negative on a pole. He said he was disappointed that actual cell phone carriers did not attend the meeting, to discuss why they want a particular kind of tower vs. one of the node type systems that we heard about tonight. • Said that he resided near a cell phone tower that was approved by the Community Director, not so much that I have an issue with it, but many people in the community were waiting to have some type of community hearings on it; not :>o much about the tower, but to say they would like to talk about the property and some other issues they had with the street, and see if all that could be discussed because you are benefiting a property owner with a financial stream, and I think the community would like to make sure that a lot of their concerns are addressed first. I think a lot of that gets missed. • Relative to poles, he said the city should set a high aesthetic standard; and not confuse the aesthetics with public art; keep public art separate. The community will look better and will benefit more from having separate art and separate cell phone towers or nodes until we can see that technology somehow makes something that is both aesthetically pleasing or could be art, but not faux art or not in place of real art. • Said he felt there should still be public noticing for Director approvals; get public input. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Colin Jung: • Explained the current proposal between the 50 foot setback for property line vs_ building for habitable residents. The current ordinance requires a 50 foot setback of a monopole antenna or even a building antenna at least 50 feet from a residential property line. In actual practice, through use permitting process, through Director's approval, they have not approved one that close_ By and large, most of them are sited either at a staff level or Commission level at much greater distances, probably approaching three to four times that distance, just through/to the public hearing process. Chair Giefer: • Asked if staff was recommending any change to that setback with the new plan. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 27, 2009 Colin Jung: • Said it was being left open for Planning Commission discussion; the TICC proposal when they suggested a 50 foot setback from a habitable structure, they were thinking of narrowing that distance in order to make these sites that we: would have cell phone poles/towers on, make them more usable, because now we have properties out there that are less than 100 feet wide. • In reviewing the numbers we want you to look at some of the azeas that you seem to be allowed to allowing them which aze hillsides, residential and mixed use PDs, utility poles and towers, which are in a residential zones, so you end up with this conflict how do you establish a residential setback if you aze already in a residential zone; and there are two methods of doing that as far as we can tell_ You can accept those types of facilities from the setback requirements as we are suggesting with utility poles and towers_ The technology that some of the speakers are enamored with; in fact rely on residential facilities in order to make that technology work_ Facilities, antennas located on telephone poles, street lights, which are in residential neighborhoods; in fact the ordiriance amendments would enable that type of technology to be introduced in Cupertino, whereas presently it is really a gray azea whether we could do that or not at the present time. Chair Giefer: • Asked staff to review when it is not necessary to notice residents if the Director is going to approve something_ Colin Jung: • When we look at these cell site applications, eve look at what is being proposed. If the facility itself is not screened; if it is moderately to highly visible to public rights of way or to residential neighborhoods it is an automatic referral to the Planning Commission either through Use Permit or Design Review process. • Facilities that have been approved by the Director through a minor modification process, that typically don't require public noticing or building nodes on commercial or industrial buildings in commercial and industrial azeas_ A number of cell sites that we located on the existing lattice towers over at the PG&cE Monta Vista substation, and the tree pole they referred to on Richwood Court which no one knew about until we told some people_ Chair Giefer declazed a recess. Com. Miller: • Supports leaving the distance for residential as 50 feet from the property line. • Expressed concern about adding them to parks, since he felt it would bring large numbers of people out for significant developments, which they aze trying to avoid doing. • Said he concurred with Mr. Friedman that there was no need for post-installation testing since testing was done at the maximum level prior to; and he supported staff s recommendation. • Said he was concerned about no neighborhood noticing. He wanted to do things transparently in the city and if noticing is not done, there is a tendency to feel like some things are not as transparent as they should be; and he did not support that. • There seems to be some issue with whether it is public art or not public art; public art brings up another potential topic, which is how much do you spend on it, and whether we aze regulating that_ There is no regulation relating; to public art, but I don't mind just getting rid of public art and saying we will consider creal:ive solutions that are aesthetically pleasing as opposed to ... public art has a different connotation; it has a monetary value associated with it, and I would recommend getting away from that. • Said that the distributed antenna system (DAS) was worth exploring, given that there aze some cities in the country that have done it and some; of them are not major large cities. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 27, 2009 • Said he supported the changes to the plan. Com. Brophy: • Said that Com. Miller summarized the issues ~idequately. • Agrees with keeping it at 50 feet from the property line. • Relative to locating them in parks, I under;:tand the concern; however this will not occur without a public hearing and given the public in finding locations in the hilly neighborhoods., I would keep the park zoning option available to the city, and would retain that as staff recommends. • Relative to neighborhood noticing, given that Colin Jung is saying that this hardly ever occurs, to err on the side of transparency, put them all in a public hearing so there is no question that something goes on there since there are so few of them. • Public art - I don't feel comfortable with that clause; I don't hear any demand from any part of the citizenry that we convert cell towers irito public art facilities, and would delete that language from the ordinance. • Relative to the DAS technology, said that the Planning Commission is not technically competent to make a judgment on that; that is what the TICC is for, it may well be that in the future this is a technology that may be of interest; and given that it hasn't been recommended to us, I would not postpone further consideration of this ordinance and just proceed forward without the language. I would let the TICC decide whether or not this in the future, that a DAS is worth its time in terms of evaluation_ • Testing - Mr_ Friedman said that it was physically impossible for it to give off more wattage than what it is designed for. I would agree with Com. Miller on that. Com. Kaneda: • Said he concurred with Com_ Brophy relative to parks and did not have a strong concern about locating them in parks_ • Supports neighborhood noticing. • Said he supported public art on the assumptiion the city is not putting money into it; if the carrier decides they want to do something similar, I am fine with it_ If there is city money needed, I agree with fellow commissioners that it may not be the appropriate venue for public art. • Said he was on board with a high aesthetic sl:andard for poles_ Commented that although he was involved in approving the end result of th~~ pole by the Tin Tin Market, he was not pleased with it_ • Cell towers in mixed use residential - I think that is something we should think more about; my sense is residential is residential and just I~ecause it is mixed use residential, doesn't mean that cell towers close to mixed use residential building don't need to have some kind of distance between the cell tower and the actual building. I am not sure how we wordsmith it, but I do not see why residential unit in a mixed use complex should be treated any differently than a residential unit in a purely residential complex or just a single family home. • One thought I had for the idea of the 50 foot setback is possibly it is a compromise and again if the others don't agree, I am okay with what we have in place; but possibly looking at 50 feet set back from where the building would be allowed to go, whether or not there is a building actually there_ It is a wordsmithing issue, not necessarily from the property line, but from where you would be allowed to put a building on the property_ If it is a 5 foot setback from the property line, it would be 50 feet, not from tkie property line, but from that setback. I would propose that we consider at least that. • Said he was not opposed to seeing a requirement to put screening on, when the transmitters are on buildings, it is not clear that it is required, and he wanted to see that. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 27, 2009 Vice Chair Rose: • Agrees with summaries from Com. Brophy and Com. Miller_ Supports the 50 foot setback from the property line; and also having towers in parks provided there is a noticing process and a public hearing to explain that_ • Said she appreciated the information about the post-installation testing; and agreed that it makes it not necessary_ • Recalled that public art was a way of looking at some options to making poles more attractive; more than trying to find another way to get art into the neighborhood. I think the goal was to try to encourage and perhaps mandate some ait and make aesthetics to these towers. • Regarding the DAS technology, I agree with Com. Brophy and wonder with that if the idea of putting smaller transmitters throughout the neighborhood, might be just as disconcerting or more disconcerting to residents than actually having one tower located, a couple of more extra towers put into the city as a whole, as opposed to knowing that there are the transmitters going up and down the street. • Said the TICC has done a good job in researching that and they are seen as having that role. Relative to noticing public hearings if locating in parks; it is only fair for people to have the correct information. • Said she felt that testing post-installation is not necessary. Com. Miller: • Said antennas were acceptable if the HOA supports it_ If the owners of the property want it, there is no reason to restrict them from having it. Com_ Kaneda: • My concern with that, is the HOA votes on things; not every one will necessarily agree, so I might be in that development and have a home that is going to have a cell tower go in ten feet from my bedroom and the majority of the homeowners could vote for it, and the cell tower could go in 10 feet from my house and they will make money off of it. The HOA could always use the money_ Chair Giefer: • If an HOA wanted to install an antenna on a rooftop, how far would it have to be from the residence? Colin Jung: • 1 5 to 17 feet, separation between the antenna face and your person. Gary Chao: • Said another option the Planning Commission could have with regards to the review process is that if you don't want the approval authority to solely rest upon the HOA, simply require that any antennas proposed in the mixed use development be subject to a use permit that would be approved by the Planning Commission_ That way the city has its own public review notification process in which anybody in the development has an equal say which will contribute to your decision_ The other reason why the P-mixed use residential is considered is most of the time they have more open space as. opposed to the regular single family lots. Com_ Kaneda: • Said he was not opposed to putting an antenna in a mixed use development; if you are going to set a distance from residential property, set it for all residential properties. That is where the Cupertino Planning Commission 1 ] January 27, 2009 idea of setting it a distance from the building to the antenna might make more sense rather than not allowing them on the site at all. Colin Jung: • Star had a difficult time trying to write something that would fit all situations which is the reason for the default use permit review, so that it could be done on a case-by-case basis at a public noticing/public hearing, so that all the r~oticed residents concerns could be aired and not just the board members of the HOA who may or may not be interested in approving it_ • Open space is another issue; as the idea location for one is not in the middle of an open space area- h-r siting a facility in a common open space area; perhaps there are some adjacent neighbors that are not part of the residential PD who need to be heard; which is more reason staff felt acase-by-case use permit review was the appropriate mechanism for that. Gary Chao: • To clarify, case-by-case, but at the minimum meeting the federal guidelines, not meaning you could go down below the safety standard. Chair Giefer: • It would be to evaluate to ensure that it is in conformance. Com. Brophy: • Said that since he began on the Commission, he has not yet had a cell tower application to consider. It seems that what they are doing is merely allowing the possibility of an application to come before them; they are not giving automatic approval. He did not see any reason why they wouldn't allow an application from a mixed use PiJD. • Staff recommended that we categorically exclude cell sites from residential PDs, and in that same tenor, I would say that we would exclude residential PD at sites unless an application is submitted by the HOA. It would still be subject to public hearing and hearing of minority opinions from the residents or adjoining propeRies Vice Chair Rose: • Said her experience has been that if something in the ordinance says you are allowed to do it, and a neighbor isn't happy with it, often timer unless you have the foresight to recognize that in a residential situation there is a 50 foot difference and in a mixed use situation it is much different measurement, to point that out. If you don't recognize that and have that information and point it out, it is possible that when you come before a board or commission, they are going to say that the ordinance says that you c:m do this, so we are going to let you do it_ Chair Giefer: • If an HOA came in with an application, would the site have to be within 50 feet of their property line- It would be no closer to an adjacent building or resident than 50 feet. Would they have the same setback requirement. Gary Chao: • That is where the Planning Commission comes in• you specify in the event of that, basically our recommendation is for you to have that discussion. • Said that staff felt it would not be problematic if the Planning Commission were to say the setback within the development would be subject to discretionary review based on the usual process or use permit process, but that you specify that the pole itself, if it is adjacent to a regular R1 residential single family property, it would be subject to the same rule as any pole that would be proposed adjacent to such zone; in this case 50 feet or the height of the pole- Cupertino Planning Commission 1:Z January 27, 2009 Colin Jung: • Referred to the speaker from the Verona HOA, and said he was almost positive that the area they were thinking about locating a cell site is on the roof of their mixed use building and there is no 50 foot setback between that and the units below it. From an RF standpoint, there is no concern there because the distance itself c:an be greatly shortened because there are the intervening building materials that basically attenuate the RF radiation. Chair Giefer: • That was my original question- I wasn't anticipating that we would put cell towers in the middle of PD, because I don't think the residents would stand for it_ I presume they would all be antennas, roof top antennas. Colin Jung: • Only for the taller buildings_ Chair Giefer: • Summarized that they were with the majority on mixed use with HOA approval and required use permit_ I don't have a problem with that, i:f the HOA supports it. Vice Chair Rose: • I understand in the big picture that this is the right way to go. I support that_ Chair Giefer_ • I think staffls language is really good; the suggestion is to add that if it is an HOA and it's adjacent to residential property, the residential setbacks apply_ It could never be closer to a residential property line than 50 feet. It seems like we have a majority with that as the setback; which I also support. Com_ Miller • Said he felt if an HOA wants to support it, they should not stand in their way_ • Coms. Brophy, Rose and Chair Giefer concurred. Chair Giefer summarized comments on issues: • Consensus that DAS is a good idea and the TICC should pursue that. • Majority agreed on setback from the property line; noticing for all antennas or wireless towers; that no incremental testing is required; majority on location and parks and quasi public land. • Relative to art, she recalled that the art was to stealth the antenna, not for art's sake_ She said she did not feel it is a substitute for a public art requirement; it is not considered pubic art just because there is a clown hanging from a pole_ If they are camouflaging the installation by making it more artistic, she said she would support the public art. If it is a replacement for them meeting a public art installation as part of their building permit process, she did not see the two as interchangeable. • Said she supported antenna installation, but riot as a replacement to require public art. Said she supported Com. Miller's position on allowing aesthetically pleasing cell towers as opposed to the wording about public art; striking out the word "public art." She said she liked the artistic value, and said a better way to phrase it may be "context appropriate, artistic design cell towers." She said they also agreed with mixed use_ • Clean up items pointed out; Page 2 of the actual communications plan, under "19.108.050 there were two clean up items under aerials, No. A and No_ 1, the words "the height of Cupertino Planning Commission 13 January 27, 2009 receiving" . _ . should start with "aerials" and the TICC agreed with this. Under No. 2, that sentence should begin with "aerials" as well, and "transmitting and/or transmitting or receiving" should be struck_ • Relative to public parks, she suggested adding a clause on Page 5 under abandonment, that included restoration, (Linda Vista is the perfect example); there are several places that might make good locations for a tower or an antemia; if that goes away because it is replaced by a newer technology, then I don't want them to come and yank it out and leave a crater in our park, I want them to restore it. It is an additional clause to abandonment that the park or hillside area needs to be restored to how it way; prior to installation_ Com_ Miller: • DAS - I agree that we don't have any jurisdiction and it's outside our technical expertise and we can't ask the TICC to do anything, but we could suggest that TICC might consider looking into it. If there is any value at all, there are some issues that need to be dealt with, specifically the public right of way issues_ Maybe the technology doesn't have any value; I have heard contrary opinions to that, and there are some issues that need to be dealt with and I don't see any harm in saying that we think it would be a good idea for them to look at it. Gary Chao: • Said that the Planning Commission input was needed on the location of the RHS hillside; there is general consensus on allowing public parks and quasi public OS zones_ In terms of setback, is it a 50 foot setback requirement if in this area and also in the hillside as well. Chair Giefer. • Relative to setbacks, we talked about if you were adjacent to R1 which sounded like it was the biggest concern. Perhaps one thing we could consider if you are RHS is near a conventional R1, or if your park is adjacent to an R1, that you need to meet that same setback. How would the Commission feel about that. If you agree that those are the right areas and we should allow location there; should we allow location in RH:S_ Com_ Brophy: • The point was made at our first meeting that if we don't allow it in RHS, then in the hills that is all there is; there is no other zone; there is no other choice_ As far as the setback, I don't know why it would make a difference_ Com. Kaneda raised the issue of whether or not the 50 foot setback should be set from the building envelope. Com. Kaneda: • Not the envelope, but the allowable. Chair Giefer: • Said Com_ Brophy and Com. Kaneda are saying that the setback should be from the buildable envelope, which may make it closer to the property line. Com_ Miller: • That means you could be within 30 feet of the property line_ Chair Giefer: • For RHS, is there anyone who would not wain to see an antenna in an RHS_ (Response: No disagreement). One idea of where to put them is any buildable sera. Where is the setback? Cupertino Planning Commission 1~l January 27, 2009 Com. Miller: • In the RHS zone, if you say from the property line, there are some very large parcels there and you could be a very long way from the buildiing site, and you could be from the property line or 70 feet from the building„ whichever is less_ He said he was seeking a way to give some flexibility in terms of building; this number is very azbitrazy, and I am not sure what difference it makes or doesn't make, but there is a perception here that this is the number that we have been using in Cupertino_ I am hesitant to make a major change to it, even though we have heazd from a safety standpoint, they could be 15 to 17 feet_ Chair Giefer: • The one thing that occurs to me is that we have very large hillside lots, but we also have some RHS 20,000 and some of those aze in my neighborhood and they abut up to conventional R1- 1 Os, and if I were on that R1-20 I would want to get that tower or antenna as far away from my house as I could. I would probably want to put it 50 feet from the property line. Gary Chao: • Said to keep in mind, if we aze talking about RIiS, is that a lot of these applications would be having people potentially having poles in their properties. Talking about setback from property lines is a Catch-22 because you will have applicants come in with lazge lots, okay with having a pole in the back yard but it's located within hillside zoned property; so it would probably be more appropriate for hillside properties in terms of setbacks to defer to either building envelopes or habitable structures, unless you are adjacent to a single family R1 property. Com_ Kaneda: • Said it made sense; if it is a really large lot amd you have to be 50 feet off the property line, there is no place to put it; there is nothing that is 50 feet off a property line_ Chair Giefer: • Clarified that the RHS is privately owned property; the intention is to locate the antenna on private property; that would be the agreement My concern is protection of the neighboring property which is why I am saying that the antenna should be encapsulated on the private property within 50 feet of the common properly lines. Com. Miller: • If someone wants to locate it on their property, we shouldn't' restrict them from doing that; just as long as they aze not impinging on their neighbors. Colin Jung: • Said he did not have a problem with a 50 foot setback from an adjacent property owner's property line, which would have a tendency to effectively exclude much of the smaller RHS zoned lots on the lowest hills_ • Said it was not a good idea to put it there; his: intention was to think about the lazger lots that are higher up on the hills that could provide coverage to the valley floor locations_ We aze talking about hundreds of feet between dwellings where neighbors just want the cell phone coverage, it is not an issue for them, but it would be an issue for the smaller RHS zoned lots, the ones that are RHS-15, RHS-20, RHS-30. • Neglected to discuss facilities on existing utility poles and towers, considering that most of them aze residential zones and basically asking for an exclusion for the setback requirement. Anything that will fit on a utility pole is going to be low power because you cannot build generators in the public right of way_ Cupertino Planning Commission 1 _> January 27, 2009 Com. Miller: • I don't have an objection- I think we should make it more general in case we keep going back to these distributed systems, just in case thc'tt does come back to us; we shouldn't exclude them. If we are already going to include antennas that are existing, I don't see any reason not to also allow new as well. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com_ Rose, to approve Application MCA-2008-04, EA-2008-09 per the model resolution and specified changes- (Vote: S-O-O) New Business: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee:. No meeting. Housinn Commission: • Com. Miller reported that no new items were discussed at the meeting. An update was provided to the public on what had transpired in previous meetings. Mavor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners.: No meeting. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CONIMIJPdITY DEVELOPMENT: • Gary Chao reported that the Sand Hill Main Street project was approved by City Council at the January 20, 2009 City Council meeting. • Heart of the City Specific Plan was continued to the February 3, 2009 City Council meeting- - He discussed the APA Conference registration information. MISC: • Com. Kaneda briefly discussed the topic of sustainable concrete. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda to cancel the February 10, 2009 Planning Commission meeting- (Vote: S-O-O) Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 1 O, 2005, at 6:45 p.m. ~. Respectfully Submitted: °- Elizabet El ' Recordinl~ ecretary "'J Approved as Presented: February 24, 2009