Loading...
PC 01-12-10CITY OF CUPERTINO 103 00 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMNIISSION AMENDED lV1IlVUTES 6:45 P.M. January 12, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COTRVIUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2010, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chair Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava Senior Planner: Colin Jung 1. Election of Officers and Representatives for :ZO10 Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson: • It was moved by Com. Miller, secondedl by Com. Kaneda and carried 4-0-1, Com. Brophy abstained, to elect Com. Paul Brophy as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2010. Newly elected Chair Brophy chaired the remainder of the meeting. • It was moved by Com. Kaneda, seconded by Com. Giefer, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Lee abstained, to elect Com. Winnie Lee as Vice Chairperson for 2010. Environmental Review Committee Representative: (Meets 1~` and 3'd Thursdays at 9:30 gym. (Recommendation to City Council) • The chair of the Planning Commission normally serves as the ERC Representative, subject to the City Council approval. • It was moved by Com. Giefer, seconded by Com. Miller and carried 4-0-1, Chair Brophy abstained, to nominate Chair Brophy to serve as representative to the ERC. Housing, Commission (Meets Z"d Thursday at 9':00 a.m.) • Moved by Com. Giefer, seconded by Ch:~ir Brophy, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Kaneda abstained, to nominate Com. Kaneda as representative to the Housing Commission. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 12, 2010 Design Review Committee Chair and Member: (Meets 1~` and 3'd Thursdays at 5:30 p.m.) • Vice Chair Lee will serve as first representative on the Design Review Committee. • It was moved by Com. Kaneda, seconded by Chair Brophy, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Miller abstained, to nominate. Com. Mille r to serve as . second member. Economic Development Committee: (Meets 2"d Tuesday, Quarterly beginning in Feb. at 3:30 p.m.; Conference Room A; 2010 Schedule: 2/9, 5/Il, 8/10,11/9) • It was moved by Chair Brophy, seconded by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstained, to nominate Com. Giefer as the EDC representative. Attendance at Mayor's Monthly Meeting: (M~ets 2"d Wednesday monthly, beginning Feb. 10, at 4:30 p.m., Conference Room A.) • Scheduled Attendance: February -Chair Brophy July -Chair Brophy March -Vice Chair Lee August -Vice Chair Lee April -Com. Kaneda September -Com. Kaneda May -Com. Miller o-ctober -Com. Miller June -Com. Giefer November -Com. Giefer APPROVAL OF MIl~TUTES: Minutes of the December 8, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Giefer, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the Dec. 8, 2009 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN CO112MUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. U-2009-07, ASA-2009-07, Use Permit and Architectural & Site approval TM-2009-05, Terry Brown to construct two, two-story, single-family residences (D&B Legacy, LLC) with two new detached granny units in a Planned 10216 Pasadena Avenue Development district; Tentative Map to subdivide a .29 acre parcel into two 6,200 square foot parcels. Postpone to January 26, 2010 (Postponed from December 8, 2009 meetin~ Planning Commission decision f final unless appealed Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by I~om. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to postpone Application U-2009-07, ASA-2009-07, TM-2009-05, to the January 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. ORAL CO1bIlVIiJNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 12, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING: 1. DIR-2009-36, EXC-2009-09 Gordon Bell (Woodspring HOA) 22330 Homestead Road Director's Minor Modification to allow a personal wireless service facility consisting of three panel antennas and three microwave dishes mounted on an extension of an existing PG&E lattice tower with a base equipment enclosure at grade. Height exception for antennas to be mounted at a height of 97 & 98 feet where 55 feet is the maximum. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Director's Minor Modification to allow the installation of a personal wireless service facility consisting; of three panel antennas and three microwave dish antennas to be affixed to a proposed six-foot extension of an existing PG&E lattice tower and a base equipment cabinet; and Height Exception to allow the antennas to be mounted at a height of 97 and 98 feet on a vertical extension of the PG&E lattice tower where 5 feet is permitted, as outlined in the :staff report. • He reviewed the location setback of the facilities; design/height of the facility; the Radio Frequency Energy (RFE) Assessment including the chart showing the typical exposure from various radio frequency/microwave sources; and also the equipment noise and public noticing process for the project. He reviewed the comments from the public, which were included in the staff report. • Staff supports the project and height excep~:ion request as it is consistent with the Wireless Master Plan policy that articulates the uses of existing vertical structures when wireless facilities are proposed in residential areas; proposed rectangular panel antennas visually blend in with the rectangular lattice tower ~;xtension; the visibility of the proposed circular microwave dishes is minimized because of the small size of the dishes and their height above ground level; and the higher antenna. heights are justified because of the microwave communication linkage between Clearwire cell sites. Staff recommends approval of the Director's Minor Modification and the Heig]Zt Exception. • He said that the Planning Commission has supported similar applications with comparable height exception requests on lattice towers in three different locations in Cupertino. Gordon Bell, representing Clearwire: • Provided a history of Clearwire; which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel; Sprint owns 51 % of Clearwire. Clearwire is a 4G tE;chnology, which is wireless broadband Internet services provided at a level similar to cellular ~;overage. • He addressed a neighbor's concern about the noise; the cabinet does generate noise when the cooling unit comes on when excessive heat is generated. Noise counts were done that determined that the level at the closest property would be 40 dba which is below the city's noise standard, and is consistent with the interior noise level standard of 45 dba. He noted that the facility would be on during the daytime when it is hotter and is not on constantly and would not be creating any noise disturbance at night. He noted that the noise levels are low compared to the existing street traffic on Homestead Avenue during the daytime. • He addressed the concern from the neighbors about the interference with TV and radio facilities and the public information systems. The FCC has allocated band width wireless carriers for these facilities within a specific band width range so that there are no other transmitting or receiving facilities within that band width other than what they are licensed to emit, which avoids interference with other facilities. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 12, 2010 • Relative to the RF emissions, he said that in t11e early 90s he was involved as a Planner for the County of Santa Barbara with establishing; the standards for extremely low frequency emissions which come from the power line:; and also radio frequency emissions. He also worked with the EPA, National Council o~i Radiation Protection and American National Standards Institute to establish the standards which are currently used by the FCC. He pointed out that the power line frequencies are extremely low frequency emissions. • He said they do need the HOA's approval to proceed with the facility; and it will be presented to the HOA in February for a vote. They ca:culot proceed with building permits or any other actions on this site without their approval. He said they would be providing a long term revenue to the HOA to defray their maintenance costs and help keep their HOA fees down. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; as there was no one who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Com. Giefer: • Said she felt it was unusual for the Planning Commission to meet on the application prior to the HOA, and she would have preferred to have the HOA vote before the Commission rendered a decision. • She said she was supportive of increasing communications within the community, and other than her concern about meeting earlier than tl~e HOA, she supported the proposed tower. She suggested that a condition be added to both the DIlZ and the EXC that once installed they go back and test the RFI from the towers at the units that are nearest to it, to ensure the calculations are correct and nothing has to be tuned. Com. Kaneda: • Said he was not concerned about the birds, ;~.nd supported adding six additional feet on the tower because it will be barely visible. He added that he was not concerned about the noise level as it was already under the allowable and the air conditioner will only be running during the day which has an even higher ambient sound allowance. He pointed out that no community members had a strong feeling about it and the homeowners would have to approve it. Vice Chair Lee: • Said that after review of all the research, the application appeared to be reasonable; and she felt they should approve the height exception because it is consistent with Wireless Facilities Plan and the Wireless Master Plan. Com. Miller: • Said the only justification for disapproving such a facility would be aesthetics and in this case it is a dish structure that is common to man}~ dishes around the city at a height of 100 feet; therefore it is difficult to say that aesthetics i:; an issue in this case. He said he would not be able to reject the project because of aesthetics. • Said he was concerned that the Planning Commission was acting on the application before the property owner approved of the application, although staff said that a representative of the owner has given the go-ahead. As pointed out by Com. Kaneda, the homeowners do get the last word on the application, regardless of what the Planning Commission does. • He reiterated that aesthetics are not an issue in this case, and he supported the application. Chair Brophy: • Said he concurred with the Commissioners. Cupertino Planning Commission January 12, 2010 Motion: Moved by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application DIR-20090-36, EXC-2009-09. Com,. Giefer added an amendment which was accepted by Vice Chair Lee, to include the stipulation that prior to operation of the facility, the applicant shall submit- an RF assessment to the Director of Community Development to determine that the RF energy levels meet Federal safety standards, as clone in the past. The vote was unanimously carried 5-0-0. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMIYHSSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: Report will be provided ~~.t next meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting held. Economic Development Committee: No meeting held. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUT~TITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted. Aarti Shrivasta~~a highlighted the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; the Sate has already had the Dept. Water Resources put together a model ordinance and staff is working on putting something similar together, looking at what other cities and the Santa Clara County are doing; and discussing the pros and cons of some approaches before presenting it to the Planning Commission., which will likely occur in February/March timeframe. The ordinance will go into effect sometime in ApriUMay. She provided an update on upcoming agenda items. Meetings Schedules: • There was a brief discussion regarding cancellation of the November 23rd and December 28d' Planning Commission meetings because of holidays. There was consensus to cancel the December 28d' meeting; a decision on the November 23rd meeting will be made at a later date. • There was a brief discussion about meeting ;schedules, including possibility of going to one meeting per month, or reserving one meeting i-or private sector applications. Com. Miller said, and Com. Kaneda concurred, that it was important to continue to serve the needs of the public; and said there were many other issues that could be discussed at the meetings if the agendas continued to be light, including reviewing their list of priorities, work plan, and budget. Vice Chair Lee agreed that they should review their work program. • Aarti Shrivastava said the plan was to agend ize the work program do further work on their work plan priorities and forward any changes ~:o the Council. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled January 26, 2010, at 6:45 p.m. 0~ Respectfully Submitted: ~ Elizabe lis, Recording; Secretary Approved as amended: February 9, 2010