Loading...
Draft Minutes 7-27-10 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINC PLANNING COn�IlVIISSION DRAFT VIINUTES 6:45 P.M. July 27, 2010 TLTESDAY CUPERTINO C'ONIMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairper:con: Winnie Lee Commissioner Marty Miller Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: David Kaneda (arrived after roll call, during the meeting) Staff present: Community Development Di rector: Aarti Shrivastava City Pl� nner: Gary Chao Senior Pl;inner: Colin Jung City Attorr ey: Carol Korade APPROVAL OF NIINUTES Minutes of the July l3, 2010 Planning Comm ssion Meeting: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 3-0-0; Coms. Giefer and Kaneda abs��nt; to approve the July 13, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMU1vICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM C,�I,ENDAR None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING 1. DIR-2010.05 Consider an app�;al of approval of Director's Minor Modification Bradley Head to allow the installation of a personal wireless service facility on the (Clearwire/West Valley roof of an eausting church; consisting of 3 panel antennas & 3 Presbyterian Church) microwave di:ch antennas screened by a faux cupola & a base 6191 Bollinger Rd. equipt. enclos�ire. Tentative City Council date: August 3, 2010 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 27, 2010 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the st aff report: • Revjewed the application for appeal of a]�irector's Minor Modification decision to allow the installation of a personal wireless servia; facility on the roof on the e�usting West Valley Presbyterian Church, located atg 6191 Bol linger Road; as outlined in the attached staff report. The Director of Community Development approved the application on May 27, 2010. • An appeal was filed on June 10, 2010 �y Mrs. Yuen, resident of 6352 Myrtlewood Drive because of the following objections: The cupola design covering the antenna is visually awkward; the residential placement of the proposed WiMax antenna is inappropriate next to a middle school; and the radio frequency study provided by the project is erroneous. The appellant also expressed concerns that the Principal and Parent Teacher Association of Hyde Junior High School were not properly made aware of the project. • The detailed staff responses to the appell�nt's concerns are outlined in the staff report. Staff feels that the cupola design is not a vi:;ually awkward design, since they are a common architectural feature of churches, and the i aux cupola is not disproportionate in size or height, and it also uses compatible colors and rr�aterials consistent with what is being used on the church. Relative to the placement of the WiMax antenna; Cupertino follows U.S. law regulating PCS in Section 704, Subsectior� 7(D) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, stating that it prohibits local agencies from regul�.ting personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental efFects of radio fre�uency emissions to the e�ctent that such facilities comply with the FCC guidelines for suc}� emissions. If it meets the Federal guidelines the Planning Commission is prohibited froni regulating it based on those effects or fears or concerns of such effects. The proposed fa�,ility is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan and Wireless Communicaticros Facility Ordinance, and the city has approved similar applications; including the Church of the Nazarene, where the project was conditioned by the Director of Community Developm�,nt with the same conditions in that the applicant is required to disclose the presence of the f� cility to church and private school users onsite and verify after construction that the radio requency energy does meet the federal standard. Relative to the appellant's opinion that tl►e radio frequency study provided is erroneous, he responded that the equation to calculate ��ower density in the assessment was the same one recommended for use by the FCC Office of Engineering Technology, Bulletin No. 65. • Staff recommends that the Planning Co�nmission recommend denial of the appeal of the Director's Approval per the model resolut on. The recommendation will be forwarded to City Council. Mrs. Ione Yuen, Appellant: • Asked that her comment about the radio f-equency study being erroneous be deleted from the record. She said that upon further review, she felt the information provided was suitable and her objection no longer existed. • She reiterated that her objection was thar the facility was too close to her home. Also the residents of the duplexes were not notified since they were tenants and did not receive notices. • She presented a petition circulated to neighboring residents requesting that the church reconsider putting the facility so close to tlie school and residences. Norman Yuen, Appellant: • Said that he had experience as a WiMa�c engineer, and supported the building out of the WiMax network; however, in the subject Froject, he was concerned with the close proximity to the residences and school. He discussed the differences between cellular phone towers and WiM� towers; noting that WiMax generated more power from its base station. He questioned how they could verify that the limits were not being exceeded for transmitting and radiating the amount of energy they we re permitted and recommended that a monitoring Cupertino Planning Commission 3 July 27, 2010 system be set up and covered either by the church, Clearwire or the City. He said that he was not comfortable relying on the trust factor � elative to monitoring. Com. Miller: • Said he empathized with the appellant; however, the Federal law does not make a distinction between WiM� and cellular and the Planiing Commission is not permitted to rule on it. He questioned if there was data showing that t ie power level and the distances discussed present a hazard to human beings. Norman Yuen: • Said that WiM� was new within the last :', to 3 yeazs and he was not aware of any studies on the health effects of WiM�. He noted t;iat the FCC guidelines were adopted in 1996, and were based on a 1986 report. Com. Miller: � Asked staff if they were aware of the differences in power radiation between WiMax and cellular, and is this something that was cc�nsidered in the distances that are set up; and how would it be monitored. Aarti Shrivastava: • Suggested that they discuss the issue with the consultant. Either way the FCC does talk about the maximum radiation that any facility ca�i emit. Colin Jung: • Clearwire that is one of the first WiMax networks in the Bay Area; their build out of their facilities is of the same distribution which can be found with a PCS telephone network. There have been numerous applications; if one f�cility was supposed to be generating power for 30 miles, they would only need one in Cupertino; but there has been numerous applications; the closest one is at Vallco Shopping Center, l�;ss than one mile away. Com. Miller: • Asked if there was any monitoring set up c ver time to ensure that they are within the specs that they receive their approvals for. Colin Jung: • Said that this particular approval has a con 3ition on it that they will be doing post-construction testing at full power. There is nothing set up for the next 1 to 2 years. Bradley Head, Clearwire: • Said they had talked with numerous prop�;rty owners in the area, looked at different options, and chose the church as the best option and went through numerous iterations in trying to come up with a design suitable for the cit� along with the church. T'he site provides the best coverage for Clearwire, and met the conc itions within Cupertino's ordinance. He answered questions about the proposed location of th e wireless facility. Rajat Mathur, Hammett and Edison, Consulting Engineers: • Did the RF exposure study for the site an�i found that the maximum ambient radio frequency energy exposure at ground level is 0.27% of the FCC public limit, which is about 370 times below the FCC limit. Regarding the power level, Clearwire is only able to generate the power which the equipment they install will pro��ide and is fixed by this application; so they cannot just create power. If they need to do th��t, they need to install more cabinets which would Cupertino Planning Commission 4 July 27, 2010 trigger another application. • Relative to the signal going further, any fr�quency can go forever in terms of distance, but the power of that falls with the square of the distance, it cannot be received forever. The PCS frequency and the WiMax frequencies az�; similar; the PCS frequencies are 2 gigahertz; the WiMax is approx. 2.6 gigahertz. Said h � was comfortable that the distances the city has established were safe distances; noting tha� 10 feet would not be a safe distance. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Corey Liu, Cupertino resident: • Said he was interested in getting more infc�rmation on the RF concerns and impacts. He asked how the measurements are made and wh,it is considered FCC guidelines; how the antennas across the street for T-Mobile and AT�4�T factor into the calculation. He noted some inconsistencies in the engineer's report po� ted online. Nancy (last name not given), Resident on Ballinger Road: • Questioned the purpose of the WiMa� and stated that the facility was already rejected twice, one at Monta Vista High School and on�, at Cupertino High School. Why is it still being planned for the same Cupertino location? How would approval affect the neighborhood and also the people because of the location? It is heavy traffic; a nearby school, and students cross the street at Bollinger and Miller. It would negatively affect all the children. Mathur Vinjamury, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said he was concerned about the school; s�id they have WiFi at their home and never run it at 100%, but at 60% or 40%. Said they ar� concerned about having 1250 watts next to their home. He questioned why it was being ��resented again since it was rejected twice, which would mean there is a strong reason for th�; rejection. He said he felt it was not an appropriate location for the facility, there was also a concern about the church school being on the property. He asked if the engineer like to iave it in his back yard with his children sleeping in the house? Rajesh Rao, Cupertino resident: • Most of the technical aspects have been r,overed. Said that the WiM� has been pulled in other countries because of health concerns In 1996 when the FCC came up with the guidelines the side effects were not known; he said it appears that whether or not the residents like it, they are going to do it. • If no one wants it at the proposed locatic�n, why can't it be in the hills, off the street? The distance of 75 or 100 feet is a concern of tt�e residents. Daniel Zhu, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • He quoted FCC information: there are tv� o effects; one is short term emitting health effects such as touching the conducting objects and tissue temperature racing from absorption of energy during exposure. It also states that in the case of potential long term effect of exposure such as increasing risk of cancer, ICNRP c oncludes that variable data is sufficient to provide a base of setting exposure restriction. • A quote from the FCC web page states :.hat "it is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effect..." This suggests that there is some uncertain effect of these long term exposures to hum �xi health. • There is a peer review journal with several issues devoted to health risks due to electrical Cupertino Planning Commission 5 July 27, 2010 magnetic field; the paper listed all the radiation levels well below FCC guidelines. T7�e science doctors and reseazchers have posted their concerns on the humans, especially effect on DNA, brain and the environment. Has tlie City ever gone through the journal and do they understand the concerns? • Cupertino Union School District has c��nfirmed that the appropriate project notice was received. He questioned if the school nctified the parents of the project; if they were not notified, they could not comment or oppos�� tt�e project. • The long term health issue has been a c oncern worldwide and there are many web pages devoted to talking about the issue. He :;aid they do not understand the long term effects; precaution is important. Douglas Thompson, Cupertino resident: • Asked what the City of Cupertino could dc legally to deny the tower being built. Carol Korade, City Attorney: • Said the City was limited by the provision � of the 1996 FCC Act; so long as the data indicates it complies with the FCC regulations, t:ie City does not have the option of determining otherwise. Douglas Thompson: • Suggested a creative solution that some other communities have implemented. Instead of using the big towers with the zoning plans, spread out with the DAS system distributed antennas along with fiber optics, allow the cell company to come in here and satisfy their need to give full coverage for their clients with the cell phones and not have the mega steroidal towers that are emitting all the radiation with a lot of unknown consequences. If you can with your zoning, change the rule to allow for this, it provides a legal argument to use against the towers, because you are reasonably allo��ving the companies to come in and compete and supply their clients with full coverage. There are many anecdotal health consequences, it is known science which we cannot address. You cannot deny on those claims; you can take it into your heart, and you can go back and do some hard work and rezone the town for DAS and fiber optics which gives a lot more com��etition for a lot of other carriers to come in with options of technology for the future. W e have some solutions to satisfy the community's health concems and go forward with progr�ss. Aioub Hashemi, Cupertino resident: • Said he resides across the street from the c iurch. • If the consulting engineer does not know t ow much power they will generate; who is going to know? It is very close to crowded re:,idences with children; none received notification because the property owners, not the ten ants, received the information. He said that is the reason they signed the petition. The appl cation came in just before schools were closed for the summer; the notification was receivE;d 5 days before the deadline and problems were encountered with opening the website pa�;es. He said he talked with City staff about putting the information on a different site. Fayreh Javadi, Cupertino resident: � Said he was concerned about neighborhoo�i health and safety, and wanted the antenna installed in some other location. He said his home is the closest one to the antenna and was concerned about his family health. He suggested that the antenna be relocated. Jana Waldorph, Cuperlino resident: • Said she signed the petition and was al:;o concerned with other information gathered; her Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 27, 2010 family has lived in the house around the cc�rner from the site for the last 50 years. She echoed the health concerns; was a registered nurse and has been treated for cancer in the last 3 years, so is aware of the potential effects. It is l.nown even without health studies that any kind of radiation is a carcinogen. She said she `vas hopeful that the City would be uncomfortable remaining in her home if the tower goes ap, and she was hopeful that serious consideration would be given to relocating the tower. Steven Ly, Cupertino resident: • Supports application. • Addressed question of power at night; tr e report to Hammett and Edison is based on full power, it is considering our equipment is transmitting all the time; taking into consideration the gain of our antenna and without any loss, the values given are the maximum possible exposure. Addressing the concern about �✓hy we didn't place the antenna on a mountain top, one of the wireless digital communication� 101, you want to contain your signal, placing it on a PG&E tower on a hill will blast the signal everywhere; for a signal an engineer needs to be concerned with two qualities or parameter;� which is the quality and strength of the signal and hence the placement of the antennas on � hilltop is not realizable physically. In terms of WiMaa� being more detrimental to PCS �ellular services, I tend to defer on that opinion; frequency of WiMax is 2500; PCS is 190�, cellular band is 800. Also addressing our power being transmitted constantly, internet on d� ta traffic is bursty in nature, not everyone is surfmg the web for 300 minutes or 60 minutes. The values given by our consultant is the worse case scenario and is well below the FCC limit. Haiyun Huang, Cupertino resident: • The FCC does not have concrete evide�ice showing it is safe to continuously expose to radiation because wireless communication or digital wireless communication system exists fir no more than 20 years. There is no direct evidence to show it is safe to continually expose to radiation. Simon Yeh, Cupertino resident: � He asked the Commissioners to put thE;mselves in the residents' places; if so much is questionable and debatable technology, wc�uld they feel good about going to their homes with the microwave tower 100 to 200 feet from their home. The residents do not feel comfortable doing that and they urge the Commission =o consider in the decision process how they would feel in the residents' shoes. Eric Wu, Cupertino resident: • Said he also had concerns about health; if t he company cannot build a tower on higher ground, that is their problem, not the residents' ��roblem. They do not want a tower in a densely populated area. If the technology says tha� the range is 30 miles, place it further away, not in their back yards. Rajat Mathur, Consulting Engineer: • Since most of the concems are health relaled, he responded to some of them, even though per the 1996 FCC Telecommunications Act, it is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission. • The World Health Organizations maintain� a database for all studies done in this area; the vast majority shows that there is an establishe3 level where health effects may occur. The FCC standard is set at 50 times below that level, there is a 54 safety factor from when most of the studies agree where health effects occur, ttie FCC standard is 50 times below that. This site is now 370 times below the FCC standard, sc the total safety factor from where the health effects may occur is 1/18,500 where that may hap��en and this is an extremely low level. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 July 27, 2010 • Another point brought up is that the ICN7ZP has an closely similar standard to the FCC and their standard has been adopted across mo� t of Europe, France, Spain, and Germany. All of the Scandinavian countries, as well as Aust;�alia and New Zealand have adopted the ICNRP guidelines which are closely similaz to the FCC guidelines. • The organization IEEE (Institute of Ele:ctronic Engineers) has also created independent guidelines which are extremely similar to the FCC guidelines. T'he IEEE revises their guidelines every 5 years, the last revision �eing in 2006. • Xrays are millions of times higher in frequ�ncy than WiMaa�, PCS, or cellular; and fall under a category called non-ionizing radiation, which frequencies are higher than visible light and have shown to have some harmful effects. All the frequencies below visible light such as tv, radio, cell phones, WiMax are all not ioniz ing and don't cause those harmful effects. • A cell phone is only exposing part of a bc�dy, the energy from a cell phone would be at least 1,000 times more than that from a cell site. Com. Miller: • When the calculations were done of the ra�iiation, were all the other sources of radiation in the vicinity taken into account? Rajat Mathur: • The other sources are too far away to affi;ct the energy from this one, this was a calculation just for the Clearwire microwave antenna ; the cell phone towers across the street are too far away, and the two will not affect each other in terms of the RF exposure; they are independent. Norman Yuen: • Said that if the power is increased to one niile, it will not only affect Hyde Middle School, but also Cedric Elementary and Cupertino Hi,;h School because they are within the range of the WiM� tower. He said there aze many wianswered questions about the health affects of the cellular technology. Rajat Mathur: • Answered questions from the residents. T he FCC standard was adopted in 1996 and based on a 1986 research. The other organizations mentioned earlier maintain their standards every 5 years. Terry (no last name): • Said he disagreed with Mr. Lee's comnient that shorter web bands will attenuate faster. Relative to the wireless phone, the longer the effective range the phone can do, the higher frequency the phone is. The longer web lengths UV light is going to stay on the surface of the human body, the shorter one will actuall y penetrate into the eye and malce you blind. The shorter wave length radiations is more d�ngerous than longer wave lengths. How do they reach their conclusions; what data do the�� use; based on what assumptions; how do they do their experiments or calculations to reach their data; post it on the website so the public can understand it. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Miller: • Said this iype of application is always difficult; the Commissioners live in the community and empathize with the residents' feelings. On the other hand, the Commission is restricted in terms of what we can and cannot rule c n. The conversation tonight has gone above and beyond what should be addressed. He sai 3 he was an engineer, but the technology is not part Cupertino Planning Commission 8 July 27, 2010 of his experience and he is not qualified to determine whether it is safe or whether it is not safe. That is not one of the key issues; th�; fact is they are restricted from ruling on the safety concerns; the only concern that they can rile on is aesthetics. In the past they have rejected a number of applications because of aestheti �s; at churches, schools, various sites. • He said in his opinion this is their town a��d if the residents in the town are saying they don't want it, he has trouble understanding wh� � an applicant comes in and insists on it. He has a right to do that and there are federal laws that give him that right. In this case, the aesthetics are terribly troublesome; this is not some�:hing we can say we cannot do this. However, the other way that we have been able to help the neighborhood if they really don't want this, is to appeal to the source of the problem. At one time there was an application where Monta Vista High School was proposing one and the C'ommission had to approve it; it was invisible from the street. It was suggested that the neig �bors go back and talk to the administrators of the school and see if they would have a changE; of heart, and they did. • One of the concerns brought up was the,•e was not sufficient notification; the owners were notified but the residents who were tena rts were not notified. A question could be posed whether they should be going back and hying to notify the actual residents because they are affected by this. We have asked for a rec uirement for disclosure when it is a public site and the children are present. The disclosure sLould or could be made before we rule; perhaps that would help to make sure we had a full discussion. I agree that to some extent we want disclosure at the school and we want disc losure at the church site as well. Another speaker mentioned if you had distributed antenna� , if that was a better way of doing that, and that is not a new idea for us. I have suggested that to the Telecommunications Committee and am not sure where they are; they said they would look into it. We have asked the companies to consider that approach and for some combination of economics or inconvenience, they have chosen not to go that way. The orig inal document written was emphasizing that the preferential way to go was a distributed system. He asked staff if there was some way to continue the hearing until additional notifi�;ation was made. • Said he was suggesting that for all zon: ng hearings, notices be sent to the residents, not property owners as specified in the ordinance, because it is specific to the residents and most of the notifications involve the property o wner, and this is something that doesn't necessarily involve the property owners, but the residents. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they look at what issues people ma} have and were aware of the concern about health issues, as they hear that on almost every �.pplication. There is the question that if you would notice them only to tell them that you coul dn't do anything about their issue; which is why we try to include as many protections as we :,an such as the monitoring, the disclosure; they do everything they are permitted to do. � The second issue is the appeal will be heard by the City Council and there is the opporiunity to present it at the Council. Having a secor, d hearing the Planning Commission level probably wouldn't be necessary because the Counc il could hear the same residents; otherwise it would have to come out three times. • Noted that she made the decision based on the legal requirements; it is not their intent to make people's lives difficult, but are bound to m�ke certain decisions based only on certain findings. • Relative to disclosure to the church parishi oners, it is up to the property owner to disclose that. Staff could let the property owner of the ct�urch know it was a suggestion. Com. Miller: • Staff is stating that they won't consider � he conditions of approval satisfied until they have been notified. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 July 27, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the disclosure is required to go up ii� order to sign off on the permit, which means the occupancy and the use; all those things would be required to be in place. As far as the monitoring of the frequency, it has to be in operation before t1�ey do that; they would be required to be in place before receiving apF�roval to begin operation. Com. Miller: • Said there is no provision for continuing m�nitoring. Aarti Shrivastava: • Not at this time, but it can be discussed v� ith the applicant. It would be expected to be third party so that the applicant is not doing it th �mselves, paid for by the applicant. The school will be disclosed; it is based on health, somethi�ig the Commission cannot do anything about. Com. Miller: • Much of the conversation has been centered around the fact that this has been a relatively new technology that hasn't really been thorouglly tested. He asked the City Attorney if it changes things in terms of what they can or cannot �ule on? Carol Korade, City Attorney: • It does not because of the way the 1996 Telecommunications Act is phrased; it doesn't address a specific type of technology or developm .nts therein. The individuals who have spoken and other people can bring this information to the attention of the federal representatives to see if some changes are made in that regard. Slie said she was suspect that people are doing t hat. The City can't really evaluate different em�;rging technologies with regard to the 1996 Act. Com. Kaneda: • Said they are bound by the federal law and he concurred with Com. Miller's comments; and had no further comments. Vice Chair Lee: • Asked Mrs. Yuen if she would feel more comfortable if the tower was placed more to the rear of the church. Mrs. Yuen: • Said that wasn't the issue; she understood from conversations with the Planning staff that the City has no jurisdiction over anything othe r than what it looks like. She said nothing could be done unless it was stated as such in the a��peal application that it looked awkward. She said she did not know if there was any mediat on that could occur between the neighbors and the church; and she did not have the opportu�►ity to meet and discuss the issues with the church before it came before the Planning Comm ission. She said it would be ideal to sit down with the church powers to discuss it in a neiglborly fashion before going to City Council. She presented a copy of the petition. Norman Yuen: • Said they tried to get a delay on the mee�:ing, so that Hyde Middle School parents could be contacted when school reopened. He said he understood the School Board was notified, but they didn't seem to care whether a towe:• was erected or not. The parents of the students attending the school would care about the location of the facility and a delay would provide time to notify them. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 July 27, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it would go to City Council next Tuesday if passed. She noted that they tried to accommodate one request from the appe llant, to delay the hearing; but they are bound by permit streamlining, and cannot hold onto applications forever or it would be considered approved without a hearing. Letters to par �nts of the school have not been sent out. Chair Brophy: • Said he appreciated Mrs. Yuen's direcfies � and honesty about the issues; the reality is that the Commission is under the limitations of fec�eral law; if the application is denied based on those grounds, applicants can and do sue cities, �nd the City would lose. • Based on the heazing tonight, it is clear the issue at hand is the question of the effects of radiation. We have an application before us and we cannot deny it and say we are going to start reopening the zoning ardinance. Tha� is beyond our powers as a body that has to listen to applications. The primary choice you havE: is to reach out to the church, explain your concerns to them; they haven't been responsive to Mr. and Mrs. Yuen's attempt to reach them. The evidence is preriy strong in terms of given the limitations we are working under. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com. Giefer absent; to app�•ove DIR-2010-05. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the Council would hear the application at their next meeting; and staff would bring the concerns and make sure they put th��t in the staff report as well as why the Planning Commission made their decision. She sai�i they could also suggest the monitoring in the staff report as a comment from the Planning Co:nmission. OLD BUSINESS• None NEW BUSINESS• None REPORT OF THE PLANNING CONIlVIIS�ION Environmental Review Committee: No mee�ing. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mavor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissio �ers: Report will be provided at next meeting. Economic Development Committee: No rep��rt. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CONIlVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT Aarti Shrivastava reported: • HCD approved the Housing Element. • There will be Commission presentations on August 17'�; Commissioners will be asked to speak to some questions. (Discussion sumrlarized below) • Development Permit Process community neeting July 28�' from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Quinlin Community Center. The meeting will be a workshop format, with small tables, to comment on the Development Permit Process. Counc 1 suggested community meetings for community- wide input. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 July 27, 2010 • The Green Building Ordinance Commun ty meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 29 at Community Hall from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.rr . for first group, and 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. for second group. • Community Showcase, Sat. 10-2 at Kirsch Center, sponsored by the CiTy. Discussion regarding input at Au�ust 17 m eetin�• • The Commissioners discussed what projE;cts or responsibilities currently being handled by other Commissions that the Planning Com�nission could contribute to. • Housing Commission: Discuss Affordable Housing Ordinance. Also is there a way to encourage the developments that have alre,idy been approved and have been put on hold, such as Main Street. Com. Miller: • Relative to working with housing, he s;�id he was unsure which falls under Commission purview, which is housing, which is 1 he Council and outside of their purview. The Commission has worked before with com mercial establishments in terms of making it easier to locate in the city, and have also worke�i with corporate citizens to make it easier for them. Is there something that could be discussecl with respect to commercial development; it is also a mixed project where housing is a significant piece of it and that is where the conversations with respect to housing come in. Chair Brophy: • Said in the past they have worked with (;ommissions on an Ad Hoc basis, with the TIC on issues similar to the present meeting. Com. Miller: • Said the question of distributed network � has come up before. He said at a past Mayor's monthly meeting he mentioned it to a me�nber of the TIC who said he would look into it, but he has not heard from him. Colin Jung: • Said there was nothing in the wireless plan or wireless ordinance that would prohibit a distributed antenna system. It is an anteru�a system that is literally on every third utility pole, 20 feet from the neighbor's house, and pe ople don't seem to be excited about it. The major companies building systems in the commL nity have not gotten word on that; the systems that are around are built by different compani es that build distributed antenna systems and they lease space to the carriers if they can mana ge to get a system large enough to malce it financial feasible. He aid TIC was charged with loo�:ing into that and he will contact them. Aarti Shrivastava: • The question sometimes is we are faced ��vith an application and typically not for a DAS; is there anything in our ordinance that allov�s us to say No to that application and say use DS instead. I don't know that we can write up our telecommunications ordinance that way. That is the point; it is not a question of wouldn't you rather do a DAS, but we are faced with an application, nothing in the ordinance; in fa�t we have every reason and the law says we cannot deny it, it is hard for us to write up an ordinance that precludes everything but a DAS. Com. Miller: � Asked the City Attorney if there are riultiple alternatives, can they say that only one alternative is acceptable in Cupertino and that is a distributed network system as opposed to the giant cell towers that everyone objects :o. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 July 27, 2010 Carol Korade: • Said that there would probably be concern,, about undue business restraints in terms of the City saying you could only use a certain techn��logy or certain method of dealing with a particular issue since that tends to go against the con �epts of people pursuing best practices, competition, etc. Without researching the question, a de Fnitive answer cannot be given. Com. Miller: • There are zoning ordinances that restrict ��eople from doing different things in any zone they want; is it possible to tie this ordinance in some way to the zoning; in a commercial zone they can do anything they want but in a residern ial zone they are restricted. Aarti Shrivastava: • That is our point; we don't approve these in residential zones; we have approved these in areas that are not residential, at a certain distan �e from residential. The TIC recognized that large swats of our city don't have commercial areas and try to figure out where we might put some of these or you would have holes in that service and the idea was to be able to get service in the city and not impact residential. We �io not allow these in residential areas, in fact they have to be a certain distance from them. Colin Jung: • Said they do allow them on utility poles and towers regardless of the setback in residential areas, and that is what DAS system does. �>ystems being built today are also using utility poles and towers but they are not DAS; they are the same facilities, just lower powered. Com. Miller: • He said that the topic of cell towers is an issue that keeps coming up. The neighbors are concerned, they are worried about their hf:alth and the health of their children. The residents don't want it, they are fearful of it and th it impacts property values, people's decisions as to where they live, should they move, or stay in a certain location. The applications are impacting the lives of the residents in this �;ommunity, and he viewed it as a serious issue. Colin Jung: • Said they don't hear from these people, b�rt get a lot of calls from people who want to locate near a cell phone tower for good cell phon�; coverage. They are not the people you hear from at the public hearings; it is both ways. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that staff would present the question to the TIC and follow up on the question presented to the City Attorney of what extent the Cir� can go to regulate them. Com. Miller: • Said he was hopeful that the neat time a similar application is presented, they would have progressed further. He said there may be no solution to the issue, but he believes that if they work harder at it, they can find a solui:ion, because they are not currently addressing it adequately; even though there are some pe �ple that say they want to be close to a cell tower. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that they have an interest in the ]3icycle and Pedestrian Commission; they have a circulation element and are always looki ng for ways to work with the schools to improve walking and biking. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 July 27, 2010 Chair Brophy: � Said it was reported at the Mayor's meeti ng that a bicycle plan has been prepared and is out for review. The Bike Committee along with the Teen Committee has worked hard to encourage increased usage of bicycling to school; they have been more successful at the elementary and middle levels than they ha�re at the high school levels. Chair Brophy: • Asked staff for insight on the impact of Hewlett Packard leaving Cupertino, in terms of economics or land use. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they do not have actual numbers; the y have worked with HP in the past on transitioning their properties and will work with their �•eal estate team as well as the real estate team they hire to make sure it will be positioned for - evenue generating purposes. Transitioning will take 2 years; it is more phased. Staff will keep the Commission posted on discussions with HP; the Commission can discuss if they want to t�e proactive. A brief discussion followed about HP property. Vice Chair Lee: • Reported on her attendance at a recent Public Works Assoc. seminar, where discussion included the renovation of different cities. Chair Brophy: • Suggested that the topic of Apple/Vallco c�uld be raised at the August 17� discussion. Adjournment• • The meeting was adjoumed to the next rE�gular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 10, 2010 at 6:45 p.m. RespectFully Submitted: /s/Eliza.beth F;llis Elizabeth Ellis, Rec �rding Secretary