PC 07-27-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. July 27, 2010 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COM1V1UNITY 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 Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda (arrived after roll call,
during the meeting)
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
City Attorney's Office:: Valerie Armento
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 3 -0-0;
Coms. Giefer and Kaneda absent; to approve the July 13, 2010 Nanning
Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. DIR- 2010 -05 Consider an appeal 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 existing church; consisting of 3 panel antennas & 3
Presbyterian Church) microwave dish antennas screened by a faux cupola & a base
6191 Bollinger Rd. equipt. enclosure. Tentative City Council date: August 3, 2010
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 27, 2010
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for appeal of a Director's Minor Modification decision to allow the
installation of a personal wireless service facility on the roof on the existing West Valley
Presbyterian Church, located atg 6191 Bollinger 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 by 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 appellant' concerns are outlined in the staff report. Staff
feels that the cupola design is not a visually awkward design, since they are a common
architectural feature of churches, and the faux cupola is not disproportionate in size or height,
and it also uses compatible colors and materials 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, Subsection 7(D) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, stating
that it prohibits local agencies from regulating personal wireless service facilities on the basis
of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the FCC guidelines for such emissions. If it meets the Federal guidelines the
Planning Commission is prohibited from regulating it based on those effects or fears or
concerns of such effects. The proposed facility is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities
Master Plan and Wireless Communications 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 Development with the same conditions in that the applicant is
required to disclose the presence of the facility to church and private school users onsite and
verify after construction that the radio frequency energy does meet the federal standard.
Relative to the appellant's opinion that the radio frequency study provided is erroneous, he
responded that the equation to calculate power 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 Commission recommend denial of the appeal of the
Director's Approval per the model resolution. The recommendation will be forwarded to City
Council.
Mrs. Ione Yuen, Appellant:
• Asked that her comment about the radio frequency 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 that 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 the school and residences.
Norman Yuen, Appellant:
• Said that he had experience as a WiMax engineer, and supported the building out of the
WiMax network; however, in the subject project, he was concerned with the close proximity to
the residences and school. He discussed the differences between cellular phone towers and
WiMax 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 were 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 relative to monitoring.
Com. Miller:
• Said he empathized with the appellant; however, the Federal law does not make a distinction
between WiMax and cellular and the Planning Commission is not permitted to rule on it. He
questioned if there was data showing that the power level and the distances discussed present a
hazard to human beings.
Norman Yuen:
• Said that WiMax was new within the last 2 to 3 years and he was not aware of any studies on
the health effects of WiMax. He noted that 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 considered 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 can unit.
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 facility 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, less than one mile away.
Com. Miller:
• Asked if there was any monitoring set up over time to ensure that they are within the specs that
they receive their approvals for.
Colin Jung:
• Said that this particular approval has a condition 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 property 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 city along with the church. The site provides the best
coverage for Clearwire, and met the conditions within Cupertino's ordinance. He answered
questions about the proposed location of the wireless facility.
Rajat Mathur, Hammett and Edison, Consulting Engineers:
• Did the RF exposure study for the site and 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 provide and is fixed by this application; so they cannot
just create power. If they need to do that, 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 frequency 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 are similar; the PCS frequencies are 2 gigahertz; the
WiMax is approx. 2.6 gigahertz. Said he was comfortable that the distances the city has
established were safe distances; noting that 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 information on the RF concerns and impacts. He asked
how the measurements are made and what is considered FCC guidelines; how the antennas
across the street for T- Mobile and AT &T factor into the calculation. He noted some
inconsistencies in the engineer's report posted online.
Nancy (last name not given), Resident on Bollinger Road:
• Questioned the purpose of the WiMax, and stated that the facility was already rejected twice,
one at Monta Vista High School and one 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; said they have WiFi at their home and never run it at
100 %, but at 60% or 40 %. Said they are concerned about having 1250 watts next to their
home. He questioned why it was being presented again since it was rejected twice, which
would mean there is a strong reason for the 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 have it in his back yard with his children sleeping in
the house?
Rajesh Rao, Cupertino resident:
• Most of the technical aspects have been covered. Said that the WiMax 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 location, why can't it be in the hills, off the street? The
distance of 75 or 100 feet is a concern of the residents.
Daniel Zhu, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to the project.
• He quoted FCC information: there are two 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 concludes that variable data is sufficient to provide a
base of setting exposure restriction.
• A quote from the FCC web page states that "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 human 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. The
science doctors and researchers have posted their concerns on the humans, especially effect on
DNA, brain and the environment. Has the City ever gone through the journal and do they
understand the concerns?
• Cupertino Union School District has confirmed that the appropriate project notice was
received. He questioned if the school notified the parents of the project; if they were not
notified, they could not comment or oppose the project.
• The long term health issue has been a concern worldwide and there are many web pages
devoted to talking about the issue. He saicl they do not understand the long term effects;
precaution is important.
Douglas Thompson, Cupertino resident:
• Asked what the City of Cupertino could do legally to deny the tower being built.
Carol Korade, City Attorney:
• Said the City was limited by the provisions of the 1996 FCC Act; so long as the data indicates
it complies with the FCC regulations, the 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 allowing 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 competition for a lot of other carriers to come in with
options of technology for the future. We have some solutions to satisfy the community's
health concerns and go forward with progress.
Aioub Hashemi, Cupertino resident:
• Said he resides across the street from the church.
• If the consulting engineer does not know how much power they will generate; who is going to
know? It is very close to crowded residences with children; none received notification
because the property owners, not the tenants, received the information. He said that is the
reason they signed the petition. The application came in just before schools were closed for
the summer; the notification was received 5 days before the deadline and problems were
encountered with opening the website pages. He said he talked with City staff about putting
the information on a different site.
Fayreh Javadi, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was concerned about neighborhood 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, Cupertino resident:
• Said she signed the petition and was also concerned with other information gathered; her
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 27, 2010
family has lived in the house around the corner 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 known even without health studies that any kind of
radiation is a carcinogen. She said she was hopeful that the City would be uncomfortable
remaining in her home if the tower goes up, 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; the 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 why we didn't place the antenna on a mountain top,
one of the wireless digital communications 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 parameters which is the quality and strength of the signal and
hence the placement of the antennas on a hilltop is not realizable physically. In terms of
WiMax being more detrimental to PCS cellular services, I tend to defer on that opinion;
frequency of WiMax is 2500; PCS is 1900, cellular band is 800. Also addressing our power
being transmitted constantly, internet on data traffic is bursty in nature, not everyone is surfing
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 evidence 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 themselves in the residents' places; if so much is
questionable and debatable technology, would 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 to 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 the company cannot build a tower on higher ground,
that is their problem, not the residents' problem. They do not want a tower in a densely
populated area. If the technology says that the range is 30 miles, place it further away, not in
their back yards.
Rajat Mathur, Consulting Engineer:
• Since most of the concerns are health related, 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 maintains a database for all studies done in this area; the vast
majority shows that there is an established 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, the FCC standard is 50 times below that. This site is
now 370 times below the FCC standard, so the total safety factor from where the health effects
may occur is 1/18,500 where that may happen and this is an extremely low level.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 July 27, 2010
• Another point brought up is that the ICNRP has an closely similar standard to the FCC and
their standard has been adopted across most of Europe, France, Spain, and Germany. All of the
Scandinavian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand have adopted the ICNRP
guidelines which are closely similar to the FCC guidelines.
• The organization IEEE (Institute of Electronic Engineers) has also created independent
guidelines which are extremely similar to the FCC guidelines. The IEEE revises their
guidelines every 5 years, the last revision being in 2006.
• Xrays are millions of times higher in frequency than WiMax, 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 ionizing and don't cause those harmful effects.
• A cell phone is only exposing part of a body, 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 radiation, were all the other sources of radiation in the
vicinity taken into account?
Rajat Mathur:
• The other sources are too far away to affect the energy from this one, this was a calculation
just for the Clearwire microwave antennas; 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 mile, it will not only affect Hyde Middle School, but
also Cedric Elementary and Cupertino High School because they are within the range of the
WiMax tower. He said there are many unanswered questions about the health affects of the
cellular technology.
Rajat Mathur:
• Answered questions from the residents. The 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 comment 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 actually penetrate into the eye and make you blind. The
shorter wave length radiations is more dangerous than longer wave lengths. How do they
reach their conclusions; what data do they 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 type 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 on. The conversation tonight has gone above and
beyond what should be addressed. He said 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; the fact is they are restricted from ruling on the safety
concerns; the only concern that they can rule on is aesthetics. In the past they have rejected a
number of applications because of aesthetics; at churches, schools, various sites.
• He said in his opinion this is their town and if the residents in the town are saying they don't
want it, he has trouble understanding why 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 something 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 Commission had to approve it; it was invisible from
the street. It was suggested that the neighbors 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 there was not sufficient notification; the owners were
notified but the residents who were tenants were not notified. A question could be posed
whether they should be going back and trying to notify the actual residents because they are
affected by this. We have asked for a requirement for disclosure when it is a public site and
the children are present. The disclosure should 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 disclosure at the church site as well. Another speaker
mentioned if you had distributed antennas, 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 original 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 notification was made.
• Said he was suggesting that for all zoning 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 owner, and this is something that doesn't necessarily
involve the property owners, but the residents.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they look at what issues people may have and were aware of the concern about health
issues, as they hear that on almost every application. There is the question that if you would
notice them only to tell them that you couldn't do anything about their issue; which is why we
try to include as many protections as we can 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 opportunity to
present it at the Council. Having a second hearing the Planning Commission level probably
wouldn't be necessary because the Council 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 make certain decisions based only on certain findings.
• Relative to disclosure to the church parishioners, it is up to the property owner to disclose that.
Staff could let the property owner of the church know it was a suggestion.
Com. Miller:
• Staff is stating that they won't consider the 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 in 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 they do that; they would be
required to be in place before receiving approval to begin operation.
Com. Miller:
• Said there is no provision for continuing monitoring.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Not at this time, but it can be discussed with the applicant. It would be expected to be third
party so that the applicant is not doing it themselves, paid for by the applicant. The school will
be disclosed; it is based on health, something 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 thoroughly tested. He asked the City Attorney if it changes
things in terms of what they can or cannot rule 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 developments 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. She said she was suspect that people are doing t hat.
The City can't really evaluate different emerging 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 other than what it looks like. She said nothing could be
done unless it was stated as such in the appeal application that it looked awkward. She said
she did not know if there was any mediation that could occur between the neighbors and the
church; and she did not have the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues with the church
before it came before the Planning Commission. She said it would be ideal to sit down with
the church powers to discuss it in a neighborly fashion before going to City Council. She
presented a copy of the petition.
Norman Yuen:
• Said they tried to get a delay on the meeting, 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 tower 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 appellant, 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 parents of the school have not been sent out.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he appreciated Mrs. Yuen's directness and honesty about the issues; the reality is that the
Commission is under the limitations of federal law; if the application is denied based on those
grounds, applicants can and do sue cities, and the City would lose.
• Based on the hearing 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 ordinance. That 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 pretty 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 approve 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 that in the staff report as well as why the Planning
Commission made their decision. She said they could also suggest the monitoring in the staff
report as a comment from the Planning Commission.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Report will be provided at next meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY 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 summarized below)
• Development Permit Process community meeting 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. Council suggested community meetings for community -
wide input.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 July 27, 2010
• The Green Building Ordinance Community meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 29 at
Community Hall from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 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 August 17 meetiin.
• The Commissioners discussed what projects or responsibilities currently being handled by
other Commissions that the Planning Commission could contribute to.
• Housing Commission: Discuss Affordable Housing Ordinance. Also is there a way to
encourage the developments that have already been approved and have been put on hold, such
as Main Street.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to working with housing, he said he was unsure which falls under Commission
purview, which is housing, which is the Council and outside of their purview. The
Commission has worked before with commercial establishments in terms of making it easier
to locate in the city, and have also worked with corporate citizens to make it easier for them.
Is there something that could be discussed 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 Commissions on an Ad Hoc basis, with the TIC on
issues similar to the present meeting.
Com. Miller:
• Said the question of distributed networks has come up before. He said at a past Mayor's
monthly meeting he mentioned it to a member 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 antenna system that is literally on every third utility pole,
20 feet from the neighbor's house, and people don't seem to be excited about it. The major
companies building systems in the community have not gotten word on that; the systems that
are around are built by different companies that build distributed antenna systems and they
lease space to the carriers if they can manage to get a system large enough to make it financial
feasible. He aid TIC was charged with looking into that and he will contact them.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The question sometimes is we are faced with an application and typically not for a DAS; is
there anything in our ordinance that allows 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 fact 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 multiple 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 to.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 July 27, 2010
Carol Korade:
• Said that there would probably be concerns about undue business restraints in terms of the City
saying you could only use a certain technology or certain method of dealing with a particular
issue since that tends to go against the concepts of people pursuing best practices, competition,
etc. Without researching the question, a definitive answer cannot be given.
Com. Miller:
• There are zoning ordinances that restrict people 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 residential 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 distance 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 sery ice and the idea was to be able to get service in
the city and not impact residential. We do 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. Systems 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 health and the health of their children. The residents
don't want it, they are fearful of it and that 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 community, and he viewed it as a serious issue.
Colin Jung:
• Said they don't hear from these people, but get a lot of calls from people who want to locate
near a cell phone tower for good cell phone 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 City can go to regulate them.
Com. Miller:
• Said he was hopeful that the next 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 solution, because they are not currently addressing it
adequately; even though there are some people that say they want to be close to a cell tower.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that they have an interest in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission; they have a
circulation element and are always looking 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 meeting 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 have 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; they have worked with HP in the past on transitioning
their properties and will work with their real estate team as well as the real estate team they
hire to make sure it will be positioned for revenue 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 be 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 could be raised at the August 17 discussion.
Adjournment:
• The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
August 10, 2010 at 6:45 p.m /'
•
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabet is, Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: September 14, 2010