Loading...
PC 09-14-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. September 14, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 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: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Interim Assistant Planner: George Schroeder Senior Planner: Colin Jung City Attorney's Office: Valerie Armento APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 27, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting: Change attendance list (City Attorney): From Carol Korade to Valerie Armento Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 4 -0-1, Com. Giefer abstained; to approve the July 27, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. M- 2010 -04 Modification to a Hillside Exception (EXC- 2010 -07) to construct a 2,123 (EA- 2010 -03) sq. ft. single family residence on a substandard lot with slopes greater than 22810 Mercedes 30 percent. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. George Schroeder, Interim Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Modification to a Hillside Exception to construct a 2,123 square Cupertino Planning Commission 2 September 14, 2010 foot single family residence on a substandard lot with slopes greater than 30 percent as outlined in the staff report. The approval history dated back to September 2001 when the Planning Commission approved a Hillside Exception for a 2,216 square foot single - family home; the property was sold prior to construction and the subsequent property owner applied for modifications to the original approval in 2002. The Planning Commission approved the modification to construct a 3,008 square foot home and a building permit was issued in 2004; however, the site has been vacant with an unfinished foundation and retaining walls. The property is now owned by another person who is seeking permission to modify the previous approval in order to build a new home and do remediation work discussed in the staff report. • He reviewed the current condition, including illegal grading, uninspected construction and emergency slope stabilization measures as outlined in the staff report. • The current owner has worked with the city to install retaining walls in the rear of the property to stabilize the hillside. Average slope on the property is about 47 %; the retaining walls for the driving and the fence are visible. The city's geologist reviewed the foundation plans and geotechnical report and has recommended approval of the conditions, which have been incorporated into the resolution. The geotechnical engineer proposes to construct new retaining walls against the existing ones for support. The applicant will screen it with shrubs and vines and is required to reface it with natural materials such as stone or wood. Trees consistent with the protected tree ordinance will be planted; additionally the Fire Dept. has reviewed the plans, and the project's landscaping is consistent with the water efficient landscape ordinance. Public Works Dept. has preliminarily reviewed the drainage and determined that the slight increase in surface runoff that would result from this project could be supported by a storm drain system. During the early permit phase, the applicant will be required to submit pre- and post - construction drainage calculations and construction facilities to retain the difference in runoff that would result from the construction. The applicant is also required to submit a construction management plan which is included, but limited to the staging equipment, dust control and tree protection. Mercedes Road is required to be left open for emergency access and the onstreet parking area is to be constructed first and used as a staging area. Other items carried over from previous approval in 2003 still apply to this. • Staff recommends approval of the mitigated negative declaration under CEQA and also recommends approval of the modification to the hillside exception. Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the project. Chi Nguyen, Applicant: • Said that the drainage was in place already; when the upper retaining walls were built the drainage system was put in; for the past few rainy seasons the street is dry or the water is tied to the storm drain. When the new house is built, the drainage around the house might tie to the main drainage system. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; as there was no one who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Com. Giefer: • Said that part of the hillside land use policy is also to ensure that the hills remain stable, avoid poor construction in the hills and provide some protection for the hillsides. She said although the proposed home is a lovely home, she could not in good conscience support it. Building a home on a known fault line and rupture that requires an exception, is providing public land for what could be seen as private benefit in terms of allowing them to put additional parking on public lands. She said it is a problematic space, and she could not support the project. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 September 14, 2010 Gary Chao, City Planner: • Relative to a question how houses get approved on a fault line, he said that there are no policies that prohibit any houses from being built on fault lines; if property is in a certain zone such as a fault rupture or a hazardous zone, the city's responsibility is to make sure that proper considerations are looked at and reviewed by the city's geologist and Public Works staff to ensure that proper considerations in terms of the structural foundation plan are put in place. It is a matter of engineering the foundation to withstand a future rupture and activities. • Said without the presence of the geologist, he was not certain what the lowest potential of that particular fault would be. He said he felt they would have taken that into consideration and the applicant hired a geotechnical person to help design the home and Cotton Shire from Los Gatos who represents the city. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: • Said there have been projects in the city that have been on the fault line, such as the Ricardo Road subdivision, and as earlier stated, they all have to go through that additional review. The Building Code does recognize that and anticipates that. Said the Building Code recognizes the situation and allows for it; otherwise people would not be able to build. Under the Subdivision Map Act, if they have a lot, they have a right to build. Com. Miller: • Said he was sensitive to Com. Giefer's concerns; although he would not want to build there. Since the Code and the law permits it and the people have purchased this property knowing that it is permitted to build on it; even though he did not want to approve it, he felt he had to. Com. Giefer: • Clarified that after listening to Com. Miller's comments, and checking her notes, her main issue was the slope. She agreed that they have a right to build, but felt building on a 47% slope was excessive. Vice Chair Lee: • Said she attended the meeting of the Environmental Review Committee where the public, staff, Public Works looked at it and made sure that all of the recommendations were in the geology report. They are not just recommendations for the owner to attend to or abide by, they are provisions that have to be adhered to. The owner has to ensure that every single recommendation is followed; it is similar to a condition of approval for this project. Public Works knows that they cannot deviate from the geologist recommendation at all. She said she felt comfortable in recommending the project for approval. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that when staff reviewed the application, if you visit the site, you will see that a fair amount of grading has already occurred, and some uninspected and inspected retaining walls are put in. Staff worked with the applicant to make sure that there would be no additional grading beyond what has already been done on the site. What is seen there currently in its existing state is the maximum that will ever be done; all that remains is to drill the piers and that is the only dirt that will be removed. Other than that, we will put in new foundations and put in fill against that and revegetate. Gary Chao: • According to the city's geological consultant, one of the reasons they are okay with leaving the existing unpermitted foundation in, some of the retaining walls help stabilize the hill; as it currently sits, it is actually stronger than where they started out before; not that this is the right Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 14, 2010 way to approach a site like this. However, the work has been done and that is why the existing retaining walls are to remain. They are going with a tiered foundation system building around the existing foundation so that there will be two layers of strengthening of the site. Com. Kaneda: • Said he understood that the applicant had the property zoned for hillside residential and they have a right to build. Based on the plans, it appears the end result from an erosion standpoint will be better than what is presently there, because you will be planting the hill and putting in something that will actually help mitigate erosion and water flow across the site. • The owner must be aware there is a fault line which carries a certain risk; all of Cupertino is at risk from an earthquake, this area potentially is more at risk than the average site in Cupertino. If the owner is going in with their eyes open to the fact that they are quite close to a fault line and potentially in a rupture zone, that is important for them to know. • Said he assumed the city would ensure they have a good structural consultant that will make sure the building is securely drilled down into bedrock so it will remain stable if there is an earthquake. • With all those things in place, he said he would support the application. Chair Brophy: • Said he was sympathetic to Com. Giefer's argument and if this were a clean site that had not been developed, he would vote against it. He said the reason they have a hillside exception is not only to make sure that the design is done well but to decide that some sites are just too heavily sloped to be subject to development, which the current site is. • Said he was certain they would use a quality geotechnical engineer, and noted that whenever there are heavy winter rains, one can drive around the hilly parts of the city and see emergency arrangements being taken care of to deal with hillside slippage, and those presumably were all designed by competent geotechnical engineers. He said he would bring an engineer in even if it is 47 degrees. • He said it is like the whole idea that the city is providing its land for offstreet parking, but as Com. Giefer said, the main concern is just the incredible steepness of it. There are some sites in the future they simply have to look at and tell the applicants that the risk of developing them is too great to the community at large. That is a fact of nature, not a policy issue. Having said that, as staff pointed out, with the construction that is going on there, to try to undo what has already been done would probably cause more damage than building a house. • He said he hoped in the future they would have stricter policy in terms of deciding whether or not a site is actually developable, rather than saying how can we make it developable and make it the least problem. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-1 -0, Com. Giefer voted No, to approve Applications M- 2010 -04, and EA- 2010 -03. 2. U- 2010 -03, Use Permit request to allow a personal wireless service facility EXC- 2010 -04, consisting of 12 panel antennas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine TR- 2010 -31 and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Dave Yocke/ Way office park; Height Exception to allow antennas to be mounted AT &T, Results Way on the monopine at a height of 67 feet where 55 feet is allowed; Tree Removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of four Redwood trees as part of the wireless service facility installation. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 14, 2010 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Use Permit for a personal wireless service facility with 12 panel antennas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine with base equipment at the existing Results Way Office Park; height exception to allow antennas to be mounted on the monopine at 67 feet where 55 feet is allowed; and tree removal permit for removal and replacement of four Redwood trees; as outlined in the staff report. • He reviewed the site location and noted that the proposal was to provide improved AT &T cell phone coverage for the Monta Vista area. He also reviewed the design of the monopine as detailed in the staff report, Page 2/4. The history of AT &T's attempts (and the outcomes) since 2005, to provide better wireless communications coverage in the Monta Vista area were also reviewed; a table showing the locations and outcomes is included in the staff report. • Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit, Height Exception and Tree Removal per the model resolutions. Com. Miller: • Asked if Blackberry Farm location or Deep Cliff had been considered for placement of the facility. Colin Jung: • Said Blackberry Farm would be a challenging location, because it is in a giant hole; to get something that is even covering anything on the residential outside, you would likely have to go up 100 feet. Deep Cliff is part of another hole and it would also require a very tall antenna location. The applicant could comment, as they developed a search radius. Leon Beechman, AT &T: • Showed slides relating to some of the questions about the service and the fact that it is needed. Information related to demand, showing capacity issue: a lot of which is driven by the evolution of the telecommunications wireless industry; much of it is driven by one of the local companies; you get a sense of why we need to add to the capacity of our network. • Showed facts produced by the TIC, showing that people in Cupertino want improved service. Survey responded to the wireless service; issue of quality: demand has grown and coverage has deteriorated somewhat since 2007. Safely concerns: only 50 out of 600 respondents had safety concerns; the vast majority did not have concerns with safety. • The majority did not have concerns about aesthetics, the site of the towers has been improved over time and will be addressed with the proposal. Over 50% of the people responding to the survey had issues with coverage, which is in the same area of the proposed new facilities. He said he felt they were offering a good thing for the city; it will improve the wireless coverage, it is a high usage area for wireless services. They have worked about 5 years to get this done and think it will benefit the local economy. Scott Longhurst, President, Trillian Co. (AT &T land use consultant): • Continued with a slide presentation, describing the proposed project to build a 74 foot tall monopine, placing 12 antennas, stacked in 3 sectors of 2 antennas each, and pulled those antennas in close to the pole which will be benefited by the conical shape at the top. • The antennas will be much less visible to the general public; socks will be put over those antennas that have additional pine needles that will help diffuse the straight lines of them for a more natural shape. • Inside of the equipment compound, they are proposing 7 equipment cabinets; 3 will be deployed; at the present time reserving space for 4 additional cabinets. As technology changes, an additional capacity needs to be added to the site which can be done by adding cabinets within the shelter itself without having to go onto the pole. There is some ancillary Cupertino Planning Commission 6 September 14, 2010 equipment including power and telephone cabinets; the cabling to connect the antennas to the equipment cabinets, electrical meters, etc., will be housed inside the equipment enclosure. • Staff has asked that the project be designed as well as engineered to accommodate a future carrier; the plan is to do so, there would be up to 9 additional panel antennas that could be deployed at the site in the future. • He illustrated the proposed location on the existing property; the existing view and what it would look like if the site is built. The site is needed because presently AT &T does have a significant gap in coverage in the Monta Vista area, their initial anticipated coverage area is to the southwest primarily to cover the school areas and to the residential areas to the south and west. There is fairly good coverage to the east which is why they tried not to move the site any further north and east because they would be getting into areas where there is already acceptable coverage. • The Bubb Road and McClellan Road area has been identified by the survey as the No. 1 area needed improved coverage. Over the last few years AT &T has experienced approximately 500% growth rate as depicted in other slides, primarily due to the advent of Smart Phones and the apps that have been developed for public use and further enhance the use of the smart phones. The additional heights have been requested for two reasons, to serve that greater geographic area and see over the surrounding buildings. • Referred to an updated coverage map, and explained why the location was chosen. There have been a variety of locations analyzed over the past 3 -5 years; this is the closest non - residential property to their original coverage objectives, which was centered more around the high school itself and the surrounding residential community. • Reviewed the benefits of the project, which will improve coverage for AT &T customers in an area of Cupertino that is currently receiving substandard coverage, specifically at the College, high school, middle schools, residents to the west and across Imperial Avenue, and south of McClellan as well as the businesses in the area and Highway 85. As part of this improved coverage, AT &T customers will receive unproved data speeds, including faster interne connectivity, and file downloads. It will also provide customers with the latest technologies including 3G and 4G as well as improved access to 911 services which are location based. • Said they reviewed the staff report and have no problems with any proposed conditions; and would submit for Director's review the building materials for the equipment enclosure. He requested that the Commission grant approval and allow the project to move forward. Chair Brophy: • Based on e-mails received, the No. 1 concern is how can they respond to the concerns that people have about what might exist in spite of the FCC standards that states the Commission cannot consider health effects from any project that meets the FCC design. Dr. Jerry Bushberg, Consultant: • The report states that it is 1% of the allowable limit; allowable limit has a safety factor of 50 fold built into it which is a big margin of safety, about 5,000 times below the level thought to be potentially harmful. The public safety limit was established assuming that people might be exposed 24 hours per day /365 days per year, and the reason the large safety factor was applied to the public exposure standard, which is 50 times below the threshold for effects and ten times below the level for occupational exposure, is because the public has a wide variety of people in it from healthy to infirm, from young to old. Chair Brophy: • Asked what the general state of scientific belief was in terms of the effects of emissions from cell towers. Studies from Germany and Israel argued that cancer rates within 400 meters of cell towers were 3 or 4 times that of the areas that did not have cell towers near them. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 14, 2010 Dr. Bushberg: • Over the last ten years in particular, mostly because of the proliferation of wireless technology and the concern for a large percentage of the population using cell phones, there have been a number of independent scientific commissions that have been set up to answer the question whether the health and safety standards currently in existence in Europe and USA are adequate to protect the public health and safety. He illustrated a list of some involved; the list was reviewed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and after their review of these reports, each one of which typically is 100 -200 pages, their collective statement about this was as follows: "Today expert reviews on health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the same conclusion; there have been no adverse consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below international guidelines ". • The literature is vast, and literally contains thousands of biological effect studies, both studies on cells, studies on animals, both long and short terms, as well as epidemiological studies and what they refer to as human provocation studies where people are exposed and they look at effects like whether they get headaches or not, and effects on sleep, etc. There are going to be in any body of research individual studies that show either an effect that other studies don't show, or on the other side of the extreme, shows the absence of the fact where some studies do show an effect. The responsibility of all of these scientific organizations and committees that have been impaneled is to review the entire body of literature and look at the weight of the evidence, and that is what the recommendations both from these reports and a collective judgment of the WHO is based on, not individual papers. • Said that there is a recent study (re: children) 2010 American Cancer Society website, evaluating potential threats relating to cancer. Where the exposures are the highest, people actually using a cell phone, and exposure that you get when you use your cell phone is many times greater than the typical exposure one gets from living around a cell site. • There have been a number studies both around AM and FM broadcast facilities, e.g. TV towers, and one published that the American Cancer Society called attention to, in Britain involved 1,000 families of young children with cancer and a similar group of families without, and they found no link between the mothers' exposure to towers during pregnancy based on distance from those sites. Their website talks about the issue in detail with additional reference to the research itself. • Said that the present phones have a feature called adaptive power control, if they have a very strong signal, the cell sites only want to see a signal strength which remains at a certain level. To save battery life on the phones, if you are very close and there is a good signal to the cell site, the cell site will signal the phone to turn its power down to get it within that range. If you are very far away and have a poor signal, such as one bar, then it will signal the phone to turn up to maximum power to make the connection if it can. One of the effects of having good coverage, is to lower people's exposure from the phones through the use of adaptive power control; the individual exposures which are typically the highest, will be reduced. TIC representative: • Said because many years have passed and there are different Commissioners from when the first report was given, he provided a copy of the report. He said that AT &T reps summarized • The only thing they didn't say that was relevant is that AT &T three years ago had about a 42% share of the city of Cupertino; it was the dominant carrier. The two carriers that mattered in Cupertino were Verizon and AT &T; they each had over 40% share, everyone else combined at about 15% share. The estimate is that AT &T has grown to be even more dominant because of the rise of the IPhone. • The other point that was made was that not only has there been a coverage hole but the coverage hole has got worse because people's demands upon their Smart Phones and other Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 14, 2010 devices have become huge. Relative to the question about putting them higher in the hills, putting cell phones higher in a hill area doesn't necessarily improve coverage because of the nature of the way the microwave range radiation works to get a bounce off hills. It may look like you have coverage, but not really be able to have a consistent coverage from those areas. • The survey done three years ago was statistically valid, with a huge response, three times that from a typical voting poll with a very small percentage error; the results were likely to be statistically valid for the whole city. This is an area that in the three years since, in terms of e- mails received and e-mails the city has received, overwhelmingly by a factor of 100 to 1, the comment received are people begging for a fix to the cell coverage and the general wireless coverage within the city. That is why we worked with you and the City Council to make the changes that were made in the ordinance for cell towers. We would like to see improvements made in this area so we don't have to worry about it anymore. Colin Jung: • Summarized the areas that can be considered in the Planning Commission deliberation and what can't. Said the Federal law was clear on the point, that while they could hear all input presented, the law states that local agencies and decision makers of local agencies cannot make decisions on personal wireless service facilities such as this one on the basis of health effects if it is demonstrated that the emissions from that facility meet or are below federal safety standards. Other issues within the purview of the Planning Commission include issues of design, visibility, location, importance of service to the community, etc. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Steve Malani, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Imperial Avenue in this particular area is blighted and there is an existing conduit run that they proposed going through the property that goes to Imperial Avenue. He said he was opposed to the routing of the conduit; his perception is that the conduit run impacts the development opportunity of that particular parcel. • He suggested they recommend to the applicant that the conduit line be moved closer to the property line. Eventually somebody will redevelop that property and it needs to be redeveloped and reworked; and said he would like to see the conduit moved closer to the property line. Colin Jung: • Said he had a discussion with the property owner who said he had the same concern, that the electrical and telephone connections for this tower are taken off of Imperial Avenue and go through one of those smaller light industrial properties that is owned by the Results Way Office Park owners. On the plans itself it shows the conduit run going right through the center of the property; and the property owner said he did not know what they had planned for the future, but felt they would be limiting their options if they run it through the center of it. Colin Jung said he was sure that the property owner would take care of it as he was aware of the concern from his own economic interest. Xiaowen Liu, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said that Dr. Bushberg's report spoke to the effects on children; the British study only studied effects on children up to 4 years old; no long term effect of children's health. Said her children would be exposed to cell phone radiation 24 hours a day, because of proximity to the school and their home. If the cell phone tower is installed, they will likely move from their Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 14, 2010 home, as the facility would have a negative effect on their home value. • AT &T does not need to build the tower there to fill their current gap; the best location would be a non - residential area. Agnes Fu, Astoria Town House resident: • Opposed to the project. • Distributed copy of petition of 240 signatures opposed to the location. • Showed photos of the Astoria townhouses, the tower is twice the height of 3 story townhouse; most of the residents will see the cell tower every day when driving on their community road. She compared the height of the tower to trees on the properties nearby, and said if the tower is built in the proposed location, they would move as they were concerned about the effects of radiation on her children. • She said she would drive her children to school to reduce the time of exposure, which will increase the traffic problems around the school. Also the City of Cupertino encourages children to walk to school. The tower is counter- environmental. Katrina Huang, 6 year old Lincoln School student: • Opposed to project. • Said she and her mother sometimes walk in the neighborhood and she didn't want to see a very tall tower in their neighborhood. Kate Huang, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Raised concerns about health effects. The proposed location is close to two townhouse communities, most have school aged children; all the children are as valuable as those living in the Monta Vista area; it is a concern to parents and children who walk to school every day. • Once the tower is up, it will be easier for another carrier to add to the existing pole or another one; there is already one existing near there and the level of RF radiation combined will not be linear; the level will be much more and increased in a higher frequency. • Said that the public hearing conflicted with Monta Vista's Back to School Night and many parents are unable to attend the public hearing due to scheduling conflicts. Because of the scheduling conflict, the result is an unfair representation of public opinion, especially of those whose lives who are greatly impacted by tonight's decision. Cid Pereira, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said she chose to reside in Cupertino because of the quality of life, concern for its citizens, and excellent schools. Although it is important to be viable and provide services and look to the future, never forget the quality of life, balance and harmony in this. • The placement of the tower has been attempted a number of times, and most people don't want it in their yard. The services are needed, but it should be with thoughtfulness and responsibility. Perhaps there is a better location for it, somewhere where it doesn't impact the lives of the Cupertino community. Ashley Wellman, Cupertino resident: • In favor of project. • Said she was in favor of the project and was disgruntled with AT &T because of the current poor service, and would not remain a customer if she was not under contract. Said she was • frustrated because all her calls are dropped within her home and service is not good in her home or close proximity. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 14, 2010 Alexander Wu, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said the tower is big and noticeable, and he did not want to see the big ugly, chunky tree when he walked by the area every day. • Recalled that it was the seventh time that the facility had been relocated, so there must be adequate reasons it has failed before. Natalino Camilleri, Monta Vista area resident: • Said he was an RF professional with a PhD. In RF and electro magnetics, and did not work for AT &T. Said one could not deny that service in that area is bad, and has been such for a long time. AT &T has been trying to put something there for more than 5 years; they need to get the project moving, and help them get there. The area needs improved coverage. Relative to safety, he said he agreed with the AT &T consultant and the data shown, and if AT &T wanted to put a tower in his backyard, he would agree to it. Andrew Wu, Imperial Avenue, Cupertino: • Said his unit faces the parking lot, which presently has a good, harmonious view and if AT &T moves forward with the proposal, it will make the community very ugly. Said he was not opposed to AT &T improving the coverage, but was opposed to the proposed location. • Other carriers in the area have excellent coverage, and do not have their facility next to the residential area. Stop this project at the beginning; remember the Wall Street greed, bringing the entire country and economics down. AT &T is starting a greedy approach to take over this beautiful community and put ugly construction there. There are many ways to improve the coverage, but this way is the wrong way and I ask you to stop this from the beginning; keep our community beautiful for the present and next generations. • Said he was also concerned about the radiation potential. There is a much better choice. Stephen Chen, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said that the FCC Act states that the community cannot refuse AT &T the right to place a cell phone tower there just because of health concerns. • He relayed his father's concerns for property values in the community, stating that one of Cupertino's greatest assets is its stability for property values because of its high quality education. We are living in a crucial economic times and luckily we are in this district in such a high quality, high level educational district, so our property values would not drop so much. Once AT &T places the cell phone tower in the proposed location, the residents will react, and future home buyers would react. • He said he felt the cell phone tower will affect the entire residential area by giving potential home buyers an excuse to bring down the property values of the area which is something the City of Cupertino cannot afford, because the property taxes they gain from the houses are able to fuel the standard of education that Cupertino School District currently provides. He said he did not think the community would sacrifice the property taxes that the community offers the City by purchasing the houses. The new homes represent a more modern, cleaner environment to live in, and future home buyers will express concern over the large radial tower there and possibly bring down the value of the home. • He urged the Commission to help preserve the high quality education that will be able to sustain the next generation of homeowners; have AT &T choose a more preferable spot for future home buyers and residents of Astoria. Cupertino Planning Commission 1 L September 14, 2010 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Addressed the five redwood trees to be removed on the industrial park property; when the young trees surrounding the monopine grow taller, will they compromise the actual monopine structure, because redwoods will grow very quickly. • If the project is approved, the cell tower will be there for quiet a while so the redwood trees will grow up around it, having attained a height of 20 -25 feet within 9 years if they are adequately watered. What are the future plans for this, since it is assumed that all the redwoods out there are part of the approved planting guide for this industrial park there; and that is why there needs to be a permit to remove those trees. • There have been great hopes for this industrial park, to try to make sure this property is going to go forward and be able to be refurbished and have a useful life as an industrial park. • Referring to an earlier comment about the conduit run, she said it would not be the best thing to have the conduit going across the middle of the parking lot off of the industrial park if it is going to be used in the future. • If the monopine is not to be used again by AT &T in the future, will it be completely taken down and disassembled and removed or will it be left on the property? There has been an improvement in the appearance of many of the trees; some elderly ones are in poor condition. She asked that they address some of her questions about the size of the redwoods? Colin Jung: • Said the trees are about 20 -30 feet in height, not sure of age, but not in good health; the tops of the trees are dead with an abundance of brown foliage, and they will not grow much taller. Looking at it from the standpoint of a screening issue, they need to be removed and new trees planted; it is a staff condition that they rehabilitate the irrigation system and begin to take much better care of the trees in the rear parking lot. Nicholas Chen, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to project. • Said he was concerned about the radio frequencies and how the radio emissions will affect the health of all the people in the townhouse complex, because studies have shown that cell phones has increased your chances of getting brain cancer. Many of the residents are concerned that it would lower the property values of the Astoria townhomes, and would cause additional health problems, and with more monopines or other radio emission towers set up, the combined amount will likely affect residents more than a single monopine. • On behalf of the townhouse residents, he asked that the Commission acknowledge their pleas to secure their property values and their future likelihood as long as they reside there. Jenny Zhong, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said she felt it was a bad idea to install a radiation tower at Results Way since it is very close to the schools and residential area. There are many students and residents who walk through the intersection of McClellan and Bubb Road everyday which is close to Results Way. The monopine is not a real tree and the residents don't want to live under the suspect radiation waves area. • She urged the Commission to consider their concerns. Srinivas Rama, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Works in the technology industry; purchased a home in Cupertino because of the quality of life, school district and appreciating property values. Said that as a parent he expected to take Cupertino Planning Commission 12 September 14, 2010 risks on his own so that his family could have a good quality of life, and having a cell tower with any amount of unknown risks to their health and quality of life is unacceptable to him. He said that the direction his property value has taken is a financial setback for his family. • The location of the monopine is close to three different schools where the students attend from 8 to 10 hours per day. He questioned why the tower would have to be over 70 feet in height. • He asked that the Commission consider all the issues before making a decision on the proposed monopine. Thomas Huang, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to the project. • Said he lives next to the location of the proposed monopine. • Said he felt it was a health hazard to all the residents and students going through the area; there are 3 schools in the area, and it is not a good idea for the kids to be exposed to radiation for long periods of time especially during school days. He said he heard that people who live in the area have three to four more times chances of getting cancer; and also from AT &T staff, that even though there is no link between pregnancies and exposure to the tower, there is more concern to people living in this area. Do the people who want better service or internet connection know where the tower is proposed to be located? • He referred to the Monta Vista handbook where it states that the students should not use their cell phones at school; they are to be turned off and put in backpacks. • He said the monopine would be seen from the family's windows and would obstruct views on the mountain trails and of the city. It will not be a good sight since it will be sticking out, since most of the buildings and trees are 1 -3 storys high, while the monopine is 5 -6 storys high. Grace Chen, Astoria townhome resident: • Opposed to project. • President Obama has recently encouraged capital expenditures by major corporations to revamp old and existing technologies. • She asked if AT &T had the latest technologies at existing cell sites, and when technologies become antiquated in two or three years, can the existing sites be replace with newer ones that potentially can resolve the problems that exist in the Monta Vista area. • She questioned if the reports on radiation related to a 70 foot monopine and up -to -date technology. Their reports may have been dated in 1999 where 10 years ago they were not talking about the size and magnitude of what is seen today and the radiation that is emitted. Old data cannot be used in order to make dec isions on what may impact the community 10 -20 years in the future. • She said if the project is approved, she was requesting that a rider be placed onto the application that homes in the proximity of 1,000 feet from the cell tower, be monetarily compensated for the devaluation of the homes. • She referred to Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan, which states "artificials should be visually integrated and should not be significantly taller than... "; and it is taller and cannot be visually integrated in that area and it is contrary to what the Wireless FMP has set forth. • The purpose of tonight is for AT &T to increase its coverage, why is it necessary that if they do not need the 12 antenna panels that it is included in tonight's application. If this improves their service, are all 12 panels necessary? How many panels do they need to fulfill their commitment to providing good cell phone service. I would like you to request AT &T to give you the answers prior to the approval. • She said she sent an e -mail to the Commissioners, and requested that each issue stated in the e- mail be addressed. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 September 14, 2010 Chris Ho, Astoria townhome resident: • Opposed to project. • Said he planned to live in the Astoria townhomes longer if the proposal is denied. He said he did not want his child to get the radiation. • Said he had AT &T service for 12 years. If they say they care about their customers, they have to do something to improve their service. They have to improve their products first, because I have used a cell phone that has good reception and I don't have antenna gage problem that IPhone has. There is a rumor that Verizon will have IPhone within a year, so by the time you build the tower, it is already gone for that business. I don't think that is something we need to worry about that much. Astoria townhomes are three levels so it is much higher. • Said although there is a lot of research saying that there is no link between pregnancy and radiation, that study is only one year old, cornpared to the residents who lived there for many years. Said he did not want to participate in cancer research because they are putting the power there and he would just leave immediately. He said he was not the one who volunteered himself to put the tower in their back yard. Andrew (7 year old child) no last name given: • Opposed to project. • Said he resided on Imperial Avenue a few hundred yards away from the proposed cell tower, and would attend Monta Vista high school in the future. • He asked the Commission not to approve the cell phone tower there because his parents might move from their residence if the tower is built; and he didn't want to move away from his best friend who also lived in the area. Gin Guo, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said he worked in the technology industry and understood the technology; said he felt it was a waste of money and effort to build the cell tower. The area is already well covered; the issue for AT &T is not coverage, it is capacity. It is because AT &T has a bad infrastructure; the coverage is there but they couldn't handle i t so they need to upgrade their infrastructure to improve the capacity, not the coverage. Alen Wong, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Noted that the application is incorrect; the tree is 80 feet tall; the 74 feet height is based on future parking lot elevation and he said he did not think the office building renovation project would raise it 6 feet from the existing parking lot. If someone put a future grade there 5 feet above the existing lot, it is not correct. • Showed existing coverage map from staff report. The proposed location is in front of Lincoln Elementary School; it is based on the wrong location; the actual location is 1300 feet away. He noted that there were 4 or 5 different versions of the coverage map. • Other carriers have better coverage in Cupertino than AT &T. Verizon towers are near the highway, away from the residential area; Sprint puts towers near the highway and put roof mounted near residential areas; that is what AT &T should do. Vincent Chin, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to the project. • Said he had aesthetic concerns about building a 70 foot tower. The nearby townhomes are 40 feet tall, and the trees about the same height; the 70 foot tower will not blend in with the surrounding areas. Monopine towers are designed to fit in with the surroundings, that is why Cupertino Planning Commission 14 September 14, 2010 they look like trees, but this tower will stand out excessively. • Relative to radiation concerns, he said he was not in a position to dispute the professional word of consultants; but said the correlation between cancer and cell phone towers has not been definitively proven or disproven. Based on that we should not be building a tower on uncertainties of whether or not it will or will r of cause cancer. Weibing Zhou, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said that all speakers except two, object to the proposal, and he agreed with them for all the reasons they mentioned. He said he has Verizon service and doesn't have any problems; whereas he had service problems when contracted with AT &T. He was not convinced that the cell tower is the solution for the coverage; AT &T gets a lot of reception companies nationwide, does Verizon or Sprint have more cell towers than AT &T? He said the tower was not necessary. • Said that Appendix 9 of the proposal is totally biased, because it does not include any feedback from people who are against the approval. For those people who don't mind installing a cell tower in their back yard, he said he was willing to donate $10 to help with the installation. Kam Chung, Imperial Avenue resident: • Opposed to project. • Said that customers of Sprint and Verizon don't have coverage issues; so she did not believe the tower is the only way that AT &T can improve their signal or services. They can come up with a better way other than erecting a tall tower in her front yard. • Said she had same concerns as other speakers and hoped that the Commission would address all the concerns and questions expressed at the meeting before making a decision. Bob Austin, Cupertino resident: • Said he was neutral about the project. He said he has an IPhone and it would be good to have better coverage; once he turns his head, the coverage is lost. • Based on evidence heard tonight, he hoped the Commission doesn't make a decision for this proposal without more feedback; but take more time to discuss issues with residents who are experts in the technology area. Said that he felt AT &T could have made a better effort and provided more documentation for the community to read on the proposal. • Who is going to get paid for this; where is the money coming from. Does AT &T give to the city through taxes, is that why it is such a big deal? He said the path the students take every day is full of weeds and he takes it upon himself to mow them down; the city does not do it. He said in his opinion the city doesn't take care of it unless they get money for it; and he would like to see the city put some time into taking care of the path. • What is the long term impact? Is Verizon going to come and put in some cell towers? What will happen in a year when Verizon takes over the IPhone; is AT &T in a race to get to the cell tower built before then? Are there going to be more cell towers? Where does it end ?? • He said if the cell tower goes in, he will get better service; if it doesn't, he will have a better view. Robert (no last name given): • Opposed to the project. • Said he had friends and relatives living in the Astoria Townhomes, and pointed out that if AT &T is proposing to put up the cell tower, it is only 207 feet away from the townhomes. There are 80 -100 kids who live in the townhome and whose health will be affected by the cell tower. He asked the Commission to take that into consideration. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 September 14, 2010 Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Kaneda: • For AT &T, there was a comment that it was riot an issue of coverage, but an issue of capacity. Can someone explain that? • The maps shown the cell tower will cover further down along Bubb Road but then as you get to Rainbow, it appears that there is once again no coverage. Are we going to have another application at some point in the future for Rainbow Road and are there any other major holes in Cupertino? Son Bui, AT &T RF Radio Frequency Engineer: • Specifically for this area, the requirement that is lacking is coverage. Capacity is tied into that, but it is more after effect as you get more users specifically for this area; it is a coverage lacking and when we say coverage, we have different thoughts about coverage. Here, the point is coverage for in- building as well as improved coverage surrounding the outside areas. • Said it was difficult to predict where the requirements are; but as you get further away from the cell site, the coverage decreases and as shown on the map, toward the north, northeast side and northwest, they have existing coverage that will overlap with this. To that end, there is good coverage, or sufficient coverage. Toward the south, only time and number of subscribers and requirements will dictate whether or not that is needed; it is hard to tell in the immediate future whether it is needed there. Colin Jung: • Said staff was working with a number of AT &T contractors to look at cell sites in the southern part of Cupertino that are going to address the areas around Rainbow and also along Stevens Canyon Road in those areas. There are many more coverage issues with AT &T. Com. Miller: • Said that several residents showed a map they took off the AT &T website which gave a different coverage story than the map shown at the meeting by AT &T. He asked for an explanation of the discrepancy. • Said it seemed that AT &T had a continuous problem and Verizon does not. Is that a function of Verizon with superior technology? What is the reason we don't see these demands for cell towers in town and yet Verizon has good reception throughout most of the city? Son Bui: • Said he would review where they got it off the website and discuss internally when it was created, under what condition and the circumstances it was done for. He said he understood it was created for different requirements, and the new requirement now is that they do need the coverage there. • Said the perception that one is better than the other lies with coverage, and we know that for this specific area and a lot of areas, AT &T is going to spend a lot of money to improve that and close the gap. From that perspective, there is a need to build more sites. Other factors play into that; the number of users, naturally both are at the top of the competition and the more users you have, your coverage requirements there is more demand for that. It is hard to say who has more subscribers and it varies from local area to area. In general, AT &T does need improved coverage in this area. Colin Jung: • Said that a number of the carriers that staff is working with, includes Verizon and they are Cupertino Planning Commission 16 September 14, 2010 looking to improve their coverage in the southern part of Cupertino, in the same areas around Rainbow and Stevens Canyon Road. In certain people's minds, they do have better coverage, but they have holes in their network also. • He reported that in meeting with the AT &T engineers, they discussed the service in areas, and it was brought to their attention that AT &T tested certain areas by driving in those areas mostly at non -peak times, rather than at peak times when customers were complaining of problems. He said that the marketing people were not talking to the network engineering people, which might account for the differences reported in coverage. Com. Giefer: • Asked if the project is approved, and the tower installed, what the average lifespan is of the tower before replacing components, what is the use and maintenance model for the devices; how frequently would AT &T come in and update its devices and do routine maintenance; what is anticipated in terms of mean times between failures? Son Bui: • Legally if the site goes down, AT &T has to service it to make sure the service isn't interrupted; he did not know how frequent that is, and will get the data from area to area and the type of equipment purchased. It is difficult to quantify what the average is. Scott Longhurst: • Said that the sites are monitored remotely; there is a network operation center, all facilities are monitored and alarmed; if someone enters the facility an alarm goes off. If a component goes down, an alarm goes off and cell techs go out to the sites. They generally visit the sites every month to six weeks with laptops, and run diagnostics and leave. In terms of the technology itself, that is more difficult to answer becau se technology moves very rapidly. There are changes being made to existing facilities to change over from copper T1 lines to fiber optics to help with the capacity issue at existing facilities; they are also moving towards 4G. He said they requested additional cabinet space up front so that as that technology is deployed, they can go in and set the cabinets; some of the changes can be just swapping out cards. Chair Brophy: • He asked Astoria townhome resident Grace Chen to comment on the solitary antenna versus the monopine relative to health issues, aesthetics and property values. Grace Chen: • That was approved in 1997, the Astoria comp lex had not yet been built. It is on a roof, about 15 feet in height. Today AT &T's proposal is a 74 foot tower which hides 12 panel antennas. It is likened to comparing David and Goliath; a solitary antenna 15 feet high, compared to a 74 foot high monopine. One is at Cupertino Supply and the one they are proposing is directly behind Cupertino Supply which is 207 feet away from the development. • This one is at the same location parallel except a few feet apart; prior to today, they were not aware that there was a cell tower in the vicinity, because it doesn't look like a cell tower; perhaps it has been there, but because they didn't know it was there, they were not concerned when this development was constructed. Today they have an impact; they can impact the decision of building a tower, which currently the closest development is 207 feet away; the townhouse complex has a higher percentage of children under 18; whereas 35% of the houses in Cupertino have children under 18. Chair Brophy: • Said he had wanted to hear the issue of the Sprint Nextel one which he sees when walking Cupertino Planning Commission 17 September 14, 2010 down Imperial Avenue, as compared to the faux tree; he said he had a difficult time understanding the acceptance of one compared to the other. Com. Kaneda: • Said he has heard a lot about reduced property values related to cell towers; then the comment that there was a cell tower the whole time and not many knew about it, so it goes against reduced property values. An e-mail from Marshal Jackson, realtor, states that he is not aware of any negative impacts on property values from cell towers. He asked staff if they were aware of any research regarding the impacts o f cell towers on property values. Colin Jung: • Said that they are not appraisers or real estate agents and did not have that information. AT &T representative: • Said there was a report commissioned in Los Angeles County; the appraiser was from the Northern California area and found there was not a direct correlation between a cell site and the proximity to homes and property values. He said he would supply a copy of the report. Com. Kaneda: • Said they were not permitted to make findings based on health concerns; and asked if they were permitted to make findings based on perceived changes in property values based on health concerns. AT &T representative: • Said the law states that if the RF emissions are consistent with the FCC guidelines then you cannot use those as a basis for denying the project. When posing the question, one would ultimately be saying the RF emissions was a factor in the decision making, and again if the RF emissions are consistent with guidelines they are not appropriate as a factor in the Commissioner's decision making. Com. Kaneda: • Said that once again they were in the unenviable position of having to listen to many concerns about health issues, but having their hands tied on whether or not they are permitted to make findings based on them. There were a large number of comments based on health concerns that they cannot take into account on the project. • Said he lived in the area, and had a child attending Kennedy Middle School, and understood the parents' concerns. He said there was a coverage issue in the area; friends have visited his home who have AT &T coverage, and they experience dropped calls when they walk into his home. He said he felt there was also a coverage issue along Bubb Road. • He said another reason he was not that concerned about the health issue, is that the calculated numbers that the consultants are coming out with, is 1 /100 of the maximum guidelines and it is 1 /5,000` of the levels that they think will affect health. Radiation is a bad word that everyone is afraid of but the fact is there is radiation everywhere, and this form of radiation at the levels being discussed„ don't appear to be health threatening. There are two experts who are bonafide experts on radio frequency and the health effects; one is a paid consultant of AT &T, so everyone may be slightly skeptical of what he says; but the other person has no ties to AT &T, and both of them said that they have no concerns with health issues. • He said his biggest concern that he can rule on is the fact that the monopine is twice as tall as anything else in the neighborhood; but I think that mitigates against there is a cell tower nearby on top of a building that is actually not disguised at all; it is on top of a one -story building, and nobody seemed to be bothered by it or mentioned it. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 September 14, 2010 • He said he supported the application as he could not find anything to rule on and deny the project. Com. Giefer: • Said Com. Kaneda did a good job summarizing what they can and cannot consider and make findings on. The Commission can make their findings based on land use and from the staff report, the applicant report and the testimony from the community. She said she has not heard anything that would allow her to rule that it is an inappropriate land use, and she would support the project. Com. Miller: • Said he was an engineer and from his perspective he was convinced that there is not a safety issue. However, logical arguments are being made, and they are receiving emotional responses from the community, which is very challenging. A lot of input has been received at the meeting, they have also received many a -mails and have received petitions as well. The input is 5 to 1 against the tower as far as the residents are concerned; the people who are opposed to it are those people who live closest to the tower. • AT &T did a survey, and it said that everyone wants and needs better coverage. What it boils down to, is everyone wants better coverage, but everyone wants the tower in someone else's back yard, and that is the challenge faced. • Said from his standpoint he could see the benefits of having the tower; however, he is also sensitive to the fact that there is a large group of residents in the city who, even though it might benefit them from a technology standpoint, don't want it. The customers for the product and the service do not want the product and the service. He said he had to be sensitive to that fact. For those reasons, there are some other issues besides the one the Commission is not permitted to discuss; the fact is that it doesn't fit into the environment, it does stick up into the air and it is aesthetically an issue; and it also does not meet the height requirement. He said for those reasons, he did not support the project. Vice Chair Lee: • She said that at the Mayor's monthly meetings, the TIC has said every month that they have listened to the residents and are working for the residents to get more cell phone coverage in the southwest area, the tri school area, the Bubb area, McClellan Road, and they are working hard so that AT &T can have better coverage in that area. • Said that she has been attending the meetings for four years and it seems like there might be an opportunity for them to improve coverage for businesses and residents. • She said she felt they should approve the project. Chair Brophy: • Said he felt that given the problems of the locations on the west side in the McClellan Road corridor, this is not necessarily an ideal location but is as good as you will find, because once you get further west, it is entirely residential areas. The tree is not exactly an ideal solution, but it is better than having a 70 -foot pole. He believes that over time the redevelopment of the Measurex property will lead to larger natural foliage which will make it stand out less. Under those circumstances and under the restrictions set by Federal law, he said he would vote to support the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by 1Com. Kaneda, and carried 4 -0 -1, Com. Miller voted No; to approve Application UJ- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 September 14, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Stated that Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Brophy reported that the Mercedes Road project was discussed. Housine Commission: No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Com. Kaneda reported: • The TIC reported that the AT &T application would be coming back. • Tin Tin Market went bankrupt and closed down. • P.W Market has closed. • Hewlett Packard is moving out on a two -year limeframe. • Seagate will move in and take over Symantec's offices. • Commissioner's appreciation dinner is September 23 • The city has funding set aside to train crossing guards at 10 locations in the city for the schools. There are more than 10 locations needed; the city is proposing to use that funding to go to the schools and train the volunteers to become certified crossing guards. Chair Brophy: • Reported that World of Music went out of business. Vice Chair Lee: • On August 11, she attended Public Safety Commission; said they are piloting the Voltage program at Kennedy and Lincoln schools, with RFIDs and backpacks; students go through a zapper meter. It starts with the school year, they have surveys in Oct. and May and the Commission fields complaints about traffic in the area. • Sept. 23 is Commissioners' Dinner; spouses are invited. • There are openings on the Parks & Rec Commission, Fine Arts Commission, Bike Commission, Bike & Pedestrian Commission, & Public Safety; interviews this month. • Relative to Green Building Ordinance, the Mayor said they should make sure that more information is given to builders regarding the grants so they can access grant information. • July Community Congress was very successful. Acterra does an exam in your house, looks at your electricity usage, your refrigerator, put in a thermostat and guarantee you can save 25% on your electricity bills. They showed residenis how to make compost at their homes, and gave hints how the average person could save. • Parks and Rec: Discussed Memorial Park; will have educational campaigns because of the geese; signs will be posted not to feed the duc ks. They are trying to raise money for the fences for the dog park. • Fine Arts Commission: Shakespeare Festival ended; some budget money went to Euphrat Museum; every First Friday in October is City Arts Day. The Mayor wants each Commission to put out an event. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 September 14, 2010 • Library Commission: Cupertino Library is the most active in the County, one million people per year, 3 million items in circulation; e-books can be checked out online; summer programs focused on health related topics and were well attended; 8 new check out stands will be added in the lobby of the Library, one or two more in the kids section. Cutting ceremony was held for the remodeled Teen Room. The Library's work plan is to work with the County to increase awareness on what is available online and to increase their presence. There will be a user's survey; many non -city residents are using the library because other libraries are closed on some days, which increases Cupertino's costs. • Bike and Pedestrian Commission: Will put in a bike friendly community, application will be submitted; input is needed for bike plan. Economic Development Committee: No meeting held yet this quarter. Com. Giefer: • Announced Taste of Compassions, sponsored by West Valley Community Services Group: Once monthly there is a benefit dinner at a local restaurant; next one is Monday, Sept. 20 at Outback Steakhouse. Call them directly for reservations or go to their website. • Granite Rock Home Improvement, Highway 9, is honoring local artists, one each quarter; holding wine and cheese receptions at their facility and displaying the art of local artists which is for sale. First artist to be honored was Jane Ferguson, next artist will be in December or January. Announcements will be in the Cupertino Courier. Report of the Director of Community Development: • There was an update on the appeal for the WiMax facility at the West Valley Presbyterian Church. Appeal was denied by City Council with an additional monitoring requirement. • Development Permit Process Review: A number of Planning Commissioners attended the meeting; it was successful with 28 members of the public in attendance. There was lively discussion about the development review process, ways to look at improving it, maybe streamlining the process without compromising the ability for the public to provide input and enhance ways to do that and look again at the appeal fee. Comments will be compiled and brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council. • Discussion ensued regarding scheduling for the Green Building Ordinance and the building process. Chair Brophy said it was important to schedule meetings for the two issues while Coms. Giefer and Kaneda were still on the Commission as their terms would expire soon. He suggested a minimum of two meetings, one to define what would be considered, and a formal public hearing, so that the citizens in the community could respond to specific proposals. Aarti Shrivastava said that staff's plan was to present the development permit process on October 26, the subsequent meeting would be November 9; next available City Council meeting would be December 7, which is the same as the Green Building Ordinance date which may or may not work. Adjournment: • The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for September 28, 2010 at 6:45 • .m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeti lis, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: September 28, 2010