108-G. Draft PC Minutes of the 11-9-10 PC Meeting.pdfCupertino Planning Commission
109
ATTACHMENT G
November 9, 2010
• Currently, a condition is added to each cell phone antenna application and it is a reasonable
\ precaution to have.
could do post -construction testing and would add the number 100 feet
Com. KaneVa:
• Said the NI tower applications come up in his neighborhood regularly becaus f the poor cell
coverage in upertino which is ironic considering Apple is headquartered th e.
• Said that then bers given are based on the calculation of the worst ca scenario where the
beam is stronges calculating what distance you go beyond the allowab levels; will go below
the maximum leve and that is 12 feet away from the antenna. Ther are no houses within 12
feet and the calculati says that at the second story it is about 1/ 0d' of the allowable levels
which in fact are below a levels that are questionable for healt oncerns.
• People are concerned ab t more radiation, electromagnetic diation, but light is a form of
electromagnetic radiation. is possible that we will find t in 20 years or 50 years or one
year that the RF is bad and ca es cancer; but at this poi decisions have to be made from the
best information available.
• He said he did not feel it was eve a close call,
said he would support the applicatio
Com. Miller:
• As Com. Kaneda said, these ty/one
on:
us, and my feeling is I want e or
don't want the service the apferin
what the community wants. deral
the city's hands. The only waect an
reasons, but on aesthetic reaso has bi
so far below the allowable levels. He
come up all thetime, and they are difficult for
munity; and if the community is saying they
that is a problem, because I want to support
s are on the side of the applicant which tie
rp ication here for cell tower is not for health
)ugh up any aesthetic reasons tonight.
The community can talk to a enabling property owne\thgh
case PG&E, who doesn't have
any federal law against th r side; they are doing it for te.
I am in the same posit' n of having to support this evI may not want to support it,
simply because oft federal regulations that require u
Motion: Motion Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Kaneda, and rried 4-0-1, Com. Giefer
:r ig herself from vote; to deny the appeal and uphol 1R-2010-28, with the
add condition that is requiring post -construction RF testin of the RF exposures
i accordance with federal safety standards after constructs and before full
operation and after one year exposures to be measured at the and floor, the
second floor of nearest residence and 100 feet away.
Giefer returned to the meeting.
3. M-2010-06 Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (U-2007-03)
Alanna Schroeder/Four Architectural and Site approval (ASA-2007-05), Exception
Corners Properties to the Heart of the City Special Plan (EXC-2007-05), Tentative
(Rocktino, LLC) Map (TM-2007-08) and Tree Removal (TR-2007-03) for the
10100 Tantau Avenue purpose of extending the expiration date of the approvals for
five years. Tentative City Council date: December 7, 2010
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
0 Reviewed the application for a modification to a previously approved Use Permit,
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 9, 2010
Architectural and Site Approval, Exception to the Heart of the City Special Plan, Tentative
Map and Tree Removal for the purpose of extending the expiration date of the approvals for
five years, as outlined in the staff report. The applicant is requesting an extension of the
expiration date to August 21, 2015.
• The City Council approved the project development on August 21, 2007, and on June 16, 2009
granted a one-year extension for the previous 6 approvals except for the Tentative Map which
expired on August 21, 2009; the Tentative Map did not need the extension at that time since its
approval was valid through August 21, 2010. The 5 year extension request is due to the
economic conditions which make it not financially viable to construct the project at this time.
• She reviewed the public benefit to the city wherein the applicant is offering to increase the
monetary contribution to public improvements by an additional $25,000 for a total contribution
not to exceed $75,000. The applicant is also requesting that a public improvement requirement
from the original Council approval be modified to include a broader scope of intersection
enhancements beyond the original pedestrian walkways.
• The applicant is requesting to further extend the Tentative Map approval to August 21, 2015 to
match the other approvals.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the modification application for the five year extension in accordance with the model
resolution.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that the staff report states that one of the reasons one might want to extend this is because
the project provides significant public benefit; how is that defined?
Aarti Shrivastava: .
• There are projects that provide either an internal park, intersection or gateway improvements,
and the Results Way project provided funds to improve the intersection in the Bubb Road area.
In this case, the Tantau/Stevens Creek intersection has always been seen as something that
needs additional work and staff feels it will go towards enhancing that intersection.
• We are not actually improving the project, the intersection project at this time; there is money
available to use within a certain amount of time, but once the improvement is identified, they
will have funding for it. The sidewalks are put in by the applicant; but staff is looking at more
right-of-way improvements in the actual intersection area; it is a difficult and unattractive
intersection.
Bruce Burkhart, Founder, Four Corners Properties:
• There were no questions for the applicant.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• When the project first went through, there was a great amount of public support to make sure
that there were trees retained. It is a good idea to have a project extended if there are financing
issues; this is a very challenging time because of the recession.
• She said that the `pork chop' that is at Tantau and Stevens Creek is a protection mechanism
that protects cut through traffic from going into the Rancho Rinconada and Lorree Estates
neighborhood; it was discussed in great length with the Main Street project that the desire of
the neighborhood was to have the pork chop left there to make sure that they do not have cut
through traffic coming from Tantau South crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard running down
Tantau and hitting Bollinger. The neighborhood needs to be protected from cross through
traffic and the desire is to have the pork chop left there.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 9, 2010
• She said she was still waiting for the street trees to go onto the Main Street property because
there are no trees there; if there is money available, some improvements can be made there. A
crosswalk is needed from the east side of Tantau across to the Four Corners property, in front
of the Lorree Shopping Center; and the old style telephone poles still remain in front of the
Lorree Shopping Center. The electrical has not been put underground in that area either.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was uncomfortable with asking for an increase in the amount of money for enhanced
public improvements. It is obvious the reason why the applicant is asking for an extension of
5 years given the market place; and while the applicant offered to raise the increase, I am sure
it was not raised by him. As a practical matter, he said they should keep it as the existing
package and not charge people for extending the project that is unchanged. He said he would
prefer to eliminate the clause in the resolution labeled `enhanced pedestrian walkways'.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed.
Com. Giefer:
• Commented that when they approved the project several years ago she was not satisfied with
the architecture. If they were going to reopen it up, she would like to discuss the whole project.
If they discuss the conditions, she said she would look at it as a different project.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he did not support reopening everything.
Com. Miller:
• Said it was an approved project and likely the only reason it hasn't been built is because of the
economy; and he did not feel it was the time to treat it as a new application at this point. He
said they should be flexible with applicants who would like to build in Cupertino and add to
the commercial base, particularly in light of the state of the economy. He added that he was
opposed to reopening the application at this point and agreed with Chair Brophy's suggestion
to leave the application as is and not add a condition asking for more money.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was not comfortable with the suggestion; and if they not going to accept the
additional condition, she would prefer to go back and revisit the application and not extend it,
which is within their purview.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked Com. Giefer if she would accept it with an additional $75,000, but deny it for $50,000.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she wasn't thrilled about the architectural aspect on that corner when it was originally
presented; and was supportive (as was the majority) of it from a revenue producing
perspective. If the majority were again going to move forward on it, she said she would
probably be supportive of not reopening it; but if there are other things they don't like about
the project, perhaps they could solve some of her prior concerns.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 9, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Recalled that the property was primarily retail to service the office buildings in the immediate
vicinity; and asked the applicant the reason for not moving forward with the project at this
point.
Bruce Burkhart, Applicant:
• Said when it was designed, the goal was to have a bank branch, coffee shops, Kinkos and a
sandwich shop; dependent on the size of the retailer that wanted to go there and that is still the
case. However, currently it is neither financeable nor in demand for retailers; from the office
point, it is about 70% occupied.
Chair Brophy:
• Said the two key issues are raising the contribution; and along with that if it doesn't not pass,
the pork chop issue that speaker Ms. Griffin referred to. He recalled they had a discussion
about that in the Main Street project and there was a concern about traffic, that unsightly as it
may be, it may have served as a deterrent for cut -through traffic on Tantau.
Cam. Kaneda:
• Said he understood the argument for adding the $25,000; but he shared the concerns about the
economy and supported not adding another percent to the construction cost.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she had no comment as she was not on the Commission at the time.
Com. Giefer:
• She recalled that she was dissatisfied with the architecture, but that she was the only one who
felt that way.
Com. Miller:
• Said that if they do it and start reviewing architecture and changing the requirements, the
applicant may not do it, and submit a new application at a later date when the economy
improves. He said he saw no benefit to the city in pursuing this line.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he did not feel strongly about it; at this point, given the economy, he was not sure there
would be benefits of asking the applicant to start over in terms of architecture and site design.
He said he did not support reopening it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Suggested that if the majority of the Commission does not want the applicant to provide
benefit, the extension could be reduced to one or two years.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he would support that or ask the applicant which he would prefer.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was not comfortable with the process of charging $25,000 for 5 years, and nothing for
a year or two.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was not so much a question of money, but more of what happens in those five years
Cupertino Planning Commission 10
November 9, 2010
they cannot address. They give ten year approvals because they expect that things change over
time and want to make sure that projects are able to address those things over time. Said it
made sense given the economy to extend a project; this project did get a year extension and if
they go above that, the community is giving up something and should receive a benefit in
return. It can be extended for a shorter period of time rather than give up the entire 5 years.
Com. Giefer:
• If there wasn't an exceptional public benefit, would staff had supported the extension for 5
years?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Typically, we have not supported long extensions for projects primarily for this reason because
we don't want to give extra long approvals; this project has had 3 years, an extra 5 would bring
it up to 8. When projects have provided public benefit, we try to make sure it is commensurate
with the size of the project and has a nexus around it. We think the community will be getting
something and so it makes sense to give something to the applicant.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked Com. Giefer where she stood on architectural and site approval.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she felt the applicant was supporting the community, and therefore she would support the
further development of the project and not raise greater issues. If they voted on it as it was
presented with staff's recommendation, she would support the project; otherwise she would
vote against it.
Chair Brophy:
• He said he had concerns with the concept of what he saw as selling zoning permission, but
understood that the applicant wanted to move forward for a 5 year extension. He said he could
support it if the clause remained on enhanced public walkways,
• He suggested removal of the clause "removal of the pork chop" because there is still the right
to consider that under any other relevant enhancements, because the language clearly implies
that the pork chop removal is the path they are going in.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said staff could do that.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and unanaimously carried 5-0-0,
to approve Application M-2010-06, with the removal of the reference made to
removal of the pork chop as part of the enhanced pedestrian walkway.
G�lriir- by declared a recess.
4. MCA-2010-06 at Code Amendments to pter 19.48 (Planned Development
City of Cupertino Ordinance , er 19 rivate Recreation Zone Ordinance),
Citywide Location Chapter 19.12 nn elopment Permits, Conditional Use Permits
and . nces Ordinance) and C a .04 (Specific Plans Ordinance)
endments are being considered in order to in e Municipal Code
consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Elements adop ' April 2010.
Postponed from October 26, 2010; Tentative City Council Date: ary
18, 2010