Draft Minutes 1-13-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
103 00 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLA1`~N1NG COMI~~IIS SIGN
DRAFT MIl~TUTES
6:45 P.M. January 13, 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO CO1~~TY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty
Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Planning Intern: George Schroeder
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COlNIlVIUNICATIONS: Gary Chao, City Planner, noted receipt of items related to
Item 2.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMIVII7I~TICATIONS:
Suzy Blackman, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce made the following
announcements:
• Installation of new officers took place last week.
• Next week the Chamber will be working with the Asian American Business Council for the
2009 Lunar New Year Luncheon; Year of the Ox, celebrating on January 27, 2009 at Dynasty
Restaurant. Tickets are available. Two awards will be given, recognizing the outstanding
efforts of an individual and community organization that has done a great j ob in furthering the
cultural diversity and sharing of those ideas in our community. Will also be recognizing Ann
Stevenson, family therapist in Cupertino and the Quota Club of Cupertino. Call Chamber for
tickets at 408-252-7054 or website at Cupertino-chamber.org.
• Annual State of the City Address will be held on Wednesday January 28, 2009; Mayor Orrin
Mahoney will speak. Tickets are available from the Chamber Office or its website.
• The Chamber recognizes the businesses in the community at Recognition of Star Awards;
recognizing large business of the year and small business of the year and citizen of the year.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2
Nomination forms are due on Thursday, January 15~.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING•
January 13, 2009
1. TM-2008-02 Tentative Map to divide a new mixed-use building into 2 commercial
Terry Brown units and one residential condominium unit. Planning Commission
(Monte Vista decision final unless appealed
Oaks, Inc.)
21761 Granada Ave.
George Schroeder, Planning Intern presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for tentative map parcel to subdivide an approved mixed-use
building into two commercial units and one residential condominium unit, as outlined in the
staff report.
• The mixed-use building was previously approved in 2006, at which time the applicant did not
file the tentative map application for mixed-use parcel project.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map with the
conditions that the subdivision conforms to prior approvals of 2006, and a maintenance
agreement recorded to upkeep all the common areas.
Terry Brown, applicant:
• Said that the application was a continuation of a pattern developed in the block bounded by
Orange, Pasadena, Stevens Creek and Granada to condominiumize the mixed used buildings to
provide ownership opportunities for residential units as well as small commercial units, and is
the fourth one in the block built by the applicant.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak regarding the application; the
public hearing was closed.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve
Application TM-2008-02. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS
2. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, Use permit and architectural and site approval (file
TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 Nos. U-2008-02 and ASA-2008-07) to demolish
Rajeev Chopra, Shashi Corp. an existing gas station/carwash and construct a
10165 No. DeAnza Blvd. 5-story, approx. 85,000 sq. ft. 138-room hotel
that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge and
conference rooms built over atwo-level under-
. ground parking podium that contains tandem and
lift parking. Tree removal request to remove six
protected trees and replace them with a comprehensive
landscape plan.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application to demolish an existing gas station/carwash and construct a 5-story
hotel, built over atwo-level underground parking podium, and a request to remove six
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 13, 2009
protected trees on the property and replace with a comprehensive landscape plan.
• The application was first presented in November 2008 with agreement on issues related to the
allowance of the tree removal; accepting the adequacy of the parking supply; noting the
insignificance of the traffic generation; qualifying the building for a LEEDS silver designation
and consideration by the applicant of a power purchase agreement (PPA). The Commission
also asked to landscape screen the west wall of the trash enclosure; requiring trash disposal
method similar to what was done on the Murakai use permit modification. Staff s preference
for trash disposal is the traditional dumpster, recycling toters, place in a trash enclosure. The
development allocation option that was chosen by staff was using the uncommitted Vallco
hotel allocation and also utilizing the commercial allocation on No. DeAnza Boulevard in
Heart of the City with no discounting of the square footage based on peak hour traffic trips
equivalency.
• In November the project was continued for design reasons, and the applicant came up with a
design that met the Commission's concerns as well as their own needs. He reviewed the
original and revised hotel design as shown in the. staff report.
• Staff supports the revised hotel design, but suggests that the main hotel entrance canopy could
use more flair. A condition has been added to the ASA resolution, requiring the applicant to
rework the entry canopy design at the building permit stage for approval by the Community
Development Director.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of
the negative declaration and the use permit, architectural and site approval and tree removal
permits.
• He answered questions from the Commissioners regarding the application.
Dipesh Gupta. Shashi Corporation:
• Based on the direction from the Planning Commission meeting in November 2008, said the
primary focus will be on the architecture of the project. The goal is to create the image of a
high end luxury hotel, something we can all be proud of. Break the mass, use the form, use the
articulation, use the materials and the Planning Commission gave us the flexibility to use a
couple of feet on DeAnza and Alves from the setback if needed.
• The building should be modern, so as not to create another Cyprus; yet the building should be
traditional and stand the test of time. The building will be green and have some cool
environmental factors as well. Based on this input it was clear they needed to go back to the
drawing board and in the last six weeks they evaluated various options.
• Said he was pleased to present the new design using the traditional architectural form, but
balance it with a more modern design interpretation. They replaced the bold, simple
contemporary previous design with a very balanced. high end design with a lot of articulation,
details and use of materials. The building uses a classical form with a base of metal and the
top; the base is more traditional; that middle floors use very elegant recessed windows, very
contemporary elegant reveals, but essentially is designed to be more .neutral so the focus can
be .more on the base on the top. The top is more contemporary with glass and horizontal fins,
awnings and a lot of articulation at the top. To break the mass we used multiple materials and
we used a mix of contemporary and traditional materials; the base is using a polished granite
for most part with a mix of honed granite in some areas. _
• He reviewed the landscaping plan, use of plantings to break the mass; decorative and
decorative fountains.
• He said the timeline is to present to City Council next week, and break ground on the project
in July 2009 and be operational by the end of the 2010.
• Relative to the possibility of outdoor dining on Alves instead of DeAnza Boulevard, he said it
would be difficult to make the design work because Public Works guidelines do not call for a
traffic driveway on north DeAnza which made it technically challenging to make it work.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 13, 2009
Relative to the exterior lighting on the hotel, they are not using any lights that would be
exposed to the eye. If there was any lighting, it would be more for recessed effect and that
would be relatively light and be hidden behind the 4~' floor reveal.
Said that the most effective signage in the corner for the hotel would be the corner at DeAnza
at Alves at ground level. He said with high end hotels, usually putting bold signage at the top
is not consistent with high end aspect of the hotel, and a logo at the top would be more subtle
and elegant than a sign.
Com. Kaneda:
• Noted for the record that Mr. Gupta reviewed the design with him yesterday. He stated that
solar hot water was more cost effective and more efficient than photo voltaic; and asked if they
would be willing to put solar hot water panels on the roof or somewhere in the project for the
swim pool.
• Relative to the trees along the DeAnza side, he asked if the trees on the property line would be
retained or removed.
Dipesh Gupta:
• Said that when the study was done, there were no trees on their side of DeAnza Boulevard, and
they plan to plant larger trees on the DeAnza side as required by the North Deanza landscape
plan.
Com. Brophy: No questions
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Regarding exterior illumination on the fourth floor, the plans indicate the use of wall washers.
She asked if they anticipating the washing washing in both directions or is it just downlighting
or just uplighting.
Dipesh Gupta:
• Said it would mostly be uplighting, facing only toward the hotel; even there they have to
maintain a delicate balance because it may impact the guest rooms. He said he would like to
use them in a subtle, elegant way so they not interfere with any guest or neighbor experience.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Asked if they were going for a LEEDS silver certification on the hotel. Com. Kaneda
suggested saying "appropriate LEEDS silver certification"
• Asked the applicant what his thoughts were about the trash enclosure; staff has changed their
position based on the size of the compacting trash system that was previously required in the
Clty.
Dipesh Gupta:
• Said they had extensive discussions with the Environmental Department as well as Los Gatos
Garbage Company and Public Works, and initially the trash enclosures were open. They now
don't have any opening at all except from the Hotel side. They are also providing more space _
and as they get into the engineering stage, they will do whatever it takes because it is going to
impact everything. They want to be a good neighbor and want it to be a good hotel.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said the redesign of the hotel exterior shows the attempt to be an upscale/upper class hotel
Cupertino Planning Commission
January 13,.2009
with many amenities, and is a timeless design that they can be proud of.
• She said when replacing city amenities such as a gas station and car wash, they should make
sure that they have adequate amounts of gas stations available for the public as they go up and
down DeAnza Boulevard. There also have been problems in Cupertino with overbuilding of
lots, whether businesses or other types of complexes, it is a large hotel, with a great presence
along DeAnza Boulevard and it is attractive.
• She expressed concern of the close proximity of the building to the property on the east side
and asked the applicant to address how close that is. She said she assumed a traffic study was
done and what the traffic impact was; and whether the owners would have to pay for any
mitigations for intersections, lights, etc. She asked that they make sure there is adequate
parking, as they don't want hotels charging $20/day for parking.
Li Li, (owner of building next to project):
• Said she felt the new design was fair and square but did not see it as unique or outstanding,
and has seen similar designs in other major cities.
• She said that her main concern was how they would take care of the trash center. She pointed
out that her lot was very narrow and the front entrance to her building was in the east and
faced the proposed trash center and the trash center appeared to be in their face. She did not
see it as being a good neighbor.
• Said that the traffic flow and parking needs had numbers, but she was not sure how scientific
they were. She said that everything is pushed to the limit, and when business is good there is
the over-traffic problem. As the next door neighbor she feels she will be immediately affected
which causes her concern. The building is too close to the side so it feels pushed onto you; I
don't know how that will play to the aesthetic.
• Regarding the main trash enclosure, she said her main concern is the trash center and she
needed to have better assurance that they will not be affected by the noise and odor.
Sam Wood, (resides close to the hotel):
• Distributed an informational sheet. Said he was concerned that the November proposal
ignored special issues of the Cupertino Plan that relate to commercial, urban buildings that are
adjacent to residential areas.
• One of the things the Plan makes clear is these things need to be treated in a special way.
In Nov. 2005 the plan was set up to create a great community and then it laid out some special
requirements for these commercial buildings next to residences. One of those relates to the
setback ratio. For buildings that are not next to residences, there is a 1:1 setback ratio for every
foot of height it needs to be set back as much. However, in the last two pages from the City
Plan relevant to the handout, the Vallco area which is still commercial-to-commercial requires
1.5 feet setback for every foot in height and then it states that areas adjacent to residential or
other low intensity areas must be determined by project review. The heights have to be less
than they would be in the commercial areas. However, the setback that was in the proposal
was 60 feet based on the 1:1 ratio not based on a ratio that the City Plan requires or the
strategies require for buildings adjacent to residential areas. There are other buildings this tall
in the area, all set back at least 150 feet. There is precedent, the rules are there and they
haven't been sufficiently discussed. _
• The City Plan says these multi-story buildings are only allowed if they are found that we
would not suffer from privacy intrusion. The distance from my back yard to the hotel
windows is about four times the length of this building. I can see very easily the roof of the
gas station from the windows in my living room; I am going to be looking at people's
windows for the rest of my time in the neighborhood if this goes up and that is not what the
City Plan wants.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 13, 2009
Said other issues were that he felt the structure did not comply with the scale requirements in
the Cupertino Plan; if they are next to residents. He said there were not changes in building
scale requirements which requires when you go from a 45 foot building to one story buildings
or the residences; .you don't put them in another 45 foot building, you put in a shorter building.
Concluded that it was an extraordinary building; he felt it was beautiful and would be more
appropriate anywhere on Stevens Creek Boulevard west of DeAnza Boulevard adjacent to
other commercial property. He said he felt it was in the wrong location and appeared to
violate the city plan in several different ways.
Maty Soha, resides across the street from proposed project:
• Said the three layers of trees presented is misleading because he can see from his home clearly
into the gas station. There may be trees there, but they are not covering what is presented
here; it is fairly loose.
• He requested that if it is approved, that the city replant five trees that were removed in the past
three years because they had died. He also asked that the construction schedule be between 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. and no weekends. He commented that the noise for six to twelve months will
have a negative impact on the residents across the street.
Suzy Blackman, CEO, Chamber of Commerce:
• Said the Sashi Corp. has made great effort to address the project to meet the Commission's
requirements and requests. Although she preferred the first design, she felt the new design fits
in better. It is an exciting project and the Chamber believes that it will be an asset to the
. business traveler and will create jobs and revenue for Cupertino, which is a positive aspect of
any development.
• She encouraged approval of the project so that the applicants could take the next steps in
moving the project forward.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Staff addressed some of the issues brought up by the speakers.
Appearance and potential noise and odors from the trash enclosure; and proximity to the
adjacent neighbor.
Colin Jung:
• With respect to the trash enclosure, the recommendations that the Planning Commission was
interested in putting forth, related to the double bagging of the food waste generated from the
restaurant of the facility. With respect to noise, staff recommended that the Planning
Commission not adopt the Murakai condition and not allow a trash compactor at this location
because trash compaction creates additional noise with the compaction process. The
equipment is large and could not be adequately screened from Alves or DeAnza Boulevard
given the height of the structure without creating a very tall wall. That is the reason for the
recommendation that the traditional dumpsters and recycling toters be used in this location.
• With respect to the wall of the enclosure itself, you had recommended a green screen that is _
shown on sheet Ll of the landscape plan. You had asked for it only on the west side of the
trash enclosure, and they put it on the other side of the trash enclosures; and it will also have a
couple of small trees on the Alves Drive side. My recollection is that they are also planning to
use materials similar to the hotel to build the trash enclosures; so I have a feeling it will be the
most attractive trash enclosure we have in Cupertino, regardless of the location.
• With respect to other comments made about the height of the structure and ratio of height to
setback, those setback to. height regulations were an artifact of both the Stevens Creek
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 13, 2009
Boulevard and in Vallco Park, and I remember the ratios being typically around 1.5:1 or 2:1.
Based on a setback of 219 feet and a structure height of 45 feet, we are looking at a height to
setback ratio to the residential properties of 4.8 feet of setback for every foot of height, so that
seems rather large; and a lot of those regulations have applied to residential properties that
abut commercial properties where we need to be very protective, especially about massing if it
impacts privacy. He pointed out that they have three rows of trees, and have 219 feet of
setback between the hotel wall. On the width of DeAnza Boulevard; they have a sound wall
there in addition to their own landscaping in their back yards; there seems to be quite a bit of
landscaping between. I did go out there this afternoon to look at it, but did not walk the entire
length of the property, but I noticed that there were a couple of trees that the residents were
concerned with, were mature trees, but they were deciduous, so they weren't leafmg. Perhaps
they can get some evergreen trees between that and the hotel property which might address
their concern.
General comment that the proposed building is not consistent with the General Plan.
Colin Jung:
• Said he was not sure what inconsistencies they are referring to; it is a commercial use and the
zoning allows it; the height is at the maximum height for that district in accordance with the
General Plan. The Planning Commission has to determine how to deal with the development
allocation issue.
What the construction schedule and requirements are with respect to time periods when
construction will take place.
Colin Jung:
• The applicants indicated that they wanted to break ground as of July 1, 2009, and complete the
project by the Fall of 2010, which is approximately one year and three months. The city has
standard hours of construction, weekdays 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends
with construction being prohibited on major holidays.
Gary Chao:
• Regarding construction hours and the practices; there is no construction management plan
requirement in the conditions of approval. If the Commission wishes, staffs could
recommend the addition of a construction management plan which would clearly define
staging areas, truck routes, hours of operation and phasing of the staging of the project and
noise, and best management practices.
Com. Rose:
• Relative to the issue of the neighbors, he said there appeared to be existing trees, that are
deciduous, but established and healthy. It is often difficult to add trees next to established
trees, etc. and he asked if there has ever been situations in which the developer has offered to
purchase a tree for a neighbor who has an issue with privacy, that the neighbor could plant on
their property and own and maintain. Has that ever been a consideration or way of mediating _
issues?
Gary Chao:
• Said it happens more often with residential applications, but could possibly be applied to
commercial applications as well. It requires the cooperation of the adj agent property owners
who agree to allow and also facilitate the area to plant additional trees on the other side of the
fence. It is an option that the applicant could consider.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 13, 2009
Com. Kaneda:
• Is there an opportunity to plant or do something similar; isn't there a reasonable public right of
way on that resident's side of the .street? Is there an opportunity to put evergreens in there,
planting something evergreen on the hotel side when you have a 5 story building will take
years before it gets to the height of the building; but if planted on the residential side, it doesn't
have to be as tall to screen the building.
Colin Jung:
• About 50 feet residential setback. That is true and is something we probably could consider.
Public Works would likely be agreeable~to granting whatever permission they need to enhance
the landscaping, especially if there are trees that have died and haven't been replaced, which
sounds like that could have happened.
Com. Brophy:
• Regarding the trees, I think you would probably want to have Public Works or Planning talk to
the neighbors, and make sure we fmd out what is wanted. It may well be that people would not
want evergreen trees that the shading in the winter time might offset the benefits from the
screening of the hotel. I think whether it is language in here or just a note to Public Works if
this project goes ahead, that staff meet with the neighbors and make sure we understand
exactly what would be wanted.
• He said even though the structure is within the height limitation for north DeAnza, he was still
troubled by'the mass of the building relative to the small lot size as the proposal is to put a 138
room hotel on a lot less than one acre. Asked staff their opinion regarding the appearance of it
compared to the other structures, predominantly office structures on North DeAnza..
Colin Jung:
• Referred to Sheet CP2 of the plan set, it gives an idea of the relative mass of the structure
compared to other structures in the adjacency. There are less dense structures in the
neighborhood, primarily to the westerly side, but then we also have some that are fairly dense,
i.e., the office buildings on the corner of DeAnza and Stevens Creek, the northeast corner. The
three story office building in the corner probably has about a 25 to 30 foot setback from the
curb. The building next door to it is slightly taller, but once again there is an instance there
where you have structures. In this case you have a very small amount of surface parking but
most of the parking for both buildings is contained in an underground parking structure. The
height is the same as other buildings in that area. .
Gary Chao:
• If you look at the massing study; going further north, south of 280, starting from the Pine
Brothers, is Oak Park Village project; I think if you look at the north DeAnza presentation
along both sides of the street, the proposed project in terms of its height and mass is very
compatible with what is out there..
Colin Jung:
• The Planning Commission has reviewed other projects, and the Any Mountain building
although not five stories, was at a 45 foot height limit.
Chair Miller:
• Looking at the diagram referenced, the building next to it north of the hotel, is that the actual
footprint of the building because it looks more massive to me than the hotel.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 13, 2009
Gary Chao:
• Yes, approximately; if you look at the page prior to that, it is the aerial that corresponds to the
masses.
Com. Rose:
• Thanked the applicant for taking the time to work on some of the feedback that was provided
in November; and said she appreciate their attention to the comments made. She said the hotel
looks much better than it originally did and she was pleased with the changes. She said she
supported the overall project and the design of the hotel.
• Staff wants to revisit the south canopy on Alves Drive; if we do revisit the design of that, I
would like to maintain a photo voltaic property of it. I think that the lighting proposed in this
plan sounds like it is designed well and will not impact the neighbors, and I want to make sure
that does not change.
• I would like to have staff either get more information on how the pool will be heated or
determine that it should be a solar heated pool. Regarding the landscaping, I want to protect
and respect the neighbors living across the street and the issues they have come forward with
today; and I think that can be done. I am not sure where the landscaping should happen; I
know we talked a couple of different places, but it seems to me that there is defmitely a
solution to make everybody happy that won't be that expensive to do, and that might involve
putting some new trees in a certain location. I would like to talk about some options. for that.
Com. Kaneda:
• I agree with Com. Rose in that I think the landscaping does need to be looked at and
coordinated; and also I feel strongly that a photo voltaic canopy suggested on the south side of
the building is important, not so much that it will generate that much electricity, but I think it
is a great symbol and something that the city can look and see and feel and it sends a great
message.
• I am concerned about the trash enclosure; I see that it is covered which is good; the thing I
would like to ensure, is presently it is shown with the entrance facing toward the east. I would
like to see it kept that way which will provide incentive for the hotel to ensure that they take
care of it and keep things under control. That hopefully will help keep that trash enclosure
from becoming a problem.
• Looking at the landscaping plans, it appears there are six good sized trees that are going to be
planted along the DeAnza facade of the building. Hopefully that will also help to make a
difference in screening and the view from the rear.
• I am pleased with what the architect did as far as breaking up the massing and showing some
elegant detailing. As I said in the last meeting, I would have been happy with something that
is way out there, crazy, striking, whatever; and it is not that, but what they came up with is
handsome; it does do what some people were asking for, which was something that will stand
the test of time.
• Said it was a good project.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he would support the project, with the following two clauses added: (1) the standard _
language for a construction management plan; and (2) Public Works review the current
landscaping on the east side of DeAnza Boulevard, and make arrangements for any replanting
necessary to bring it back up to what it was originally designed to be, so as to screen it.
• I feel uncomfortable with the conversation about making a statement, since we are talking
about making a statement with somebody else's wallet, but in this case the applicant seems to
not object to it, and I don't think it is a big dollar amount.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 13, 2009
Colin Jung:
• Said that with respect to Public Works reviewing the north DeAnza Boulevard landscaping on
the residential side, filling in the gaps, I know that last time I asked them to plant some trees,
they were hesitant, and he felt it may be a better idea to condition this application to have the
applicant provide the trees and have them planted in the city right of way and have the city _ .
take care of it.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he would agree with that; he did not think it was a significant dollar number; maybe to
help the applicant, he could do it himself. He said he had no problem with the concept.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said they had discussed solar hot water vs. photo voltaic; photo voltaic helping with the
energy demand of the hotel. As they move forward on the application, which way does the
Commission want to proceed; hot water or electricity. They have a limited amount of roof .
space.
Com. Kaneda: .
• The best way to approach it is to let the applicant's engineer look at it and analyze it; but it is
my understanding that generally solar hot water is more cost effective and also could
potentially generate more energy than photo voltaic. If you have use for the solar hot water,
the key issue is can you use solar hot water; and in this case perhaps you can Said he would
like to see one or the other, or a combination.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Would the criteria be the most cost effective, the most efficient; what would the criteria for
evaluation be?
Com. Kaneda:
• That is a difficult call; what would the other Commissioners say.
Com. Brophy:
• I think it would be all of the above; efficient and cost effective in this particular case are about
the same thing. Clearly it is in their interest to save energy and hot water heating too.
Chair Miller:
• Com. Kaneda said earlier, and I agree that if it is an indoor pool, there isn't much need for
solar hot water.
Com. Kaneda:
• This is out of my area of expertise, but I would think that if the pool is indoors, it is not losing
a lot of heat. Having said that, Com. Giefer has a good point that hotels use a lot of hot water
for domestics, showers, etc. There could very well be a high use of hot water so it may make
sense either way. -
Chair Miller:
• If they are trying for LEEDS silver, don't they have the option of doing this, or is their
something else that is energy efficient. Isn't that part of what striving for LEEDS silver is and
should we be specifically requiring them to go in one direction vs. another as long as they
meet the goal of LEEDS silver.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 January 13, 2009
Com. Kaneda:
• With LEEDS silver, theoretically they can do absolutely nothing for the energy stuff and still
get a LEEDS silver by doing things that aren't necessarily directly related to energy, such as
recycled materials, lighting that doesn't light up the night sky; irrigations systems, but a lot of
other things. If the other Commissioners agree, I would like to have them do some kind of
renewable energy, solar, let's say, there is hot water solar; photo voltaic because that actually
has a direct impact on the energy use of the building which has a direct impact on greenhouse
gas emissions and global warming.
Chair Miller:
• I agree that we want to do as much as possible; my only concern is that we haven't established
any guidelines that we can administer consistently from application to application. Having not
done that, I am personally hesitant to do it on an individual basis.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I think that even though we don't have a stated policy that is approved at this time, we as a
Commission have been very consistent in terms of what we have asked for.
Com. Kaneda:
• Having said that, Chair Miller had a good point in that we have consistently said LEEDS silver
certification; we haven't consistently required photo voltaics on a building. We asked for solar
hot water for something we recommend but don't require.
Com. Brophy:
• As long as we keep it a recommendation. He said he was hesitant to add new conditions to
individual applicants on a one-time basis.
Com. Kaneda:
• As much as I like the idea, I hate to be unfair about it.
Com. Rose:
• We need something in our ordinance that makes these things happen.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I feel like we are unraveling up here because we have all said we all like the entry feature and
Com. Kaneda brought up some good points about having the solar attribute on the entry
feature, which I agree with, and it sets a tone for the building. It wouldn't be cost effective to
just do that portion as the design element, so I understand my fellow Commissioners' points. If
we say we don't have to do PV, then what is next; you don't have to do it on the portico and
you don't have to do it on the rooftop.
Chair Miller to applicant:
• Why don't we address the issue of the solar; whether it is hot water or photo voltaic and _
whether or not it fits the canopy design, and staff has asked for a redesign of that canopy; I
would like to understand what your position is.
Dipesh Gupti: .
• Said they proposed to add photo voltaic panels at the entry feature of the canopy, where they
can have a balance between the flair and the ability to have photo voltaic energy. At the same
time, we would appreciate the flexibility to evaluate the effectiveness for hot water generation
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 January 13, 2009
based on the efficiency and cost effectiveness so that we are not in a corner where we have to
do it and it is just not making sense at this time. As stated before, we would put in our best
efforts to evaluate it; we want this building to be green; we want this to be something we can
all look up to; but at the same time putting an additional burden on the project at these market
conditions, we don't know what we are getting into so I would appreciate the flexibility on that
aspect. As far as the canopy is concerned, yes, we are proposing that and we are committed to
doing that.
Chair Miller:
• Are you okay with redesigning the canopy? What is your preference relative to the canopy.
Dipesh Gupti:
• We believe presently the way the canopy sits, it blends well with everything else that we have
there, such as the other canopies we have on North DeAnza and the canopies we have at the
top. Right now we believe that everything is coming together, but we would be happy to work
with staff and come up with a reasonable solution to that as long as we have the ability to do
something with staff where it makes sense. Often times when you have something like this,
one change might lend to other changes, to really bring it together. Right now, everything
comes together very well. To have the flexibility to evaluate other options would be good, but
we would rather not have a condition because one change can change the look of the entire
hotel.
• Relative to the suggestion that as part of the application, we plant some trees on the other side
of DeAnza Boulevard, it is something we would be happy to look at and would be willing to
accept as a condition of approval. We do want to make sure that we mitigate the impact on the
neighbors to the extent we can and to the extent it is reasonable.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I would like to thank the applicant for all the time and effort they spent in redesigning the
project; I think it is a very strong project. I appreciate the fact that you brought the two story
element down so it has more pedestrian scale along DeAnza; I personally do not have a
problem with the south entry canopy; I support the way it is designed. I do think it is very
consistent with other design elements on the project. I think the applicant has made it clear
that they are interested in developing a green project, and that speaks volumes to me.
• Another interesting point was these lights controlled by the key card, so people don't leave the
lights on in their room and that is outstanding.
• I am concerned about the wall washers because the lenses are going to be on that washer and
are going to have to be set so that it is not illuminating upward into the rooms, creating glare
that will bounce off the building into the adjacent neighborhood. I am not sure how we would
do it, but we might condition that to test it .after installation to make sure there is no light cast
off the building. I am interested in staff suggestion on that.
• I think that having a fully enclosed trash enclosure, although it is not ideal in its placement for
the adjacent neighbors, will mitigate many of the issues brought up.
• The trees, one of the neighbors said that there were 5 trees removed. The applicant has
expressed his willingness to replace at least 5 trees that were eliminated by the city for various _
reasons; and I would recommend that.
• I am comfortable with having the applicant evaluate which is more cost effective and efficient
-hot water vs. photo voltaic.
• I support the project.
Chair Miller:
• Said he supported the project. It is a well designed project; and it fills a need in Cupertino and
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 January 13, 2009
it will also generate additional tax revenues for the city.
• In terms of the massing from what I can see of the other buildings on DeAnza Boulevard this
is not excessively massive in any way. In fact, it seems like it is lesser scale than some of the
adjacent buildings.
• Regarding the canopy design, I agree with Vice Chair Giefer, that it fits very well now; it
works with the photo voltaic and if we start thinking about changes, then I don't see the
necessity of doing that. I also agree that we should just make a recommendation that they
evaluate solar, hot water, and that we allow them to make the decision based on the economics
of doing that.
• I think it is important that we address the privacy issues with respect to landscaping and the
applicant is agreeable to doing that.
• In terms of the construction process, staff's suggestion is that we make sure appropriate
controls are in place to manage the construction process so that the neighborhood is not unduly
impacted, although any construction project is going to impact the neighborhood. It is
unfortunate that it happens, but' it is also a hazard to some extent of purchasing homes near
commercial enterprises.
There was consensus to remove the clause about the canopy redesign.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said the only thing he would recommend to the owner, is that if it is perfectly flat, water
doesn't drain well off the glass and you end up getting the concentric white circles of water on
the glass. Their needs to be something to drain water off.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Relative to her concern expressed earlier regarding the reflectiveness of the wall washers that
are being applied, she indicated that she would remove her concern from the list.
Com. Kaneda:
• With what he has seen with the wall sections, he said he doubted there would be an issue. The
only issue at all is if they are going for the LEED point for exterior lighting; they would not
get it. Beyond that, the fixtures actually screen the direct view from anybody out on the street
or in buildings across the street. Then just the way that current design as it is shown ~on the
drawing, is screened, you have to be looking right up against the window trying to look into
the light to see the light from the guest room.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application
U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 with the following conditions
on all:
^ That the trash enclosure be as indicated on the plan set Ll, so there is no
change to the entry point;
^ That we add our standard construction management plan with both phone
number contact for both the applicant or their project manager, as well as
the city; so that if there are any violation of our' construction hours,
residents will know how to contact them;
^ The applicant has the liberty of evaluating which is most cost effective and
efficient between solar photo voltaic vs. hot water, solar hot water
generation;
^ That they apply for the appropriate LEEDS silver certification;
^ That the applicant will provide at least five trees to fill in along the
landscape buffer between the residents and the hotel along DeAnza
Cupertino Planning. Commission 14 January 13, 2009
Boulevard. The number of trees will be determined by the amount of gaps
~in the existing landscape along the residential side of DeAnza Boulevard.
^ That we .eliminate the redesign condition of the south entry point on the
ASA condition 16. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Colin Jung:
• Verified that it was up to five trees; the landscape is really mature there and perhaps some of
the trees might have died because they might have been crowded out. He said he did not recall
seeing five gaps there.
• Recommended the language state ~ that trees be planted to fill in the gaps along DeAnza
Boulevard, both on the east and west side as necessary. It would be easier getting them on the
other side toward the residential properties; it is too problematic trying to vegetation in a
landscape median with all the traffic going by.
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANI~TING COIVIlVIISSION
Environmental Review Committee:. No meeting.
Housing Commission: No report given.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMIVITTNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for January 27, 2009, at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary