Loading...
PC 03-10-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 10, 2003 ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Miller, Saadati Wong, Chairperson Chen Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney Following a study session held at 5:45 p.m. to discuss the operation, objectives and staff support for the City of Cupertino commissions, the regular Planning Commission was held. SALUTE TO THE FLAG APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 10, 2003 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Wong recommended the following: Page 4, second line: change "1993" to "the 1993 General Plan" Page 4, line 3, delete the word "not" Page 4, line 3: change "that they are suggesting increasing the housing density" to read: "that they are ~uggesting no development" Page 4: Delete the last sentence offirst paragraph. Page 7, 5th paragraph, Line 9: change "that for community congress" to read: 'from the input of community congress" Page 9, Com. Wong noted that there were two separate motions taken and they should both be included. Page 11, second paragraph: change "he felt staff" to read "his understanding was staff" Page 17, third paragraph, line 1: change "but expressed concern" to read "the concern ". MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the February 10, 2003 Planning Commission minutes as amended Com. Saadati Com. Miller Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Chen noted receipt of an e-mail from Don Williams relative to the Crossroads issue. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 1 O, 2003 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: M-2002-09, EA-2002-08 Matt Pietras/Sim Architects Mereedes Road (Assessor's Parcel No. 342-22-044) Modification to a hillside exception (EXC-001-07) to construct a 3,008 square foot residence on a vacant lot on slopes greater than 30%. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 2003. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to postpone Application Nos. M-2002-09, EA-2002-08 to the March 24, 2003 Planning Commission meeting Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2003-01 Sharon Heyler (Commons of Cupertino HOA) Property bounded to Alves Dr., Anton Way, Stelling Road and the Cupertino Sports Center Tree removal application for the removal of 31 trees and tree replacement in a planned residential development. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of the Consent Calendar Application TR-2003-01 Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2003-02 Gillian Rutter 10280 Phar Lap Drive Director's minor modification to approve removal and replacement of four oak trees. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for tree removal permit for, and replacement of, four Coast Live Oaks. An arbor/st evaluated five oak trees on the property and recommends that one be retained but the four remaining be removed because of structural instability. Upon visual inspection, two of the trees show a significant amount of decay; one of them has very little foliage and another indicates a small amount of hardwood on the trunk and base. In response to staff's request that the arbor/st comment on the tree lean, the arborist noted that two of the four trees are in good health and that the lean exhibited by the trees were typical of Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 10, 2003 growth pattern and the trees did not require removal. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve removal of only two of the four oak trees and that they be replaced with two 24 inch Coast Live Oaks located in the front setback area. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, referred to the site map and summarized the application, noting the location of the trees. He noted that the one of the purposes of the tree ordinance was to protect specimen heritage oak trees, and said that the finding needs to be made that the trees are irreversibly diseased or in danger of falling and causing potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures or interfere with private onsite utilities. He noted that staff could not make that finding regarding tree Nos. 3 and 4; finding No. 2 relates to the location of the trees, restricting the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by other owners. He said that use of the property is not being restricted by the trees themselves; trees are growing above the pool area and the pool is usable with the trees present. Ms. Gillian Rutter, applicant, said she supported staff recommendation for trees Nos. 1, 2, and 5, but differed in support of the recommendation on trees 3 and 4. She said she was concerned for the safety of her children and visiting children around the pool. She said that tree No. 5 had a branch fall off into the neighbor's yard, and she expressed concern about more branches falling off. She noted that tree No. 3, which is a double trunk tree, has a large cavity creating a weak point in the tree. The weight of the branch over the driveway prohibits her from parking her SUV in the driveway. She noted also that the root system of the trees is currently under the pool. Ms. Rutter said that the branches around the pool prevented enjoyment of the pool by her family and visitors. She said she hoped to replace the two trees with two deciduous trees instead of live oaks because the trees are in leaf all year round, eliminating light into the house in the winter and having shade in the summer. Mr. Jung quoted from the review standards for specimen tree removal in the city; that each request for tree removal be evaluated based upon standards listed in subsections A and B; approval of the permit to remove a specimen or heritage tree may be granted if one or both standards is met; (a) that the tree or trees are irreversibly diseased or in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures or interfere with private onsite utility services; (b) that the location of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties. In response to Com. Miller's question if the trees were an insurance issue, Ms. Rutter said that it had not been brought up by the insurance agent. She said that she had not discussed the issue with her insurance company since she felt the city would view it as a safety issue as well. She said that she did not want to be responsible for any issues to people or property from the trees. Ms. Rutter noted that one of the branches was removed that was reaching into neighbor's yard as their concern was for insurance purposes. A neighbor had a tree removed on the other side of their house which was growing over their roof because they could not be insured. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes ~ March 10, 2003 com. Miller said that it was difficult to make a decision with two differing expert testimonies, but would rather chose the safety side as opposed to the alternative, especially not wanting to put children in potential harm's way; and an arborist stated that it could in fact be the case. In response to Com. Saadati's question about whether a list of arborists is given to applicants or do they choose their own, Mr. Jung said that the applicants select their own arborist, as the city is not in a position to recommend one contractor over another. The requirement is that them are minimum standards and that the arborist be internationally certified. Com. Saadati said he felt that the trees are a size that they need to be maintained rather than removed, and if they can be supported to avoid elimination, and reduce the safety concern, which staff indicated was possible, they should try to keep the trees. In the future if the trees become decayed, a decision could be made to remove the trees. He said that he supported staff's recommendation. Com. Corr said he agreed with Com. Miller regarding the difficulty of getting conflicting information; however, there was more alarmist language related to trees I and 5 thantree 3. He suggested that tree 3 be continued to be watched. He said that he supported staff's recommendation. Com. Wong said he concurred with Com. Corr and supported staff's recommendation. He said they should monitor the two trees in question, and utilize some suggestions such as the brace. If in the future it becomes more of a safety issue, it can come back for reconsideration. Chair Chen said she concurred with her colleagues on the staff report; the two trees are in healthy condition and if there are other ways to fix the trees, they should try to save the trees. She said she supported staff's recommendation. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve Application TR-2003-02 Com. Corr Com. Miller Passed 4-1-0 Com. Miller clarified that he felt it was appropriate to follow the arborist's report hired by the applicant, that there was a safety issue in the backyard area. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-11, EA-2002-23 Freiheit & Ho Amhitects/Extended Stay America 10745 No. DeAnza Boulevard. Use Permit to demolish a 7,744 square foot vacant restaurant (Santa Barbara Grill) and construct a 120 room hotel (Extended Stay America) Tentative City Council date: March 17, 2003 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish a vacant restaurant and construct a 120 room Extended Stay America hotel. The Planning Commission continued the application from December 9, 2002 when they directed the applicant to address easements, architectural design, pedestrian easement and parking. The Planning Commission's action and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on March 17th. Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 10, 2003 Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the application and discussed the issues of easement, architectural design, pedestrian easement and parking, that the Planning Commission directed staff to address at its December 9th Planning Commission meeting. The issues were outlined in the staff report. Changes to conditions as part of the arborist's report are to add the new arborist report to those recommendations and the paving which states that the applicant shall work with staff and the fire department to redesign the courtyard and dropoff area to reduce paved area adjacent to the oak tree that is referenced in the arborist report. The change will be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development if there is any reconciling to be done between arborist reports. In addition, there was an issue brought up by a commissioner regarding additional landscaping in the drainage ditch area. Staff recommends adding the following conditions: (1) No. 7 for screening, where landscaping will be provided at the terminus of the private road connecting the properties, and landscaping will be provided to screen the south and west wall of the trash enclosure, as well as one more design feature to be added. The applicant shall provide benches on the lawn area on the south side of the building facing the courtyard and parking area. This is a condition added as an issue from the December 9th Planning Commission, which was providing enough directional signage for customers coming from north DeAnza Boulevard since there is no easy visual access off north DeAnza Boulevard. It will be reviewed as part of the signage plan since signage is not being reviewed as part of the application. It is also being added to the conditions. In addition, the city attorney reviewed Condition No. 18, item 5, suggesting that the last sentence be changed to say "the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city acceptable to the city attorney regarding compliance with the above registration limitation and transient occupancy tax requirements, or pay an in-lieu fee." Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council of the mitigated negative declaration and the use permit application in accordance with the model resolution with the modified conditions, 4, 7, 18 as well as the added condition No. 19. Com. Wong questioned if the new driveway would affect the oak tree. Ms. Shrivastava responded that it would, and said that a condition of approval was added that the applicant will work with staff and the fire department to finalize a design that references further recommendations of the city's arborist, since the fire trucks are to park out in the courtyard. She said that staff was looking to change the driveway to stay out of the major drip line area. The fire trucks do not expect to turn, they expect to come in through the vehicular entrance and park in the courtyard and back out since the driveway is not wide enough for them to make a turn; they did not feel it was necessary to do so. Mr. Piasecki said that they will ask the applicant to retain the city arboristto address the issue, and find the fine line between where there may be an impact and how much room is needed for the driveway. He said it may require hand digging, and elevation of some of the pavers to prevent encroachment into the more sensitive roots. Com. Wong referred to the circulation plan which was addressed in an earlier conversation with staff, and said he felt the alleyway should be landscaped better and questioned if it was policy to have it done at a later time and not done together? Ms. Shrivastava said that signage is done often, and the signage plan is part of a separate application that the DRC looks at. She said that since it was not technically circulation but part of the signage, staffrecommended that it be folded in with the signage. In response to Com. Wong's question if staff felt with the proper signage, that the location was an ideal one for a hotel, Ms. Shrivastava said it was one of the uses allowed in the zoning district and meets the General Plan and the zoning criteria, and at this point they were not opposed to a hotel use. Mr. Piasecki added that staff was comfortable with the hotel use in the Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 10, 2003 location, noting that the hotel has the ability to communicate with the customer via online, telephone, and is not difficult to locate once you have been there. Com. Corr asked for clarification of the occupancy tax and in-lieu fee. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the transient occupancy tax (TOT) could be used, however, the resident would have to re-register every 29 days. She said that it is suggested in the agreement that the applicant pay an in-lieu fee if people do not re-register or that the city does not get the TOT. She said it would be a way to collect it, rather than having a covenant on the property that runs with the land. The city would rather have it in an agreement with them because it is an operational item and not a land use issue. She said it was not necessary to put additional wording in the condition that the in-lieu fee would be equivalent to the TOT. In response to Com. Saadati's question about number of trees, Ms. Shrivastava said there were 48 trees as part of the new application instead of 49 that were part of the previous one. She said the daily trips are ITE standards, and for a hotel of the proposed size vs. a restaurant of the size that existed, the restaurant created more trips than the hotel does; effectively there is a net loss of trips by building a hotel. However, in recognition of the restaurant being vacant, it was considered that the restaurant had zero trips and the new trips created by the hotel were added onto the circulation system, resulting in no impacts. Com. Saadati asked for comment on the issue of windows which had not been addressed. Ms. Shrivastava explained that one of the earlier conditions of approval was for a minimum 3 inch recess off the windows from the face, partly to add more articulation on the facade and create a depth that adds to the architectural interest of the building. She said the staff report includes a storyboard showing the details that belong to the Cupertino Inn which does not have any recess and is flush with the facade, which is why the condition remained. Com. Miller asked if an alternate location was recommended for the stairway in front of the building. Ms. Shrivastava said they were exploring a yet-to-be-determined alternate location; since it is an egress situation, she said it was necessary to ensure that all requirements were met. To the extent possible, she said they would prefer to locate the concrete retaining wall out of the front setbacks; since there has been so much work done on the front fagade at that hotel, it would be a shame to have a concrete wall in front of it. Chair Chen questioned how the previous hotel projects passed when not meeting the parking requirements. Ms. Shrivastava explained that in some circumstances hotels were close to or next to a bank or restaurant and shared parking. Whenever a proposed use does not meet the parking standard, and there is the ability to share spaces, staff does a parking analysis that says what the maximum parking required is for those uses, when is there the ability to share, and based on the peak demands, the result would be that because of the uses and the way they are at any given point, they will not exceed the total parking available at that site. Ms. Shrivastava said that the comprehensive parking analysis is usually built into agreements or they are part of the site, and usually one of the requirements is there is the ability of one owner or one association to control the entire site. Mr. Piasecki said it is possible that those applicants came in with a parking study to demonstrate that staff was over-estimating the amount of parking in the ordinance thatis normally needed to accommodate the uses. He said it was likely a combination of reasons. Ms. Shrivastava said that the project has enough parking spaces, even for the city standards. Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 10, 2003 Chair Chen asked staff how the determination was made between major and minor. Mr. Piasecki said that is was determined in terms of how visible it is to the public. He said when staff addressed the list of issues, comments were made such as the windows have to be so far in, the colors need to be resolved, and entries enhanced. Staff felt they were minor issues, but they could be determined to be major and brought back to the DRC, and staff would be agreeable to that. They felt that many small details had to be worked out before they could start building the project, and staff could provide the review. He said that the Planning Commission could elect to take it upon themselves or the DRC if they chose to. Com. Wong referred to parking and said he presumed that in 1985 and 1996 the parking ordinance was identical to today's. Ms. Shrivastava said that it was the same for hotels and has not changed. Com. Wong stated that Extended Stay America claims to have six employee parking spaces, and he questioned how the applicant amved at the number vs. Hilton Garden Inn which has five employee spaces, Marriott Courtyard's two spaces and Cupertino Inn's two spaces for employee parking. Ms. Shrivastava clarified that the Hilton Garden Inn has five less spaces than their number of rooms; hence they actually have a smaller amount of parking available. The other two hotels have two; and she pointed out that she did not evaluate in detail every application to see how many employees they had at each of those hotels that were approved. Mr. Piasecki said that if the Planning Commission is concerned that the maximum staffing level at any one time is being underestimated, a condition could be included that they not exceed five or six employees during the maximum shift; and in the event they need to in the future, they would then have to come back and demonstrate where they would find the additional parking. He said they were reasonably comfortable that the site is not likely to impact neighboring properties significantly. He said the adjoining offices can currently police who parks on their property and one or two employees may have to park on the street. He said that it could be stated either that it is not in the residential or provide a condition that says maximum employee count during maximum shift shall not exceed five or six. Ms. Shrivastava said she was not aware of any unresolved parking issues from other hotels. Mr. J. R. Rodine, applicant, reported that representatives from Extended Stay America, and the landscape architect would submit a presentation highlighting prominent features in terms of the site and architectural design and landscaping. Mr. Steve Peters, Extended Stay America, said a team of experts was available to answer questions. He said the extended stay concept would be utilized by people attending classes, or relocating to Cupertino. Mr. Kevin Chow discussed the design issues staff brought up and how they were resolved. He illustrated the revised rendering showing what the project would look like with the landscaping in place less the fence along the highway. He referred to the site plan, reviewed the elevations, illustrated the easements; reviewed the floor plan of the hotel, proposed colors and building materials. He reviewed the issues that had not been addressed in the plan and were listed in the staff report as conditions of approval; including entry canopies, roof brackets, 5 foot wide pedestrian pathway along the southern perimeter of the site with a seating area around the existing oak tree; colors; front plaza area; windows; pavers; lighting; gutters and downspouts; and garage stairs. Planning Commission M{nutes ~ March 10, 2003 Mr. Lee Eader, David Gates & associates, landscape architects, reviewed the proposed landscape plan for the project, including placement of trees, hedges, public seating area, placement of monuments, evergreen vines, and ground covers. He explained the placement of pavers, using a granular sub-base. Com. Wong asked for clarification on the employee numbers per shift. Mr. Rodine said that the staff report was askew one or two employees, noting that they normally had about ten employees in a typical operation of its size per 24 hour shift, including a manager, a guest registration services person during the day, one maintenance person and three housekeeping people. He noted that if there is another dot.com boom and they reach 100% occupancy, they may have to bring in a fourth housekeeping person, and an extra person on the desk for check-in and check-out, but they did not anticipate any more than six, maximum of seven people during the day. He said that during the day period where there is an excess of a 1 to 1 parking ratio per room, it would be anticipated that ~ of the occupants who arrive at the hotel do so by their own personal vehicle, others by rental vehicle and a handful by taxi. Mr. Rodine said it was highlyunlikely that from a parking standpoint, during the period from 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. that they would have 100% of their residents in the hotel with their vehicles parked in the parking lot, and have more than six employees on site. He said on swing shift and graveyard shifts, generally there are two employees. Com. Wong questioned if the applicant felt the easement on the north property in Exhibit C was unnecessary. Mr. Rodine reiterated his comments to the Planning Commission at the December 9th meeting that it likely would not serve a purpose because they could not force the neighbors to grant an easement for the residents who would have the benefit of a public walkway and roadway into the site to cut across their property. He said upon direction by the Planning Commission he made a good faith diligent effort to approach the property owner and the property owner responded in the nature that he did, concerned about liability, a floating easement, the cloud on his title, and diminishing value of his property. He said it was a good attempt and a good reach to try and figure out a third way to get people to and from Valley Green Drive; however not feasible. He said there were safe options with the public sidewalk on DeAnza Boulevard and the private road leading to Valley Green Drive. Mr. Rodine answered Com. Wong's questions. He said that he was comfortable with the sidewalk on the north side of the property. He said that their preference for public art was a sculpture or statue because of the concerns about maintenance and cost of operating a fountain including water, electricity, pumps, and maintenance. He said he felt a piece of artwork would satisfy not only the letter of the city's requirement, but also its spirit and intent. In response to Com. Corr's question about the planting of sycamore trees on DeAnza Boulevard side, Mr. Rodine said that they would follow what the Planning Commission and staff planned for the street. Com. Saadati said he appreciated the excellent presentation by applicant and staff, and said he was concerned with construction and excavation to minimize the impact on the root system of the tree or cave in of the soil adjacent to the trees. Mr. Rodine said that there were two options, one to shift the underground garage 5 feet in one direction or the other in order to try and avoid impacting the roots of the tree; however, in order to keep the structure 5 feet further from the tree, written clearance and signoff from PG&E is needed as they have an overhead pole easement in the area near the underground garage structure. He said he had hoped to have a letter from PG&E stating that they could locate the underground garage where they originally proposed it rather than the modified plan which shifts it five feet closer toward the tree, which precipitated the second Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 1 O, :2003 arborist's report and some recommendations to do some things they were not presently comfortable with. He added that in consultation with staff, they were told that after the Planning Commission and/or the City Council acted, if PG&E allowed moving the parking structure five feet further from the tree, but the Commission approved it five feet closer, it would constitute a major design change, and the applicant would be back before the Planning Commission again requesting a modification. He said that some conditions need to be fine tuned, particularly Condition 18 relating to the TOT provision allowing residents to check out and back in for long term stays in excess of 29 days, otherwise the residents will go to other cities for accommodation which would negatively affect Cupertino. Mr. Rodine said he intended to discuss the condition relative to the shuttle service with staff so that a solution could be roached. He noted that addressing Condition 29 and other design considerations still had to be resolved. He said that although he would rather have a decision this evening, it may be beneficial to continue the item for two weeks to allow time to meet with the city's architectural consultant and staff and get a draft from the Assistant City Attorney on the 29 day TOT and return with a clean slate and all be working in the same direction rather than have to ask for modifications. He said he would rather go forward to the City Council with all questions answered rather than have outstanding issues when they retum with the application. Ms. Shrivastava said that there was no indication from PG&E that they will allow a building in that easement. If allowed, it would be a relatively minor change and will not actually reduce the amount of impacts to the oak trees. She said staffwas comfortable going back to the original plan. Ms. Shrivastava said that most of the Cupertino hotels have a type of shuttle system. Instead of having its own shuttle, he said they felt it was a good compromise to contract with a shuttle service on demand. Mr. Piasecki clarified that the condition wording on No. 11 is very open ended, stating that the service can be on an as-needed contracted basis. He said they had no preference for a shuttle service or taxi cab, as long as the service was available. Com. Corr said his interpretation was that the service could be contracted for on a 24 hour basis, available should it be needed and not on site when not required. Com. Miller complimented the applicant and staff on working together on what from a design standpoint seemed to be a suitable design, and certainly an enhanced design over other buildings they did in other areas. He questioned why the shuttle was a requirement, since it was an economic issue and the hotel was a business operation. Ms. Shrivastava responded that shuttles were usually part ofa TDM program, where there is an attempt to reduce the number of trips using single occupancy vehicles by giving the customers the benefit and the convenience of a shuttle. Mr. Piasecki added that there were many ways that customers arrive to the site such as bus, airplane, or ifa shuttle is not offered, they are forced to rent a car or hire a taxi. He said the shuttle is a way to encourage people to use the other modes of public transit or mass transit. Ms. Shrivastava said the reason the contracting system for the shuttle works is that the hotel would use it only when they need it and would not have to have a 24 hour vehicle on site with a driver. In response to Com. Miller's question whether the applicant had done anything with the building to make it more energy efficient or address sustainable design in any way, Mr. Chow said the building design included double windows, not just double pane windows, which would reduce the noise level and is energy efficient; the use of bat insulation for all walls; and other measures taken into account such as motion sensor switches in the public rooms. Com. Miller questioned if there would be any attempt to recycle any materials from the demolition of the building. Mr. Rodine said that the State of California Solid Waste Management Act Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 10, 2003 requires special districts, cities and counties to reduce the amount of waste that goes into the landfills by 50%. He said they may be able to recycle some of the pavement and building components which is cheaper than hauling to the landfills and reduces demolition costs. He said the hazardous materials require special handling since they cannot go to the sanitary landfill. Mr. Vierra, construction manager, confirmed that they would recycle as much demolition material as possible. Com. Miller noted from the last discussion, there were requests for calculations of runoff vs. filtration; and said he understood that the pavers would improve the filtration over runoff. Ms. Shrivastava said that the Public Works Department reviews runoff filtrations according to the new Regional Water Quality Board and BAASMA requirements. She said at this point, it is a condition of approval for the building permit; the Public Works staff has received initial calculations and they feel comfortable with what they have. Chair Chen had no questions. Mr. Rodine said that whatever action the Planning Commission decided upon, whether a continuance to clarify or make adjustments needed, they would prefer an approval or denial of the application. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public commem; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Con' said that while there were still some loose ends, he felt they were headed in the right direction. Referring to the site plan, he questioned the pavers being close to the tree trunk and recalled instances such as at the Oaks, where they had to come back and tear up the parking lot in order to water the tree. He said in terms of Mr. Piasecki's comment if they are able to move the parking garage five feet further away from the tree without re-doing the structure of the building, they had his support to do it. Com. Corr emphasized that it was not acceptable to damagethe tree and he felt the 18 points in the Coates' recommendation were appropriate. He said since there were unresolved issues, he was interested in the other commissioner's opinion about a continuance. Mr. Piasecki said that relative to the tree issue, staff concluded that an opportunity existed to pull back or remove the curbing for the turnaround area, approximately 75% of the way outside the drip line of the tree and to straighten it out, with a small area of tree canopy toward the northeast portion of the canopy that would potentially overlap some of the pavers. He said that staff felt confident they could work with the arborist and landscape architect and come up with something to benefit the tree and reasonably works for the site plan. He said that it could be continued, but is something staff is accustomed to working with applicants on and were certain they could do so in this case. Mr. Piasecki said that staff was not alarmed at the level of detail still needed and said it was not uncommon to have the kind of details to be ironed out at this stage. He said that the wording of the conditions was appropriate and staff would work with the applicant as they move forward. Even if the application has to come back and the conditions have to be amended, it would save time up front in moving forward with the application. He said staff was comfortable that the items could be worked on, and have sculpted the conditions to deal with the flexibility. Mr. Piasecki said that the items would not be resolved before going forward to the City Council. He explained that the conditions are stated so that many of the design items will have to go to the Director of Community Development for review and can be taken to the full Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 10, 2003 or the DRC. He said the tree issue could be worked on, the PG&E easement issue is a minor issue; relative to the stairway, there could be two stairways, one in the northeast comer and one in the southeast comer of the building, but not in the front area because it is supposed to be unencumbered. Mr. Piasecki said that they were not opposed to moving forward with the conditions as worded. Com. Saadati said that overall the building was attractive, with plenty of articulation and different materials, and compared to the hotel across the street, had more canopies, gradings, and columns. He said his only concern was the method of construction to prevent damage to the tree which needs to be emphasized. He said he trusted staff to make the right decision and supported staff's recommendation. Com. Wong said he concurred with Coms. Corr and Saadati and supported the application. He said it was a well designed building, particularly for the tight space available; he was pleased that the applicant worked with staff so that the building was compatible with the surrounding building. He said he shared the concern about the oak tree and hoped the applicant would work closely with staff relative to the issue. He said the landscaping plan was a well designed plan. Com. Wong reiterated his concern about the parking and asked that a condition be added that if the employees exceed six that it come back to the Planning Commission for a parking study. He said that he wanted Extended Stay America to be successful, and noted that for community involvement, their intention to put public art on the property was worthy, as well as put an easement on the north to provide walkability, and follow up on former Com. Auerbach's request to talk to their neighbors to the south as well. He said he was hopeful that Extended Stay America would work with the Chamber of Commerce and join their hotel council, as Cupertino is a corporate hotel town and needs to develop an identity. Many people are going to Sunnyvale and San Jose but it is important to bring business to Cupertino, and he said he felt the TOT tax would bring more revenue into the city. Com. Wong said he felt it was a positive project, and said he strongly supported the project. Com. Miller said he concurred with fellow commissioners that it was a desirable project; he said staff and applicant worked well together on a good design, and he felt it would benefit the city to move forward, and to decide which would expedite the project faster. Chair Chen said she would like to see the project proceed, but expressed concern with the amount of design issues still to be addressed as a condition of recommendation to the City Council. She said if supported by colleagues, she would suggest that all the detail issues be considered minor issues to come back to the DRC for review. Chair Chen said she would like the public to see the final product, and she felt it was the DRC's job to review all the design related issues to make sure that the building is going to be acceptable to thc city of Cupertino. She also recommended that the ordinance be revised to state in the conditions, that the design issues will be worked out between applicant and staff and come back to DRC for final approval. Regarding the parking, Chair Chen said that she would leave the decision to the applicant to operate the business to provide the best service to its customers and if it meant changing the amount of staff to provide adequate service, it would be an appropriate business decision. However, if there is not enough parking or ifparking becomes an issue and noticed by the community, the parking needs to be addressed as stated earlier. She said she felt anyone in Cupertino, including staff and the Planning Commission could bring the issue to the Planning Commission for further review and analysis. In response to Com. Wong's question whether the language on the board was acceptable, Com. Corr said that he was concerned and felt Chair Chen might have the same concern. He said it was Planning Commission Minutes 12 March 10, 2003 a finite number based on 5 employees per shift, and if it increased to 6, they would have to come back to the Planning Commission; and it would also mean that someone would have to be counting employees at the hotel. He said Chair Chen's approach was more appropriate that it be put in a condition if the number increases and the parking is not working, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission for a parking study. He said he did not feel it necessary to put it on as a difference between 5 and 6 employees. Com. Wong concurred that it was acceptable. Ms. Shrivastava clarified the number of employees would be 7 maximum. Com. Corr said that it was not ~he one or two employees that would make the difference, but what is happening with the parking; experience shows that it works with this type of hotel, and if it does not, bring it back for further discussion. Com. Miller said he concun'ed with Com. Corr that it appeared to be a workable solution. Com. Wong said he was concerned, but would agree with the majority; but there are six or seven handicapped spaces included and they are going to increase it which is not a problem. The ordinance specifies one parking space per room plus one employee; if one over, it should not be a major concern. He said he wanted to point out the parking situation which was a concern of his. Chair Chen said that when the project comes back to DRC for final approval, it is important for staffto advertise for the public hearing and involve the public in the process. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved approval of Application EA~2002-23 Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved approval of Application U-2002-11 including the amendment to Condition 4 that the design issues will be worked out with staff and applicant and reviewed by DRC prior to approval of the project. Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 Com. Corr said that he grappled with the tree issue; the Coates' recommendations were on target relative to protecting the tree rather than the best practices language. Relative to parking, he said for approvals of any type, they may want to consider a similar caveat that if the parking is not working, it comes back to the Planning Commission. He noted that without it, there is no leverage to deal with it at a later date. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Com Con- reported there was no recent meeting held, and that a meeting was scheduled for the current week. He noted that the application postponed from the Planning Commission calendar would be considered as it had been approved before and the permits were not pulled on time. Mr. Piasecki added that the Villa Sen.a and Towne Center projects would also be on the ERC agenda. Housing Committee: Chair Chen reported that the next meeting was scheduled for March 13th. Planning Commission Minutes I~ March 1 O, 2003 Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Saadati reported on the February 25th meeting. The mayor discussed the teen conference, the April 30th community forum and ways to improve the commissions, including how the chairpersons were selected, and creation of a booklet summarizing the responsibilities of the commissioners. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported on upcoming meetings; and the San Diego Planners Institute. OTHER: Com. Wong referred to the Crossroads issue, relative to option C, and questioned why it was not presented to the Planning Commission vs. going to the City Council. Mr. Piasecki explained that the Planning Commission made a specific recommendation relating to the Crossroads plan; and when the City Council held a separate meeting regarding the scheduling of the Crossroads, it became evident that the City Council was concerned about the public input process, and the amount of public input received related to the height issue. In the Crossroads plan, staff suggested if the City Council chose to do so, they could increase the setback, and lower the height, which would be less restrictive, and they could implement the plan if they chose to. Two council members felt that was the way to go; three of the council members were opposed and wanted to have it follow the General Plan process, which is why Option C was suggested to City Council; since it was less restrictive and was considered to be a minor amendment in the process that would be consistent otherwise with what the Planning Commission had looked at. Chair Chen welcomed Com. Marty Miller to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, at 6:45 p.m. on March 24, 2003. Respectfully Submitted, Etizab~fEllis Recording Secretary Approved as amended: March 24, 2003