Loading...
PC 06-10-08CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. JUNE 10, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of June 10, 2008, 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: Jessica Rose Commissioner: David Kaneda Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Assistant Planner: Piu Ghosh Senior Planner: Colin Jung APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Community Development Director Steve Piasecki noted written materials related to agenda items. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. M-2008-01, TR-2008-04 Modification of a Hillside Exception (EXC-1995-06) Jennifer Jodoin (DeCarli to allow a 328 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing Residence) 11640 Regnart residence on a prominent ridgeline. Tree Removal and Canyon Road replacement of 2 Monterey Pines. Planning Commission decision frnal unless appealed. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for modification to a hillside exception to add a 328 square foot addition to an existing house on a prominent ridgeline, and tree removal as outlined in the staff report. • She reviewed the background of the application which is to add one bedroom and a walk in closet and balcony; and conducting an internal remodel to create a bedroom, bath and closet. • Staff recommends that a condition be required for the applicant to submit an updated Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 10, 2008 geotechnical report prior to issuance of building permits if the Commission approves the exception. Staff recommends approval of M-2008-09 and TR-2008-09. Steve Piasecki: • Referred to Condition No. 3 regazding tree protection; you could ask that the bond be held for a period of time to ensure that the trees and the landscaping gets a chance to settle in and get mature; so we could conceivably hold it for a yeaz. Then you could also add a condition that requires that the conditions of approval aze recorded on the property to notify possible future property owners that these are protected trees; and it puts them on notice. People can still violate conditions, but they have been put on notice and the city could take appropriate legal action if necessary. Piu Ghosh: • Said that the six topped cedar trees appeaz to be on Mrs. DeCazli's property. Vice Chair Giefer: • One of the concerns I expressed eazlier is planting non-native species; it is an azid area and native species do better with lower water and maintenance than do non-native species. Are you agreeable to changing out the tree with the native species. Jennifer Jodoin: • Said they were open to suggestions. Relative to green building practices, she said she would have to review what has been suggesting for green building. Com. Rose: • Was the neighborhood noticed about the application (Response: Yes, noticing was done for S00 feet radius.). Chair Miller opened the public heazing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was pleased there was a favorable resolution. There is a current law in Cupertino about the dreaded 6,500 square feet for homes; and hopefully everyone can come out of this being pleased. There was a great deal of effort by the owners and city to make sure that the family can live there and enjoy their property and the neighbors can too. Patrice Greene, DZign It: • Referring to Page A8, a note in the bottom right corner states that construction is supposed to match existing, so whatever can be green, we can put in what we can possibly do. I went through the checklist and noted different azeas that may possibly be acceptable to doing that and still matching the existing construction. • She listed the azeas she felt could be applied to the remodel: Material recovery during deconstruction at any existing fly ash contact concrete, which is quite possible; FSC certified wood for framing, recycle plastic lumber; structural insulated panels; reflective insulation at roof areas; engineered lumber; AG boazd insulation; high efficacy windows; recycled content tile; reclaimed hazdwood; recycled content countertops and vanities; recycled content carpet where applicable; natural fiber flooring; low or zero VOC paint; high efficiency plumbing fixtures. Chair Miller closed the public heazing. Cupertino Planning Commission Vice Chair Giefer: June 10, 2008 • Commented that this was the direction that the Planning Commission suggested the applicant go in the last time it was heard. • I think the effect on the ridgeline is already there; the addition is going to be on the rear of this, so I am not as concerned about the impact to the surrounding valley floor. Chair Miller brought up some good points; had those plantings been planted ten years ago, they would already be seeing the effect of that screening, but that did not happen, so they have to wait another ten years. Perhaps one of the things we might consider is adding additional trees or increasing the box size, if that is the pleasure of the Commission. • I earlier commented I would like to make sure we are planting a native species; we are entering a drought cycle; it would be a shame to plant some very large non-native trees with a high water requirement and have those trees die. I like staff's idea of adding a performance bond which will be held for one year, and refunded once everything is implemented; the plantings are there and we are seeing no topping of existing or new landscaping. I would also like the screening trees recorded on the deed; it runs with the property. • I would like to see the completion and on file the build it green checklist with the minimum score; I think the applicant has a lot of good ideas on the plan she brought up. Many of them you will do anyway. I am looking for a greater commitment than that. What I would like for you to achieve is the minimal score on the remodeling for the build it green checklist which will be a commitment that you are going to do some of these things; and you can work with staff on those things. Other than that, I am okay moving ahead on this application because it does stay within the building footprint already there, and when I say that I also mean the paved surfaces. I don't think it will- impact the view from the prominent ridgeline. Com. Brophy: • Said he didn't have anything else to add. Asked how effective a build it green checklist is for a 300 foot expansion. Vice Chair Giefer: • If it is not done, then you have no added advantage and I think the way people build these days, they are going to do some of them anyway. It is not going to make the entire home be 15% over Title 24; I agree on that; but at least that piece of it will be more sustainably built. Com. Rose: • Said she was not a Planning Commissioner when this house was presented before, but she appreciated Vice Chair Giefer's comments that some of the work done previously to improve the home has been positive for everyone. • Said she agreed that the impact on the prominent ridgeline has already been made and was disappointed that the trees were topped. It was upsetting that there was a landscaping plan required that was not implemented for 7 to 8 years; apparently it wasn't implemented until the applicant decided to do some more work with the city. Hopefully it is not a commonplace practice in Cupertino. • I would imagine that the landscaping was put in place to balance the impact that house will have on the ridgeline. • She said she felt it was disrespectful that it was not implemented. Moving forward, with all of the suggestions Vice Chair Giefer made based on past practice, we need to be sure that they are followed. • I like the idea of a performance bond; I think the trees should be recorded on the deed, and that the landscaping should be increased; the size of the box size should be looked at to try to make up for the 8 years of lost time. There should have been landscaping on the hillside. Those actions will make sure that our agreement is followed through. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 10, 2008 Com. Kaneda: • He agreed with Vice Chair Giefer that the effect of this addition will have minimal affect on the roofline, the view of the roofline from the valley. She said she was pleased to see that the footprint is actually within the requirements this time. • Said he was fine with the condition of using native species trees for the trees that they are requiring; not certain of the performance bond beyond making sure that the trees are planted; one year of is not going to make a difference. • Said he supported a performance bond, but just to the point we are sure that the work has been performed. Vice Chair Giefer: • There was a concern regarding topping of trees; she said she felt it was a behavior that they need to modify, and a one year period of time would be a good faith and it also provides a track record. It is not just for the new trees that are planted, but it is for the existing trees that have been topped to recover. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt a performance bond isn't going to solve that problem and said being the devils advocate, if it was his house and he was planning on topping the trees and had a one year performance bond, then on one year and one day he would consider topping the trees. What may be a better approach is to put conditions on not being allowed to prune the trees and try to get some teeth that way. He said staff could provide the verbiage to do that. Steve Piasecki: Said you can do a covenant on the property that records the conditions of approval and the covenant advises subsequent owners and also the current property owners that these are protected trees and landscaping; and they cannot be modified without seeking city approval. It gives you some teeth should they be modified and you have to go to court if they don't otherwise reconcile the problem; it becomes more persuasive for a judge that everybody should have known this. Com. Kaneda: Said he felt it was a stronger way to try to control the behavior than a one year performance bond, because one year growth is not going to make that much difference. Said he also supported some type of build-it-green checklist, but considering the size of the remodel, was not sure how to memorialize something like that because it is such a small thing without looking at the list and trying to figure out what is most reasonable. He said he presently did not have a feel for it. Chair Miller: • Said he agreed with Vice Chair Giefer and all the Commissioners that the main issue is behavior modification. The applicant seems to be resistant to following the conditions of approval on her applications, and he suggested something stronger, and that is to approve the landscaping plan with larger box trees and more trees, or whatever is appropriate, and not give an approval to go ahead and do the construction of that house until the landscaping is in. • As Vice Chair Giefer pointed out, if this applicant had followed the rules and put the landscaping in nine years ago, there would be some very substantial landscaping there now and by improving it and not insisting that she do something more substantial now, she is basically home free without any penalties, and the neighbors had to some extent bear the burden of her lack of willingness to comply with the conditions of her last approval. He said Cupertino Planning Commission June 10, 2008 he would propose something stronger than that in return for allowing her to go ahead and get this exception; we talked about what are the requirements for an exception, I think it is not unreasonable to ask her to do something more in order to get it. Com. Rose: • The tree ordinance was recently updated; work is prohibited on trees in Cupertino unless it is a certified arborist doing the work. Is that on all trees or certain species? Piu Ghosh: • Said it applies to certain species; it doesn't say that unless a certified arborist does the work; anyone can do the work as long as they are not trimming more than 25% of the tree. Topping trees is considered a nuisance. Steve Piasecki: • Said the new ordinance was different; it wasn't specifically addressing topping; it is the 25% rule that would address topping. In this case because you have conditions that say don't do that, they would stand on their own. He said he would not rely on the tree ordinance. There isn't specific language about topping trees in Cupertino; PG&E does it all the time. • Suggested that if they were going to go with the need to see the landscaping before you pull the permits; it should be rolled into the same motion and they would then have to come back to the Planning Commission to say landscaping is in; and then the Commission would authorize staff to release the building permits. Chair Miller: • Said he would like to be satisfied that landscaping has finally met the requirements of the city in order to get a permit. Said he was suggesting they look at it again after they plant the landscaping. Vice Chair Giefer: • Studying the landscape plan, she said she would like the two trees upgraded to 48 inch box size; the density of the planting, part of the reason you live in the foothills is you want to be able to see the valley views so we don't want to overwhelm that but we do want to accomplish the goal of screening the house. Perhaps if we upgrade the size of the two replacement trees to 48 inch box size, that would be sufficient. I am concerned that this one is going to obscure the view and tempt them to top it at some point. Chair Miller: • The trees that were topped do screen for that section of the house and they were topped; if they were large enough and you put them in that area, seems like you would get effective screening. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, based upon the latest version of the model resolution, distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting, move to approve M-2008-01 with the following conditions: That there be a one-year tree checkup by a certified arborist to ensure that all of the prescribed landscape plantings have been correctly installed, and that there has been no additional topping trees on the property; Maintain the $10,000 performance bond through construction; the applicant shall record a covenant deed on the property advising subsequent property owners of the conditions of approval; and that the landscaping is protected and shall not be modified without first seeking approval from the city; the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that the landscaping has been installed Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 10, 2008 prior to release of building permits. Com. Rose made a friendly amendment that replacement trees be 48 inch native species boz trees, accepted by Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Kaneda. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt they were getting over the top on micromanagement of a 300 squaze foot addition to a house and he encouraged his colleagues to look at the list and pick the main ones they feel strongly about rather than getting into the staffls role. I believe it is the totality of it that we are putting in item after item; I understand part of this is due to the behavior of the applicant 8 or 9 years ago; and I can understand wanting to try to be more careful this time azound. I feel we are going beyond where we should go as a Planning Commission for a project of this scale. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she did not disagree, but said as a group they aze responding to almost a decade of non- responsiveness, trying to make up for some lost time when the second story addition was added on the prominent ridgeline. Com. Brophy: • If you were to trim back some of the building issues, in my mind what you will get for that is you aze not going to get much bang for your buck there. As faz as the size of plants, if we are going to ask for lazger plants than what is currently on the recommended plan, we should rely on the technical expertise of staff to approve it rather than make it a future agenda item. If I were to trim back the items, those would be the ones I would chose. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she appreciated Com. Brophy's comments, and agreed in general that if the only application that came to them was a 300 square foot plus addition, she would be in alignment with that. Relative to the ones she began with, the said she felt the • box size of the two replacement trees, the build-it-green checklist and the bond which is already in the model resolution were quite reasonable; but there is the will of the Planning Commission to make up for the lost time that the community has experienced when the ridgeline addition was done yeazs ago. • I see the nexus between that non-performance and what we aze talking about tonight. Said she was confident that staff can handle the right amount with the sizes specified and come back and report back to us that the landscaping has been successfully implemented so the applicant can move forward with their building project. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Brophy abstained.) 2. U-2007-04, ASA-2007-06 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to (EA-2007-06) TM-2007-09 demolish a theater and 2,430 sq. ft. of commercial EXC-2008-07, TR-2008-02 space and construct a 4-story, 122 room hotel, a 3- Karen Ngo (Oaks Shopping Center) story 56,194 sq. ft. mixed use retaiUoffice/convention 21265 Stevens Creek Boulevard center building over an underground pazking podium and site improvements in 2 phases at an existing shopping center. Tentative Map to subdivide an 8.1 net acre pazcel into 2 pazcels of 3.0 and 5.1 acres, with one pazcel to be further subdivided into 4 commercial condominium units and a common azea lot; Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reduce one side- Cupertino Planning Commission June 10, 2008 yazd setback to 15 feet for a proposed 4-story, 122 room hotel and a 3-story, 56,194 sq. ft. mixed used retaiUoffice/convention center building; Tree Removal request to remove and replace approx. 47 trees that are part of an approved landscape plan for an existing shopping center. Continued from the May 27, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: June 17, 2008 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Briefly reviewed the slide presentation from the previous meeting, to demolish a theater and 2,430 squaze feet of commercial space and construct a 4-story, 122-room hotel, a 3-story mixed use retaiUoffice/conference center building over an underground pazking podium and site improvements in two development phases at the Oaks Shopping Center. • He reviewed the discussions held at the previous meeting and summazized the outcomes on vazious issues. Details of the discussions and recommendations are outlined in the attached staff report. He reviewed Larry Cannon's suggestions and recommendations as outlined in the slide presentation. • The Commission went over a number of various points and there was a varying majority of Commissioners; a majority of viewpoints on these issues having to do with development phasing; a two lot subdivision was appropriate, but not the commercial condominiums; the majority of the Commissioners were also in favor of the 15 foot side yard setback; they were also agreeable to the tree removal and the replacement with the caveat of the native trees where possible; and also a majority agreement to have an enhanced hotel design that was needed and to refer to the city architect for recommendations. The other issues; it wasn't cleaz whether there was a majority opinion or not, so we have listed them here where you don't have a majority opinion, staff inserted its own recommendation in the resolutions; among those discussion points staff would like the Commission to consider is the hotel design and building fmishes; the Mary Avenue landscaping and onstreet pazking loss; the Stevens Creek Boulevard landscaping requirement of the Heart of the City Specific Plan; the request for bridge improvement contribution; sustainable building practices; General Plan commercial development allocation; and a modification of the 1986 use permit setting a maximum of 800 restaurant seats for the center. Steve Piasecki: Noted that staff has included Condition 12, Page 2-10, which allows moving ahead on azchitectural issues, with the applicant returning after they have met with Marriott, and incorporating the city architect's suggestions and additional ones and coming back to the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue review of the project and conditions of approval; make resolution modifications as needed, and recommend approval of the Negative Declazation and approval of the use permit, tentative map, side setback exception and tree removal request per the revised model resolutions. Said the reason staff feels they should be participating in the streetscape improvements, the contribution for the pedestrian bike overpass over Highway 85, is that this is a fairly significant project in terms of its overall size. The existing building and the shopping center aze about 73,000 squaze feet; the hotel is 62,000 squaze feet; when you add in the 56,000 squaze foot commercial building, you are 1-1/2 times larger than the existing center. That is a significant addition; if you don't get now, you won't get it for decades until the entire center comes in for a complete renovation. We have tried to find a solution that we think is the least disruptive and allows the applicant to move ahead. The other point is that this is a good project overall; it could be a real positive contribution toward the revival of the Oaks Center, bringing it back to its heyday of popularity by both of these buildings. We would like to fmd a way to resolve the setback, the height issue on Mary Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 10, 2008 Avenue; we suggested the reduction of the parking as one way to do it; there aze other ways to do it; it is about a 10% hit overall if you go back to Colin Jung's eazlier numbers. • Relative to the timing of the development application, the Commission does need to move on it tonight, get it to the City Council next week; because of the Permit Streamlining Act. Staff answered Commissioners questions relating to the project. Vice Chair Giefer: • The applicant does not plan on sharing the pazking gazage with the rest of the Oaks development. Steve Piasecki: • Summarized that they feel they can function independently and don't need that amenity. Vice Chair Giefer: • From the city's point of view, what is staff's perspective on lazge pazking azea and multi- ownership. Steve Piasecki: • We typically like to encourage centers that aze appeazing to function together that they have the ability to pazk. This is different because it is an underground pazking garage and we understand why the hotel for security reasons doesn't want to have another business pulling out of their pazking when their guests aze trying to get into it. It appeazs that they can function independently of one another, which is not a bad thing given this configuration. If they were surface lots, staff would likely have a different opinion. • Said the common azea includes the pazking and the trash facilities is shazed among all the tenants. Com. Rose: • What is planned for the Highway 85 west side of the building in terms of landscaping. Colin Jung: • Said it was written in the tree protection conditions that any tree that is removed would need to be replaced with a suitable mitigation tree of a size indicated by the protected tree ordinance. At this point many of the trees that have recently died, are in the Phase 2 part of the project. The applicant can respond whether it is their intention to remove those trees and replace them during the Phase 1 development. He said there are at least 4 dead trees on the mixed use building side of the project. He said that a sound wall is not required but there should be an effective landscape screen along the freeway. Steve Piasecki: • Refer to Sheets L2 and L3 for the landscape plan along the highway. • He noted that it is a Highway 85 onramp and it quickly descends and gets below the grade level of the hotel. He encouraged them not to put a sound wall in that location as they become covered by graffiti. Com. Kaneda: • Referring to the funding of the bridge modifications, he asked if there were guidelines for the justification of monetary contributions, how were the numbers chosen. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 10, 2008 Steve Piasecld: • Said that there are some precedents and the numbers vary from project to project, usually it is a function of how large of a public improvement is anticipated, and this is a longer bridge in dire need of help. There are General Plan policies that talk about making the community walkable and safe, and it is a bridge adjacent to this project that has no railing, it is a raised sidewalk. It is seed money to entice the city to match it and try to provide the proper kind of enhancement along that area. Any project creates traffic impacts, and we try to mitigate the traffic impacts, sometimes offsite. We think this project will be creating the need for pedestrian enhancement offsite and onsite. • Relative to the improvements along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Chair Miller: • Relative to the Mary Avenue landscaping vs. parking, he said that the staff report said there was potential for additional parallel parking on Mary Avenue. Where would it be and how many spaces? • Staff suggested some shared parking with the hotel might work and the applicant was not amenable to that. It might be better if the shared parking was closer to the Senior Center; is there a possibility that the shopping center itself might be willing to designate some parking spaces. Steve Piasecki: • Said there was no potential for additional parallel parking on Mary Avenue. He said it was parallel all the way along the east side of Mary Avenue. He said staff came up with close to 400 spaces, the potential is to lose about 10% with the solution. • He said it was the original thinking and would be the surface parking, not underground parking. There is an agreement with the Shane Company that gives Shane Co. the veto authority over any changes in that area. They could speak to that. Almost anywhere in the center would be equal distance from the parking that you are losing; we didn't have a preference, but the Commission may have a preference. Chair Miller: • Another solution would be to make the hotel or commercial building smaller; has that been suggested? • Has staff considered requiring the Stevens Creek landscape changes with the second phase instead of the first phase, because the first phase focuses on Mary Avenue. In the second phase, they get into the structure that addresses the Stevens Creek frontage. Steve Piasecla: • Said either way you could shift it back and modify the hotel, which would achieve the objective. • In these cases we always look at there is a significant investment happening and we don't care where it is happening in the center; at that point they should be complying with the Heart of the City. The subdividing activities subdividing those two parcels away from the rest of the center affects the entire center. Because this is a 1-1/2 times square footage with both phases, this is a significant enough investment that they should be complying with the Heart of the City. Chair Miller: • Said on the discounted allocation, his concern was they were changing the General Plan. When we set up allocations in the General Plan, we were not considering discounting some of Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 10, 2008 them for different uses. This is essentially a change to the General Plan without a General Plan amendment, which concerns me. Steve Piasecki: • Said it has been done before; he suggested that the Planning Commission think about what the intent of the General Plan allocations are; they are all traffic driven; we think it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan to make this type of discount. He recalled that it was done by City Council with the Public Storage building. It is legitimate because it is consistent with what the overall intent is. Chair Miller: • Said it was never cleaz to him that they were only traffic driven; I would think that there were other considerations, such as other services that the particular structure will require, the amount of job creation it generates particularly if we think about a hotel, it is going to generate jobs that are in the lower economic strata which implies that perhaps there is a lazger requirement for affordable housing in town. There are larger issues here than just traffic which is a concern with respect to discounting. Steve Piasecki • Said he respected that perspective; it could be the intent of the Commission. The only thing in the General Plan that was truly tested was the traffic; we didn't test the jobs housing, imbalance or balance from different uses as much. We also didn't test service levels, we tested the traffic and modeled the traffic. Vice Chair Giefer: • In the a-mail from the applicant, one of the requests they had was that Phase 2 phasing be approved for 5 yeazs if Council approves it. What is the normal length of the approval? Colin Jung: • Relative to the phasing, we have some interesting situations in the city where some very old use permits, where a portion was built out and the other portion was not, and those have been laying vested for more than a decade. We have had development agreements for projects, particulazly the Civic Center project, for 7 years. The ability to put a time limitation on it says that they are not locking themselves into this particular building, that in the event, in the future something else comes up, they have the flexibility to address that. That would be a wise thing to do to put a limitation on the second phase as faz as the timing goes, for future option. If need be, if the applicant believes they cannot do the building within a reasonable time period after the five years, they can apply for a modification of that. Steve Piasecki: • He recalled that staff originally recommended that there not be a phasing; that both buildings be required to be built at the same time. The concern was raised about having the hotel in the back and having a vacant parking lot in the front, but nothing ever happened. If you were to go with the phasing, five years is not unreasonable. Vice Chair Giefer: • Did staff have any conversations with the applicant to get rid of the half court given their proximity to Memorial Pazk and the recreational facilities there. • Referring to Sheet DR-2, there is minimal surface parking in the common areas or around the hotel; there aze no swales included, or will they be required to include that on their above ground parking. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 10, 2008 Colin Jung: • Said that they did not have any conversations with the applicant about the half court. • Said that given the intensification of the site, it has been challenging to do the C3 requirements, the swales, and there is a sheet addressing that in the plan set. Karen Ngo, Sand Hill Properties: • Said one of the suggestions from staff was to shaze the underground parking. I noticed some of you had some questions about why we were not opening up the underground parking. The main reason is for security for the hotel guests when they are going into a gazage; we want them to be secure; generally it will be cazd access provided to guests. • Another issue was recommending that we do the Heart of the City along the entire Stevens Creek Boulevard. Our thoughts on that are we aze requesting as part of this project to subdivide the pazcels into two; the developer of the hotel and the retail will be under different ownership than the rest of the center. • Said their development of the hotel and retail center does not have any frontage on Stevens Creek, it is quite limited. The section in front of their parcel is difficult to implement the Heart of the City because of all the fiber optics and other items that aze in that section which is why staff originally recommended that they improve the sections in front of the Shane Company. • Said they felt it was not fair to impose the $100K contribution for bridge improvement. If the city passed an ordinance that would require such a contribution for Highway 85 to certain projects in the area, it may be a faire solution, rather than impose the fee on their project. • The green building is achievable, at least the base LEEDS certification without too many issues. We will voluntarily look at whether we can upgrade into a silver certification, but at this time it is too eazly for us to promise that we would do a silver certification. There is the issue with Marriott, they do not have a LEED plan yet that we can follow. There may be cost issues that we have to look into and we will consider silver certification; but at this time all we can agree to is to do a base LEED certification. Com. Brophy: • The most difficult issue is the Mary Avenue pazking. At the previous meeting the staff said that if the issue came to the point where the pazking spaces currently on Mary Avenue were not to be allowed for landscaping, they would recommend denial of the project. • At least some of us believe strongly the other way that the prime spaces adjacent to the Senior Center and Memorial Park should not be closed down for pazking. Is there any solution that works for you that would not involve closing the parking spaces on Mary Avenue. Karen Ngo: • Said there was a staff recommendation to leave those both pazking; there could be a larger landscape buffer between the hotel and the street. We feel that a single row of trees works for us and have no objection to that. Com. Brophy: • I think the problem is that cutting it back to 36 spaces instead of 48 doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution. Have you had any discussions with staff that would enable you to do your project without using up the public parking spaces currently on Mary Avenue. Karen Ngo: • No, we have looked at the options that they recommended to move the hotel 20 feet towazds the south; to share the parking, we just don't know how they would implement that, so to answer your question, we currently don't have a solution to that. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 10, 2008 Com. Rose: • When talking to staff about doing an improvement to the Stevens Creek azea, keeping in mind walkability, how did you decide to improve the azea azound the Shane Company, vs. the other azeas down Stevens Creek in front of this hotel area. • At the last meeting we talked about sustainability; when you went back to them with our feedback about sustainability, what discussion did you have and what kinds of processes or programs aze they either working on or do they have finalized at the corporate level for development. Karen Ngo: • It is a fairly easy azea to improve because there is a buffer there; we could easily move the sidewalk into a planting strip there. Our property has no frontage on Stevens Creek and we felt that azea was equivalent to the frontage we have, and it financially worked for us to improve that area as well. • They have an operations program, but as faz as actually for new construction, they don't have a program; however, they would be willing to work along with us to switch out certain materials that would be sustainable. Marriott has not looked at our building specifically to implement a solaz system. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked if they were amenable to adding the embellishments to the other sides of the building as well that were on the north, the improved section with the awnings and grills. Karen Ngo: • Said they did not have plans to add it to the west side which is the freeway side. • The view is sunk lower, the highway is about 10 feet grade difference between our site and the highway and there is also another 12 feet sound wall. Essentially on the west side of the building it is close to one, and there is another row of trees. You really won't see that building except for the fourth floor and we feel that by upgrading to the the roof, it adds a lot to that elevation when you are driving down Highway 85. Vice Chair Giefer: Said she did not necessazily agree; but acknowledged her comments. She said she was not sure how much the half court would be used; that is a Marriott requirement. Karen Ngo: • Said the pool and the half court aze Marriott requirements. • Said that they were proposing to eliminate the row of trees furthest away from the hotel. If we did not have the second row of trees, we would be able to put the parking back. We want to eliminate the trees on the street pazking on Mary Avenue. Colin Jung: • Said they were dropping the trees in front of the pool; it wasn't part of the applicant's proposal. • Said that staff did not feel it was possible to get the desired landscaping with just a single row of trees. Chair Miller: • Asked applicant what her feeling was about a smaller building. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 10, 2008 Karen Ngo: • We have looked at the size of the hotel, and financially from a projection standpoint, this is the size that we would need to be able to build this project. With the retail as well, we looked at numerous variations of this plan, shrinking the hotel, enlarging the hotel, shrinking retail, etc. and this is the size that works for us. Chair Miller: • What is your feeling about doing the landscaping on Stevens Creek Boulevard with the second phase. Have you had some discussions with the rest of the shopping center management to some way share the cost. Karen Ngo: • We feel we have no frontage on Stevens Creek. We have had discussions with the center management and they are not inclined to do that. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she felt the project needed more noticing; and I think that the project is setting an interesting precedent for Cupertino. Everything we have in Cupertino now is lovely and beautiful and has matured landscaping and is not overbuilt. This project has some interesting buildings; a hotel, a convention center, excellent ideas, but one of the main problems is that the site is being overbuilt. Cupertino or the future of Cupertino is being decided here. Are we San Francisco, Los Angeles, Manhattan; are we going to become a small city, a very dense, tightly compacted buildings similar to San Francisco. We have land; Cupertino now in this area has a lot of very lovely areas of vegetation. • I hope that whatever is created at the Oaks is going to be lovely, mature landscape and match the rest of the shopping center which is generally one story. I think we need to shrink the size of the hotel and the size of the convention center, or put them together because convention centers travel with hotels. The site has good plans but needs to be reduced in size; we need to have adequate landscaping around it and I am not happy with the western elevation along Highway 85 of the hotel. Dick Weaver, Cupertino resident: • The draft packet distributed addresses fish, fowl, trees, and says people are safe from noise, flood, wildfire; but this is a polluted site; harm is going to come to people on this site. My father was a commercial fisherman; I am comforted to know that no fish are at harm, but how can you forward a project to the City Council; how can you go beyond these steps not knowing what harm comes to people from being on this site. I would appreciate an answer to that. • Said that if a pregnant woman works or lives on this site for 30 days, the odds of a birth defect increase. For each day spent on this site past that, the odds will increase further. There are some things that can be done to mitigate that; you could not allow pregnant employees; you could not allow pregnant women to register at the hotel, you could keep it a secret. The question is what has Sand Hill Properties recommended to the owner about this site, and is there problems going to come out of it. • How can the fish be safe, but we don't talk about humans. Christine Troy, student: • Suggested that there be a proposal to limit some retail space for independent ownership, and not just fill the retail space with corporate ownerships. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 June 10, 2008 Michael , Hobees Restaurant: • Said he was confused about sharing the parking. There are two pazcels being developed, and the pazking is going to be shazed except for the new underground parking and taking away parking spaces from the existing parcel. I don't understand how that is going to work with the existing restaurants and retail. • The other question is we are going to shaze a common azea known as the trash azea and where is that common boundary. We are not sharing with the new; we aze sharing with the old; yet we aze going back to sharing the trash; and I don't understand how the two parcels are going to work together. • Said he was confused that the existing building has the obligation to clean up Stevens Creek but yet they aze shazing pazking and the maintenance of the pazking. . Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Colin Jung: • Referred to Attachment A1, original staff report. What we did was we looked at the aggregate, page 2-39 of the staff report, and that has to do with analyzing the existing pazking situation. Not only the existing businesses but taking a look at the contribution of the proposed businesses looking at their individual parking demands, but more importantly recognizing that there is a shared parking situation with the Oaks Shopping Center. • The determination that there is a shazed parking requirement in the first phase which includes the hotel, 356 pazking stalls and the pazking that would be supplied would be 494, so we aze looking at roughly 140 surplus at the center; recognizing that a certain amount of that pazking is going to be in the parking garage and it wasn't the intention of the applicant to share that parking. • In the second phase, some more of the surface parking would be removed; the garage would be built and you would have the pazking contribution, the pazking demand for the mixed use building. He said they went through it tenant by tenant, looking at their parking requirements and then assuming a commercial tenancy for the mixed use building and came up with a shared parking requirement of 417 stalls for the combinations of uses • He pointed out that staff recognizes that the applicant doesn't intend to shaze parking spaces and that is why they felt it was important to keep the balance between the existing tenants and the future tenants and their more restrained parking supply that we moderate, not the maximum number of restaurant seats that could go into the Oaks without use permit review. • The current ceiling is 800; we had suggested that it be dropped to 500 which is well above what the existing restaurant seating count of 310 spaces. There were many more restaurants there in the past, and staff recognizes that the Pacific Fresh which was a very large restaurant was replaced by the Shane Company and the onsite parking demand has been reduced commensurately with the change of uses from restaurant to retail. That addresses some of the parking comments. • There is only one trash facility being proposed for the center. The central trash facility was in the corner of the property; staffls main concern was that there was adequate facility for the entire center. The applicant has chosen to develop a common facility for all the tenants and they reviewed the requirements with the Public Works Department to look at the trash recycling needs for all the businesses there. That is the reason there is such a lazge common area facility on the common area pazcel and that is intended to be shared by all of the tenants. • Your other questions related to reserving commercial spaces for independent business owners; it has been an issue in other communities; principally Los Gatos where they have a prohibition on corporate owned businesses in their downtown azea; there is a favoritism towazd home spun businesses; that is an issue that has not been tackled by Cupertino. Cupertino is happy when Cupertino Planning Commission 15 June 10, 2008 someone wants to locate in Cupertino, regazdless of whether they aze a corporate owner or individual business owner. Steve Piasecki: Staff is most concerned that the applicants have sufficient flexibility so they can attract successful tenants and will provide needed services in the community. If you begin to insist that they also have to be independent, you would not have Stazbucks or Goldstone or a number of very desirable chain type uses and you might have a less successful shopping center. We don't do it anywhere else in Cupertino and we don't have a policy format suggesting that we do start doing it here either. Relative to air pollution; he referred to the staff report where there is an environmental evaluation checklist which looks at everything; and staff is required under State law to do an initial study and complete the checklist. It has some inane concepts and is aone-size-fits-all checklist; so whether you have fish or not you have to check it that you don't, and that it is not an impact. On the issue of aze there dangers in this particulaz site; this site is no different than hundreds if not thousands of other residential sites throughout the State of California, and hotel sites everywhere along freeways. Said it there was proven evidence of a health hazard, the State of California would take it up and dictate that in no case would you have these any kind of extended stay activities neaz a freeway site. Staff does a checklist, but does not pick out the last few sites along the freeways and prohibit them from being utilized for hotels. Com. Kaneda: • Asked if the change of the recommendation for restaurants from 800 to 500 seats has been voiced to the owner of the Oaks Center or is it something we are just changing without talking to them. Colin Jung: • Staff had identified that as a concern with the applicant from the eazliest stages of the application and the applicant is representing the property owner; we aze assuming they have talked to the property owner about this. On the off chance that it was not brought up in their conversation, we did set the level well above what their current restaurant seating was to allow for future growth needs. We felt it was important and we aze not quite sure how the applicant would be implementing this, but we felt it was important that if they ever did build the mixed use building and part of their retail strategy was to put restaurant uses in that mixed use building, they would not encumber the rest of the pazking by shazing that without providing a portion of that pazking in the parking garage. We are leaving that to the applicant to figure out how to do that and if restaurants aze proposing a mixed use building, we will be watchful of that. Com. Kaneda: • We aze talking about underground pazking that when fully built out is 165 spots. In the first phase you have 84 spots; presumably dedicated to the hotel users. When you fully build out to 165 spots, who aze the additional 81 spots allocated to? Is that to the hotel also? Karen Ngo: • It would be for the retail users; it is a mixed use. In order to secure it our initial thought is to dedicate those to the office tenants for the office pazking. We could more easily secure that than if we opened it up for retail pazking. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 10, 2008 Com. Rose: • Returning to the concept of phasing which was discussed extensively at the last meeting, and I know at that point the majority of the Commission felt that we should allow the applicant to phase the project; what obligation do they have to do the second phase; it could just as well happen or not; with the agreement for phasing. Steve Piasecki: • Said that was correct. Following are the issues the Planning Commission has not reached a consensus on: Issue: Landscaping vs. Parking on Marv Avenue Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that after the last meeting, every a-mail received indicated that they did not want to see the pazking on Mary Avenue disappear. She said she was in favor of the 20 feet of landscape setback with the double rows of trees, but was not willing to give up the Mary Avenue pazking spaces. She said she was in favor of keeping the pazking spaces and set the hotel back 20 feet from Mary Avenue, with the double row of trees. Com. Brophy: • Agreed with Vice Chair Giefer; I think I understand Steve Piasecki point about his concern about a 4-story building being as close to the property line as it is. I think if we get down to a choice between losing the parking spaces or being close, I would rather be close than lose the spaces. These are not just 36 spaces out of 380, these aze the 36 closest spaces, the ones that Senior Center users who don't have permits use; families with small children that go there every weekend. I feel we need to protect the public parking along Mary Avenue that serves Memorial Park and the Senior Center. • Said his preference would be to require that the project be moved back so that it has a suitable setback. Com. Kaneda: • Said he supported that. Com. Rose: • Said she agreed; they received many a-mails from the public. Many people who were not able to be present tonight, were very concerned about changing the pazking. She also felt that the landscaping of the trees is really critical to buffering the 4-story building; it is a big change in architecture for that azea and it is important to buffer it and try to make the impact as minimal as possible. • Also, moving that building back towazd Stevens Creek would allow us to preserve the pazking and maintain the trees. I think if this project was not phased and we knew that the second part was going to be occur, perhaps we would have more concern about how that change in the hotel location could affect the second building; but I think the applicants made it cleaz that they don't want to make that commitment to that phase right now, and therefore this is a good solution to what the community is asking, which is that we preserve the pazking and buffer the size of the building. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 June 10, 2008 Chair Miller: Based on that, does that change the application considerably at this point because I think there were some comments in the staff report that the current size of the second phase building would not fit on the site. Steve Piaseclu: • If what you aze saying is design the buildings so that you have an additiona120 feet of setback from the property line, that gives the applicant several different options to redesign it. They could cut a piece out of that section neazest to Mary Avenue; they could cut a piece out and slide it over a few feet; there aze a number of options available to them and while we understand Marriott is a big corporation and they have one plan they stamp in many locations, I don't think it would take too much of a redesign of this building to accommodate the additional setback. They may disagree. • I think it is important; you need to have that one-to-one relationship. Com. Kaneda: • Alternatively find another solution that is not giving up pazking spaces in that azea. My sense is that the concern is not losing those pazking spaces; somehow if they could find some other way to either come up with a deal with the center to allow use of the parking spaces, or do something similaz; then I think the issue is pazking spaces. Steve Piasecki: • If that is acceptable to the Commission, that is another way they could accomplish that; but you would have to write the condition to say that they accomplish it in one of two or three ways. Colin Jung: • Something that has not been considered, if the concern is a particulaz segment of the population that uses that parking, it would be within the city's power to designate more of that pazking for senior center. They could require senior center pazking permits for a segment of that diagonal parking which would push the subsidized DeAnza College students further north. Com. Brophy: • Said he was opposed to any solution that takes away the pazking. I concept of trying to squaze the circle is not acceptable. Issue: Landscaping on Stevens Creek Boulevard Com. Rose: • Said that some of her neighbors aze excited about the hotel being built that could be utilized for visitors and family. Said that a project of that size will make an impact that many people will initially have difficulty with, even though they aze not present voicing their opinions. We represent their interests and the interests of the city, and I think that when you do something like this, you also give back to the community in which you aze going to be joining. With that, I think that it is reasonable to extend what Cupertino has already done successfully in front of Panera Breads, you drive up Stevens Creek and the whole azea is becoming really landscaped nicely with the comfortable walking azea; it is a busy street. The proposed changes; the Shane Company is a nice place but as pointed out, it is actually the most comfortable area to walk already along this stretch; so I feel that the improvements should be continuing to your hotel. I realize that the hotel doesn't sit right on this space, but it seems to me that many of your residents I am hoping aze going to want to walk to the Flint Center, the pazk. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 June 10, 2008 Some of the rooms have kitchenettes and it would nice if the hotel guests could walk down to Whole Foods; the azea is high traffic and I realize we aze not mitigating all the traffic. It is a reasonable thing to make the improvements that staff has suggested along Stevens Creek. It follows the Heart of the City Plan and makes the area nice not only for the hotel guests, but also for the residents in the azea. Com. Kaneda: • Agreed with Com. Rose; the area I am focused on is the azea between the two entrances, that is the azea that is most in need of improvements; and even though the hotel doesn't front up to Stevens Creek Boulevazd, I am sure that there will be plenty of traffic using the entrance into the site as the entrance to the hotel. I could see the nexus of improving that azea. That is the azea I am focused on; not the Shane Company. • Said he would be content with improvement to that particulaz azea as opposed to the entire stretch. Com. Brophy: • Said he had mixed feelings; it would be nice to see some improvement on the stretch between the two driveways; given the narrowness of the space from the existing sidewalk to where the pazking is, I would hope that any expectations of design we have be sufficiently limited to reflect the limitations and not impose it on due cost upon the development. That would be an excess of any benefit. • If we were to do anything, I would prefer to do it between the two driveways rather than the Shane property. The Shane property can be done less expensively; but although the Shane Company is not done to the standazds of the Heart of the City Plan, it still is a reasonably attractive section and is shaded by the trees on its front lawn. I would rather focus our efforts on the space between the driveways and come up with a concept that would get the most bang for the buck given the limitations of the site. Steve Piaseclu: • Said if they were redeveloping the center of the shopping center in the future, you would tear out that; it would be an interim improvement. On balance, if you are looking for a compromise, I think the Heart of the City improvements aze more important through as we have suggested, the full in front of Shane Company, and the partial Panera solution in front of the rest, and more important than the bridge. The bridge is seed money, $100K, it cost you that much to landscape your yazd these days. It is not going to go very far, so if you want an offer a compromise, that would be the one I would suggest. Com. Kaneda: • The other issue is planting and tree pits and if we aze going to do anything at all, perhaps looking at what is the proper planting; so if you aze going to demo that azea, could we at least do something where you have the trees planted in a way that those would be able to stay and we don't start over with small trees ten yeazs from now. Steve Piasecla: • Said they have done that in the past, and cited Menlo Equities Metropolitan as a good example where the pazkway went in and the trees were preserved. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she supported landscaping between the two driveways minimally; and implementing staff's recommendation on that. From my perspective, the nexus that I see is it is the southern entrance to the hotel, and there may not be a sign in front of it saying it's the primary entrance, Cupertino Planning Commission 19 June 10, 2008 but the residents of the hotel aze going to realize it quickly that they can pull in there and not go down Mary Avenue. Chair Miller: • I think we have a compromise here; the applicant was proposing some in front of the Shane Company, the majority of the Commissioners want something between the two driveways; I think something between the two driveways is where we are headed on this issue. Issue: The Stevens Creek Bridge Com. Brophy: • Said he was opposed to the "let's make a deal" approach to development management. Even for those of you who may accept that concept, we ask for money for offsite improvements that have nothing to do with the project at hand because we say. This is the wrong project to do it on. All the examples Colin Jung gave in his presentation I believe are residential projects at least in part and the economic realities of development in Cupertino is that residential projects are in the position to pay up when the city asks for things that aze not in the city code. In the case of hotels that contribute substantially to our budget to pay for the public services that our citizens desire, it is harder for their numbers to work; and I think we should recognize that and save the philosophical debate for another day. Vice Chair Giefer: Said she did not disagree with Com. Brophy; but was vacillating because there are businesses along Bubb Road and in her own career many times you would have preferred not to have a caz. If you can walk, and especially if one is from out of town or out of the country, one would prefer not to drive in an unfamiliaz city. I do see some nexus between people who may be staying at the hotel and working at the businesses on Bubb Road; at some point we aze going to see Measurex come back to us for further projects on that. I would make the same argument with them, even though they aze further away. We are not going to see a lot of residential development on the west side of the city, so I would like to see some contribution towazd that project; not just from this developer but every developer that comes in. Perhaps $100K is too much; but again I don't have a firm position on this one. I would like to see that bridge improved because I think people would be more comfortable in it; I believe people will walk towazds the Bubb Road businesses; and in reverse, but it is a difficult one. Com. Kaneda: • I also have mixed feeling on this. I know we have done this before on similaz types of things on other projects, and my concern is that there doesn't seem to be a fixed approach to how this is handled. My concern is that of equity and I would like to see some improvements on that bridge, but the thing I am uncleaz on is how that gets funded and who should rightfully fund it if we are doing things like this. Com. Rose: We agree that the bridge is not up to paz for walking, and our hope is that as we anticipate additional commercial improvements in the Bubb Road azea, which we hope will then support the hotel. Those two factors, again we have this bridge that is sub-par, so I am wondering if we consider a lower amount; we ask Marriott to contribute an amount, and some of the structures that come to us on Bubb Road in the future might be able to help us by contributing; and it improves the situation for all businesses. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 June 10, 2008 Com. Brophy: • One new condition that had been added since our first meeting was Condition 29, Traffic Signal Improvements for the Stevens Creek/Mary intersection. I think that is a much more realistic area in which to expect contributions because we did a specific traffic study that looked at the impact of this project and it would seem more realistic to treat the Stevens Creek bridge over Highway 85 as a general government problem and to act on requirement No. 29 as a form of offsite contribution; because I think there is a much stronger case. Chair Miller: Said he felt that bridge improvements are needed; however, he does not see the nexus with the hotel application; and could see a potentially stronger nexus for a shopping center remodel because there is more benefit there. He thought it is an equity issue, and don't think it is fair to ask this applicant to contribute to that bridge at this time. He also agreed with Com. Brophy's observation that it is far more important that they contribute to the improvement of the traffic signal, and that they make sure that traffic is flowing properly and not stacking up. A straw vote showed 2 votes for no contribution to the bridge improvement. Vice Chair Giefer: • Suggested a minimal contribution of $25,000 towards bridge improvement. Issue: Sustainabilitv Com. Kaneda: • Suggested LEED silver; I don't think that is a tremendously difficult hurdle to jump over; and from what I heard it sounds like the Marriott is looking at and amenable to putting in sustainable features into the building. Com. Rose: • Said she agreed with Com. Kaneda, and felt it would reflect well on the community as well when the building is built for them to know that they are forward thinking and Marriott will be forward thinking also. Com. Brophy: • Said he would be willing to accept the applicant's proposal for LEED certification. I have a problem of putting in conditions that are not in the code; we are already committed to looking at the building code to upgrade it. Rather than setting different deals with every application that we have, I would accept certification and just wait and with the need to upgrade it if needed in the future. Com. Kaneda: • I think especially in view of the fact that also this is a residential property, that people are going to be spending a lot of time in, I feel more strongly than I would in some of the other applications, because there are issues with indoor air quality and the environment that you are in that are improved with a green building. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she supported LEED silver, because by defacto every project that has come before the Planning Commission for quite a while now, the have stipulated that it be LEED silver; it is trending and setting a defacto standard by conditioning that consistently upon all the projects that come to the Planning Commission. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 June 10, 2008 Chair Miller: • There is a consensus for LEED silver. Issue: Discounted Allocation Vice Chair Giefer: • I don't support discounting the allocation because I do think when we put the General Plan numbers together, we have a certain expectation on what those numbers meant and I think that it is not being consistent by discounting the FAR for this project and the allocation. Com. Kaneda: • Said it was out of his expertise, but if he understood the conversation earlier, about how it relates to the General Plan and making modifications to the General Plan, he would agree that if they are going to be doing that, and if this is a methodology, then they should think about discussing modifying the General Plan to address this. Com. Rose: • Said she supported Com. Kaneda's comments. Chair Miller: • Said he strongly supported those comments, but felt they were opening Pandora's box by doing this. • You could make an argument also; there are communities that restrict their allocations based on sewer capacity; why would you chose one service over another, and I could just see that if we agreed to this, the next thing that will happen is when we have a senior application; the senior application will come in and say seniors only generate one-third of the traffic of everybody else; therefore they should only be required to have a third of the allocation. • I don't support it. Issue: Reduction in Restaurant Seating Com. Brophy: • Said he did not have a strong feeling about that; but if the applicant requests 600 instead of 500, especially if they don't lose the parking spaces on Mary Avenue, he was willing to go with the applicant's request for 600. Vice Chair Giefer: Referred to the concern that Michael from Hobees expressed about the restaurant issue. When somebody visits a site to patronize the business, if there is surface parking vs. underground parking, they are always going to go for the surface parking first; it is closest to whatever business it is. I am very concerned that there is no reciprocal parking between the proposed development and the existing businesses. I would anticipate that a significant percentage of the Marriott mixed use project customers will utilize the existing Oaks above ground parking; but the existing Oaks patrons will not be able to utilize the underground parking if that is the only space available in the entire center. That philosophically bothers me, because it is as though there is one-sided shared parking and it's not on the side of the new development. Mathematically it makes sense, and they could have 600 seats in a restaurant, but the reality is not 100% of those patrons will use that underground parking. Many of them will use the surface parking and utilize the above ground spaces allocated for the other Oaks restaurants, monopolizing those parking spaces. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 June 10, 2008 • I would not support increasing restaurant seats unless we address the above ground shazed pazking with the below ground shared pazking. Com. Kaneda: • Said he shazed the concern; and asked if there was a way to condition Marriott to specify that the pazking for residents is under the building and that the pazking for the center is not for people staying at the hotel. Com. Rose: • Said she did not know what the solution is. She agreed that is what people will do; the last place you go is into the parking gazage. Chair Miller: • What we seem to gravitate to when we have problems is valet pazking. Hotels do a lot of valet parking. Potentially one of the solutions is that we have some condition that if pazking becomes a problem, that the hotel is required to do valet parking or they open their parking for shazed pazking. One solution is to try it the way it is proposed; but if it doesn't work, the parking either has to be opened up or the hotel goes to valet pazking. Colin Jung: • There is a failsafe device if pazking becomes a problem; I believe it is already in the 1986 use permit where they said if pazking becomes a problem, then the city has the right to reopen the use permit to address any pazking problem. What is likely going to happen, is that if there is an issue with lack of onstreet parking and the lack of being able to pazk in the underground gazage, more they will probably spill out on the Mazy Avenue pazking, which would become even more important. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked the applicant if opening up the underground pazking was a deal breaker with Marriott? Karen Ngo: • There seems to be concern about shazed parking, but we did the pazking in Phase 1, even if there was not shazed pazking, there is sufficient pazking according to code, even if the pazking was shared. In Phase 1 we have 494 stalls and without any shared use clause, our requirement is only about 400 pazking, so we have a surplus of 94 spaces. Com. Kaneda: • Said in the city the parking does meet the code but they have horrendous pazking problems in the pazking lot. The concern is if it turns out there is a pazking problem at some point in the future and the underground parking gazage is half empty they aze pazked all the way up Mary Ave because the lot is totally full and people aze cruising azound. Karen Ngo: • Said they would be open to looking at opening that pazking if that situation azises. • Said they were not comfortable with the stipulation that all the pazking be open and shazed at this point. • She said they could look at shazed pazking during daylight but after 9 p.m. a key is needed for entry for the residents of the office building. • She said she did not understand, if the concern is that people will park on the surface, how would it alleviate the situation. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 June 10, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • It would give reciprocal opportunity to the Oaks patrons. If somebody is looking for a space and can't find a space between Coffee Society and the gym, the next closest parking is the underground parking for them. If it is key locked those patrons cannot go and take advantage of those parking spaces but 100% of your residential customers can take advantage of the surface parking should they choose to, but 0% of the patrons of the rest of the shopping center can take advantage of key locked underground parking during the day. That's what I am trying to avoid, so I think if it were open parking during the day and key locked from 9 p.m., it would accomplish the security issues which I agree with, it would serve both parties. Karen Ngo: • Said they could look at it, but would need more time to review it further. She did not have an immediate answer if it would work for them. Com. Kaneda: • I am comfortable leaving it stand as is, as long as we have the ability if we find out we do have a parking problem to revisit and change the way the parking is done. Vice Chair Giefer: • What would be the mechanism if that were an issue? Complaints? Code Enforcement? Steve Piasecki: • Suggest writing a condition similar to what Chair Miller was speaking to earlier, that in the event that the city determines there is a parking problem, it could be the City Council or Planning Commission determining it, that the applicant would agree to explore a variety of methods to address that problem including opening up the parking during whatever times, utilizing valet services, or other solutions as found suitable at that time. You can identify it as a problem based on bringing it forward and at that time we would need to document to what degree it is a problem. Colin Jung: • Said there was a written condition which was incorporated into the model resolution. Refer to Page 2-165 Future Parking Problems. Steve Piaseclu: • This application is a modification of the old one and the old conditions remain in full force and effect. Vice Chair Giefer: • It does not include some of the other examples we have been putting on the more contemporary. Colin Jung: • They are just examples and you could add or subtract; it is a concern and it would be within their authority for the Planning Commission to address it in a matter it sees fit. Steve Piasecld: • Suggested putting in a specific clause referencing the 1986 agreement so that it is available. • In response to Chair Miller's suggestion to make the first example sharing all the parking on the site, staff said to modify the reference to the conditions. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 June 10, 2008 Chair Miller: Suggested changing A as organize employee caz pool and van program, to B and make A open up all the pazking; the shazed pazking, including the underground parking. Steve Piaseclu: • Since not literally changing this condition, you would say, and adding, the first is opening up the pazking or having valet services or any of the other solutions. Architecture Com. Brophy: • The way it is drafted, it leaves it open and we can deal with it another time. Colin Jung: • Said that the applicant is willing to do some of the enhancements on the west side of the hotel, but not all that are being recommended by the city architect. The enhancements they are willing to do are extending the building face which is the one thing that won't be visible; extending the roof eaves and putting the eave brackets up. The top and the bottom would be addressed but none of the things in the middle which would be addressed with window insetting awnings and balcony grills. Steve Piaseclci: • Said he did not think there was any problem with the Planning Commission making it cleaz in this condition that you would expect to see some enhancements to all elevations, and then you can decide at that time what is a reasonable level of enhancement. The applicant is correct; the freeway is lowered; this is 15 feet away from the property line; it is very close and it will be a big building and maybe they can demonstrate to you some photo simulations that the trees aze going to provide the screening and you don't need it. Let's leave that for another day. Vice Chair Giefer: • Referring to Condition 12 for the ASA, does that come back to Planning Commission for final review. Steve Piasecki: • Said it has to be approved by the City Council as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. He said he would put the words in regazding the Planning Commission seeing it one more time, all four sides, architecturally enhanced per Larry Cannon's recommendation. Com. Kaneda: • Said although it is on the backside of the building and faces the highway, it would be very visible and massive. In many ways it may be more visible than the front side of the building because there is a big open space in front of it with no trees for about 150 yards. Attention needs to be paid to it. Chair Miller: • Staffls suggestion was to add some words that say `we would like to see some enhancements to four sides'. Colin Jung: • Said that the city azchitect's comments were being implemented partially, more so to the front and only partially to the north/south end. The condition that we have written, and since the Cupertino Planning Commission 25 June 10, 2008 applicant is not in a position to make any commitments at this point, it is wise to adopt the condition as written and have it come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for further design review. Landscaping Com. Kaneda: • Referred to the landscaping strip along Hwy. 85 on the retail convention side, the Phase 2 side of the project. Is there a way to do that landscaping in Phase 1 or is that not feasible, because once you do Phase 2, you end up killing the trees. Steve Piaseclci • Suggested they ask them to plant that out in Phase 1 and do it in a way that ensures a high likelihood of survival. Colin Jung: • Said you could do root barriers too on that side and force the root structures to grow on the non-developable side • Said it was a good idea for the applicants to address all the dead trees currently on the west side. Coms. Rose and Brophy: • Nothing to add. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she supported the earlier comment that the barrier landscaping along Highway 85 be implemented regardless if the front retail parcel is developed or not. • Staff has already addressed the native planting issue in the model resolution. Com. Kaneda: • Said he supported the barrier landscaping. His concern was that when you get into the Phase 2 part of the project, when you start the construction, many times the construction will destroy the landscaping. He asked if they could get rid of the dead trees in Phase 1, and also start cleaning up the screen along the side without doing something that when they get to Phase 2, they will accidentally kill it. It is doable, so I would support doing that complete western edge of landscaping in Phase 1. Com. Rose: • Said she agreed. Chair Miller: • The only comment I would have with that is if we are going to do heavy landscaping along the highway side, that is going to obscure some of the improvements to the building that they are asking the applicant to do. We will wait and see what they come back with at this point. Vice Chair Giefer: • Reassured the public that none of the Oaks were being removed that are proposed. Colin Jung: • Staff wants to make sure that it is not only implementing the Phase 2 landscaping, because the Phase 2 landscaping plan shows the retention of existing trees on the site which are currently Cupertino Planning Commission 26 June 10, 2008 dead. We want to ensure that is modified to indicate that the dead trees should be removed and replaced according to the resolution with a size called for as mitigation in the protected tree ordinance. Vice Chair Giefer: • Clarified that they were not asking them to implement all of the Phase 2 landscaping, just along Highway 85. Solar Heating for Pools Com. Rose: • Said that if that is the past practice, it should be done. Economically it is the wise thing to do. Coms. Kaneda and Brophy: • Said they supported the solar heating requirement. Subdivision vs Condominium Chair Miller: • The consensus at the previous meeting was that four was not acceptable; they are now down to two. Com. Brophy: • Said he was still confused about the question of the common area. There are two condominium lots plus a common area; is that correct. Colin Jung: • Said the common area would be owned by the two condominium owners. It is part of the subdivided parcel and would be under the ownership of Sand Hill Properties. • The common area is the area between the two buildings and everything outside of the footprint of the buildings which includes the trash enclosure and surface parking, which will need to be conditioned with easements to ensure that it is all shared in the center. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt uncomfortable with the arrangement. If both the Building Department and Planning Department are comfortable with the concept, I would support it with reluctance. Steve Piaseclci: • Said that the condition should state that there will be reciprocal ingess/egress and parking arrangements for that common area lot with the existing Oaks Center as well as the two new condominium ownerships. Staff said there was a condition stating that in the tentative map application. Colin Jung: • Said that the common area is shared ownership between condominium owners 1 and 2, with heavy easement restrictions to allow all three including the existing shopping center to use the parking and the waste collection. Cupertino Planning Commission 27 June 10, 2008 Karen Ngo: • Said that it was not a third ownership; but joint ownership between condominium A and B in the common lot area. • If the hotel changes ownership, they sell the hotel and the underground pazking below them, and it would come with a partial ownership of that common lot area. You could not sell it sepazately. Com. Brophy: • Said that the first issue discussed tonight was the need to redesign the center to move back the hotel 20 feet; it seems that the discussion is moot until we can see a revised site plan that would meet that requirement, because presumably we are talking about relocating the buildings. I wonder if we should put the issue on hold until we can resolve the site plan that would meet that issue which is one of the core issues. Karen Ngo: • Said that whether the hotel moves or not, if they continue to build two buildings, they would still have to do tentative and move the line back. Com. Brophy: • Said it was not cleaz that was the case; but he would be open to it with some reluctance. Steve Piaseclci: • Said the Commission could specify in the tentative map that the common azea may be adjusted to reflect the changes to the hotel arrangement because they will need to file a final map to get it recorded. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said fundamentally she had an issue with, they were looking at one pazcel committed to be developed today, and the whole reason why we would want to go condominiums in a standazd subdivision with ingress/egress is because of the fire wall issue that does not present a problem if it is a condominium map. We have no assurance that within the next five years you will actually develop Lot 2. She said at the end of that time, what bothers her is that they never had to do a condominium; if Lot 2 is never developed, we never had to do a condominium map because we don't need that setback for the buyer department issue. All of that becomes moot. How Pazcel 2 is developed Yeaz 6 and forwazd, will proceed independent of what is decided tonight. If there is new ownership and we approve a condominium map tonight, they are locked into this with less flexibility. If we just do a standard subdivision tonight, then it leaves the options open for Parcel 2. • I understand the distinction and why we would need to do from a code perspective; but it doesn't strike me as clean as just doing a standard subdivision. Karen Ngo: • Said they could not approve the project with both phases, unless we only approved one phase and not approve Phase 2, but if you were to approve both phases tonight, you couldn't approve that with the property. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said there was no assurance that Phase 2 will ever be built. Cupertino Planning Commission 28 June 10, 2008 Karen Ngo: • No, but if by approving Phase 2, it would be much easier for us to get a tenant in if we can show them we have city entitlement. If it was not approved we would be shopping for a tenant without any entitlement; we would have to ask them to wait six months until we can get city entitlement. Steve Piasecki: • The agreement between the property owners is property owner buys two pazcels and a common azea; they have reciprocal arrangements; they spin the one parcel to Marriott who builds the hotel; they hold onto the other pazcel and they have a pretty strong incentive to build Phase 2, otherwise you aze sitting on a pazking lot. In a way you are enticing them to go ahead with Phase 2; they probably won't sit on an empty pazking lot for too long. Karen Ngo: • She said they would like to add that they pushed the hotel back 20 feet to keep the pazking and landscaping buffer; most likely they wouldn't be able to build a second building as there isn't enough room to build the second building. Com. Brophy: • Said it was an important point; he spoke with staff between the two meetings about that issue and it is not our role to tell land owners what kind of projects are or aze not feasible, but it seems to me when I look at your concept that you are spending a lot of money building fairly complex pazking structures for a small number of cazs which greatly increases the cost of construction per pazking space. I think you would want to take a look at the idea of whether or not this site can really support two sepazate buildings. It might make more sense to do the hotel and reduce your construction costs for pazking gazages. That is the applicant's call. Given the strong feeling we have about not giving up the pazking spaces on Mary Avenue and needing to move the hotel back 20 feet from Mary Avenue to have an appropriate setback, I would hope that you would look at all the possible options including the possibility of not having a second building. Karen Ngo: • Said they would have to review it. Steve Piasecki: • Said that if this was all one building and you had a condominium division between them, it is a much more efficient way to lay the property out. You lost the problem with the 20 foot because the buildings have been pushed together, they work better together. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with independent ownership that seem to have the independent building format because it is causing many problems. Chair Miller: • Said he was not certain he wanted to presume anything at this point; there are other solutions to the issue of making sure we have both the landscaping and the pazking on Mary Avenue. I would not presuppose that the only solution is to lose 20 feet out of the second building at this point. I am inclined not to hamstring the applicant at this point by not approving something that I do not personally think is such a lazge issue in terms of the condominium map and I would rather give the applicant the opportunity to take a look at this, and if need be come up with some creative solution. By not approving the second building or not approving the condominium map, we are limiting possibilities for further innovation here, and allowing this whole project to go forwazd. Cupertino Planning Commission 29 June 10, 2008 I would rather assume that the applicant is going to build the second building as they have proposed as opposed to coming in and proposing something they have no intention of building in the first place. There is a lot of work and effort, and time and money that went into the second building. At this point, I have to assume that they intend to do it, and they aze going to try to f gure out a way to do it. I would rather allow them to move forward and see what happens. It will go to the City Council in a week and by that time they may have thought through this and come up with a better solution. Coms. Kaneda, Brophy, and Rose: • Concurred with Chair Miller. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she did not want to hamstring the applicant • She said they did not spend any time discussing the commercial building, the mixed used retail. Should it be part of the ASA or should be that withdrawn from the ASA and come back to the Planning Commission with a more firm plan. For that building, we have put some restriction on them in terms of Mary Avenue setbacks which may change what they come back to us with. We spent no time talking about that building. Steve Piaseclci: • Suggested they make the same comment about the second phase azchitecture coming back to you and the City Council since it isn't as cleaz as you would like it to be. It is a function of the use, the use ground floor is retail and they have the conference space and office. He said he did not feel the use layout was a problem; show us the fine details when you aze ready. He said to incorporate that building into Condition 12 as well. Vice Chair Giefer: • If the applicant came back to us and decided that they were going to build only one building and went in a direction that Com. Brophy brought up where they decided to build no underground parking, and one structure; and we granted them a condominium subdivision map tonight, what would they need to do at that point; would they keep the two pazcels with the common azea with one building on them? Steve Piasecla: • Said the latter part was correct; they would just have a pazcel. We have other empty parcels in town. They could come back and amend the conditions. Colin Jung: • Said that they had not discussed applicant's proposal for an expiration date on the second phase. Five yeazs was suggested. Chair Miller: • Said as suggested by staff, they should include a condition that says to show the fine details on the second building. Steve Piasecki: • Relative to the expiration date on the second phase, he said that they want applicants to tell them if they want to have a phasing plan, otherwise they have a two yeaz increment that they have to activate the use permit. Staff has referred to some developments where they have activated part of it. He suggested leaving it as a five yeaz option. Cupertino Planning Commission 30 June 10, 2008 • The applicant agreed to a five year duration for the second phase. • All Commissioners concurred with the 5 yeaz period. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to recommend approval of use permit U-2007-04, architectural and site approval ASA-2007-06, EA-2007-06, EXC-2008-07, TM-2007-09, TR-2008-02 as amended tonight. (Vote: 5-0-0) The application will be forwazded to the City Council on June 17, 2008. Chair Miller declazed a recess. 3. Heart of the City Specific Plan amendments to achieve conformance with the General Plan Tentative Ciry Council date: June 17, 2008 Steve Piasecki: • Provided directions to the Planning Commission to receive the report, inform staff if the Commission agrees with the general direction they aze taking so staff can go back and draft it based on the general direction. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Said that the Heazt of the City Specific Plan update was approved with the 2008 City Council work program in February 2008. The updates aze due to three reasons: 1) The policies of the General Plan are in direct conflict with the Specific Plan. 2) Vagueness and repetition of the same concepts making the document difficult to read. 3) Prescriptive requirements that try to fit one set of requirements for all types of pazcels. • She reviewed the recommended changes in the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan as outlined in the staff report and answered Commissioner's questions about the update. • Staff is seeking Planning Commission comments to incorporate them into the final document that the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council in July 2008. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it would be helpful for the next meeting for staff to bring examples of what did work, and worked well, vs. what did not. The last slide you showed us of the Travina; that one has never looked consistent with what I think of the Heart of the City streetscaping, and I think it is because it doesn't have a double row planted trees and the sidewalk seems to be narrower. • I heaz what you are saying with the side setbacks, I think that makes sense; but in practicality, and as we flush this out, obviously we need to think about getting onto the site and off the site, gazbage pickup. We need to think about how that whole boulevazd is going to work as well. Street furniture; I don't think bike racks are included in that; but I have seen some really nice bike racks and a lot more people are bicycling now. We need to think about how to incorporate more bike and ped traffic as part of this as well. Com. Brophy: • Nothing to add. Com. Kaneda: • Said he had conversations with staff about what they are trying to accomplish, but he still did not fully understand the three different areas; what is different about what you aze trying to do there; how faz along you aze; and how well it is working, and those types of issues. He Cupertino Planning Commission 31 June 10, 2008 reiterated that he did not have a good enough understanding of how all these pieces fit together. Com. Rose: • Said she appreciated Com. Kaneda's comment, and felt Vice Chair Giefer brought up some good points as well. Chair Miller: • Said his understanding was that they were focusing on inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Specific Plan, vagueness and repetition of some of the concepts, prescriptive requirements that try to generalize from one example to the many, and not really addressing conceptual issues at all here. It is a fairly prescriptive exercise. The only comment I would add is if you take out the requirement for the side setbacks, everybody is going to ask what is the requirement for the side setbacks. Perhaps there needs to be some language with respect to side setbacks there. • There is a setback requirement and they are going to have to get an exception or variance in order to change it, but perhaps there is some language that says we are amenable to exceptions for the following reasons and elaborate so that people understand. Put it in writing and try to clarify it, rather than not have it in writing and have everyone call asking questions. Steve Piasecki: • Said it has been one of the most problematic areas and it doesn't seem to further the public objectives; there is no debate about having a front setback and no debate about how you treat the rear property lines adjoining residential. Offset buildings, set them back, screen them; but when we get into the side setback issues as staff indicated, if you get into less than 100 foot depth and you have two 20-foot setbacks, you have a 60 foot skinny building and you apply for an exception, and we have had a lot of resistance to the word "exception" let alone the concept of exception. We think that when it was put into the Plan, it was just as you suggested, that it was just a mechanism to allow you to focus on what is the right thing to do in this particular property; but it hasn't been the experience at all. My suggestion is if we put in some kind of language about setbacks, it needs to be respectful of the neighbors, it should provide for the utilitarian value of the property in terms of trash and garbage. Otherwise you may have zero side setbacks and that may be the most appropriate location on site. • Would rather look at it on a case-by-case basis, have some language about the consistency between buildings, and then just get rid of it entirely. It does not make sense to have a prescriptive requirement of any kind. Chair Miller: • Is there currently a prescriptive requirement or not? Steve Piaseclu: • Yes, the people are informed about it, and then they ask for an exception. Chair Miller: • Said that an applicant he would look at everything and try to evaluate what he could do, what it will cost, and what is the revenue stream from it. I have to know what to expect with the side setbacks or else I cannot complete my analysis. If you don't put it in the text and I cannot get an idea from the text, I am going to call you. Cupertino Planning Commission 32 June 10, 2008 Steve Piasecld: That is what happens in other areas of town as well. North DeAnza Boulevard does not have a side setback requirement and it's a specific plan as well. I don't think that it should be; it is something you don't need to prescribe; it is something; we will sit down with the applicant and say let's analyze this in relationship to its neighbors; what makes good common sense. If you don't have it, then you are not required to do 20 feet or 10; you are going to do what is the right solution for that site. We do that in a lot of other areas; I don't see why we can't do it in this area as well. • Said he was willing to devote staff time because the end result is a better product. Com. Brophy: • I think he is saying also that he has no choice; whether you had the prescriptive setbacks or not, staff still has to do it when you have these odd shaped properties. Chair Miller: • Perhaps the task could be setbacks, talk about it just that way; setbacks are always an issue with tight lots; staff is willing to talk to you about the details about that; stating the reasons they have given flexibility to setbacks, and listing them. Steve Piasecki: • Said he had no problem with that; this isn't a single family home where things are fairly standardized. Com. Kaneda: Is this an issue related to tight sites only, or if you have a generous site then can you get prescriptive about it. Steve Piasecki: • Yes, if you said sites greater than 200 feet have a requirement for 20 foot setbacks; we could figure it out. As an example, in theory if the Marketplace built up to the property years ago and United Furniture wanted to do the same; you might say this is the best solution we could have two side by side buildings, close together; we are not wasting space. In this case, I don't see a major public objective in prescribing side setbacks; I do in the front and I do in the rear. I am saying just take it out, let's not be prescriptive, let's have some general language about relationships and buildings and good contextual design and let's work with that. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Referred to a narrow lot near her residence that was owned by Barry Swenson, next to the Roasted Coffee Beans, Subway, Affordable Housing Units and an empty lot leased out to trucks. She said there is high density development on the left of the lot, which has apartments, and the neighbors are sensitive about high density in the area. When the property is developed there will need to be adequate buffer side setbacks, back setbacks, and front setbacks. She said the consensus of the neighborhood is not to over-build on that lot. • She asked that they make sure that the public right of way along Stevens Creek Boulevard particularly in the eastern area, between Tantau and Finch, is left in tact as a greenbelt with double rows of Ash trees. • This area has the potential to have wonderful public right of way and we want to make sure that there is little or no business encroachment into the public right of way. We had some Cupertino Planning Commission 33 June 10, 2008 instances with the previous Toll Brothers plans, where they were asking to put parking with the spaces, etc. into the public right of way. • I hope that as a General Plan all the way down Stevens Creek Boulevard that we will retain the public right of way for people to have sidewalks and double rows of Ash trees at the eastern end of town. • I hope there will be every effort made to make sure that we do have our greenbelts along Stevens Creek Boulevard all the way to the eastern end. I am not a big fan of onsite parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the eastern end of town. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS• None NEW BUSINESS: 4. Discuss the Planning Commission's summer meeting schedule. • Discussion was tabled to the next meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: • Steve Piasecki will look into the possibility of having a joint meeting in July to discuss the housing element. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting. Report of the Director of Community Development: No additional report. Misc: • Com. Rose suggested that noticing of projects be expanded to include the entire city, so that all residents would be informed of the projects and the public hearings. Steve Piasecki explained Cupertino already notices residents/home owners outside of the mandated parameters. Suggestions for changes can be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. He noted that the cost for expanded noticing is absorbed by the applicant. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting a 6:45 p.m. on June 24, 2008. r Respectfully Submitted: Elizab llis, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: June 24, 2008