PC 12-14-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. December 14, 2010 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2010 was called to order at 6:45
p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by
Chairperson Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Asst. City Attorney: Valerie Armento
Public and Environmental Affairs Director: Rick Kitson,
Environmental Affairs Coordinator: Erin Cooke
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the October 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0
to approve the October 26, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as presented
Minutes of the November 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously carried
5 -0 -0 to approve the October 26, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as
presented
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 December 14, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. DIR- 2010 -30 Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor Modification to
Linda Shen -Jung allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the
(GLSAA, LLC) the purpose of a parking space. Tentative City Council date:
967 Miller Ave. January 4, 2011
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the appeal of an approval of Director's Minor Modification to allow paving in the
front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking space; appellant is Erwin Wolf.
He reviewed the appellant's two objections to the proposed parking stall; specifically the
safety factor which the appellant felt would be the difficulty in exiting the driveway onto
Miller Avenue with the potential of causing accidents; and that the proposed parking did not
belong on the setback area without direct access. The appellant also felt that the added parking
stall would degrade the property appearance. Staff noted that vehicle parking in front setbacks
is a common feature of other duplexes along Miller Avenue; there were no accident reports
involving vehicles backing into pedestrians or bicyclists in the last 5 years; the paved area
when not in use would provide more vehicle maneuvering area; the duplex has a larger than
typical landscaped front setback, and the stall would only take up 22% of the front setback
landscaping with direct access to the driveway.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the appeal
be denied.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the application.
Mr. Erwin Wolf, Appellant:
• Said that other duplexes in the area had front garages and require front driveways; however the
applicant's duplex does not have a garage in front and has a common driveway. He said that
an additional vehicle would obstruct the view to the street for cars backing out of the driveway
into traffic.
Gordon Shen -Jung, property owner:
• Said that the additional parking space out front would provide a buffer zone for backing out
into the street; and improve the safety for tenants of both duplexes, providing more space to
maneuver their vehicles. He said his tenant presently has two automobiles, one is parked in the
garage and the other in the driveway. They will soon have three cars as his son will be coming
home from school; and it is difficult to find parking in the street.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing
The appellant and staff discussed alternative layouts for the proposed parking area in the front area.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said staff was not concerned about the potential precedent of putting parking in the front yard;
particularly in the duplex zone because there are adjacent similar driveways already
established with driveways fronting the street. Also, in terms of the percentage of the
landscaping covered, it is only about 22 to 25 %; and staff feels that it is not a concern unless it
takes up more than 50% of the landscaped area.
Com. Miller:
• Said that the two issues are whether or not the parking in front is acceptable or not; and the
issue of potentially the area not being wide enough and it is inconvenient. Perhaps the
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 December 14, 2010
neighbors would agree to cut their lawn back in the area on both sides, which would widen it
to mitigate that issue. He said he agreed with Mr. Wolf's point about the safety of children on
bikes and walking; particularly if there are elderly tenants there who may not be as attentive as
younger people; there is the potential for accidents there.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he understood the concern about safety issues, but felt that from a safety standpoint, every
other property on the street allows the same level of potential danger, and he did not feel the
project was not doing anything that was not already being done on the street.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer:
• Said from the front view of the residence, it has a good residential feel to it. From the
overhead view, for the residences with street facing driveways, it makes sense that they would
have driveways facing the street, and there is nothing they can do to change the neighborhood
pattern now; but they can prevent proliferation of stacking cars in front of all the residences
along Miller Avenue and giving it more of a higher density automotive look and feel. She said
she felt it denigrates the visual aspect of the neighborhood and she did not want to see more
intensity of vehicles stacked up in front of the houses.
• Said she did not feel the need for a 3 -point turn radius, because that is what the T was designed
for. Between the two resident units, property owners, and the shared drive, they already have
that space, and she was concerned about the downgrading of the appeal of the visual aspect by
allowing additional parking in front of the duplex. She said she felt it was the wrong thing,
and agreed with Com. Miller that they would see a proliferation of it; starting with 22% of the
frontage of the road and potentially increasing to above 40 %. Everything in front of every
duplex that doesn't have a front facing driveway is going to be paved over and more cars
would be in front.
• There may be a safety issue also since it is across from a middle school and a multi - language
school.
• Said she did not want to intensify the vehicle orientation of the neighborhood and would not
support the application; but would support the appellant.
Chair Brophy:
• Said the alternative to putting a car in that space would be for somebody to park right on
Miller; both in terms of aesthetics and terms of safety, which would be less desirable.
Com. Giefer:
• Said the street was already designed to have cars parked in front of it on Miller Avenue and
that was acceptable; however she did not want to stack cars in front of the houses on both sides
of the sidewalk. The internal parking to each unit is intensified as opposed to maintaining the
current parking pattern along Miller Avenue; she said she was not opposed to the cars parking
on Miller Road because that is where they are ;; upposed to be.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Asked staff if it was considered deficient parking in accordance with the Cupertino City codes,
since it was done many years ago when it was San Jose.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner:
• Said that from a Cupertino standpoint the developments could be considered deficient;
Cupertino requires 6 parking stalls for a duplex. At the time they were developed in San Jose,
they were provided with only 4 spaces per duplex.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 14, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Noted that Cupertino did not exist in 1953. it was county land; and was there a parking
requirement? There would not have been a parking ordinance and they would be allowed to do
even less.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff if the duplex with shared driveway occurs in 50% of the homes along the street, or
only in a few occurrences on the street.
Colin Jung:
• When walking both sides of the street, more than 50% of the duplexes had garages fronting on
Miller Avenue. There are more of the duplexes with a shared driveway, but it is not a
preponderance of what is seen on Miller Avenue. It is fortunate that there is onstreet parking
on Miller Avenue, so that despite the deficiency from the standpoint of parking in the
duplexes, they can park along the street.
Gary Chao:
• Said that technically the unit is already a legal non - conforming situation; the stall in this case is
more of an amenity; it is not really required; they are not triggering discretionary review or
adding onto the building, where they will be asked to conform to the standard. That is why in
the staff report the area is categorized as more of a parking/vehicle maneuverability area. In
some cases, in residential districts, there will be a hammerhead with a flare out on the side
leading to a two -car garage. Staff is satisfied it is interlocking pavers as opposed to concrete in
terms of the visual implications; but it could be smaller. In that case it would be a compact car
that would have to park in there or it would serve more as a maneuverability area. He noted
that the 17 feet is the depth of the grass, that i.s not to consider that 3 foot or 4 foot path; they
could essentially renovate and make that part of interlocking pavers so that would help absorb
some of that dual purpose; it would serve as a path and double as a vehicle maneuvering area
or some interim ancillary parking.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Suggested they do that that so that there would be at least a few feet toward the sidewalk so a
car could not back all the way in there which would alleviate some of the safety concerns.
Gary Chao:
• Said the 17 feet is the depth of the grass strip; the city requirement for a head -in stall is 18 feet.
Said the 11 x 17 was doubled as a vehicle maneuverability area and staff was not concerned if
they added a few feet for that purpose; it could be reduced to the minimum in terms of 8 -1/2
feet wide. He said that if they were going to approve it, it should be kept at 17 feet so they can
pull in and out of it.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second Com. Giefer, and carried by 3 -2 -0; Coms.
Lee and Kaneda voted No, to uphold the appeal of DIR- 2010 -30.
2. M- 2010 -08 Amendment to a Modification application (M- 2010 -03) of a
Jane Vaughan (Cupertino previously approved Conditional Use Permit (U- 2003 -04)
Housing Partners, LLC) to allow the parking requirements to be incorporated into an
19501, 19503, 19505, appropriate alternate legal document in lieu of the covenants,
19507 Stevens Creek conditions and restrictions (CC &R's). Tentative City Council
Boulevard date: January 4, 2011
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 14, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Noted that Cupertino did not exist in 1953„ it was county land; and was there a parking
requirement? There would not have been a parking ordinance and they would be allowed to do
even less.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff if the duplex with shared driveway occurs in 50% of the homes along the street, or
only in a few occurrences on the street.
Colin Jung:
• When walking both sides of the street, more than 50% of the duplexes had garages fronting on
Miller Avenue. There are more of the duplexes with a shared driveway, but it is not a
preponderance of what is seen on Miller Avenue. It is fortunate that there is onstreet parking
on Miller Avenue, so that despite the deficiency from the standpoint of parking in the
duplexes, they can park along the street.
Gary Chao:
• Said that technically the unit is already a legal non - conforming situation; the stall in this case is
more of an amenity; it is not really required: they are not triggering discretionary review or
adding onto the building, where they will be asked to conform to the standard. That is why in
the staff report the area is categorized as more of a parking/vehicle maneuverability area. In
some cases, in residential districts, there will be a hammerhead with a flare out on the side
leading to a two -car garage. Staff is satisfied it is interlocking pavers as opposed to concrete in
terms of the visual implications; but it could be smaller. In that case it would be a compact car
that would have to park in there or it would serve more as a maneuverability area. He noted
that the 17 feet is the depth of the grass, that is not to consider that 3 foot or 4 foot path; they
could essentially renovate and make that part of interlocking pavers so that would help absorb
some of that dual purpose; it would serve as a path and double as a vehicle maneuvering area
or some interim ancillary parking.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Suggested they do that that so that there would be at least a few feet toward the sidewalk so a
car could not back all the way in there which would alleviate some of the safety concerns.
Gary Chao:
• Said the 17 feet is the depth of the grass strip; the city requirement for a head -in stall is 18 feet.
Said the 11 x 17 was doubled as a vehicle maneuverability area and staff was not concerned if
they added a few feet for that purpose; it could be reduced to the minimum in terms of 8 -1/2
feet wide. He said that if they were going to approve it, it should be kept at 17 feet so they can
pull in and out of it.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second Coni. Giefer, and carried by 3 -2 -0; Coms.
Lee and Kaneda voted No, to uphold the appeal of DIR- 2010 -30.
2. M- 2010 -08 Amendment to a Modification application (M- 2010 -03) of a
Jane Vaughan (Cupertino previously approved Conditional Use Permit (U- 2003 -04)
Housing Partners, LLC) to allow the parking requirements to be incorporated into an
19501, 19503, 19505, appropriate alternate legal document in lieu of the covenants,
19507 Stevens Creek conditions and restrictions (CC &R's). Tentative City Council
Boulevard date: January 4, 2011
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 December 14, 2010
Chair Brophy noted that there were now two applicants; the property has been divided into two
parts. Ms. Jenny Chung would be added to the list: of applicants.
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the amendment to a previously approved modification application to modify
recently approved parking Condition 2, to allow the parking requirements to be incorporated
into an alternate legal document in lieu of the CC &Rs for the Metropolitan at Cupertino
development, as outlined in the staff report. The applicant is requesting that the condition be
amended to allow a parking license agreement to be recorded for each retail building to
memorialize requirements in lieu of the CC&Rs and the reason for the applicant's request is
that the underground shared parking arrangement for the projects is controlled by an easement
and not by the CC &Rs. Changing the CC &Rs would be more difficult for the applicant
because it would also require the approval of all 107 residential condominium owners as well
and their lenders as members of the homeowners' association. She reviewed the amended
language as detailed on Page 2 -2 of the staff report.
• Condition No. 3 in the model resolution has been added that the City be provided advance
notice of any future changes related to parking and also that the city receives a copy of any
recorded document related to parking.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed
modification as proposed by applicant in accordance with the model resolution.
Ms. Jenny Chung, Property Owner of 19505 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Units 101 and 102:
• Said she purchased the property in October :2010 and said she had not participated in prior
meetings, and was present to become more informed.
Chair Brophy:
• Explained that the request is to change in the legal issue of how the commitments made by
Menlo and approved by City Council will be handled, rather than go through the CC &Rs it
will go through an alternate legal document. He said that Ms. Jung's name would be added as
an applicant on the application.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; as no one was present who wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Corm. Kaneda and carried 4 -1 -0, Vice Chair Lee
voted No; to approve Application M-2010-08 per the model resolution including the
addition of Ms. Jung's name as additional applicant.
Chair Brophy declared a short recess.
3. CP- 2010 -03 A possible future City Project for the construction of solar carports
City of Cupertino within the Civic Center and Service Center parking lots and the
10300 Torre Ave. & installation of solar panels on the roofs of existing public buildings.
10555 Mary Ave. The project also consists of transplanting /removal and replacement
of up to 55 trees from the Civic Center parking lot. If the City
Council decides to proceed with this project, then a formal review
will be initiated based on the specifics of the Solar Power Purchase
Agreement approved by the City Council. The City Council is
scheduled to consider the Solar Power Purchase Agreement contract
on Tuesday, December 21, 2010. Planning Commission's input will
be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 December 14, 2010
Rick Kitson, Public and Environmental Affairs Director, City of Cupertino:
• Explained that the proposed solar project was the latest effort to bring solar power to
Cupertino; the economic viability of the technology was explored about a year ago as part of
the city's detailed energy audit with Siemens Technology. At that time because the payback
period was projected to be a period of 46 years, they did not pursue it and explored other
options, which staff will explain in the detail s of the proposed collaborative power purchase
agreement. It is unique in that it is being done outside of the city's capital improvement
process, with no cash outlay from the city as a power purchase agreement (PPA). The City
Council and staff is interested in receiving Planning Commission input and perspective on the
proposed project.
Erin Cooke, Environmental Affairs Coordinator:
• The city and staff have explored opportunities to install solar on city facilities and city
grounds; historically the purchase required a large up -front capital investment and often the
analyses conducted yielded uneconomical returns. Following those analyses conducted by
staff, staff explored other options for financing a solar project, including capital outlay,
opportunities for lease, and a power purchase agreement. A power purchase agreement is a
financial arrangement in which a third -party developer owns, operates and maintains the
photo - voltaic system and a host customer (which is proposed to be the city of Cupertino)
agrees to site a system on its property, and also purchase the system's electrical output for a
predetermined price and period.
• The proposed project was presented to City Council in February 2010 to authorize the city's
participation in an RFP process led by Santa Clara County; the process concluded in late June
with the selection of qualified vendors to advance the power purchase agreement or projects
within the 9 agencies formed. Following the selection of the vendors, staff worked to identify
or further pursue sites that were included in the original RFP and took the item back to Council
on November 16 as an informational item and to gather input to determine future project
planning. Council directed staff to bring the item to the Planning Commission to provide input
in three areas; the construction of solar carports in the Civic Center and Service Center parking
lots; potentially install roof mounted solar panels at the Library; and remove up to 55 trees
associated with the construction of carports at the Civic Center.
• She summarized the environmental benefits of the proposed project. Installation of the solar
panels will significantly reduce the city's fossil fuel demands and help the city to achieve a
suite of Council established environmental objectives. The city will accomplish renewable
energy goals outlined within the Environmental Resources and Sustainability section of the
2000 General Plan. The second objective is advancing the city's commitment to reach the
solar action area goals established at the Bay Area Climate Compact, which are to increase
30% the use of renewables within our jurisdiction. The project could potentially reduce the
city's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants which are the operation of
our facilities, providing the city a head start to implementing actions that would achieve the
Mayor's climate protection agreement; and also mitigate the impacts of climate change in
advance of the city creating any tangible climate action plan. Estimated environmental
attributes are outlined in the system that come from the production proposed for the site, that
would work to offset about 93% of each of the electricity bills at each of our facilities we are
proposing installation; and offset about 83% or more of our electrical usage at those sites. The
attributes worthy of mention are that the solar systems would potentially reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by nearly 26 million pounds of the three sites listed.
• Reviewed proposed structure designs, the tree removal /replacement suggestions and guidelines
from the City's consulting arborist relative to project sites, as outlined in the staff report.
• Following the Planning Commission review and input, the next step of the project is to
complete the contract negotiations with vendor, return to Council for contract authorization,
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 December 14, 2010
run through CEQA compliance process; evaluate replanting opportunities with the arborist;
prepare for and complete construction and the project would run through the standard planning
and building permit process. The city will continue to monitor and report on system
production on an ongoing basis so they can determine the environmental attributes and benefits
of the system on an ongoing basis.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposed project, including design and
location of structures, durability of materials, vendor's responsibility, timelines, cost concerns, tree
retention, removal and replacement, etc.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Expressed concern about the number of trees proposed to be removed around the Library
complex, particularly in light of the thousands of dollars spent for the tree plantings. She
suggested a study be conducted relative to installing solar panels on the roofs. She said she
was not in favor of having a third party as owner of the parking lot.
Thomas Wang, Cupertino resident:
• In favor of the project.
• Said the issue of global warming is one of the most important environmental issues of the
time; and he was pleased to see that the city decided to explore options to create solar car parks
and decrease the carbon footprint. Attributes of the project include no upfront capital costs for
the city; the city gets a saving on electricity upon completion of the project in the range of
$625,000 over the life of 30 years. In the area, there are high school solar related projects
completed at Lynbrook and Homestead High Schools; and there is a report by the Fremont
Union High School District entitled The Analysis of the School District Solar Electric System.
• He urged the Planning Commission support of the proposal.
Mark Fink, Community Librarian for Cupertino Library:
• Said that the Cupertino Library is about 55,000 square feet; open 7 days a week, and generates
approximately $190,000 per year in utility costs; having solar panels on the library roof would
be a good way to offset some of the costs. The Cupertino Library is part of the Santa Clara
County Library system and the county system would also be interested in looking at ways to
perhaps offset some of the energy costs for the Cupertino Library with an arrangement such as
the solar panels on the building.
• Expressed concern of the amount of time it would take for that construction project and the
impact it would have on the people who use the parking lot because it is such a busy facility.
If the carports are installed in the parking lot, he wanted to make sure there was enough
planning and advance notice for the people who use the parking lot and facilities. Said that
lighting on the carports would be beneficial and would improve the lighting situation. The
Library is opened Monday through Thursday until 9 p.m. and during many of those hours they
would benefit with having improved lighting for the facility.
• From the County Library's perspective, it is something they would welcome and would want
to be involved as much as possible with the opportunity.
Emily Poon, Cupertino resident:
• Said that in the past she had considered installing solar panels on her residence; however,
because of various reasons decided against it, and purchased a solar roof fan. She said she was
in favor of solar; and wanted to know more about the solar path finder instrument which
determines how much sun a residence gets. She said she would like to utilize it if one could be
loaned out. She said she was very knowledgeable about solar panels and has learned a lot from
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 December 14, 2010
various contractors in the last few years. She said cities should provide support to homeowners
who wish to consider solar systems.
Bernard Kalvelage, Cupertino resident:
• Said he felt the numbers quoted were high; he said he had not seen anyone put a commercial
product on the market in which they talk about a true quantum efficiency of more than 18%
and that is very high. He asked if the figures were NREL certified? He said there would be
significant degradation over the lifetime of 10 to 30 years.
Rick Kitson:
• Said there are differences between cell efficiency and the module efficiency, which is where
much of the confusion arises. While NREL won't certify anything, they are doing a lot of
research on cell efficiency.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that to some extent it would set a precedent for any private sector request for solar
paneling, and he did not see how they could set more difficult standards for private users of it.
He asked staff if they were comfortable with the direction they were headed, or comfortable
with the potential precedent set after tonight's meeting or when it goes to City Council.
Gary Chao:
• Said he did not feel they were setting a precedent in terms of the review components that are in
front of the Commission are going to be the components that they would be looking at if a
private entity or private developer come in to propose a solar carport project. The aesthetics,
the trees, whether they are specimen trees or protected species; to that extent everything that
will be discussed or has been discussed are relevant and would be applied to any other solar
projects being proposed.
Erin Cooke:
• Said for this specific project, because it is their site and the developer is applying essentially to
staff to design the aesthetic architectural attributes or features of the project, it is within their
direction and purview to provide recommendations. There are some nuances with regard to
some state laws in terms of the direction that the Planning Commission can offer to a private
applicant coming in with a solar project. 'Tonight the focus is on gaining access to the
Commission's recommendations as it relates to the project; and ideally obtaining some options
or recommendations because there may be some features that would add costs to the city and
that is essentially going to be the City Council's recommendation or review as it relates to the
financial model moving forward.
Rick Kitson:
• Said they know that what is being proposed is going to be the current standard for carports,
which is the starting point for this project. They know aesthetically what they are getting into,
and may refine that with paint or other rain gutters or minor changes but the essential structural
element will be of a certain type as shown in the demonstration.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked if anyone has had conversations with the insurance carrier, relative to putting solar
panels on buildings, as a previous speaker voiced his concern that people who are insuring
against leaks and similar things get nervous when the conversation comes up about solar panel
installation.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 December 14, 2010
Erin Cooke:
• Said they had not yet had any discussion with the insurance carrier, because they are currently
looking at rooftop structures which are just metal attachment clamps, with no roof
penetrations. Also built into the PPA contract, are some protections for the city that relate to
installing on rooftops. Even though they have been part of those negotiations, those didn't
affect the initially proposed site plan that would be if opting to pursue a roof mounted option,
but it is build into the current PPA or the contract that we would move forward with the
vendor. We would expect the vendor to indemnify us, if they installed it improperly and
caused damage.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he understood that putting panels on a standard metal roof is not very problematic
because all the supports are done through clamps that clamp onto the seams; there is no need to
penetrate the membrane. Said the way the Sanyo hits get their efficiency is they have a double
layer of PV and are getting bounced light off the ground; however, it is proposed to put them
on black or nearly black asphalt. He questioned if they would get that much of a hit that off
the ground?
Rick Kitson:
• Said that one of staff's requirements is that if it is proposed to City Council, it needs to be cash
positive from the beginning; however, at this point, even though they have not seen the final
numbers, it doesn't look good for the high efficiency panels.
Erin Cooke:
• Said they had not yet had any discussion with the Fire Department about roof mounted
assemblies as they were still in the initial phases; but they would take place later in the process.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said the Fire Departments is finicky because they need to knock holes in the roof to let smoke
vent out, and it becomes dangerous if the roof is entirely covered and they cannot get through
to the roof. The State firefighters have recommendations about setbacks so they have room to
get ladders up against the building and have room to walk around so they don't have to walk
on panels, etc.
Erin Cooke:
• Said they would follow the industry's best practices if that was a recommendation.
• She discussed the rate schedule and answered Commissioners' questions.
Rick Kitson:
• Said that there has been some initial cost outlay to the city from existing budgets of a few
thousand dollars to reserve the CSI rebate; however, there is no dedicated city budget for the
process.
• There are 55 trees planned for removal and replanting; cost can be negotiated with the vendor
to include in the pricing.
Erin Cooke:
• In response to Com. Miller's questions about z.osts involved, the cost to move the trees can be
negotiated with the vendor to include in the pricing model they are working on developing;
and staff is also trying to evaluate that working with some local landscaping firms. Should the
costs be substantial enough to make this not a cash positive option, they would walk away
from it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 December 14, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Referring to the projected cost savings of $625K, he questioned if the cost to get to those
savings was considered; part of the cost is dealing with the landscaping which could be very
substantial.
Erin Cooke:
• Said the annual cost to the city for electricity for the city hall is approximately $74,000 for city
hall, and $20,000 for the service yard. The Library pays its own electricity bill, and would be
part of subsequent negotiation which they would be interested in seeing if there is some way to
collaboratively capture the solar savings.
Com. Miller:
• Suggested that staff measure the potential savings vs. the cost on a percentage basis. If it turns
out the savings is only about 5 to 7% after everything is considered, the question is that might
not be enough margin of error to consider doing the project.
Erin Cooke:
• Staff is evaluating the full spectrum of costs, while the vendor is developing their financial
models. The potential savings of $600K over a 20 -year period was based on the original site
plan and something the vendor is working on evaluating and revising. That will be considered
and is in the works.
Com. Giefer:
• Said it made sense to retain as many trees in situ as possible, specifically the attractive canopy
along Torre; and she would prefer to keep the trees at the edge of the library parking lot in tact.
• Said that she would like the city to set an example and follow its own tree replacement plan.
She said she felt the city has a responsibility to find space for at least 90% of the trees that may
be removed from city property. She supported the idea of providing some foliage through
trees to people who would like to adopt a tree from a local nursery.
• She said personally she liked the look of solar, because it demonstrates innovation and a
commitment to sustainability, which is why she got involved on the Planning Commission.
She said she felt the solar industry has a PR problem; they are positioning the beauty of solar
panels the wrong way. She said she experienced it when her family put solar on their home.
As long as they are in compliance with what the fire department needs, she said she was not
bothered by concealing them on rooftops; show them off! Show the community how to be
effective and be innovative.
• The other common sense issue relates to the back parking lot at the library. Residents have
often complained about light reflecting into their homes; benefits would be to have lower
sensor controlled lights under the canopy that illuminate the parking lot. When there is no one
in the parking lot, the lights go off; another way to innovate is to put daylight and motion
sensors on those lights and the adjacent neighbors would not get reflection into their homes.
• Said she would prefer to maximize roof installation as much as possible, particularly in this
area; it makes sense to mount it on existing structures wherever possible. It appears that a
thorough job was done in evaluating those sites, but if there is another opportunity, they should
go after it. There may also be an opportunity to reconfigure the parking lots.
• Said she supported the project provided that it meets the city's financial objectives.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed with Com. Giefer on the rooftop issue; the aesthetic impact is much less on the
rooftop and it is good to set an example for the city and have people see that the city is fully
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 December 14, 2010
solar. He said he felt the aesthetic impact of what he perceived to be on the parking lot is
dreadful. The other advantage of moving more panels to the rooftop is that it would not impact
as many trees, which is another positive from a visual and economic standpoint. Said he
agreed they should utilize the rooftops on the city library, city hall and community center.
• Said he concurred that it had to be financially beneficial in order to move forward; and he
expressed concern that there were so many variables and factors and so much due diligence
that he felt it would be easy for the city to lose out; and for what the city is giving up, it is not a
good deal if the city is losing in any way.
• Said they have discussed some of the issues in terms of the degradation factor, and what Com.
Kaneda mentioned in terms of the Sanyo efficiency ratings depends on some reflective
capabilities which may not be present. There are a number of things to consider.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he felt it was a good project and encouraged them to move forward with it.
• Said he agreed that the city is setting an example with trying to move forward with a solar
project, especially due to the fact that they are landlocked with mass transit. Said he had
mixed feelings on parking vs. rooftops because of some aesthetic issues with parking
structures. One advantage of parking structures is that they shade the asphalt and reduce heat
island affect; and they shade cars which in turn results in a savings of gasoline because it takes
less time to cool the car when it is started. There is a double best fit from putting PVs over
parking lots in that it helps the cars' mileage and it generates electricity.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said it was disappointing that so many trees will be impacted, and visually there is some
disturbance. There are some benefits which have been discussed, and possible alternatives
need to be looked at. Carports can be a sign of innovation technology, but trees can't be beat,
there are beautiful and natural.
• She said she had hoped that everything would be roof mounted, but there are many economic
things to be considered, and it is difficult to make a recommendation to support the project
without all the known variables. Hopefully it will be clear cut in the future, when there is a
good project and financially it is clear cut.
Chair Brophy:
• To the extent of using rooftops in an aesthetic and cost effective way, he said he agreed that it
should be considered. He said he was not certain that it would be cheaper to put them on the
roof; it is harder to make the numbers work when retrofitting panels on an already designed
roof as opposed to designing from scratch; however, the consultants can work out the
economics of that issue.
• Said he was pleased that the trees were identified that provide the greatest benefit, since some
were low quality and some are very important; and he was pleased to see that the trees on
Torre were protected as it would have been a mistake to replace them.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified that there is not a project before the Commission to make a motion; the goal is to
have a general consensus from the entire Commission in terms of input for the Council to
consider in their review of the PPA and also in their review of the finances and various
components discussed.
Com. Giefer summarized the issues discussed:
• Additional rooftop installation should be a priority and should be re- examined over additional
carports;
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 December 14, 2010
• There was consensus that the project should move forward provided that it meets the city's
economic goals;
• The Commission would like to protect as many trees as possible, with the majority of the
Commission specifically calling for protection of the trees on Torre Avenue.
• (Com. Miller) Consider all the costs involved and also all the factors in choosing a panel that
will work for the city (cost of ownership as opposed to cost of purchase). The cost of
removing trees and planting new trees could 'De high, and the savings with the solar panels is
not that much.
Erin Cooke:
• Relative to the concern of Vice Chair Lee and Com. Miller about the carports vs. rooftop
panels, she explained that staff has been minimizing them so the alternative site plans proposed
a significant scaling back of the carports; as seen from the initial design, they eliminated
almost three large structures originally proposed for the revised site plan. It has been scaled
back to minimize the visual impacts on the site, and also to maintain additional trees. The
difference in tree removal or replacement from the first site plan is 55, the second is 41, staff is
working toward the goal of maintaining trees onsite. The expectation would be even if they
were able to install solar modules or rays on all of their facilities, they would still need to
evaluate the opportunity to put in the carport structures.
Com. Giefer:
• During the bond initiative to do the carports and school improvements, when Fremont Union
High School District surveyed potential voters on what was most appealing to them about the
improvement bond issues, the community said the most important thing to them was solar
improvements to the campuses, reducing energy costs and utilizing solar technology. That was
how they promoted that and voters approved it and passed it. She said it behooves the
Commission and City Council to really hear that message from people who live in Cupertino;
it was a resounding success in terms of how they went out and promoted that bond issue.
Com. Miller:
• Part of that success was they promoted the fact that they were going to save $1 million a year
and that money meant that they would be going back to the voters Less often for parcel taxes.
Financials are very important here.
• Said he was comfortable with the comments and insight provided.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it appeared the preference was to mount the solar panels on rooftops. He noted that there
would be a significant expense to go up on the roof since it would be requiring re- roofing and
putting the PVs on. The standing seam metal roof is a good concept; however, not everything
has standing seam metal roofs, and putting PVs on the existing tile roofs would be very costly
and leaks would likely be encountered.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he supported carports, and attempted to identify high priority tree areas that aren't worth
giving up, and sizing the areas where the trees are marginal in terms of coverage.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said the bioswale should be able to function with the amount of sunlight that will work its way
around the PVs. If installing fluorescent lights in, (the library employee said that they had
security concerns), fluorescent provides many options, such as push button or motion detectors
that will flip the lights on if there is movement.
Cupertino Planning Commission 1_i December 14, 2010
Coms. Giefer and Kaneda:
• Said they supported carports if that is what it would take.
Chair Brophy:
• Said the financial analysis should include all costs and allow for lifetime realistic projections;
look at the building uses, and try to maintain the trees as best as possible with emphasis on the
high quality trees in groves; retain the bioswale, and consider all costs.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt there was too much incomplete information to forward a motion; the comments
made were appropriate and capture the discussion.
Rick Kitson:
• Thanked the Commission for their input and said staff had a clear and detailed sense of the
Commission's opinions and input.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda said there was a report from the Housing Trust of Santa
Clara County, describing the three different financial assistance programs for low income home
buyers.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No report.
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• No additional report.
• Gary Chao said that relative to the discussion of final terms of Commissioners for this year,
research of the Municipal Code indicates that the final terms of Commissioners ends on
January 30` of the year. The first meeting of new Commissioners would be February 8, 2011.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for January 11, 2011.
Respectfully Submitted: ° ` ° ✓` • • —
P Y
Elizabet is, Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: January 25, 2011