Loading...
PC 07-08-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 8, 2002 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati and Wong Commissioners absent: Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. Vice Chair Auerbach acted as Chairperson for the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 28, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting: Com. Saadati noted the following change to Paragraph 6, Page 2: Delete the word "the" and add the word "for" Com. Auerbach referred to Page 6, Paragraph 6, and commented that he was not just explaining the process, but pointed out that the process of eliminating 2-80 was working well; that is the General Plan amendment process. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve the May 28, 2002 Planning Commission minutes as amended Com. Wong Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Auerbach noted receipt of a communication from the Duke of Edinburgh restaurant relative to the use permit extension; and an e-mail communication from Barbara Rogers relative to the recent Community Congress. A brief summary of the communication from Barbara Rogers follows. Ms. Rogers' communication summarized her thoughts and reactions to the 5/3/02 Community Congress proceedings. She said it was a planning exercise that looked at how Cupertino might develop in the next approximate 10 years with emphasis being on change in a particular direction toward a perceived goal. She said they need to look ahead with all options open, remembering that Cupertino is a real community with real people, whose lives are about to change for better or worse. Ms. Rogers said she felt there was little opportunity to address any contrary aspect of the Planning Commission Minute~ 2 JuJy ~, 2002 proposed suggestions, and it was difficult to get a fair hearing about anything contrary to what was proposed. She wrote that she felt the reporting was slanted to omit those ideas contrary to the deliverer's own and not those adopted by the group. She said that she felt the participants in the congress were a discreet portion of the Cupertino community and a poll of all residents should be taken using suggested guidelines contained in her summary. She emphasized that all people's opinions should be considered in the best interest of the community. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2002-01 San Jose Water Land Company East side of Sterling Boulevard, 60' northeast of Barnhart Avenue Use permit to allow a child care facility in an existing quasi-public building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request removal from calendar MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to postpone Application TM-2002-01 to the August 12, 2002 meeting Com. Chert Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 o Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-04 Allen Wong (Keiki Place) 10931 Maxine Avenue Use permit to allow a child care facility in an existing quasi-public building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request removal from calendar MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Chen moved to remove Application No. U-2002-04 from the calendar Com. Wong Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2002-04 Shabbir Nomanbhoy 11255 Mt. Crest Place Tree removal permit to allow the removal of two Coast Live Oak trees. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff,nre~e~ntaticml Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the application to grant a tree removal permit for removal of two Coast Live Oak trees. He noted that staff visited the site and felt that there was enough left of the trees to grow and thrive, although they would not return to their original form. Mr. Gilli distributed a modified resolution, which was not recommending approval of full removal, but recommending approving request to trim more than 25% of the canopy, which according to the municipal code, constitutes tree removal. He said that staff has spoken with the applicant and the applicant still believes the trees do need to be removed. Staff recommends trimming of the two trees; and that two new trees be planted as noted on the plan set to mitigate the trimming, but does not recommend complete removal of Trees A and B at this time. Mr. Gilli answered questions relative to the application. He said that relative to trimming the trees, it is acceptable to trim portions of the tree if they are on the person's property line, but not to the extent that they compromise the health of the tree. The city ordinance states that it cannot exceed 25% of the canopy. Relative to new projects that come forward with trees that are required to be kept, Mr. Gilli said that a covenant is now on the property, so that when the property changes hands, the new owner is aware that certain trees are protected trees and must be protected. He noted the arborist reported that over 70% of the canopy of the trees had been removed. He said that the ordinance was on the city website. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that they get calls from residents requesting if they can remove a tree, but no calls to ask if they can trim trees. Mr. Shabbir Nomanbhoy, applicant, said he was surprised with the change of recommendation. He noted that the two arborists recommended complete removal of the trees, and the court settlement indicated removal of the two trees. He said the funds were in place and he did not see the value in delaying the tree removal process. He pointed out that the two tree trunks were too close together and the branches were too large. He explained that the trees cut were growing into his yard and overwhelming his tree. Chair. Auerbach opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Chen said she felt the homeowners need to be educated on the tree ordinances; and she would support staff's recommendation to try to save the two trees as long as possible. Com. Wong concurred with Com. Chen to save the trees, and said that it was important to educate the residents of Cupertino using the Cupertino Scene and internet to inform the public. He said he supported staff's recommendation. In response to Com. Saadati's question which tree, a 24" or 36" size would grow healthier, Mr. Gilli said that it is felt that trees planted a smaller size in the beginning do better in the long run because more of their growth and maturing has been at that site and not at a different site and then transplanted. He said he supported saving the two trees since they have done well in the past year. It was noted that the litigants in the matter were the former owners of the affected property. Mr. Gilli said the language should cite that the new owner could request to have approval to remove the two trees in the future if they provide documentation and clear evidence of failure and bad health, and perhaps the bond would have to be held until that event occurred or some reasonable period of time passed. Chair Auerbach asked for the Planning Commission's opinion on giving the owner discretion based on aesthetic reasons, if she felt they were too damaged. Com. Chen said she felt it would be assurance to the future removal of the trees; but there be a limited period of time and include it in the ordinance. Mr. Gilli suggested that the removal of the trees should be reviewed by the Director of Community Development with supporting evidence if it is not the desire to have the removal or the potential future removal of these two trees come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Piasecki said that the options were to allow removal of the trees at the applicant's discretion or make the property owner go through a process to demonstrate that the trees are unhealthy and then authorize staff to allow removal. Com. Chen suggested a two year time period be given, and that the Planning Department staff decide, unless something happens to the tree, otherwise after two years the bonds will be returned. She suggested that the owner come back to the Planning Department and provide evidence that the tree needs to be removed. Coms. Wong and Saadati concurred. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Chen moved to approve Application TR-2002-04 as proposed in the model resolution with special provision added for the applicant provide the bonding, and the bond be usable by the property owner; the amount listed in the estimate on 4- 12 is $1795.00; with review by Director of Community Development with sufficient evidence to remove the tree provided by the owner. Com. Wong Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-03, EXC-2002-04, EA-2002-05 CTC Funding, LLC (Cupertino Town Center) Cupertino Town Center (SW Corner of Rodrigues and Torre Avenue) Use permit to demolish two office buildings and construct a 28,00 square foot two-story office building and a 2,500 square foot commercial building Exception to Heart of the City Specific Plan to increase the height of an office building from 36' to 45' Tentative City Council Date: ~tugust 5, 2002 Com. Wong excused himself from discussion of the application, as his family owns property at 20395 Pacifica Drive. ,qtaff?~qentatlcm: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a new 28,000 square foot office building with a 46 car underground parking garage and 2,500 square feet of retail space at Rodrigues and Torte Avenues, and also demolition of two existing professional office buildings totaling 10,096 square feet and creating a temporary parking lot at Cupertino Town Center. The application also includes an exception to height increase of an office building from 36 feet to 45 feet. The proposal is a first phase of a master plan for a mixed use development at the existing Town Center office complex. Staff recommends approval of the application as a Heart of the City exception. Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the application, and noted that the proposal was the first phase of the master plan for a mixed use development. She said that in response to neighbors' concerns, the current proposal was considerably scaled down from the original proposal. She reviewed the Master Plan, Phase I Proposal, General Plan and Zoning, and the Heart of the City Plan as outlined in the staff report. She then reviewed the architectural design, traffic and circulation, parking, traffic analysis, tree removal, signage and utility issues, as set forth in the staff report. Conditions and recommendations on the various issues are outlined in the staff report. Ms. Jane Biersa, Fehr and Peers Associates, San Jose, answered questions on traffic impacts and issues. Mr. Ed Storm, applicant, asked that the focus be on the application for the 18,000 square feet of office and 2,500 square feet of retail, which is not beyond the current zoning for the site. He answered questions about the grading, the building height and bonding. He said he was opposed to the requirement to put in 1,800 feet of sewer line for a 18,000 square foot building as proportionally it did not make sense. Mr. Storm said they met with the Sanitary District and they commented that the small project was appropriate without the extension; but if anything else were done on the project, they would have to deal with the Sanitary District on the 1,800 linear feet of sewer line on Wolfe Road. He said taking the scope of the project into consideration, it did not seem appropriate to obligate them on that issue. He pointed out that he felt they should not be obligated on the additional part being south of Town Center Lane, which was excessive considering the relatively small project. He said they were in favor of the pedestrian paths as long as the easement did not allow for public gathering on the property without some ability to control. Mr. Storm said that they would hire a consultant to implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan and bring it to staff for their review, comment and approval. He said they concurred with staff's recommendations except for the parking south of Town Center Lane and the sanitary sewer extension; and that they were committed to some specific fees for some studies and improvements needed in terms of traffic. Mr. Stone said they were not advocating a retail concept, but more of a civic location tied to the library and city hall. He answered questions relative to the building height and the small caf6 located within the project. Discussion ensued relating to the temporary parking during demolition of the building. Mr. Stone said he did not feel there would be sufficient parking with the elimination of the temporary parking lot and it would cause concern from the neighbors relative to spillover parking, and he felt it was important to contain parking within the site. He said that from a marketing convenience standpoint, their tenants want to have onsite parking, making it a greenbelt or park area. Mr. Piasecki said that an option to consider would be to take the interior portion of the parking lot, and improve it when the parking demand shows it is needed. It could be bonded and held in reserve and put into grass temporarily and then only when the parking demand shows it is needed, take a third or half of it for the precise parking demand. It could also be short term parking, with parking on the grass; or take a portion of it and set it aside as a parking reserve. Planning Comnmion Minutes 0 July 8, 2002 Mr. Bill Hagman, architect, 1990 The Alameda, San Jose; said that relative to Title 24, they would meet ali the city and state codes. Although no preliminary calculations have been done relative to the energy load of the buildings, changes could be made if needed. He said various landscaping features will be implemented to help with the shading of the building. Com. Auerbach recommended leasing the carpeting and said that there was excellent Iow cost software available from National Renewable Energys Lab relative to significantly reducing the mechanical loads, air conditioning bills, and long term maintenance. Chair Auerbach opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Mark Peebles, 10166 Barbara Lane, said he lived in the Heart of the City, and liked the design, smaller size, two stories, and sloped roof. He expressed concern that the Cupertino Union School District was considering making Rodrigues and Torte Avenues the safe path to school for students coming from the DeAnza area. He said nothing had been addressed relative to the width of the sidewalks and he was concerned because students were not permitted to ride their bicycles on the sidewalks. He said the traffic was getting tighter and he was apprehensive about diagonal or any other kind of parking along that street, which would be heavily used by students. Mr. Peebles said that the goal was to have a walkable city, and if some of the drafts proposed by the Cupertino Union School District go through, it will be heavily trafficked by young adults. Relative to the comment about McClellan and DeAnza and DeAnza and Stevens Creek not being pedestrian friendly, he urged that pedestrian friendly intersections be made a priority, particularly for the younger population. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, congratulated Mr. Hunter and Mr. Storm for their work with the community. He commended their exceUent job on downsizing, alleviating fears of high rises, cutting occupancy in half, which he said was a concern of his. He expressed concern about the heavy flow of traffic on Pacifica and Rodrigues, especially with the heavy student use of the streets if the school district restructured. Mr. Deke Hunter, co-applicant, said that getting the children to school is a priority in his family also and he understood the concerns expressed. He said that as applicants they try to balance the traffic related questions and solutions proposed by public works as well as matching those up against community related issues. He emphasized their commitment to the community, which he felt was exhibited by the changes in this plan and those for the subsequent master plan; and said they would continue their commitment to help improve the traffic flow whether it be for on-street parking or for wider bike lanes if the community decides they want one over the other. He emphasized that they would take into consideration the comments from the community and take the lead from the Planning Commission on which is the more appropriate path to follow. Chair Auerbach closed the public hearing. Com. Chen said she felt it was a well planned and well designed project, and said she supported the project. Com. Saadati said he preferred the sloped roof over the flat roof; and said it was tasteful and consistent with the surroundings. He questioned if staff had any discussion with the school d istrict relative to the pedestrian use of the streets. Mr. Piasecki said that they were aware that the school district was restructuring and that there would be the need for more of the streets to be used as Plann;ng Commie,;on Minute July access to the schools. He explained that the intent behind having automobiles parked is a safety measure for pedestrians and is a new urbanist principle being widely touted rather than having streets basically free for-ails for the car and no side friction or impediments to the automobile travelling quickly. He said it was advantageous to have on-street parking. The bike lane will presumably be striped providing a safer route for cyclists; which was the thought behind the concept of trying to slow the automobile and prioritize the pedestrian and bicycle movements. Com. Saadati said he liked the project and was hopeful it would proceed as soon as possible. Chair Auerbach said that he was conflicted with the project. He said he did not feel the project has been presented to the Planning Commission as a master plan project, although in many minds it is the concept of the comprehensive master plan of the area. He said on one hand, the property owners have the right to develop their property; but on the other hand have a special obligation on the part of the people who do large developments, because it naturally forecloses on smaller more organic development to pay special attention to the whole design. He said contrary to what has been discussed, although the Planning Commission has not seen the master plan, this project will set the entire tone and flavor for the entire project. In some prior instances the Planning Commission has either demanded to see the entire project and felt that would be a better approach, or said no, that the concentration needs to be on the particular proposal. Chair Auerbach said that he felt it was ironic that to build a home in Cupertino greater than 35% FAR, the applicant has to put up story poles to provide an indication of what the project would look like in terms of height and width in reality. He said the equivalent for developers of larger projects should be to provide three dimensional renderings or scale models of the developments so that the entire project can be visualized with the surrounding development. Chair Auerbach said his preference would be to continue the item until the whole master plan is seen, to provide a better idea of what is being considered as part of the whole project, including the pedestrian walkways through the plan, and get a better sense of having the applicant address the issue of the implications of the children walking to and from schools. Com. Chen said that she agreed it would be good to see the master plan in the model. Com. Saadati said that the plan reflects some of the master plan, but he felt they had the right to approve the balance of the project, and based on what was shown, it appears that it can fit, and the traffic issues and other elements will be created not as a result of this part, but a result of the whole construction. He suggested moving forward with the plan and relook at the master plan and other aspects of the plan for any development beyond the present plan. He said he was not certain it would have that significant an impact on the overall project. Chair Auerbach emphasized that it is an important comer and he felt it will set the tone for the whole project and until it is decided whether the whole project is suitable or not, he was uncomfortable committing to a small portion. Com. Saadati said he has dealt with projects that don't have master plans and over years it was not very effective piecemealing the project. Mr. Piasecki said that as indicated earlier, the applicants intend to come in on the heels of the application with the master plan, possibly 30 to 60 days, and if asked to present the level of detail that Chair Auerbach is describing, it may take more time to put that master plan together. He said it was visualized that it is a big empty parking lot now and the things that are going to potentially Phnnin Commission MJnuZe 6 J ly 2002 change from the Planning Commission's perspective might be the height, and/or the use, whether it would it be a different use other than office and retail in this particular property. Mr. Piasecki said that staff felt comfortable that given its placement that it has minimal detrimental effect. It creates a tone for materials which are already consistent with what is out there; to some degree massing, of which the people are saying they prefer the lower massing; it doesn't change the outcome for the master plan in terms of the residential on the building to the south and further up the mixed use building fronting on DeAnza Boulevard which could potentially also be residential or park. Chair Auerbach said from his vantage point, as already heard, the whole vision of the space has changed from an ersatz town center to something that is more potentially an upgrade of what is there now. Mr. Piasecki said that in the original master plan concept, there was a limited amount of retail; the buildings were bigger with more massing to the buildings which might have created a sense of enclosure, but the land use options for retail were identical. Mr. Storm said that they did not want to be penalized for being proactive about what their plans were for the bigger picture. He said that discussing the bigger picture will be a long drawn out process because of the size of the project. He stressed the importance of getting approval to start the project and begin working on the run down property and having something to present to tenants. He pointed out that the smaller building is tied to the big project, and their ability to do anything in the interim with the project would be slowed down. He said his choice would be to have action taken now rather than wait for the big project to come back. Mr. Piasecki said that it is the applicant's vision that the project is going to be a coordinated master plan with a mixture of land uses; and he felt the original concept that this was somehow more than a mixed use development was probably incorrect. He pointed out that it was not going to be a town center as it does not have enough critical mass in 30,000 square feet of commercial to create a town center. He said he felt it was advantageous to have the longer range vision, although a little fuzzy, but the applicant has put a lot of effort last year in developing the concepts and some of the material is in the meeting packets. He said he was comfortable in proceeding with the plan and felt it would not change the rest of the plan. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve the mitigated negative declaration on Application EA-2002-05 Com. Chen Coms. Corr, Wong Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Chen moved to approve the Heart of the City exception, Application EXC-2002-04 subject to the model resolution Com. Saadati Coms. Corr, Wong Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Saadati moved to approve the use permit application U-2002-03 in accordance with the model resolution and additional Condition 17 Com. Chen In response to Chair Auerbach's question relative to the 1800 feet of sewer line, Ms. Shrivastava explained that the condition stated it was standard for a number of projects, and some review by the Sanitary District is still required. She said the applicant met with the Sanitary District and they indicated there would be enough capacity to be able to build Phase I. A letter is needed from the Sanitary District indicating their approval. She said that it was also addressed that if in fact it needed necessary improvements, those be made. She reiterated that no bond was required, just compliance with the Sanitary District. Mr. Piasecki said that it was desirable to get the letter of approval from the Sanitary District before the City Council meeting so that the Council would have the input knowing how relevant the condition is or the concern of the applicants. Mr. Piasecki. said the applicant raised an issue with Condition 9b. Staff's concern is that it may result in a half- finished frontage in the event they do not proceed with the master plan, and that they should at least complete it along their frontage, not someone else's property Chair Auerbach said that his objection was that he felt the city should be doing these kind of improvements. He proposed to leave the demolition of the buildings as grassy area and pave as needed. Mr. Piasecki illustrated the parking lot and suggested the possibility of taking a portion or all of the interior portion of the parking area and setting it in reserve and ask that the applicant put lawn down for the interim period, and then open up whatever portion of that is needed after the building is built and the parking demand is known. The applicant would not have to put a lot of money into something they are going to tear up in the near future, and from staff's view, there would not be overpaving where not needed. He said it would be a function of market conditions and whether there is high demand for office space in this development. Chair Auerbach pointed out that as seen from the traffic analysis, that although the tools are scientific, the difference in actual use could be significant and he was not in favor of putting down a lot of asphalt which would be destined to be dug up. Mr. Piasecki said for short periods of time decomposed granite could be used, although it is a hot surface and unattractive. Chair Auerbach suggested an amendment to include bonding; and Condition 7 be amended to reflect design of the temporary parking lot to provide parking around the perimeter with landscaping to be approved by the Director of Community Development, and for the center to be paved as needed to accommodate additional parking demand. Coms. Saadati and Chen accepted the amendments. Mr. Piasecki said that the bulbouts and restrictors could be put in the condition as well; the concept was to have unrestricted bicycle movement with two travel lanes and a parking lane. Chair Auerbach said that he was also concerned with some of the other traffic features installed in terms of the design aesthetic; and suggested revising Item 11 to add the amendment that the design of flow restrictors and other traffic calming measures for this development shall come before the Planning Commission for approval. Corns. Saadati and Chen accepted the amendments. ABSENT: Coms. Corr and Wong VOTE: Passed 3-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the item would be presented to the City Council on August 19th meeting. Com. Wong returned to the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr was unable to attend the last meeting. Mr. Piasecki noted that the only item on the agenda was the Town Center development. Housing Committee: Com. Chen said that she did not receive ample notice to attend the last meeting. She noted that she would attend the meeting on July 1 lth. Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Auerbach reported on the discussions held at the recent Mayor's breakfast, including the placement of the five sculptures throughout the city; Stevens Creek trails, library report, telecommunications committee report. Chair Auerbach reported on his attendance at the Riparian Renaissance Conference. Chair Auerbach reported on his attendance at the recent American Solar Energy Conference. He suggested as part of the environmental section of the General Plan update to question if the building codes recognize improvements being made from passive means to allow the reduction of active means. Chair Auerbach requested that the following verbatim report be included for the record: "Background: The American Solar Energy Society, ASES, is a member of the International Solar Energy Society, ISES. I attended their 25th conference held in Sparks, Nevada June 16 through June 20th. It was the first time I had attended; I have been a member of the local chapter, the Northern California Solar Energy Association for 6 months, and I recently became a member of ASES. It was a fascinating show. While the local chapters are mostly occupied with events such as the annual solar home tour, ASES is the meeting place of leading scientists from major universities from all over the world as well as leading scientific institutions in the United States, such as Sandia National Label, Lawrence Berkeley Labs, Department of Energy, National Center for Photovoltaics, Interstate Renewable Energy Council, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The plenary session speakers included: David Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the DOE; Larry Kazmerski, Director of the National Center for Photovoltaics; Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute; Paul Mcready, Time Magazine's Engineer of the Century, and the "Father of Human-Powered Flight"; William McDonough, architect and advocate for sustaining design, and author of"Cradle to Cradle." Planning Commission Minuteg 11 July g, 2002 }Vhat I learned relevant to city planning: Solar panel (PV) technology is real, available and sensible. Per kWh it is still more expensive than grid power, but given a system's 20 year life expectancy, and adjusting the price for risk of grid power, buying power that will not fluctuate in price for that period may be a very sensible thing to do. Even at today's energy prices, a system may pay for itself in as little as I 0 years. The State of California is offering a significant rebate on system installs; but independent of economic considerations if one wants to help reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and reduce global warming; if you want to help America create an energy system that is more secure and less oil dependent, then you should choose solar. And if the story on solar is good, the story on wind is even better. Today electricity from wind turbines is being produced at between 3 and 4 cents a kWh. That is competitive with today's energy prices; if you have wind you have wind power. Let's not forget passive solar. Passive solar design is simple, effective, and requires no electronics to reduce energy consumption. The principles are simple: (a) face the broad portion of the house to the south; (b) Allow winter sunlight to strike some thermal mass such as a concrete or tile floor or stone wall; (c) Ventilate heat during the summer days; (d) Allow captured winter sun to radiate during winter nights. There are several excellent design tools to model this. Among the best for small buildings and homes was Energy-10, a software program developed by the National Renewable Energy Labs and available for $250 including a 2-day course on how to use it. This product has been successfully used in the field to model homes and reduce the need for additional cooling or heating. According to some of the suppliers and builders I spoke with, the major issue with cities is that they don't know enough about various types of solar systems. There was the story of one inspector in an unnamed town that shook one of the PV conduit pipes to see if it had water in it. It didn't and he passed it. In the case of OM, they said that most cities simply ignore the heating and cooling capacity of the passive system, and thus require that larger than needed heating and cooling systems go in the home. These may be installed for inspection and then removed for actual use. Some Questions to Ask: Is Cupertino in the buildings it owns or is planning, such as the new library or sports center, renovation doing enough to minimize manufactured energy use, and maximize the use of natural energy sources? Is Cupertino ensuring that homes and buildings are oriented to the south and taking advantage of solar access? For example, when we approved the awnings on the Kimpton Hotel, were they more or less shading than is required to maximize the solar potential? Is Cupertino requiring new homes and buildings to provide energy analysis as a standard part of building approval? Does Cupertino encourage builders of homes and offices to consider energy efficiency in new buildings, and are we able to properly account for the reduced heating and cooling loads in reduced conventional HVAC equipment, and able to properly and in a timely fashion inspect these types of systems? Is Cupertino encouraging builders to eliminate products that are known human toxins such as formaldehyde, arsenic, chromium from building materials? Do new Cupertino homes have sufficient, open south facing roof area that can support solar PV and/or solar hot water? Has Cupertino eliminated the use of wood preserved with arsenic from city construction of fences, decks and playgrounds? Does Cupertino require that new office buildings have windows that open? As a matter of security in an emergency, does Cupertino require that emergency and essential services run on distributed systems such as solar? Will Cupertino continue with its fleet of electric vehicles and extend its commitment by installing PV to charge these vehicles? As a matter of policy, does Cupertino regularly support initiatives before the PUC, the county or the state that would encourage renewables initiatives such as net metering and the California buy- down programs? Will Cupertino plan to send a representative to future ASES conferences? Exhibits: OM Book; Energy-10 handout; Program from the 2002 ASES Conference". (End of Verbatim report from Com. Auerbach) REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki said that the Planning Commission needed to designate Com. Corr as an alternate to accompany Com. Saadati at the next DRC meeting. He reminded the Planning Commission of the August 19th joint study session with the City Council to review the VTA Best Practices Program. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to designate Com. Corr as an alternate on the DRC. Com. Wong Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on August 12, 2002. Respectfully Submitted,