Loading...
Agenda Packet PC 07-08-2014CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, July 8, 2014 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber PLANNING COMMISSION 6:45 PM SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Subject: Approval of amended Minutes of 1-23-2014 Recommended Action: Approve or modify the amended minutes of 1-23-2014 modified PC-HC 012314 minutes.doc.docx Subject: Approval of Minutes of 5-27-2014 Recommended Action: Approve or modify the minutes of 5-27-2014 draft PC 052714.doc.docx Subject: Approval of Minutes of 6-9-2014 Recommended Action: Approve or modify the minutes of 6-9-2014 draft PC 60914.doc.docx WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR STUDY SESSION Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO July 8, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA Subject: Climate Action Plan Description: Climate Action Plan Study Session to provide direction on a preferred project Recommended Action: discuss projects and make a recommendation to the City Council Staff Report 1 - GHG Inventories 2 - Neighboring CAPs and Targets 3- proposed CAP Measures & Actions.pdf 4 - Community Comments 5 - Existing Programs 6 - New Opportunities 7 - CAP Milestones Schedule OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Director's Report Recommended Action: Accept Report pd7-8-14.doc ADJOURNMENT Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO July 8, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or planning@cupertino.org. Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO The minutes of the special meeting of the Planning Commission and Housing Commission on January 23, 2014 were approved by the Planning Commission at the meeting of April 22, 2014. Subsequent to that approval, changes were made to the minutes for name corrections, staff and Committee representations and other minor edits. Due to these changes, the amended summary minutes will need to be approved by the Commission again. Thank you. Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE HOUSING COMMISSION AMENDED SUMMARY 6:30 P.M. January 23, 2014 THURSDAY CUPERTINO CITY HALL, EOC ROOM The Special Joint meeting of the Cupertino Planning Commission and Housing Commission of January 23, 2014, was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Cupertino City Hall, EOC Room, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Com. Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Gary Chao Asst. City Attorney Colleen Wnchester Staff Diana Pancholi MIG Laura Stepton Stetson, MIG Ellie Fiore Planning Commissioners: Paul Brophy Alan Takahashi Margaret Gong Winnie Lee Don Sun (absent) Housing Commissioners: Nicole Maroko Jimmy Chien Harvey Barnett Rajeev Raman Krista Wilson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting STUDY SESSION: Presentation on the Housing Element update for the 5th Planning Cycle (Time Period: Jan. 31, 2015 – Jan. 31, 2023) and the city’s current regional Housing Needs Assessment and conduct a workshop to collect public input. Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development: • Introduced Laura Stepton Stetson, Consultant for the Housing Element. Laura Stepton: Stetson, Housing Element Consultant: • Reviewed the purpose of the study session with the Housing Commission which was to discuss what the housing element is, and why the city is updating its housing element. • She reviewed the slide presentation which included Housing Element Basics, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), Housing Needs Considerations including Aging Population/Workforce, Jobs vs. Housing Growth, Hosing Costs vs. Earnings, What is Affordable Housing, Community Benefits, Emerging Housing Concepts, and Community Input. • The housing element is part of the city’s General Plan, often called a blueprint or constitution for development in the city. Each California city is required to have the plan, to lay out a path for how the city wants to grow, develop, maintain, and improve over a 20 year period. Most cities update their plan over a 15 to 20 year basis; Cupertino is doing a focused General Plan update now but the housing element is different; it is the only element that is required to be updated on a regular basis; it was 5 years and through legislation was changed to an 8 year period. It is an important community activity that Cupertino will go through every 8 years to set its housing priorities and understand what the community’s housing needs are. It is also the only part of the General Plan required to be certified by the State Dept. of Housing and Community Development, the deadline for adopting the element is January 31, 2015. • If the city meets the deadline and has an adopted Element by the deadline it means that the state has found that the city has a legally adequate internally consistent General Plan that provides legal protection from the city in a greater extent for many challenges to land use decisions. It also puts the city in a much better position to compete for grants and loans that HCD and other agencies have available. • With the certified element, the city moves to the head of the class regarding issues that help build housing in the community that is desirable. Without a certified element, there are some other state mandates regarding how housing has to be built in the community; most cities like to be the masters of their own destinies and they ensure they have adopted housing elements so there are no state requirements that kick in. The housing element is a plan for not just building housing but maintaining housing in the community; ensuring that everybody has equal access to housing no matter their income range so that there’s a broad array of housing opportunities both in the existing housing stock as well as any new housing that might be built in Cupertino over the next 8 years or so. • One of the key objectives that the city needs to meet as part of the housing element is provide for a certain level of new housing development over the eight years; for some people it is a difficult thing to want to do or understand because they feel there is a lot of housing already in Cupertino; but every city and county in California is required to provide a fair share of housing, new housing development. It is state law and it is a top down process from the state that comes through ABAG down to each city. • She reviewed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process in which each city is allocated a number of housing units. The number that is their RHNA is a goal; not an obligation; the city is not required to ensure the housing is constructed or to construct that housing itself; it is merely Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting a goal for insuring that there are resources in place for the market to take its course and provide that housing. Part of the RHNA deals with affordability level of housing and ensuring that there is housing for all income levels. The state has said that in order to define what affordable is, they define it by density establish a minimum density for development in cases. • The city through the housing element needs to show that there are sites available to accommodate housing for the various income levels for 1064 units divided up by the income categories. How do you compare to your neighbors, where does the RHNA come from; is it based on population? Because of the growth projected in the area the growth is distributed among all the cities in the county. The issues are when people can’t afford to live in the community near where they work, it does impact the community in many ways; economic development, businesses may suffer because they find it is difficult to attract workers to their community because they have to live so far away. • She discussed affordable housing. In the last 20 years the paradigm has completely changed in the Bay Area; there are many people who once could afford homes, have good jobs, and still can’t afford housing in the Cupertino area because of the demand for all kinds of housing. Affordable housing as defined by the federal government says that if you are spending more than 30% of the household income on your housing that means that you are being cost burdened; you are in need of more affordable housing because you a paying more than 30% for either rent or mortgage and costs associated with it, such as insurance that comes with home ownership. In Cupertino 33% of all households are considered paying more for housing than the federal criteria; 51% of elderly households are paying more for housing than they can afford. Who can afford housing in the region and in Cupertino in particular? An average software developer earning $127K per year could afford to pay about $3200 a month for housing; a retiree earning less than $30K year, in order to not be overburdened they would need to be paying $729 per month for rent or mortgage which likely cannot be found in Cupertino. The estimated average mortgage in Cupertino is the range of $4800 to $5400 per month; people looking to buy homes are looking at those costs. Nobody can afford to pay the prices for the different types of house. There are likely two wage owners in the family or sometimes more than one family living in a home. • Some communities try to encourage more development of housing that is affordable to a broader range of folks; affordable housing has a different meaning in Cupertino when looking at housing costs. Some cities have said they need to do something to encourage developers to provide all types of housing for all types of people at all affordability ranges so they have set up some community benefit programs, so that most housing or office dev elopement development can be built at a certain level but in exchange for building higher densities, for allowing higher densities, the city will ask for some type of community benefit in the form of additional park space, it could be in the form of facilities funding for schools, form of more sustainable development approaches; some communities use a mechanism to fund affordable housing; so that people get density bonuses under state law to incorporate more affordable units with market rate units or to have in-lieu fees that are paid that help build up funds and are used to leverage the development of housing in the community. One of the exercises will be to help identify what their tradeoffs might be for more housing development and more affordable housing development in Cupertino; what community benefits Cupertino might look for in exchange for this type of housing. • She reviewed the various types of housing concepts including shared housing, co-housing, micro apartments and flex housing detailed in the presentation materials. Com. Brophy: • He referred to two slides, the first one that shows the Cupertino share of housing compared to other cities in the county. It appears that Cupertino has the smallest RHNA number relative to its population of any of the cities shown; the allocation recognizes that Cupertino has a limited amount Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting of vacant land and limits them to what they can absorb. He said while there are many people concerned about having to allocate this number, he would point out that it is lower relative to their population than any other city in the county. • Referring to the chart illustrating jobs and population increase, he said the problem with doing 30 year projections is that they are seeing a growth of over 7,000 jobs in 30 years and the Apple project which was approved will have a net increase of about 9,000 in itself. He felt the 30 year projections should be taken with a grain of salt. Ellie Fiore: • In response to the question what generally are the considerations to calculating the allocation by city, she said it was a complicated process, part of it relating to looking at the vacancy rate in a particular community over those years; some of it is land availability, some of it is how successful they have been in the past in providing opportunities for new housing. There are a number of factors that go into it, including vacancy. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Asked for input from three residents relative to how they see the community evolving and how they see the community moving forward with regard to housing issues. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident: • Said she thought of Saratoga as a bedroom community with limited commercial and not any Facebook or Google working sites there. She questioned how they determine how much housing is needed for a city like Saratoga; also Los Altos because it is a small bedroom community. How do they take that into account when they come up with their ABAG numbers for bedroom community type situations. She said she did not feel that they would assume that Saratoga should be providing chunks of housing if they don’t have jobs there. Darryl Lum, Cupertino Dentist: • Has been in Cupertino since 1970 and practices dentistry in Cupertino. He noted how difficult it is for a professional person starting out in the community because of the high costs of setting up a practice and buying a home, and questioned if the city would still be able to attract enough young people with job skills to the community. Said you have to balance the needs of the developers and making their profit, the needs of the community and the needs of the city in generating tax revenue. Palo Alto is giving some community benefits for higher density, higher heights and yet many Palo Alto citizens do not like all those higher densities and higher heights. Male Speaker: Barre Barnes, Cupertino resident: • Said his comment related to the density on the pockets of available land in Cupertino. Some pieces of property have one building on it and there could be housing on it, but the zoning does not allow it. Its location would be ideal for housing and not good for commercial any longer, but to try and get zones like that changed takes a long time. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Said the focus of the housing element is to understand where good locations for housing are, and the city is in the process of doing a General Plan amendment to address that, which would be followed by zone changes and put those new land use regulations in place that would facilitate the type of housing that the community is looking for. Referring to a site she would term as an under-utilized site, it is not built to its full potential and it is possible to change the land use laws, regulation, zoning that apply to that site if that is the community’s desire to move forward in that direction. If an individual Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting is taking that process on, it can be a lengthy process, that is why the city is being proactive in trying to help the process along. Jennifer Griffin, resident: • Said when talking about housing, etc. they are talking about people who are coming into the city to live or work but many times the existing community members who either live there or work in the city or somewhere else but have made Cupertino their home; are neglected and not cared about. She said that there are many neighborhoods in Cupertino that have been in existence for long periods of time, and she worries about pressures to pull back the boundaries on some of the neighborhoods for additional high density housing; and that the neighborhood integrity is going to be ripped up and not respected. There needs to be something done to ensure that the neighborhoods are left intact and respected as communities where people live and have lived for long periods of time and not have their boundaries chopped up by additional high density housing because it causes problems. The end result in those older neighborhoods is the loss of grocery stores, the cobbler shops, the dentist, etc. and it ends up with neighborhoods surrounded by 8 to 9 story high density housing and no grocery stores, no shoe stores, etc. There needs to be a balance; sometimes there is a push-push for high density housing but there is no mix in that high density housing; you need the Safeways, the grocery stores, etc. because people don’t necessarily want to have to drive out of their existing neighborhoods to find a Safeway that is two miles away, because the Safeway that was near them got torn down for high density housing. San Jose is in such a rush to put up their high density housing that they are beginning to become burdensome to their neighboring cities and the impacts are beginning to show where they put all the high density housing on the boarders of their city and the rest of the cities have to try to deal with the traffic. There needs to be a fair break that way. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Said Ms. Griffin made a clarifying comment when stating complete or intact neighborhoods, not just the fact that it is a single family neighborhood but there are services within walking distance and nearby. It is something they can look at both as part of the housing element but importantly as well as part of the focused General Plan update that the city has going on to ensure that balance and that there is walkable complete compact neighborhoods. The study session is a chance to talk about constraints and housing concerns to be able to start to investigate in greater depth the issues the housing element needs to address. (Male) Rajeev Raman, Housing Commission member: • Said schools are a major concern; it is already a challenging situation in the public schools year, particularly at the elementary level. When looking at 1,000 more units those are the types of things when you look at the age profile of the people coming in, it becomes a concern. Com. Gong: • Said she presumed the silver tsunami residents were not moving in, out, but aging in place and the age is increasing by residents who have been there a long time; as a result it does impact the schools but it impacts it because they aren’t the younger family, the younger families aren’t able to move in because the older population is maintaining their housing there. Where they think it is going to impact the schools is in number of students, in fact it may hinder the growth of the school age population if they don’t find a compromise or a workable solution. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Said some of the senior residents of the community said they want to stay in Cupertino, but they are tired of their large home, they require too much work and they want to do other things; and they also Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting recognize that they could free up their large homes for a family with school children who could take advantage of the excellent schools. Ellie Fiore: • Said she read about the Rainbow Mansion in Cupertino where quite a few young technology employees have created a co-op; they set up a consortium that formalizes the process where people have to interview and apply to be considered for the co-housing. Perhaps that might work with maintaining a senior in the house and bringing in the other elements in an existing house. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Responding to a question about how the school district is incorporated in terms of growth planning, she said they have talked to the school district, and Aarti Shrivastava is in constant contact with them and for projecting student population in Cupertino they do not follow any model, but they find they have to rethink how they are planning for students, and are looking at growth because of what is going on in Cupertino and the surrounding communities as well that feed into the school district, because the school district boundaries do not coincide with the city’s boundaries. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they have met with the school districts and have contracted with the school district’s demographer as well as the person who helps them with the impact fees to better understand what the impacts are. They will work closely with staff to ascertain what their needs are regardless of what housing is built; how does this new housing fit into it; what are the facilities’ needs going to be so that they address it more in a long term context rather than incremental, so they can work on solutions together. She commented on how impressed they were with the city the District was with the City of Cupertino vs. some of the other cities who are also clients of theirs or whose residents also come to this school district. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Said when they talked to the school districts, they were interested in knowing where the housing might be in Cupertino because it affects particular schools, and school districts are not in favor of redrawing school boundaries. Com. Lee: • Many of the plots of land in Cupertino are small with different owners, so the buildable space is small as well; which means that in the last ten years many of the housing projects have been on top, they build up two or three stories on top of retail which has had limited success due to the fact that the architecture screams housing not retail and parking is an issue too. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Said Com. Lee’s remarks presented a good lead into the next exercise with the group since it is not just about where housing might be in Cupertino, but what might that housing be. Discussion will include multi-family housing, apartments, condominiums, townhomes but also mixed use development. There are two ways to do mixed development; the first way Com. Lee described, the European way with the shops on the bottom and homes above, and another form of mixed use is to take a site and have a separate retail office/commercial pad area with housing on another portion of the site. There will be questions if it is appropriate to put mixed use development in Cupertino and where. Said there aren’t any large vacant sites in the city that require cooperation between property owners who want to get it done or a developer who is willing to start to assemble properties. It is a difficult model in a built out community such as Cupertino. Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting Com. Brophy: • Said it was his 7th year on the Planning Commission and the No. 1 issue when discussing housing has been schools. The one thing that staff has done and the Planning Commission and City Council have tried to do is to have multi-family projects with a limited number of bedrooms to have them focus more on the young technical technology people who need housing. However in talking to Cupertino residents it appears many people don’t realize the growth in school enrollment does not come from these kind of projects but rather from the gradual replacement of the old 800 square foot homes built in the 1950s, as those are torn down and replaced by 5 bedroom homes. There is no change in the number of dwelling units in the city but the cumulative effect is substantial. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Said they heard many concerns about school impacts. Said the city has to show there is capacity for 1064 units; they can reuse sites that were identified before through the public process if it is determined that those are still suitable sites for housing and the housing hasn’t come to fruition. If through the process the community and policy makers decide that those weren’t good locations for housing, they would rather have commercial or office there. They have to find additional sites for 1064 units and there will not be credit for units built during a time period. It is starting for the period January 1, 2015 through 2022; how will they accommodate 1064. If there are projects under way now that are being entitled, the city will not get credit for those; those are essentially credits toward the prior cycle. • Said there were two maps available for participants to study; one map illustrates where potential housing could be located, including multi-family and mixed use and the other is related to community benefits that the community may be seeking if there is housing. Those present broke up into smaller discussion groups regarding housing issues, including mapping exercises to identify suitable housing sites in Cupertino and desired community benefits. Individual group discussion was not recorded. Laura Stepton: Stetson: • Thanked those present for participating in the discussion group; some housing sites were identified, the discussion of community benefits will resume with the community at a future date. There were many possibilities with community benefits and people were receptive to using that approach as a tradeoff for some higher density housing in the community. She reviewed upcoming events associated with the process of getting a housing element adopted for Cupertino. The next meeting is scheduled for February13 in the evening with the Housing Commission. At that meeting focus will be on the site discussion. The February 18 meeting will focus on the General Plan amendment. The work that has been going on to look at areas of the community that might have a General Plan amendment will include some housing discussion that can feed into the discussion with the Housing Commission. There will be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council on March 4th to settle on the housing sites to be studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Report so the housing element can continue to move forward. • Thanked those who attended and encouraged everyone to participate not just in the housing element but in the General Plan update. Com. Brophy thanked all those who attended the study session. Aarti Shrivastava: • Noted that there was a website for the General Plan: www.Cupertinogpa.com … with a tab for the Special Joint Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 23, 2014 And Housing Commission Meeting housing element. There will soon also be a setup with to accept comments. Colleen Whitaker: • Reported the Housing Commission meeting will be February 13, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will meet January 28, 2014 at 6:45 p.m. Com. Brophy adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFTMINUTES 6:45P.M. MAY 27, 2014 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting ofMay 27, 2014 was called to orderat 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson:Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner:Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao Associate Planner: George Schroeder AssistantPlanner: Gian Paolo Martire Assistant Planner: Kaitie Groeneweg Ast. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 22, 2014Planning Commission meeting: Page 10, Com. Gong noted a change of wording;Delete “creating a challenging piece of property”and substitute with “creating a solution to a challenging situation” Page 12: the last motion at bottom of page,the vote taken was not unanimous;delete “4-0-1, Vice Chair voted No.” and substitute wording: “4-1-0, Vice Chair Lee voted No.” MOTION:Motion byVice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the April 22, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: It wasnoted that an emailhad been received regarding Item 2. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 2 PUBLIC HEARING 2.DIR-2014-08 Appeal of an approval of a Director’s Minor Modification Cynthia Cheung (Lim residence)to allow the addition of a 130 square foot living room area to Appellant: Xin Wang single story residence in a Planned Residential Zoning 11813 Trinity Spring Ct.District. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gian Paolo Martire, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed theappeal of the Community Development Director’s Minor Modifications (DIR-2014-08) for 130 square feet single story addition to the existing two-story residence at 11813 Trinity Spring Court, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the Power Pointpresentation as outlined in the staff report, including the history of the item, from February 2, 2014 when application was received, March 7, 2014 approval, and the appeal by neighbor Xin Wang on March 1, 2014. He reviewed the four reasons for the appeal, namely negative impacts to appellant on architectural design, views, sound and sight buffers, and water and drainage; dissatisfaction with the Seven Springs HOA review and approval process; and statement that it will negatively impact the library and dining rooms due to blockage of light, views and privacy concerns; and added first floor windows will provide views over the fence. Staff’s response to the four reasons for appeal are contained in the staff report. Staff recommends denial of the appeal, and to uphold approval of Director’s Minor Modification DIR- 2014-08 to allowthe addition of a 130 square foot living room area to a single story residence located in a Planned Residential Zoning District. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions. Aarti Shrivastava: Relative to Planning standards; there are specific standardsthat the resolution has the findings and that is what is used; in addition the HOA letter is required to make sure they have their requirements. City Attorney: Generally speaking the city doesn’t enforce HOA’s CC&Rs; sometimes in a CC&R document it says that the city has a right but not obligation to enforce, in this particular case the HOA has approved the recommendation. Relative to the extent it has to do with HOA authority and the homeowner’s privacy, it is something that the Commission should not beventuring into. To the extent that the project violates any other provision of the Municipal Code and the development standards, that is what the Commission is to determine; if it is determined there has been a violation or there is a setback or other conditions that need to be enforced, they can then do that. Com. Sun: The Planning Commission has the final say on the project; if the appellant is not satisfied with the outcome tonight, what is his option? City Attorney: Said the Planning Commission is the final review body for the city; the Planning Commission issues a decision, they can file a writ of administrative mandamus to the Superior Court, they pursue their remedies in court and then the court would determine whether or not the Commission has abused its discretion.It can be appealed to the City Council first. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 3 Xin Wong, Appellant: Said the application should not have been approved in the first place because he assumed that his neighbor would apply for the architecturalchange or home extension, it goes through the HOA to get their approval first. He was not involved until he received the city’s final notice of approval. He said he was surprised that no one listened toany input before they made a decision about HOA approval. Said he attempted to communicateto the board members about thesituation and they responded that they were going throughthe correct process. They now know there is negative impact but said because they wentthroughthe correct process they stand behind their position of approval and cannot change that. Said there was an official document about the HOA architecturaldesign guidelines, with a formal process. They have to make sure that the home extension hasto fit in with the architectural design of existing community; they have to consider neighbors negative impact in terms of views, sound and light, buffers, etc. In terms of the process in this document there is a clarity process; they need to get architectural design review to make sure that the change fits in with the community architectural design. It is stated that a General Membership Review Report shall be generated by the management office and should include evidence that notice of proposed category review modification has been given to the association members for at least 60 days and that a hearing open to all homeowners has tobe conducted by HOA to determine whether or not any home has been adversely affected by the proposed modification. They can then go ahead and decide approval or not. Said his neighbor did not go through the application of general member review; the office indicated they did not do that; the CC&Rs state that if that type of review is done, neighbors’ views on the impacts need to be considered. Said the process is flawed, they did not follow the correctprocess which is the reason he was not involved init. Said it should go back to the first stage, and start from the beginning and go throughthe correct process; now the board members know and actually have an official appraisal from a professional to state the view and light impact of this home extension and home devaluation. Said it was his first claim that the process is flawed; his rights were violated andthe whole thing was the first appeal from HOAand was invalid. Relative to the change it is only 130 square feet, but the homes are crowdedin that small space; the L -shape is put in front of his two major windows, and one of the windows got moved in front of his bedroom. He felt if they conducted the general membership report before, it would not have been an issue because they would have fixed it rightaway, but because they didn’t go through the correct process, the design got approved. Regardingthe height, it is a single family two story house, and he said he attempted to solve it personally with his neighbor by compromising, but the HOA didn’t follow the correct process and it was approved, and it is difficult for them to go back and look at the situation. Said he is seeking a compromise with his neighbor, perhaps reducing the added square footage, and to ensure that they go through the correct process. He said he was also looking to the city to see if things can be addressed correctly. Chair Brophy: Said that the heart of the appellant’s argument was that he felt the HOA did not go throughthe proper process in approving the applicant’s house design. The Planning Commission and staff’s job is to apply the City’s laws, not to apply the homeowner’s rules and to the extent that the HOA has issued a statement to the city that they have approved the applicant’s proposed design, he said he was not sure how they as a body couldhelp interms of overturning what the HOA has decided.The Planning Commission has been tasked with the responsibility of applying the city’s municipal code to applicationsand they are not in a position to judge whether the HOA did theright thing or not; they have to judge by what the City requires. Xin Wang, Appellant: Said he had no previous experience with the issue and could present an official document of the Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 4 process and has proved their thinking in going throughthe process. Lik Seng Lim, Applicant: Said he felt they followed the process appropriately and did not violateany city codes; the change made mainly affectedthe neighbor’s bedroom view; window is only one foot above fence, does not really affect Mr. Wang’s living room; after the project is finished they can plant a tree to block the view. He said they tried to work with Mr. Wang on a solution and will also pay for a new fence. He has already absorbed costs for an independent architect’s opinion about the design andwas willing to work with Mr. Wang.A discussion ensued about the possibility of the applicant and appellant reaching a compromise. Xin Wang: Said his neighbor offered to move the window; what he is seeking is not moving the window, and reducing the back part of the 45 square feet; if they can agree on not pushing it back, he felt it was something they could work out. As there was no one present who wished to speak, Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Gong: Said that taking direction from staff it did not feel that it is within their jurisdictionto force the HOA to review itagain if they followed their process. She noted the application was on October 7, 2013 and the approval was January 28, 2014, and unless there isa way of negating the fact that they did provide a 60 day notification which is within their CC&Rs or disprove that they did, shewas unsure there is any standing for them to negate the process or negate that they said they followed the process. Chair Brophy: Said it was a fair comment that it is not their position to judge whether they have or not; they were told they have approved the applicant’s request and followed it up with a second letter saying they have reviewed their process and it is not forthe Commission to analyze whether it is correct or not. Vice Chair Lee: Said they as the City and the Planning Commission don’t feel it is appropriate to interpret the HOA’s process and laws. She felt that the appellant can seek relief dealing with the HOA directly and she felt that staff applied their municipal codes to the correct extent. Com. Takahashi: Said he concurred with statements made and stated the project itself does appear to follow all code elements and that the appellant’sissue appearedto be with the HOA which is something the Commission can’t get in the middle of. Neighbor disputes can be very disruptive to a neighborhood, the appellant feels slighted and feels an injustice has taken place. Said he felt the neighbors followed all the processes and rules and the HOA has confirmed that with them; he said he hoped they would not hold the decision against their neighbor as much as the HOA and try to resolve it that way. Com. Sun: Said it appeared they all reached similar conclusions; unless the cityattorney gives a strong opinion theyhave to take the case; otherwise they do not want to get in the middle of the private party’s dispute about the issue. He said he felt the two parties could work on a compromise proposal. Said he appreciatedthat the appellant proposed the window first and the trees second. If the two can work out this one the Commission won’t need to go through all the procedures. Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 5 Chair Brophy: Said he concurred with theCommissioners. Motion:Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, andunanimously carried 5-0-0, to uphold the Director’s decision by upholding DIR-2014-08, and move to deny the appeal regarding the Director’s decision. 3.DP-2014-01, ASA-2014-01,Development Permit to allow the demolition and reconstruction TR-2014-18, Mike Ducote of a clubhouse and seven new apartment units at an existing (Biltmore Apartments)apartment complex; Architectural and Site approval for the 10159 Blaney Ave.construction ofa clubhouse, seven apartment units including parking lot, landscaping and other site modifications at an existing apartment complex; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 45 trees to facilitate the construction of an existing apartment complex. PlanningCommission decision final unless appealed. Kaitie Groeneweg, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the application to allow demolition and reconstruction and architectural and site approval of a clubhouse, 7 new apartment units at the existing Biltmore Apartment complex, landscaping and other site modifications at an existing apartment complex, and tree removal and replacement of 45 trees, as outlined in the attached staff report.She reviewed the video presentationwhich was detailed in the staff report, including the application request, site and surroundings, project data, development allocation, proposed first and second floor plans, architectural review, parking/traffic, site improvements, tree removals and replacements, environmental assessment, existing and proposed site plans, and recommendations. Staff recommends the development application per the draft resolution given that it is consistent with the General Plan and ordinance and is a design to respect thesurrounding land uses and does not anticipate having detrimental affects to the surrounding neighborhood or the public health and welfare. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions, including notifications sent regarding the application. Signs at the proposed property location are also posted 14 days before the meeting. John Moss, Prometheus Development, Applicant: Discussed zoning and variances; said the zoning supports every aspect of theirproposed development; they are not asking for any variances tonight. The Heart of the City Plan (HOC) also supports every aspect of the design shared, and the General Plan for the city also supportsall of the elements in the design. In terms of the number of units and density, they are proposing fewer units than what the density allows; proposing only 7 apartments, totaling 192 units, and asking for 28 fewer units than what the maximum density allows. As noted by staff they are providing more parking than the 2 parking stalls per unit that is required by the city, regardless of the unit size as well as 4 additional stalls. Relative to the amenities available for residents, they are proposing to replace an outdated and small recreational and leasing facility with a state of the art leasing center and recreational clubhouse for residents. A large fitness studio will be provided as well as a spacious community room for the residents. The pool area is being renovated, an outdoor kitchen and firepit are being added as well as outdoor dining area. Chuck Tang, Studio T Square, architecture firm: Thanked staff for their support; and said that the project was anextension of a Phase 2 project that is under construction along Stevens Creek. They have the opportunity not only to create a better clubhouse and a couple of units, but also create a much better connection to the Phase I project. Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 6 There was an existing plan, an existing playground which is being relocated to create better connectivity to the new development as well as allowing for better open space and common amenity uses within the clubhouse area. The context of the existing project is a cottage low slung stylewith the addition of the new units on Stevens Creek; there is a more contemporary trend in terms of the project and this is the master plan so along with the development, not only of the clubhouse and the new entry drive area, as part of this relocation of the playground area, they have created a much better connectivity of the project that is under construction to the heart of this project. They also wanted to create much more of a spa-like environment for the heart of this community by creating a parking court with a plaza-like condition with specialty paving and allowing the parking to be more in-road by deleting two cars. The landscaping on the site is rich and attractive and they don’t want to interrupt that by relocating a lot of the existing trees on site as well as planting 43 new ones. They also want to maintain the waterscape around the site creating a project that becomes the new heart of the community and creating much better indoor/outdoor access in the common area. He said they have been working with staff increating thebuilding setbacks from the adjacent buildings so there is an apparent diminishing of the massing that is important to staff and them as well. He provided an overview of the project; since they have new projects being built, architectural style is more contemporary; they want the new icon to relate to the newer portion of the project but also create an icon for the rest of the existing project. He discussed the hardscape and paving materials to be used. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Phyllis Dickstein, Cupertino resident: Opposed to the project. Said it was at least the third or fourth time the residents of Blaney Avenue had to watch their backs and appear at City Hall to defend themselves. She addressed the issue of noticing, stating that it was the entire street being affected, and noticing should have covered more than 300 feet away from the proposed project and should have received 10 days notice; if not through the postal mail, but at least email to those on the email list. The rules for sending out agendas are different than sending out notices for high density housing. Secondly, when the City Council reduced the number of units in Biltmore 2 by 10 units, it was not becauseof density within the site butrather because of the traffic impact on Blaney Avenue, a narrow two lane street. Placing additional units in Biltmore 1 is a way of negating that decision by a slight of hand; it’s Biltmore 1, not Biltmore 2.Said they would want to know where the figuresof only 4 or 5 cars come from; 7 units means a minimum of 7 cars and because of the cost of rents in Cupertino, some of the occupants of a studio apartment may be a working couple. They won’t know what the traffic impact of the additional 80 units will be until they are actually rented out. There is already high densityhousingon the north side near Homestead and at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Blaney; said there was no reason to try to slip 7 units under the wire. She recommended a moratorium on new approvals of high density housing until thePlan amendment process is completed. She also suggested that the agenda items be postponed until there can be proper noticing of the community. Dr. Darrel Lum, representing Concerned Citizens of Cupertino: Said he met with John Moss and Mike Ducotealthough they would have preferred a meeting earlier in the process; it was difficult with the holiday weekend to get together to work on a response; and they would have also preferred that the current project be combined with the initial project in 2012 rather than be piecemeal. Some of the calculations were based on the gross lot area which is under consideration by the General Plan amendment. Even though this project is going to be under 200 using the gross lot area gives 220. As far as this Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 7 project is concerned including the 2012 project and today’s it is within the density and within the height and setbacks of the policies of the city of Cupertino; also the common area is almost twice as much as required; HOC requires 178 square feet per unit which would be about 28,000and this particular project comes up with 61,000 which is more than double the common open area. Some of the Council members previous in the 2004 housing element recommended that apartment complexes try to use their density more efficiently and he said he felt Biltmore has done so. They were trying to recommend that Glenview and the Villages do the same thing which would help the housing element as far as the regional requirements. It was mentioned that the 1999 renovations were disruptive to the residents at that time and they hoped the construction for thenew projects would avoid that. They were given some assurance that they would try to minimize the disruptionto the current residents. Asked for clarification on Page 2 regarding the parking, wherein it states total per unit 1.8 both under existing and proposed. When Prometheus did the calculations theycame out as 2.57, 2.52; why is there a major error relativeto parkingper unit, 1.8 and 2.5 is quite a significant number. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident: She commended the owners for trying to maintain the lush landscape and water features on the grounds that have made the Biltmore such an attractive complex over the years. Space in Cupertino is very expensive and what they have has to be used wisely. Said she was concerned that they were planning to remove 48 trees as they have had problems in the past with tree removals. Said it was important to keep as much green canopy as possible and she was pleased they were considering putting in 48 inch box trees as replacement. She expressed hope that some of the old trees on the site would be moved to other locations on the site and many that are removed be replaced. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Chair Brophy: What is the policy about notification beyond the 300 foot requirement; what size projects do we do that for? AartiShrivastava: For this project it would be 300 feet; agendas are sent out to those who requested; also a sign is put up at the location of the proposed project; that was reaffirmed thelast time the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the procedures. Chair Brophy: Dr. Lum raised the issue about the parking numbers; Chair Brophy asked for another review of them. Kaitie Groeneweg: The parking ratio is based on the numberof total proposed parking spaces divided by the number of units proposed of 192, that is wherethe 1.8 parking ratio comesfrom. Chair Brophy: Is it correct that our parking ordinance does not separate between projects that have assigned spots and those that do not? Aarti Shrivastava: No they do not; the applicant may be able to help check on the 2.57, but the staff does not come up with that number. Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 8 Applicant: Said the 2.57 is probablythe number of spaces being added divided by the 7 units. Aarti Shrivastava: That may be just for those; staff is looking at the entire project. Chair Brophy: Are there any trees on the public right-of-way that will be removed in addition to the private trees? Kaitie Groeneweg: No, the 48 trees are all private trees. Chair Brophy: There are no trees on the strip between the sidewalk and the curb that will be going out. Kaitie Groeneweg: They wouldn’t be included as part of the tree removal permit. Chair Brophy: Will they lose public trees thatthe city would need to replace? What is the access to the current leasing office? Aarti Shrivastava: Recalled there was a driveway on the northern end of the project site along Blaney and as part of the new project that was closed off and a new driveway was created immediately north of that; it combined the driveways for the new project and the old one. That will stay the new one; there is one off Rodriguez and the third one just for this parking lot that is being created what will be part of the new project proposed today, south of the driveway to the townhouses across the street above Price. Com. Sun: A speaker raised a question about Blaney traffic on the east side of Blaney; there isno parking on the Biltmore apartments siteduringthe evening. In the future if the entire apartment complex is occupied and the traffic becomes very heavy, can the city have a new measurement about the parking restriction, such as not allowing any parking on Blaney at all to ease the traffic. Aarti Shrivastava: Said she did not feel the traffic requirements would impact the parking along Blaney, because the lane on Blaneyis separated from the parking strip. The city trafficengineer as well as Hexagon did not raise any of those concerns; the additional 7 units should not create an issue. Com. Sun: Relative to Phase 1 and 2, Prometheushas a long vision of 10 to 20 years; he asked why they separated the two projects. Aarti Shrivastava: She recalled the property owner mentioning the possible future plan when he presented the clubhouse verbally at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, but they were not aware of what the actual plans were. She said it was two years into the project now and the applicant would likely be the best person to respond. Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 9 Mr. Moss, Applicant: Said the idea didn’t come about until several months after the last project was approved; discussion took place in the leasing office about how they could better serve the current and prospective residents. A property manager suggested that it would be ideal to create some parking that would be off Blaney instead of directly on Blaney, such that the prospective residents could park there. That idea led to the concept of creatingmore parking and they could also renovate theclubhouse and build a much larger, nicer amenity for the residents. At that time they found with the amount of parking they could create off Blaney with thenew driveway,they could put some studio units above the clubhouse as well. Said the idea was not premeditated a year or two ago; it came up several months after the last approval. He noted that if it was premeditated it would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of the planning fees and incorporating it into one project. Com. Gong: Said as a Commission they have spoken extensively about new housing being available for smaller units for singles coming in; the project fits well with what the Commissionhas been talking about and the fact it doesn’t impact space beyond what is already in existence is a good solution. It appears with respect to Mrs. Dickstein’s concern, the traffic impact could be up to 7 cars per peak hours or maybe 9 because the employees of the office would be coming in and going at the same time but for the total amount of traffic 7 or 9 additional cars, especially if they are not fighting for parking spaces on Blaney. If there are designated spaces it would mitigate some of that traffic. Overall it is a good solution for the owner as well asthe community. Com. Takahashi: Echoed Com. Gong’s comments; project is self-contained inside the existing complex, not very visible from Blaney; it is surrounded by two story now; and will enhance the current residents experience on the site; the playground location is positive because it is a nice space now and they are adding relocated trees. It is studio units so the typical concern with school impact is very minimal and the applicant has followed all elements of the zoning ordinance. He said he saw no reason to oppose the project. Vice Chair Lee: Said she met with the applicants the previous weekto review the project details. Relative to the development permit she said she supported the demolition of the existing leasing office and the construction of a new leasing office and 7 studio units. The building design, paving and landscaping have been reviewed and she said she supports the architectural site approval as well as the tree removal permit; the project will provide a benefit to the residents it serves. It also provides a good benefit to the residents in the surrounding area with the parking space constructed so that it gets cars off the street at Blaney. Com. Sun: Said he felt it was piecemealbut if indeed it was not premeditated he did not object to the project because it is their own business, and not related to the public unless it is going to significantly affect the traffic along Blaney. He concurredwith Com. Gong that 7 or 10 cars are coming out every day and not just 2 or 3. Said the traffic report did not make sense, he felt it did not generate too much traffic there; it is a good, well planned project which he supported. Chair Brophy: Said he agreed with colleagues, and added when they had the hearing on Phase 2 about two years ago, the most common concern expressed by residents was the impact upon school enrollment. In this case they are adding 7 studio units; and because it is Cupertino where the schools are valued for their excellent education, there is a possibility that the new units may result in a gain of one or two Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 10 students. Compared to the 4 and 5 bedroom homes being built in town where there were formerly small houses, the impact is inconsequential. Said he supported the project. Motion:Motion byVice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve DP-2014-01, ASA-2014-01 and TR-2014-18 per the model resolutions. 4.CP-2014-01, EA-2014-05 Review of five year Capital Improvements Program City of Cupertino (FY 2014-2015 to 2018-2019) for conformity to the City’s Citywide Location General Plan. Tentative City Council date: June 10, 2014 George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Explained that the application is for the Planning Commission’s annual review of the city’s 5 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 for conformity to the city’s General Plan. Each year the Council adopts the five year spending plan for capital improvements throughout the city; funding is not fixed or committed during the five year term; funding may shift in the second to fifth years as priorities change and project schedules can either accelerate or decelerate depending on the lifetime of the project. State law and the City’s Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission review the CIP for consistency with the General Plan and make a recommendation on the environmental assessments. Overall the first year funded projects and CIP are consistent with the General Plan. A full list of each project is contained in the staff report and the findings for consistency. He referred to Attachment 7 for excerpts of pertinent General Plan policies and text and reviewed the General Plan consistency findings which were summarized on page107-109 of the staff report. Based on the findings of the Initial Environmental Study, the ERC on May 8, 2014 recommended the granting of a Negative Declaration for the entire CIP since no significant cumulative environmental impacts were found. Each project will have its own separate environmental assessment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the CIP consistent with the General Plan; also recommend a Negative Declarationto be forwarded to the City Council at their June 10, 2014 budget adoption meeting. Com. Takahashi: It is the Planning Commission’s task to make sure they are consistent withthe environmental as well as General Plan. Can more be done in terms of funding of the bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements given that isa key element in the General Plan as the city continues to grow. Implementing those types of plans become more challenging in the future than if we try to be more proactive and fund it at a higher level;now I think it is 265,000 vs. some of the other projects which are much bigger. He recommended they look at whether or not they can fund some of the bicycle transportation plan implementation at a higher level such that it can get done sooner rather than later and then work around the transportation infrastructure vs. trying to squeeze the transportation infrastructure around existing development. What is the process by which the budget is allocated and how can they try to secure more funds for those elements? Aarti Shrivastava: For the purposes of this item, the Commissionpurview would be finding whether it is consistent with the General Plan; however, they can forward Commissioners’ comments to the Council for future budgets; the Planning Commission will be reviewing the General Plan Amendment and will be able to look at policies. Said that it would be appropriate for a Planning Commissioner, audience member or TV audience member, to make suggestions to the Council on how best to spend the capital improvement dollars by contacting their Council Members and/or appear at the June 10th Council Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 11 meeting when it will be discussed. Com. Gong: Said there were 5 Wilson Park type of projects including a master plan; asked f it would not be more prudent to do a master plan and incorporate the other 4 elements of the Wilson Park renovation/modification/improvement within the master plan, depending on the timing since the timing is to be within the next year or so. She said if the teen center were to be relocated she would suggest considering a parking study as well as one for the library expansion. They should also consider replacement of the Quinlan Center floor. Com. Sun: Expressed concern about the limited amount of time the Commissioners have to review the agenda items formeetings. He said it was difficult to review every project and make intelligent decisionsin such a short time period. He suggested receiving the materials earlier to allow for more time to conduct research to enable them to make good decisions. Aarti Shrivastava: Relative to the concern about when the packets are received, part of the schedule is driven by the budget schedule and the budget came out the first week of May andthe Council had a study session the secondweek of May. Staff attempted to get the packet to the Commission as soon as they could get the ERC to meet, trying to fit between the study session and the ERC meetingand the budget session for the Council. The good news is while asprivate citizensPlanning Commissioners are welcome to go through the packet to review the CIP for an actual project merits, at this level the only decision or recommendation the Commission has to make is whether it conforms to the General Plan. It wouldn’t be the same level as you would if you were the Council for example. The second response, if a Commissioner has comments as a private citizen, he/she can represent themselves as a private citizen or residents, or send an email to the Council related to the budget. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertinoresident: Thanked the Commission for trying to fix Perimeter Road at Stevens CreekBlvd. intersection; it creates confusion as to whether to turn left or right or move forward, and the drivers coming from Marketplace wait to see whether others are going. It would be helpful to have a left turn signal there and keep the traffic flowing and have controlled access. Said she felt putting in a right turn lane for Perimeter Road would be an ideal situation, dividing the road, because Perimeter is the main access in and out of the mall but it does provide access for the other shopping centerwhere the mini restaurants are. Motion:Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to recommend a Negative Declaration EA-2014-05 for the proposed 5 year Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2014-2015 to 2018-2019;and findings that the proposed CIPis consistent with the General Plan per the draft resolution CP-2014-01. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Cupertino Planning Commission May 27, 2014 12 Met twice; once on the CIP issue and once on a hillside exception project. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners: No meeting Economic Development Committee: Com. Gong reported: New staff person is Angela Tsey; meetings will be scheduled quarterly. Gary Chao reported at the meeting that they are working on the General Plan with revisions to a policy for high density for community benefit with the Council’s direction. The EIR release is tentatively scheduled for June 11th with the Planning Commission seeing the entire General Plan revision in September andCouncil in October. The Economic Development Director is also engaging a consultant to create an Economic Development strategic plan and which will leverage a lot of the work being done for the GPA revisions and should be completed within 3 months. The Director of Public Works stated that it would take 85 million dollars to bring Cupertino’s roads to wellness. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted. Aarti Shrivastava added that the Council will be looking at a master plan for the Civic Center in July; Public Works is directing the process. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to theJune10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING DRAFTMINUTES 6:45P.M. JUNE 9, 2014 MONDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Special Planning Commission meeting ofJune 9, 2014 was called to orderat 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson:Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner:Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao Associate Planner: George Schroeder AssistantPlanner: Gian Paolo Martire Assistant Planner: Kaitie Groeneweg Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Item 1, also letter from FCC notifyingthat an application for cell tower has been submitted, Cupertino City Hall site. Card from architectural firm representing client from the gas station on Foothill Blvd. expressing appreciation for opportunity to speak before Planning Commission. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1.EXC-2014-02, TR-2014-09 Residential Hillside Exception to allow a 2,986 sq. ft. (EA-2014-02) EXC-2014-03 single family residence to be constructed on a slope of 30% TR-2014-10 (EA-2014-03)or greater (Lot A); Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal EXC-2014-04 (EA-2014-04)and replacement of 5 trees to facilitate the construction of a Terry Brown (Osann and new single family residence (Lot A); Residential Hillside Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 2 O’GradyLots)Exception to allow a 3,185 sq. ft. single family residence to be 10645 Cordova Rd constructed on a slope of 30% or greater (Lot B); Tree removal (Lots A, B and C)Permit to allow the removal andreplacement of 3 trees to facilitate construction of a new single family residence (Lot B); Residential Hillside Exception to allow a 3,186 sq. ft. single family residence to be constructed on a slope of 30% or greater (Lot C). Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Kaitie Groeneweg, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed application for three residential hillside exceptions to allow three new single family residences to be constructed on slopes greater than 30%;detailed information is contained in the attached staff report. She presented a Power Point summary, reviewing the project site, project background, project data, proposed residences, Hillside Exception, Geological Review, Tree Removals, Cordova Road Improvements, Environmental Assessment, Outreach/Public Comments and Staff Recommendation as outlined in the staff report. In addition to the standard noticing, the applicant voluntarily held a neighborhood meeting on June 18, 2013; neighborhood concerns voiced at the meeting are listed on Page 6 of the Power Point presentation included in packet. The project is consistent with RHS ordinance and conditions have been added to address most of these concerns. Staff recommends approval of the hillside exceptions and the tree removal permits in conjunction with the draft resolutions. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions regarding the application. Terry Brown, representing 3 Property Owners: Osann, K. O’Grady, B. O’Grady: Responded to issues and concerns summarized in the question/answer period with staff. There are 3 parcels; 3 separate owners since 1998; the retaining walls on the site were redesigned for two reasons: one for appearance and the second for the driveway issue. They worked with the neighbor most affected across the street with respect to actual retaining wall materials and design; and also at staff’s request limited the retaining walls to a maximum of 4 ft. height and they are less than that. The driveway issue, the old driveway is on the south side of the Torre pine, hard to access; the new drivewayis on the north side of the Torre pine and is designed consistent with the Fire Departments request and requirements. They had several discussions with the Fire Dept to make sure they could access that property with their fire equipment. The Torre pine tree is a rare tree and there has been a request to retain the tree. The road had to be widened south of the driveway in order to accommodate the request. The Fire Dept. has approved that and there is only one residence that is served south of that Torre pine by Cordova Rd. With respect to the lot sizes, normally in the city you can build 45% of the lot size and they have been restricted, and also further restricted on Lots A and B; where they have to subtract the easement for the driveway; which is the reason for the relatively modest sized homes and they comply with the residential hillside ordinance with respect to lots of 30% or greater. The old house was demolished 15 years ago at the request of the City of Cupertino; the original site is not acceptable for the construction of a house because there is a lot of undocumented fill there which theywill be required to remove and the grading will essentially eliminate that particular building site. Relative to the road, the current roadway on Cordova ranges from about 10 to 13 feet; it is difficult for cars to pass; the new roadway will be fully improved 20 feet wide which is easy for two-way traffic and there will be no parking on that side, but it will be 20 feet wide except around the Torre pine where it will be restricted to 10 feet. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 3 Chair Brophy: Said there is always a concern with projects on steep hillsides including the danger to the homes being built or to the adjoining property owners. Said in the past there have been houses that have slid in rainy winters and he was curious if that is an inherent risk on building sites that are this steep or can they be designed such that there should not be a problem? Rex Upp, Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer: Has been working on the subjectproject for many years and in Cupertino hills for over 30 years. Responding to Chair Brophy, he said the latter; they can be designed so that there is not that problem; theissues are evaluated and analyzed ahead of time and they are designed and constructed based on that analysis. In this particular area there was landslide 20 years ago uphill of this whichwasto the north but on a different slope going a different direction and it was caused by grading to create a property down slopeof the slideand eventually it just went because it was an unsupported slope. Said the subject site doesn’t have those problems although it was graded decades ago for that original house; those cut slopes have never created a problem, all the new slopes are going to be retained with walls, the foundations will be constructed down into the bedrock; the houses are being set backinto the hillside which is a much more stable configuration than trying to create a big level pad and putting the house on a level pad so they will be set back into the hillside which is a more stable foundation. He said he did not have any concerns about slopes stability at the subject property. Terry Brown: Said they have to comply with the city ordinance relativeto construction hours. The best solution is to let theworkers work as many hours as they can to get the project done because it’s a disruption on the neighborhood and it is incumbent on any builder to expedite the process. If the construction hours are significantly limited beyond what the city already does, it will drag the project out and will be a neighborhood disruption for a longer period of time. The bulk of the people who use Cordova Rd.live north of the proposed driveway; there is only one residence that is south of the driveway and if thetrucks are on site they are going to park on the construction site. The current roadway is narrow and if they want to limit concrete trucks arriving at 7 a.m.or condition it within reason, it could be done. Chair Brophy: Said a neighbor sent a letter expressing concern not so much about the usual issue with construction hours and noise, but more about the ability of people who reside on Cordova Road to get children or commuters off the street and not have it blocked by construction vehicles especially during the 7:30 to 9 a.m. period. If they are big vehicles the residents leaving early in the morning won’t be able to get out of their houses which would be a concern. Gary Chao: Said there were requirements for construction management plan that would require Terry Brown and contractors’crew to demonstrate to the city construction hours in conformance with the city’s requirement as well as access of not only construction vehicles, but contractor’s parking and emergency access including a telephone number to the superintendent in the event they need to reach them in an emergency. Chad Mosley, Public Works: Public Works requires all staging of construction equipment be on site and if needed to utilize the right of way for staging, they would be required to get an encroachment permit limiting construction hours betweenthe hours of 9 and 3, so it shouldn’t be an issue in the morning for people gettingout. If they are required to utilize the right of way and would be blocking full access, Public Works would Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 4 work with Terry Brown as well asthe resident to temporarily open the gate to the south side to allow access out. It would be done on a temporary basis and only as necessary. For the most part the construction site can be staged onsite. Chair Brophy: The key thing from the perspective of any resident there is they would like it addressed beforehand rather than have a problem on a given day where they would just take it out for school and for work. Said he hoped that any construction management plan would reflect the unique situation on such a narrow road. Gary Chao: Said that the construction management plan consisting of all those points addressed would have to be reviewed and approved by the city including Public Works Dept. prior to issuance of building permits; so the site is not going to commence construction activity until staff is comfortable with that plan. Brian O’Grady,Owner of Lot C: Provided a brief history of the subdivision on thehills; originally subdivided in the early 1900s when it was common tohave small lots. At onetime there were as many as 6or 8 lots on that hillside; over the years the shapes were changed but they were always under separate ownership. When they purchased the lots in 1998 they had been recently reconfigured in1993 by the three separate owners at thattime. The reason for the reconfiguration was to make them into regular shaped lots. Chair Brophy: Notedfor the record a letter from Chris Mitchener, 10676 Cordova Rdsummarizing issues to be addressed:(1) Feels adding three homeson a street where there are only five toward the end of the street will increase the traffic and create safety issues, especially for families with youngchildren; that it will permanently alter the character of the neighborhood; and the development of three homes does not fit the character of the present neighborhood. (2) The nature of the construction, specifically about the issue raised earlierabout whether or not construction activities between 7:30and 9:00 will make it difficult or impossible for parents to deliver children to school or similarly when people go to workshe does not want to be in a situation where children will be late or have to negotiate on an ad hoc basis with the contractor. Dennis and Barbara West, 10670Cordova Road, They have been at theiraddress for 38 years; property is immediately adjoining the development project. Thanked staff for their dedication and time to the project to get it right and also to the developer for his sensitivity to the neighbors’issues and willingness to address them. A key concern is to have water at the constructionsite during the constructionperiod except during the rainy season for fire safety reasons. The road is closed at one end by a locked gate and the road cannot accommodate two way traffic; the fire truck cannot get past cars. Because of the drought the ground is dry and at high risk for fires. She asked that the developer reset the survey markers when they are done the road improvements. Saidthey supported the development; they had a neighbors meeting over a year ago, have listened to the neighbors’ input and have been good about addressing the concerns. RichardEnfantino, property owner adjacent on northern side: Opposes the project. Owner of two properties, one on Mercedes Rd and one on Cordova; access is on Cordova; they hada private driveway before the proposed construction.Said he has had extensive work on his property following slides and earthquake damage over the years. Putting in 3 more houses in the neighborhood, with all the grading would pose a heavy impact on his property. Relative to the width of the road, the Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 5 house on Cordova goes to the street in a wedge shape. It will be a pie shape going out to the street which will narrow it down significantly, creating a bottleneck. With 3 more houses there will be many more cars causing a heavy impact with no end in sight on how to get the road all the way down. Said he travels extensively and was not aware of any meetingsscheduled. Said he was willing to talk with the developer and willing to share costs relative to the widening of the road. Gary Chao: Said it was not within the city’s capital improvement program to carry out the streetchanges; it is city’s standard policyto work with the individual property owners to do it a section at a time. Steven Breinberg, resident: Echoed Mrs. West’s remarks about the developer being extremely helpful, accommodatingandwilling to hear their concerns. He owns the property next toMr.Enfantino’s wedge; the house that most directly faces the house on the north side, lot C; one concernhe had is about loss of visual privacy that the house being proposed for Lot C would now have a view straight into our front windows, whereas we currently have a nice private living room. Requested that if the project moves forward the developer either retain the trees and brush that provides visual privacy at that edge of the property or replaceit with appropriate trees to restore that visual privacy they will lose. Said he had concerns about increased traffic; couldn’t say that he supported the project with due appreciation for consideration of Mr. Brown, but if it does happen, itis one requesthe would make. TerryBrown: Said he has complied with R1 requirementsfor privacy plantings and would be happy to speak with the neighbor about thatand work something out. Gary Chao: Added, depending on if the Commission is considering adding a condition to that effect, perhaps they could consider language along the line of addressing the intent of the R1 privacy protection because there might be some retaining walls that precludehaving a tree or shrub at that particular location in which case TerryBrown could work withthe adjacent neighbor in exploring planting trees on the other side on the neighbor’s property as well potentially to address that. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: Said the city consulting geologist Cotton Shire peer reviewed their recommendation and geotechnical analysis and prescribed a set of conditions which are incorporated into the resolution, they are comfortable with the game plan moving forward. Com. Gong: Said several neighbors support the project and the developer has worked well with the neighbors. She supports the project and recommended that the developer work with Mr. Enfantino as well as Mr. Bainberg to accomplish their request. Said she agreedwith Vice Chair Lee that they should not be imposing R1 requirements right now; and left it to the three neighbors to work out issues as they will be neighbors. Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 6 Com. Sun: Relative to the road issue, he said he felt it was the developer/applicant’s responsibilityfor 300 feet; any further is the city’s responsibility. The traffic bottleneck is not the developer’s responsibility; there may be some sharing of costs between the neighbors. The city geologist has determined there is no problem on the unstable hillside construction, which overrules the neighbor’s complaint. He said he did not feel the privacy was a major problem; some trees can be planted to protect their privacy. He said he supported the project. Vice Chair Lee: Said staff and the applicants did a good job. She generally does not like building on slopinglots or hillsides with slopes; itaffectsthe visual character of the hillside. As it is three separate owners and has been three parcels for almost 100 years, she said she respects the property owners’ rights to develop, and felt the site plans are reasonableand the number of parking spaces for each property and residence seem appropriate. She said in the particular situation she would support the hillside exceptions and concurrently the tree removal permits as well in order to construct the three residences. She said she reluctantly supported the project. Com. Takahashi: Said the project complied with everything with the exception of the grade. The fact that there has been peer review of the geologist’swork is positive, given the concern of building on hillsides. It was noted by the neighbor that the developer has been proactive in outreach to the neighbors; with a goal to have a harmonious neighborhood and not have any animosityafter they are done building the project. It is a good model for development and creates a positive environment moving forward. Given all the findings he agreed that tree removal is required andthe replanting as specified. He said he supported the project. ChadMosley: Said they had noissue with having water on site as long as the developer is on board; there is a fire hydrant about 150 ft awaywhich the Fire Department usually states is adequate. It has been a very dry year and it may be advantageous to have water on site but only if the developer is willing to takethe extra step and do it. He said they don’t want to put undue requirements on them when the Fire Department states what is there is adequate. GaryChao: Said that there is also a condition that addresses that. (Section 4, Para. 24) Chair Brophy: Said they generally adhere to whatever the Fire Dept. says. He felt that while the hydrant is behind the gate, to the extent they ever need to use that, therewon’t be a problem getting a line there, but while they can’t get thetruck behind the gate, they can certainly get a line tothe hydrant. Said he felt the various issues have been handled. He expressed concern about the construction management; that whatever the construction management plan is, it be sensitive to the narrowness of the road and the burden that the constructionactivities could place on the residents trying to get out especially in the morninghours. He said it was important to make sure whatever additional terms are needed to deal with the unique situation of the one lane roads in the hills is reflected. Residents don’t want to have to call the city to get a concrete truck out of the way so they can get to work or take the kids to school. Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 7 Motion:Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, andunanimously carried5-0-0 to approve EXC-2014-02, TR-2014-09, EXC-2014-03; TR-2014-10, EXC-2014-04 and approve Negative Declaration for EA-2014-02,EA-2014-03 and EA-2014-04 per the model resolutions. 2.U-2014-01, ASA-2014-05 ConditionalUse Permit to convert approx. 7,500 sq. ft. of office JaniceYeh (Little Tree space of an existing two-story office building into a day carecenter Bilingual Montessori use; Architectural and SitePermit to allow a play area, landscape 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd.enhancements and associated site improvements for a new day care #130 and #150 center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gian Paolo Martire, Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: Reviewed application for Conditional Use Permit to convert a 7500 sq. ft. office space at an existing two-story office building into a day care use, architectural and site approval to allow a play area, landscape enhancements and associated site improvements for a new day care at an existing office building; and Public Works condition that the driveway to the lots is also upgraded and brought up to code, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the background of the application, existing site and surroundings, operational information as outlined in the Power Point presentation. He reviewed three concerns of resident Mr. Tucci. Relative to the noise concerns, he felt that the noise impacts from the playground are significant. Stafffound that the noise impacts emanating from the playground and coming into the playground from the outside uses of the general area, both conform to the General Plan Municipal Standards. In the noise study prepared by the city’s noise consultant, it was also found and concluded that no significant impact was found for the neighboring properties. The second issue is that the elimination of parking will create an overflow onto Randy Lane and neighboring properties. In the parking and traffic study preparedby the consultant, it was found that the impact would be less than significant or not significant at all. The site demand is equal to the spaces provided; and the applicant will provide a parking management plan as conditioned. It was noted throughout the study that the demand for parkingfluctuates throughout the day; the daycare use at this site will not benefit and is inconsistent with the surrounding uses. As mentioned earlier, the site was developed as an office space and not for retail, and as itis developed, it would not be suited for retail, and the day care uses along Stevens Creek Blvd. aren’t actually increasing. The city is not getting a new day care use, it is relocating to across the street. The environmental assessment for this project was found to be categorically exempt because it is found to be an infill development project and conversion of a small structure. Staff recommends approval of the use permits, and the architecturaland site approval to allow the operation of a day care centerper the draft resolution. Staff answered Commissioners’ question regarding the application. Janice Yeh, Applicant: Family has been running Montessori in Bay Area for the lastten years, currently 4 schools; has been in current location for 5 years;however presently having difficulties at current site regarding parking and circulation. Said that the construction for the Biltmore Northproject has negatively affected the circulation and there is a construction fence encroaching on the parking spaces making driveway even narrower. Dust and noise from the construction site is also negatively affecting the day care center. The proposed site across the street provides a similar square footage, ample parking, easy circulation. They purchased the buildingwith the intention of moving the present day care center to the one across the street on the ground floor. She said she was aware of Mr. Tucci’sconcerns about the possibility of parents parking on his property but the day care patrons will not be parkingon his property or on Randy Lane because their parking lot is in closer proximity to the day care center. Relative to the noiseconcerns, she said they have schools next to condos or behind office building and therehavenot Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 8 been noise problems; and theyare willing to make adjustments to schedules or number of children on the playground if any problems arise. Com. Gong: Expressed concern about the designationof school parking vs. the parking for the tenants, and suggested designating a specific area for the tenants to parkseparate from the school parking, and also staff’s point that the 5 space dropoff might be sufficient. She felt that 5 spaces designated for drop off was not sufficient; and suggested mitigation of a specific area in the parking lot for school parking, not intermingled with the tenant parking. Janice Yeh: Said they would be able to accommodate that; in the current site there are 4 designated parking spaces with 105 students. Chair Brophy: Noted for the record that he met with Ms. Yeh earlier in the day. Said it wasn’t technically a city concern, but the applicant paid a high price for the building because of its Cupertino location, and asked the applicant if she was not concerned about being able to rent space in a building where 25% of the space is occupied by a day care center. Janice Yeh: She said certain businesses would be attracted to a building with a day care center for the convenience of dropping their children off. Chair Brophy openedthe public hearing. Carl Tucci, resident: Opposesthe project. In order to emphasizehis concern about the noise impacts from the children attending the day care, he played a tape recording he took of children’s voices behind Cort Furniture, approximately 20 children in the parking lot, 20 feet away. Said the corner of the day care’s property is on thecorner of his property with no buffer. He said the plan is based on a fallacy that they are going to go through an easement and park their cars four abreast. He said he was not getting an easement, there has been no easement negotiated with him and he was not giving an easement.He said he was not going to tear his buildings down; he has owned his property for 35 years.He said the noise pollution is a definite problem and impacts his property directly; restaurateurshave expressed interest in the property but when he tells them it was a day care plan, they back off. Said he isknowledgeable about property values and could notoverestimate the impact it will have on his property. Relative to the noise, he said that the consultant reported that the dba level exceeds the limits of Cupertino and their traffic report says that the trafficexceeds the use permit limit. He said at best the noise pollution would not make for a pleasant environment for the kids to play. Hesaid he was not opposed to children, but was worried about his own property and the noise emanating from that. He said he felt it would be an all day madhouse in the parking lot. Mr. Tucci: Said he was not opposed to them making money from this business. Miss Yeh eludedbefore to the agreement they had to lease his property, that agreement fell apart because there was a covenantin the agreement that said if the city requiredhim to give an easement, the deal was null and void. Said that he has people interested in his property and was open to considering a deal.He said they could build an 8 foot high solid wall around their playground area to eliminate the noise factor. Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 9 Brian Flory, resident: Supports application. Complimented the staff on their day care program and the excellent education afforded to learn more Chinese language. Said their current parking situation is bad, but the proposed parking much better. They feel the bilingual school is important as it affords them the opportunity to have both their children learn more Chinese. Dasha Babic, resident: Supports application. Said his child would become trilingual while attending the day care, and has enjoyed the social, cultural and educational services offered at the day care. He attested to the current bad parking situation at the facilities and said he was recently involved in a fender bender in the parking area. He said what was presented was a better solution with or without the easements for in and out for drop off; the drop offs are very controlled. In the morning the five designated spots are okay because they arrivein a two to three hour time block, not just one hour; and evenings are busier with pickups happening between 6 and 6:30 p.m. He said the noise from the kids was not a concern, but the car noises were not good. Said he liked the idea of the screen between Stevens Creek and the playground. The trash structure is in the back by the parking lot and the area is kept very clean and tidy. Zhongying Chen, resident: Supports the project. Resident of Cupertino for more than 10 years; seen the growth of the community and consistent demand forchild care. It is important for parents to look for good child care; thebilingual school is popular in the neighborhoodbecause it is a bilingual Montessori program that helps the children develop different skillsincluding both English and Chinese languages and prepare for the kindergarten program. It is a good idea to expand the facility and it will be a benefit to the community. Richard Wilkinson, resident: Supports the project.Commented on the high quality of education at the school, enabling his two children to learn Mandarin Chinese. Julie Mercik, representing property owners to the east, 20045 and 65 Stevens Creek Blvd. Said she has been leasing office space in Cupertino for 30 years and is familiar with the Little Tree day care Saratoga facility, and is pleased to hear positive comments about them. She expressed concern about the traffic coming in and out of the existing easement. The traffic report says there are92 new trips created which is a lotfor one day. She said they have an issue since Apple came and are parking their vans in the lot next door to the proposed day care; they share a parking lot which is full to capacity every day,in addition to the Apple vans coming and going. They talked with Apple because they were bringing their vans throughevery 20 minutes which was an issue as they cut through their property adding to the confusion. She said she felt adding 92 trips per daywould be difficult. She also addressed the issue of day care use and office space. Said she sold an office building at the end of Stevens Creek past the Main Streetto Sunflower Learning Center for their second location. She said it would be difficult to lease that building to other office uses if the day care use goes in there. It would be more of the after school learning type uses in there that are more compatible with day care. Summer Sky: (husband spoke on her behalf): Said his wife was concerned about people parking in their parking lot and trekking across their lawn into their neighborhood property eventhough there is a No Parking sign. They also park on Randy. Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 10 He said he erected an 8 foot high cyclone fence along the border of his property to prevent the trespassing onto his property. Joanne Li, property manager of the office building: Supports project. Addressed the current parking situation.The office is now about 80% occupied,with about 50 people working each day in the office. The site of the proposed playground is mostly empty during the day except during certain hours when there is a shade created by the building. The two back roads of the parking areempty most of the time. Up until now they have not heard any concerns from existing tenants. Jackie Funk, Director of Campbell preschool: Addressed concerns about noise level. The Campbell site is located behind the social security building, with a combination of residences, business on one side and shopping center across the street. Said he has not had any residents voice concerns about the volume of sound from children throughout the day. There are designated morning and afternoon times that the children are outside, and there is also a time when the children are sleeping in the afternoon and notoutside. There is a maximum of 40 children are outside at any given time and there haven’t been any complaints from businesses or residents nearby. Most people have expressed proactively that having a bilingual school is a wonderful experience; moving across the street offers more opportunity to connect with a bilingual school which is a positive. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: Clarified comments made regarding the noise in terms of what was stated in consultant’s report; it is important to clarify for the audience. Mr. Tucci pointed out that in general the staff’s or city’s consultant pointed out that the proposed day care and its play area is going to exceed the city’s noise limit which is not accurate. He said Mr. Tucci’s comments were taken out of context; and quotedthe conclusion by thenoise consultant stating with informal type of play activities, the age of kids and the distance involved, thenoise incidents would not be noticeable in adjacent areas and would be within the city’s noise ordinance limits and would not be expected to create any noise impacts in adjacent residential areas. That is a statement directly out of the city’s noise consultant engineer’s report. The other comment he referenced was in terms of having a fence and whether it was recommended by the city’s noise consultant; who said it would be desirable to have an 8 foot wall surrounding the play area but that was withinthe contextof reducing the noise from the traffic from Stevens Creek Blvd. It is difficult to mitigate traffic noises alongStevens Creek Blvd. because it is what it is and that is something that all the tenants, commercial or professional, or day care, would have to deal with on a daily basis. It is not whether the play area is going to generate noise where it warrants a wall surrounding these children; it is more the other way around. He pointed out the fact that the existing ambient noise level could at times be uncomfortable; therefore the applicant should consider doing it. In the content of the report it talks about noise impacts measured at the property boundaries which effectively would impact residential and/or other professional office commercial sites and it was confirmed at the boundary line that all the decibel readings projected will be within the city’s noise ordinance. There might be conversations about if you are at 10 ft or 5 ft away the decibels could occasionally reach a certain level given the type of use, but where it applies and where it is measured from is at the boundary line. Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 11 Com. Sun: If Mr. Tucci sold his property to convert commercial building into the residential building, does the day care permit have to reapply or just stay there? Gary Chao: Said the day care would not be impacted by whatever Mr. Tucci does; it is valid no matter what Mr. Tucci does with his property. Vice Chair Lee: Said she was concerned that they would potentially be adding another day care use if the use permit had not expired and two day care centers could be located across the street from each other. In HOC they try not to have a lot of non-retail uses on the first ground floor on Stevens Creek Blvd because that is the commercial area. Said she did not feel the particular location is desirable for a day care center; presently it is commercial/office and would be more appropriate to leave it as commercial/office. Com. Sun: Said theuse permit is to locate the day care across the street from where it presently is and it is a business decision of the owner and doesn’t involve any zoning issue. He said he was not opposed to the project. Said he did not feel that Vice Chair Lee’s concern about the possibility of having a competing day care center across the street from the proposed day care was justified as Little Tree is a successful business and not threatened about having a similar business in the area. Other businesses offering similar services have been successfuleven though they are within close proximity to one another. Relative to the noise impact, he felt it didn’t compare with Stevens Creek highway traffic; the sounds of children on theplayground during play time is not noisy and there are set times they are on the playground, not all day. He saidhe respected Mr. Tucci’sbusiness decision butMr. Tucci’s letter voicing his concerns was not very convincing and he would support the project. Com. Takahashi: Asked what happens to the existing use permit given that the tenant is now vacating the leaseproperty. Gary Chao: Said the landlord could have many options; they could rent it to a professional office use; they could have retail use or they can continue with some other business operator with the day care business provided that the new day care business can comply withthe conditional use permit that runs with the land. Little Tree day care intends to physically remove all their play equipment, fencing, planters, basicallyrestoring the back area into the original parking lot. Some effort would be needed if another person were to put in a day care center. There is an expiration of the use permit if it is not used, one year from the date of termination of previous business. If it is not used it also expires; whoever comes along wouldthen have to reapply for the whole process. Pointed out that in this case the use permit is specific to Little Tree Montessori school, and in the future, once their business terminates, they may decide to relocate to another space or no longer want to operate, the use permit will terminate and whoever comes along next would have to go throughthe whole process again. The previous was a standard format and this is different; it was also a suggestion by Little Treethemselves and agreed upon by staff. Com. Takahashi: Said the fact that Little Tree owns the existing building andareseeking the conditionaluse permit is positive from the standpoint that they are also the owner, and the probability of another day care center Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 12 wanting to move in within one year is relatively low. He said that parking will be crowded and given the easement if there is a way to temporarily add those spaces in, he would recommend doing that. Said he did not analyze the traffic report in detail and was not fully up to speed as to what percentages of the traffic migrates across, through the easements over to Blaney vs. out to Stevens Creek because you can only access Stevens Creek westbound. Relative to the 8 foot fence, presently there is a fence plan to segregate the playground from Stevens Creek primarily for safety reasons; it is presently proposed to be a non-soundproof fence mainly for aesthetic reasons or safety. Gary Chao: It is proposed to be wrought iron and supported by staff; the reason being is that for aesthetic reasons, they want to maintain that look along the frontage but not to visibly have a presence; hence the screeningwith landscaping. Said a plexiglass wallto increase the sound barrier could be a creative option. Com. Gong: Said she was concerned about the reduction in commercial/office space in the city. She was concerned about the other tenants in the building but since the applicant is the owner, it is now the owner’s issue. She suggested a requirement that the tenants and the school parents only use the Stevens Creek driveway and easement for emergency use only. Gary Chao: Said they could make that suggestion and a condition of encouragement or to the maximum extent possible because it is difficult to enforce. Said he would be concerned if it was a requirement; it could be folded into a dropoff onsite circulation management plan where the management plan would be part of the new signups or parent orientation that they review forthe day care’s preference and directions on pickup and to and from routes, in which case they could encourage the parents to use Stevens Creek morethan the ancillary driveways. That route is there but it is not a straight shot; there are parking lots, speed bumpsetc. to the side street so it is not a very convenient location for daily driving purposes. Com. Gong: Said she drove the area and if she wanted to go south on Stevens Creek, she would take the easement and go on Blaneyrather than going on Stevens Creek having to go across and makea U turn. She asked if the operational plan is partof Public Works or part of theapplication. Gary Chao: Said there is a condition that already requires parent/children drop off/pick up on site circulation plan prior to allowing the business to commence.Community Development would review and approve that; it couldbe made part of the plan. Com. Gong: Said with the concerns mitigated she supported allowing the conditional use permit especially if it is tagged directly to the businessrather than the land. Chair Brophy: Said he supported the application although he disagreed with some points. If it is denied, it is not likely that the space occupied by Little Tree would be taken by a retail use. In terms of the visual image along Stevens Creek or if they desire to have retail businesses along Stevens Creek, this issue is not relevant to that discussion; it would just be an office use. As far as the use of the easements that are now all the way from Blaney up to the property, they exist now and it is just a question if and when at some future time Mr. Tucci’s property were to be developed, the city’s policy would be to require as a Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2014 13 condition of development extending it all the way to the next block. There is no reason why this use shouldbe limited to not using the easement; it is effectively an unenforceable condition, and everybody else is doing it. Some of the minor issues are best resolved at staff level; when involved in such issuesas where the trash enclosure should be, they wind up spending a lot of time without producing any value to either the applicant or staff. Other than minor concerns, he said he would be willing to accept the document as prepared by staff. Motion:Motionby Com. Sun, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 4-1-0, Vice Chair Lee voted No; to approve Application U-2014-01, ASA-2014-05 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Brophy reported a meeting was held to approve the Cordova Road project. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners: Meeting to be held next Wednesday. Economic Development Committee: No meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to theJune 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-7603 www.cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: July 8th, 2014 Subject Study Session to provide an update on the Climate Action Plan (CAP) process and review greenhouse gas reduction measures to be considered foranalysis in the City’s Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Proposed measures focus onoptions to reduce community-wideemissions in the energy, transportation, water, and solid wastesectors. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Review the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Measures Alternatives and provide comments. Background On March 18th, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a Climate Action Plan. Climate Action Plans (CAPs) provide a blueprint for cities and community members to respond to the sources of and challenges posed by climate change by outlining a menu of actions for an agency to reduce both its operational and community greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan will serve as an implementation policy of its forthcoming General Plan Amendment(GPA), thereby enhancing the environmental gains achieved throughthe land use alternatives proposed for our community. By moving on a parallel track to the GPA, Cupertino’s CAP offerssafeguards against Attorney General-led CEQA enforcement lawsuits (e.g.Stockton, San Bernardino County, San Diego Association of Governments) that have challenged general plans that do not adequately mitigate emissionsas directed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. In California, citiesand countieshave been historically motivated to develop CAPs to address regulatory guidance (e.g.California GlobalWarming Solutions Act(AB32)), which sets greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for California (15% of current levels by 2020; 80% of1990 levels by 2050), and to realize the role local government canserve in reducing both statewide and community emissions. In fact, the AB32 Scoping Plan explicitly defines local government actions to achieve GHG emissions reductions, as local agencies often have “exclusive authorityover activities that contributed to significant direct and indirect emissionsthrough planning and permitting, local ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations.”As such, nearly 400 California cities, counties, and/or towns, have completed GHG inventories, establishedcitywide GHG targets, initiated CAP development, and/or adopted CAPs (also historically referred to as greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans). As of June 2014, approximately80% of cities in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Alameda Counties have drafted or adopted CAPs. Following suit, Santa Clara County (SCC) secured grant funding from PG&E and allocatedfunding itselfto complete acooperativeCAP exercisefor the followingseven jurisdictions: the Cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga,and San José, as well as the unincorporated Santa Clara County. The goal of this cooperativeCAP project is to complete 2010 community-wideand municipal GHG inventories and facilitate the creation of customized CAPs, through whichproject participantscan establish GHG reduction targets, strategies, and related emissions reduction collaboration opportunities.This will position participating agencies well for accessing anticipated state funding resources thatprioritize CAP implementation, versus a historic focus on CAP development, while awaiting impending Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan and CAP Guidance. As a participating jurisdiction, Cupertino engaged in this process to update its 2005 municipaland community-wideGHG emissions inventoriesandachieve strategiesset forth in its currentGeneral Plan. Specifically, the City’s General Plan directs staffto prepare a Sustainability and Resources Plan (Policy 5-1, Strategy 1) and a Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Plan (Policy 5-1, Strategy 4) withrecommendations regarding the reduction of municipal and community wide reduction of energy, water, material, and fossil fuel use. Cupertino’s adopted CAP will implement the General Plan’s emissions-reducingpolicies, as well as others developed separately in the CAP consistent with the draft General Plan policies and goals, whichmay allowfor future streamlined review of individual projects under CEQA. Discussion The City is currently working with the selected Santa Clara County-funded consultant (AECOM) to develop its own customized CAP, including community engagement and Environmental Review. The following activities have been completed to date towardsdevelopment ofthe City’s CAP: A.GHG Inventories –Cupertino’s 2010 baseline inventories of municipal operations and community-wide emissions wereprepared. Inventories also include the City’s forecasted emissionsfor three future horizon years: 2020, 2035, and 2050based on the General Plan Amendment’s Land Use Alternative C scenario. Inventories offer the starting point to analyze the community’s emissions sources and identifythe impact of emissions reduction strategies proposed within the City’s CAP. Horizon year forecasts are then used to calculate emissions reductions achieved by implementing proposed strategies over the life of the CAP. Attachment 1providesa detaileddescription of the City’s emissions inventories and forecasts. The City’s community-wide emissions are shown below. Energy use represents the largest emissions sector, accounting for nearly 55% of total emissions. Non-residential land uses generate approximately 25% more emissions than residential land uses. Transportation emissions contribute 40% of total emissions. These primary emissions sources are the focus of the draft mitigations measures for Planning Commissionreviewand discussion. B.Emissions ReductionTarget –The CAP, in its draft form, proposes a 15% draft target that aligns with the statewide emissions reduction goal and is consistent with other locally adopted CAP targets.This target is the minimum level recommended for local governments to adopt per the California Air Resources Board guidance in the Climate Change Scoping Plan (i.e., the State’s guidance framework to achieve its adopted reduction targets). Cupertino’s draft target is expressed as a 15% reduction below the 2010 baseline emissions level by the year 2020. From the statewide perspective, this target roughly approximates a return to 1990 levels, which is the State’s goal for 2020 as expressed in Assembly Bill 32 (i.e., the Global Warming Solutions Act) and its companion legislation. Attachment 2offers acomparisontable of reduction targetsestablished within the adopted CAPs ofneighboring jurisdictions. C.GHG Reduction Measures –There are numerous actions that can help the City to achieve its draft reduction target. The largest source of estimated reductions will come from statewide actions as part of the State’s efforts to achieve its long-term emissions reduction targets described above. These actions include the Renewable Portfolio Standard to clean the electric grid, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to lower emissions from vehicle fuels, and various vehicle efficiency improvement regulations, among others. These statewide actions will help to achieve approximately 90% of Cupertino’s draft 2020 reduction target. The remaining 10% of the City’s draft 2020 target can be achieved through local actions, for which the City government can play a leadership and facilitator role. A draft listof local CAP measures was developed as part of the collaborative CAP projectand includeda common list of best management practices, measures already being implemented in participating jurisdictionsor those planned for near-term implementation. The consultant team then reviewed the lists to identify opportunities for existing practices to be expanded or for new emissions-reducing practices to be developed and implemented. After additional City staff review, the draft list of proposed measures were quantified to calculate their emissions reduction potential and implementing actions were developed that would be required to achieve the stated emissions reductions.Attachment 3includesthe customized list of 24% 30% 34% 7% 2%2% Residential Building Energy Non-Residential Building Energy On-Road Vehicles Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Solid Waste Water Services proposed draft measures under review by the City for inclusion in its CAP. Attachment 3also includes implementing actions andthe measure’sreduction potential (expressed as contribution to the City’s reduction target). The draft list of measures was then reviewed through various community engagement activities, described in detail below, including two community workshops, two focus group meetings, a CAP website, and online surveys. Attachment 4provides a summary of comments received to date, as gathered from these various outreach activities. Existing City and Community Actions CAP measures under consideration include numerous actions that the City is already taking (e.g., tree-planting requirements for new construction) or voluntary activities in which community members can and do participate withoutCity intervention or support(e.g., installation of solar PVs on private property). The inclusion of these types of measures in the CAP allows the community to take credit for its early actions, which have yielded emissions reductions, and helps to identify opportunities for program expansion and potential new program creation. Some of these actionscan be enhanced further through targeted outreach or additional information-sharing to increase voluntary participation. Existing City and community actionshighlighted in Attachment 5proposed for continuation via institutionalization in the CAPinclude: Offer retrofit financing options, such as the City’s participation in the California FIRST property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing district. This option suggeststhe City participate ina residential PACE program as well, Facilitate community-wide solar photovoltaic installations (including solar hot water heaters), usually through utility-rebate programs, power purchase agreements, tax credits, or other financial incentives, Enhance the pedestrianand bicycleenvironment to encourage active transportation options through physical infrastructure and programmatic improvements, Accelerate transportation demand management programs, as required by Senate Bill 1339 to provide commuterbenefit programs for employers with 50 or more employees, Support transit-oriented development, as envisioned in the General Plan Amendment, Advance water conservation programs, as required through Senate Bill 7X-7and implemented through Urban Water Management Plan per-capita water use reduction targets, and Expand compostable food scrapcollection program to increase current program participation and GHG-tied diversion benefits. Expanded & New City and Community Actions In order to achieve the baseline 15% reduction target adopted by the state,proposed CAP measures includes strategies thatexpand the City’s existing environmental programs and adding newactions. This package of measures to achieve the 15% reduction targetinclude (see Attachment 6for further details): A.Expansion Measures: 1.Design targeted building retrofit outreach, as a voluntary alternative to pursuing the building retrofit regulationsoutlined below, 2.Expand alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure, including installation of public-use electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and pre-wiring requirements for new construction to support EV chargers, 3.Implement existing long-term community-wide waste reduction targets,byincreasing the target, and 4.Enhance current construction and demolition waste diversion requirements. B.New Measures: 1.Promote voluntary use of energydata analysisservices that usessoftware to identify facility efficiency improvementsthat building owners/operators can often make for no-or low-cost, 2.Adopt building and lighting retrofit regulations for commercial buildings and parking lots, 3.Create a Community Choice AggregationDistrict, preferably through a regional collaborative effort with other neighboring jurisdictions, 4.Implement a community bike share program to encourage localized emission-free active trips, 5.Coordinate a community bus or shuttle (private or in coordination with VTA), connecting to CalTrain, BART and/or VTA services, and 6.Evaluate development ofrecycled water infrastructure(“purple pipes”)to replace potable water use in landscape and industrial applications. Theseproposed measures focus heavily on energy conservation, clean energy generation,and expanding transit options within the community. As illustrated by the emissions inventories, energy-related emissions account for more than half of the community’s total emissions. Transportation-related emissions also contribute a large share to the community-wide inventory. While, state-level regulations and policies are focused on improving vehicle efficiency and lowering the emissions content of fuels sold in California, local-level measures thatinfluence vehicle-related emissions, would focus onincreased community transit options and encouraging a shift to alternative fuel vehicles. Solid waste-and water-related emissions comprise relatively small portions of the community-wide inventory, and therefore have limited potential in helping to achieve the emissions reduction target. However, these measures also provide substantial community co- benefits that participants in the community engagement activities felt were important to pursue. These co-benefits include water conservation, resource conservation, air quality improvements, expanded or improved natural habitats, and extended landfill operating lifetimes, among others. The measures shown in Attachment 3have been organized into three alternatives for consideration and discussion during the Study Session. The alternatives vary in their approach to achieving the City’s reduction target from concentrating solely on clean electricity use, to building-energy regulations, to incentive-based outreach campaigns that encourage voluntary participation. Each of the alternatives achieves the minimum 15% reduction target. Alternative 1 –Community Choice Aggregation Alternative 1 includes development of and participation in a community choice aggregation (CCA) district as its only strategy.A CCA allows cities and counties to aggregate the buying power of individual customers within a defined jurisdiction in order to secure alternative energy supply contracts on a community-wide basis. Selection of this single alternative demonstrates the importance thatclean electricitysupply offers to communities to achieve established emissions reduction targets. There are several examples of active and proposed CCAs within the state whose websites provide good information on what a CCA is and how it can provide clean electricity to its customers, sometimes as prices lower than the local utility rate. These include: Marin Clean Energy; Sonoma Clean Power; Clean Power SF; Monterey Bay Community Power Upon learning the emissions reduction potential a CCA could yield during their own CAP process, the City of Sunnyvale is seeking agency partners to conduct a preliminary study into the establishment of a local CCA.Partnerships with other interested local cities could provide economies of scale to support utility price negotiations, should the outcome of the study suggest CCA advancement. GHG Reduction Potential: Cleaning the electricity consumed in the community is one of the largest emissions reduction opportunities available. If a CCA could be implemented in Cupertino by 2020 (and it achieved a 50% participation rate, as compared to Marin Clean Energy, which currently has a 75% participation rate), then Alternative A could achieve a 22% reduction below baseline emissions levels. Even if a CCA cannot be implemented by 2020, the initial planning and analysis required could be undertaken before 2020, so that this option could contribute significantly toward the City’s medium-and long-term emissions reduction goals (i.e., 2035 and 2050). Pros Cons City can cost-effectively explore local implementation allied with adjacent jurisdictions Customer confusion regarding CCA & PGE Green Option –education required Potential cost-savings and greater price stability May only be feasible with sufficient regional participation Can negotiate lower utility rates than current utility company rates (usually depends on CCA’s ability to aggregate sufficient customer base) Can be expensive to establish (e.g., Marin CCA spent $2-3 million during set up, but most was covered by grants) Locally-selected renewable energy package options (e.g., 50%, 75%, 100% renewable) Opposition exists (e.g. AB2145) Supports long-term emissions reduction targets; energy and transportation are Resource Considerations: Though a detailed resource or cost analysis of the draft proposed measures was not included as part of the CAP project scope, the consultant team provided order-of-magnitude cost estimates to aid in measure selection for further development. The proposed costs attributed to this Alternative consider the hiring of a firm to conduct a CCA preliminary and full-scope feasibility study and start-upcosts to form an oversight body (e.g. JPA)to launch the CCA, should the feasibility study prove favorable. It should be noted that all of these costs would be fully recoverable if the CCA was launched, as has been the practice in operating CCAs noted above. City staff time to support this process would be moderate, requiring 0.5FTE to support ongoing CCA-related efforts. Alternative 2 –Enhanced Voluntary Outreach Alternative 2 focuses on voluntary retrofit programs and an aggressive outreach campaignto new building owners, as well as existing residents and businesses. This alternative also includes consideration for development of a longer-term energy management and resiliency plan to consider the potential impacts of climate change on the community’s energy security, as well as future consideration for some of the mandatory building regulations described in Alternative 3.As mentioned in Alternative 3 below, State-level regulations are likely to increase with regards to energy conservation in the built environment, and some of the proposed building regulations in the Attachment 3may become part of the State’s building code in the future. This energy management and resiliency plan would consider the existing regulatory environment to pro-actively identify opportunities for additional building regulations that could contribute meaningfully to long-term energy conservation. This does not mean that new regulations will be developed and adopted, but it would direct the City to consider all available optionsfor conserving energy within the community. GHG Reduction Potential: Alternative 2 would achieve a 15.5% reduction below baseline emissions levels. The difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely increase in the future as more time has passed to implement the CAP measures. An additional consideration is the impact that Alternative 1 would have on the other alternative scenarios in the future. If the City were to participate in a CCA or other clean electricity procurement program in the future, then mandatory building regulations would have a reduced impact on the community’s emissions, since the electricity consumed would be low-or no-emissions. largest emissions sources and will be central to long-term reductions Voluntary participation Pros Cons Could piggyback upon existing programs; leverage statewide and utility programs Requires strong participation driver (e.g. incentives) that could prove costly Voluntary participation Participation dependent upon success of outreach/education campaigns Certain outreach campaigns may be implemented by community Typically lower participation rates than mandatory regulations (Cupertino’s low Resource Considerations: Again, order-of-magnitude cost estimates for these draft measures, which will be further evaluated following Planning Commission guidance, suggest a high staff requirement to develop and administer this program, outreach to the community and effectively engage real estate stakeholders. Additional staff/consultant time would be required to develop a comprehensive energy plan to ensure the effectiveness of this campaign and provide adequate oversight to ensure environmental gains were achieved. A minimum of2FTE/consultant- equivalent is estimated to achieve the strategies outlined in this Alternative, pending defined measure selection. Alternative 3–Mandatory Building Regulations Alternative 3 expands the strategies included in Alternative 2 byrecommendingthe adoption ofseveral mandatory building regulations(see Attachment 3for further description), including: o Residential and Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinances (RECO and CECO), o Point-of-sale home energy ratings/energy performance certificates, o Annual benchmarking and disclosure, o Mandatory retro-commissioning,(e.g. tuning primary building systems, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), o Point-of-sale non-residential interior lighting retrofits, o Point-of-sale parking lot lighting retrofits, and o Shade tree requirements in new construction. As shown in Attachment4, numerous comments were made during the community engagement activities regarding these mandatory regulations under consideration. Some community members would support thesetypes of actions if they were part of a larger regional effort, in which neighboring jurisdictions were also adopting the same regulations. Commenters generally expressed a concern that additional regulations could affecteconomic development standpoint. Othersexpressed a preference for participating in programs with neighboring jurisdictions and felt the CAP should focus on providing incentives and educationabout the benefits of building energy retrofits and available financing options. It should be noted that State-level regulations are likely to increase with regards to energy conservation in the built environment, and some of the proposed building regulations in 4C may become part of the State’s building code in the future, though the exact nature offuture legislation is unknown at this time. organizations/associations at no-or low- cost to the City residential building turn-over may contradict this assumption) CAP stakeholders highly support outreach and education campaign strategies Difficult to track results (e.g. GHG reductions, utility savings, participation rates) Would not economically disadvantage Cupertino (i.e., make it less attractive to businesses/residents) Already have a great deal of voluntary programs in place (e.g. Green@Home, GreenBiz, Energy Upgrade) with only moderate participation GHG Reduction Potential: Alternative 3would achieve a 16.2% reduction below baseline emissions levels. While this reduction is numerically similar tothat estimated in Alternative 2for the 2020 target year, the regulations proposed would impact a greater number of buildings than a voluntary retrofit program, and therefore could contribute greater emissions reductions as the 2035 target year approaches. Pros Cons Community recommendation to pursue as part of a regional collaboration tohelp prevent a local economic disadvantage Point-of-sale requirements have potential to slow down real estate transaction process Resulting retrofits yield utility and cost- efficient homes and buildings, higher property values and healthier spaces for tenants Possible “short-cut compliance approach”: seller installs cheapest compliance option, new buyer rips out that work and re- installs new; can result in double work (and extra construction waste), and not necessarily yield energy savings Generate higher participation and impacts than voluntary programs (depends on turn-over e.g. ~3% single family homes/year) Most new (~75%) homeowners make retrofits within first three months of occupancy; often result in energy/water savings without being mandated Demonstrates local leadership on energy conservation issues Cost and timing of mandatory lighting retrofits are a concern, particularly for small businesses that operate during normal electrician businesses hours (may need to pay extra for retrofits to occur when their business is closed for the night) Cupertino’s action could lead to similar action regionally, further increasing emissions reduction potential Home energy ratings get “lost in the shuffle” of all the real estate transaction paperwork, and don’t compel buyer action; disclosure of energy ratings leads to liability Building energy ratings increase seller accountability and buyer Concerns regarding economically disadvantaging Cupertino, particularly if regulations are not adopted through a regional collaboration process RECO/CECO programs are not common; only a few good case studies upon which to model a local program (e.g. Berkeley, San Francisco, Boulder) Cupertino’s low residential building turnover decreases the efficacy of point-of- sale regulations; only a small portion of the building stock would be affected by the regulations each year Resource Considerations: As noted in Attachment 3, the relative resource and cost considerations will ultimately depend on the Planning Commission and Council-directed implementation structure, as there are varied ways to advance this suite of measures(see the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s RECO/CECO Case Study for the City of Sacramento). Staff/consultant time will be required to develop, implement,and administerthe respective ordinance, estimated ata minimum 1FTE or consultant-equivalent. D.Additional Measure Considerations Regulatory Horizon CAPs are based upon numerous assumptions regarding future regulatory, climatic, and demographic conditions. State regulations will change over time and opportunities to participate in new emissions reduction programs will arise.Therefore, the City will continue to monitor and revise its CAP (including emissions inventory updates and measure refinement) based on State regulation updates, changes in the best available science, and its ability to participate in programs such as a CCA in the future. An additional consideration is the impact that Alternative 1 would have on the other alternative scenarios in the future. If the City were to participate in a CCA or other clean electricity procurement program in the future, then mandatory building regulations would have a reduced impact on the community’s emissions, since the electricity consumed would be low-or no-emissions. The interconnections among the CCA and other measures will need to be considered as part of the CAP update process. Economic Impacts A detailed economic analysis of the draft proposed measures was not included as part of the CAP development project scope. However, the consultant team provided order-of-magnitude cost estimates during the initial measure selection discussions as one component to help select measures for further development. These cost estimates were very course (based on case studies, where possible), and prepared before the implementation actions shown in Attachment 3were developed. Therefore, they can provide general guidance, but are not specific to Cupertino or the details of the draft proposed measures in their current form. See Attachment 3for the measure cost estimates. E.Study Session Discussion Framework – The three alternatives were developed for the City to achieve its draft reduction target, while pursuing a defined strategy (e.g. voluntary vs. regulatory) and optimizing resources (e.g. staff and financial). Each alternative includes a bundle of local CAP measures with enough emissions reduction potential to achieve the local portion of the reduction target (i.e., the reduction amount not covered by State actions).In summary, Changes to building code can be cumbersome and time consuming; the State may implement similar regulations on its own in the future Alternative 1 includes only one strategy –that of making low emission/no emission electricity available as an option to residents and local businesses; participation would be voluntary. Alternative 2 takes a broader voluntary approachwith a package of measures thatrelies upon outreach and education to drivecommunityparticipation. Alternative 3 takes a mandatory approach through development of certain building- related energy requirements, and also includes some of the same voluntary measures as Alternative 2. All three alternatives present a viable optionfor target achievementfrom an emissions reduction perspective.Staff seeks Planning Commission guidanceto identify which alternative makes the most sense for Cupertino at this time. Based on the three measure alternativesprovidedabove and community input received, which is outlined below,staff request feedback on the following questions: Which alternative would be ideal for Cupertino? Which alternative would be the most feasible? Should Cupertino pursue more than one alternative? If yes, whichalternatives and/or measures should staff evaluate further? F.Public Noticing and Outreach –The City advanced its CAP process to run in parallel with its General Plan Amendment and Housing Element work, and was able to build on public engagement efforts developed during those projects. Community outreach activities were designed to: o Educate the public and stakeholders on the City’s existing ongoing efficiency efforts and the CAP work; o Develop an understanding of the community’s needs and vision and determine how the City’s CAP can best realize this vision; o Reach out directly to groups likelyto be especially interested in, and affected by, the CAP and follow up with those seeking additional information; o Expand outreach activities by providing opportunities to participate online; and o Solicit feedback on CAP measuresandacceptable alternatives to be evaluated in the City’s CAP. Outreach activities undertaken to date are described below. o Post Cards -The City sent a postcard announcing the CAP and the May and June workshops in early May.Postcards were mailed to each City of Cupertino postaladdress. o Cupertino Scene Newsletter -Announcements for both CAP community workshops were included in the Mayissue of Cupertino Scene o eBlasts -Targeted emails were sent to the following groups and lists, announcing the CAP process and the two community workshopsto ~2000 stakeholders: Cupertino Chamber of CommerceMembership City General Plan Amendment & Housing Element List City Environmental List (Green@Home, GreenBiz, Earth Day Participants) City Council & Commissioners List Acterra Green@Home &GreenFingersParticipant List Sierra Club Cool Cities Membership List De Anza College Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies Student List o Website: The combined GPA and Housing Element website (www.cupertinogpa.org) was expanded to include a page dedicated to the CAP, and announcements were included on the GPA landing page. Project information, meeting notices, presentations, and online questionnaires were posted on the website. A comment form is also available on the website. o Community Workshops and Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings Community-wide Workshop #1 (May 14) The City held a community workshop onMay 14, 2014,to introduce draft climate actions to the public. At this event, staff gave a presentation on the regulatory drivers, planning process,and supporting City and regional environmental efforts. Participants had the opportunity to review current and proposed strategies in the energy, natural resources, and transportation/land use sectors. Participants were also encouraged to provide feedback and suggestions to the City. Community-wide Workshop #2 (June 4) The City held the second of two community workshops for the Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) onJune 4, 2014. At this workshop, participants reviewed the goals of the CAP, learned about community input received to date, and discussed proposed measures in greater detail. Attendees participated in facilitated small group discussions to comment on proposed high-impact emissions reduction actions and associated implementation strategies for the City, residents,and businesses. Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings In May and June, City and consultant staff met with small groups of interested stakeholders. The City presented the content of community workshop #1 and held a facilitated conversationwith the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. They also had an in- depth discussion with representatives from the commercial and residential real estate sectors. Online Questionnaires Interested residents who were unable to attend community workshops were invited to review the presentation and meeting materials on the project website and provide comments using an online tool which mirrored the open house activity at the June 4th workshop. Next Steps Attachment 7providesan illustrated schedule of the project’s next stepsafter City Council reviews the Planning Commission’s recommendation and provides direction on the preferred CAP measures to achieve the 15% reduction target. Administrative Draft –Based on feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions, the project team willfinalize the City’s measure list to pair with recommended implementation strategies,complete the Administrative Draft CAP,and review with City staff. Public Review Draft –After incorporating City comments, the Public Review CAP will be prepared and made available for review along with the supporting environmental review document described below. o Environmental Review –At this time, the City anticipates that an Initial Study will be the appropriate environmental review for the community-wide and Local Government Operations (LGO) CAPand that this review would support either a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Final CAP –Following the 30-day public comment period on the environmental document, additional comments received will be incorporated into a Final CAP, and presented to City Council for formal adoption. Fiscal Impact Agency financial considerations are outlined above under the relevant Alternatives and will be more fully defined in the subsequent CAP adoption staff report,which will incorporate Planning Commissionand Council measure selection. Sustainability Impact Adopting a CAPwill enable the City to achieve the following environmental goals: Complete the following strategies identified in Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability of the General Plan: o Policy 5-1; Strategy 1: “…develop an appropriate comprehensive annual Sustainability and Resource Plan for the City”; and o Policy 5-1, Strategy 4: draft a “Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Plan.” Define a means to achieve Action Area Goals defined in the Bay Area Climate Compact of which the City is a signatory; Adopt a Climate Action Plan, as outlined in the FY11/12, FY12/13, and FY13/14Council Work Program (§ 10); Implement the City’s outstanding commitment to achieve Kyoto Protocol targets as a signatory to the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement; Develop a comprehensive plan that consolidates and institutionalizes the City’s core sustainability strategies, processes,and actions into an overarching document that enables the agency to quantify its GHG emissions on an ongoing basis; Build a regionally consistent CAP and participate in a process that will build Cupertino’s knowledge of climate change mitigating actions (i.e., emissions reduction measures); and Reduce municipal operating expenses and help residents and businesses save money through coordinated, strategic programsand policies that lead to increased efficiency. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Prepared by:Erin Cooke, Sustainability Manager Reviewed by:Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1–Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories 2–Neighboring CAPs and Targets 3–Proposed CAP Measures and Actions 4–Community Input Collected 5–Existing City Actions 6–Expanded & New City and Community Actions 7–CAP Milestones Schedule Attachment A – 2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories and Forecasts Emissions inventories and future-year forecasts were prepared for Cupertino’s municipal operations and at the community-wide level as part of the Santa Clara County collaborative CAP development project. Baseline inventories were developed using data for the year 2010. These baseline inventories were then projected to three future horizon years: 2020, 2035, and 2050. The 2020 and 2050 horizon years align with Statewide emissions reduction targets as described in Assembly Bill 32. The 2035 horizon year repre sents an interim target between these two Statewide targets, which provides an opportunity for mid -term correction in CAP strategies if future emissions inventories do not show a downward trajectory on a path towards the long-term 2050 target. Figure 1 and Table 1present the municipal operations baseline year inventory. Municipal inventories are a subset of the broader community-wide inventory, and typically account for 2-5% of total community- wide emissions. In Cupertino, municipal operations generated approximately 1,800 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr) in 2010. The largest source of municipal emissions comes from energy use in City buildings and facilities, as well as public lighting. Nearly half of all municipal emissions come from energy (i.e., electricity and natural gas) used in City buildings and facilities. Approximately one-quarter of municipal emissions come from public lighting (e.g., streetlights, traffic lights, park lighting). The City’s vehicle fleet contributes another one-quarter of municipal emissions from vehicle fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline, diesel). The remaining emissions come from municipally- generated solid waste (i.e., the methane generated as organic components of the waste decompose in landfills) and electricity used to pump water and wastewater within the City. The municipal operations emissions represent less than 1% of Cupertino’s community-wide emissions. Figure 1 – Baseline 2010 Municipal Operations Emissions 70% 24% 5% 0% Facilities Vehicle Fleet Solid Waste Water Services Table 1 Baseline 2010 Municipal Operations Emissions Emission Sector / Subsector Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) Total (%) Facilities 1,249 70.4% Building Energy 837 47.2% Public Lighting 412 23.2% Vehicle Fleet 424 23.9% Solid Waste 95 5.4% Water Services 7 0.4% TOTAL 1,775 100% Source: AECOM 2013 Note: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; column sums may not match total shown due to rounding Figure 2 and Table 2 presents Cupertino’s community-wide 2010 emissions inventory. As with the municipal operations inventory, energy use again represents the largest emissions sector, accounting for nearly 55% of total emissions. Non-residential land uses generate approximately 25% more emissions than residential land uses. Transportation emissions contribute 40% of total emissions. These emissions were calculated using an origin-destination methodology, in which vehicle trips that begin and end within Cupertino are included at 100%, trips that begin or end within Cupertino are included at 50%, and pass-through trips are completely removed from the inventory. Similar to the municipal operations inventory, the solid waste and water services sectors provide relatively fewer emissions as compared to the energy and transportation sectors. However, the benefits associated with reductions in these sectors have numerous community co-benefits to be considered, such as water conservation, air quality improvements, extended landfill operating lifetimes, and resource conservation, among others. Figure 2 – Baseline 2010 Communitywide Emissions Table 2 Baseline 2010 Communitywide Emissions Emission Sector / Subsector Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) Total (%) Energy 169,547 54.8% Residential Building Energy 75,413 24.4% Non-Residential Building Energy 94,134 30.4% Transportation 126,502 40.8% On-Road Vehicles 104,112 33.6% Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment 22,390 7.2% Solid Waste 7,611 2.5% Water Services 5,837 1.9% TOTAL 309,496 100% Source: AECOM 2013 Note: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; column sums may not match total shown due to rounding Table 3 presents the community-wide emissions forecasts for 2020, 2035, and 2050, and illustrates how emissions will grow in the community if no additional action is taken. These emissions forecasts represent a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, in which consumption patterns remain constant from the 2010 emissions inventory. For example, these forecasts assume that the per person energy consumption from 2010 will remain constant through 2050. These forecasts also assume that no additional emissions - 24% 30% 34% 7% 2% 2% Residential Building Energy Non-Residential Building Energy On-Road Vehicles Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Solid Waste Water Services reducing strategies will be implemented by the City or at the Statewide level. Under this BAU scenario, community-wide emissions are projected to increase 7.4% by 2020, 24.6% by 2035, and 43.2% by 2050. Table 3 Communitywide GHG Emissions Projections (2010 – 2050) Emission Sector / Subsector 2010 Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) 2020 Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) 2035 Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) 2050 Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) Energy 169,547 175,466 199,232 226,838 Residential Building Energy 75,413 76,915 82,790 89,113 Non-Residential Building Energy 94,134 98,550 116,442 137,725 Transportation 126,502 143,130 170,510 198,609 On-Road Vehicles 104,112 119,641 142,569 165,371 Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment 22,390 23,489 27,941 33,238 Solid Waste 7,611 7,873 8,909 10,082 Water Services 5,837 6,038 6,833 7,732 TOTAL 309,496 332,509 385,484 443,261 Percent growth from 2010 inventory - 7.4% 24.6% 43.2% Source: AECOM 2013 Note: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; column sums may not match total shown due to rounding AttachmentB –Neighboring Jurisdictions with Adopted CAPs and Reduction Targets The following table was prepared by ABAG, and updated by staff,as a snapshot of climate change planning occurring within the Bay Area. The table shows a sample of Bay Area cities, their status with regards to adopting a CAP or related document, and the established greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals included. Several jurisdictions in the table are participating in the Santa Clara County collaborative CAP development project, including Cupertino. Most neighboring jurisdictions with adopted reduction targets have used the Air Resources Board’s guidance to mirror Statewide reduction efforts at the local level, which translates into a target of 15% below baseline levels by 2020. Most of the jurisdictions listed have baseline years of 2005 or 2008. As shown in Attachment A, Cupertino is using a 2010 baseline level. City Adopted CAP GHG Reduction Goal Campbell No - Cupertino No1 - Gilroy Pending1 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 Los Altos Pending 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 Los Altos Hills No - Los Gatos Pending 15% below 2008 levels by 2020 Milpitas Yes 15-20% below2005 levels by 2020 Monte Sereno No - Morgan Hill Pending1 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 Mountain View Yes 15-20% efficiency improvement over 2005 levels by 20202 Palo Alto Yes 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 San José Pending1, 3 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 Santa Clara No - Saratoga Pending1 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 Sunnyvale Pending 23% below 2008 levels by 2020 County (municipal)Yes1 Decrease emissions 10% every 5 years 2010-2050 Source: http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/pdfs/Climate%20Snapshot%20Santa%20Clara%20Co.pdf 1 Santa Clara County collaborative CAP project partner: Gilroy –community-wide and municipal CAP in progress; Morgan Hill -community-wide CAP in progress; San Jose -municipal CAP in progress; Saratoga -municipal CAP in progress; Mountain View –adopted community-wide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program in 2012, municipal CAP in progress; Cupertino -community-wide and municipal CAP in progress; County -community-wide and municipal CAP in progress 2 GHG efficiency improvement goal is outlined in Mountain View’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program 3 The City of San José has adopted a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Strategy in conjunction with the recently adopted the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Update Attachment C – Proposed CAP Measures and Actions The following table presents the draft proposed CAP measures, implementing actions, emissions reduction estimates, and order-of-magnitude cost estimates. The first column identifies within which alternative the measure has been included: A, B, C, or multiple. The second column provides a measure number for quick reference. The third column presents the overarching measure (e.g., Retrofit Financing) as well as any subcomponents (e.g., property assessed clean energy and energy service companies are both retrofit financing options). Column four identifies draft implementation actions that the City could undertake in order to implement the measures in column three. Column five provides draft greenhouse gas emissions estimates in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr), the standard CAP unit of measurement. Column six represents the emissions reduction estimates as a percentage of the local reductions needed to achieve the draft CAP target of 15% below baseline levels by 2020. Statewide actions will provide substantial emissions reductions to Cupertino, so this column presents the relative impact of only the local CAP measures (see discussion of Statewide actions below for more information). Column seven and eight present very course, order-of-magnitude cost estimates, as prepared during the initial measure development phase. Detailed economic analysis of each measure’s cost impacts was not included within the scope of the project. However, these high-level estimates were prepared to assist in the initial measure selection process. The cost ranges presented are as follows: Public Cost (implementation expense through 2020) Private Cost (one-time expense) Very Low <$10,000 Very Low <$100 Low $10,000-20,000 Low $101-200 Medium $20,001-100,000 Medium $200-1,000 High $100,000-500,000 High >$1,000 Very High >$500,000 The reduction potential of some measures is indicated as “supporting”, which means that no direct emissions reductions can be attributed to the measure, but emissions reductions are likely to occur or the measure supports the emissions reduction potential of another measure. Emissions reductions for the two water measures are marked as TBD because the final analysis for these reductions has not yet been completed. However, given the nature of Cupertino’s water sources and the relative scale of water emissions in the inventory, it is anticipated that these reductions will be small as compared to energy and transportation measures. The final page of the following table includes a summary of the reduction potential for each of the three Alternatives described in the Staff Report. As shown in the chart, all three Alternatives would achieve the City’s draft target of 15% below baseline emissions levels by 2020. CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private Cost MT CO2e/yr % of Local Reductions B, C E-1.1 A Advanced Metering and Analytics - Use of utility smart meter data to accelerate and scale energy efficiency via remote high resolution analytics. • In near-term, work with PG&E to facilitate aggressive implementation of Home and Business Area Network (HAN) program within Cupertino • Partner with PG&E, other Santa Clara County local governments, third-party service providers, and local businesses to establish leading regional advanced metering and analytics implementation program for commercial and residential buildings • Adopt ordinance that establishes opt-out advanced metering program for commercial and residential buildings owners/tenants • Collaborate with other Santa Clara County local governments to develop outreach program that communicates benefits of using advanced analytics to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy bills B, C E-2.1 A Property Assessed Clean Energy - PACE financing allows property owners to borrow money to pay for renewable energy and/or energy- efficiency improvements. The amount borrowed is repaid over a period via a special assessment on the owner's property. Recent programs in California are funded through the private financial marketplace, instead of local government bonds. • Continue to participate in California FIRST to make PACE financing available to commercial, industrial, multi-family residential (5+ units), and non-profit-owned buildings • Continue to participate in effort with other Santa Clara County local governments to establish countywide PACE financing district available for residential property owners [could also provide another source of commercial financing to compliment California FIRST program] • Work with PACE financing providers to educate local realtor and contractor community about PACE offerings, process, and benefits to increase participation Cost Neutral; Assumes turn-key PACE program where City opts-in, and PACE provider performs all outreach activities Varies (Depends on retrofits voluntarily pursued, if any) B Energy Service Company (ESCO) Promotion / Energy Performance Contracting - ESCOs help facilitate customer energy efficiency investments by providing them with services and financing, and guaranteed savings. ESCOs offer a complete range of services: audit, financing, design/ install of measures, procurement of equipment/energy, training of staff, operation and maintenance, monitoring, evaluation. • Develop business energy performance contracting market aggregation program that identifies interested commercial and industrial properties and aggregates them into markets of sufficient scale to attract energy service companies (ESCOs) or energy service agreement (ESA) providers • Work with local commercial banks to reduce mortgage lender limitations on external financing that limit ESCO and ESA contracts Medium; Assumes public outreach campaign is implemented by City Varies (Depends on retrofits voluntarily pursued, if any) B E-2.2 A Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) - RECOs require certain efficiency improvements to be made to residential buildings upon sale or transfer of a building and / or renovation projects of a certain size or value. RECOs can contain a list of mandatory improvements to be made and a spending limit beyond which additional improvements are not required. • Adopt Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance requiring point-of-sale energy efficiency upgrades, and establish efficiency threshold and maximum investment amount Medium; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop ordinance High; Assumes maximum expenditure capped at $1,000 B Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance (CECO) - CECOs require certain efficiency improvements to be made to nonresidential buildings upon sale or transfer of a building and / or renovation projects of a certain size or value. CECOs can contain a list of mandatory improvements to be made and a spending limit beyond which additional improvements are not required. • Adopt Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance requiring point-of-sale energy efficiency upgrades, and establish efficiency threshold and maximum investment amount Medium; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop ordinance High; Assumes maximum expenditure capped at $5,000 None; Participation is voluntary; Advanced analytics programs typically identify low- or no-cost energy- savings opportunities via a subscription-based analytics provider Medium-High; Assumes targeted public outreach campaign is implemented by City, with ongoing collaboration among neighboring cities Building Retrofit Regulations: Develop and implement a variety of local ordinances and policies to increase installation of energy efficiency retrofits in homes and buildings. 1,640 38.3% Measure Energy Use Data and Analysis: Increase building owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how, when, and where building energy is used. 422 9.9% Retrofit Financing: Promote existing and support development of new private financing options for building retrofits and renewable energy development. 388 9.1% ENERGY ENERGY USE + DATA ANALYSIS EXISTING BUILDINGS 1 CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private CostMeasure ENERGYCPoint-of-Sale Home Energy Rating / Energy Performance Certificates (SFR) - Requires home owners to disclose information about the energy efficiency of their buildings when they offer them for sale. • Adopt ordinance that requires energy performance rating and disclosure for single family residential buildings at point-of-sale using Home Energy Rating System (HERS) or similar low-effort program Medium; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop ordinance Medium; Assumes home energy rating costs $500 for single- family residential D Annual Benchmarking and Disclosure - Requires annual energy performance measurement and public reporting for non- residential/multi-family buildings. The information will allow energy use to become a market differentiator and drive voluntary efficiency investments. • Adopt ordinance that requires annual reporting to city of energy performance in all non-residential and multi- family (5+ units) buildings over 10,000 square feet • Adopt ordinance that requires annual public disclosure of energy performance in all non-residential and multi- family (5+) buildings over 10,000 square feet (some building types such as industrial uses or data centers could be exempt for business competitive purposes) • Develop city web portal to collect, analyze, and disseminate building energy performance data to public Medium; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop ordinance High; Assumes $3,700 Level 2 Energy Audit for 10,000 sq ft retail space E Mandatory Retro-Commissioning (Annual or Biannual) - Mandatory retro-commissioning process in existing buildings and renovation projects to ensure optimal performance of building systems. Building size thresholds can be established to trigger mandatory compliance. • Adopt ordinance that requires all non-residential buildings over 20,000 square feet to conduct retro- commissioning to all major systems (e.g., HVAC) at 5-year intervals Medium; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop ordinance High; Assumes $0.15/sq ft retro-commissioning cost, assumes 20,000 sq ft building C E-2.3 • Partner with local Realtor community to develop and implement a building owner outreach campaign that targets new building owners to provide information on available building energy efficiency audit and retrofit programs, as well as locally-available financing options • Identify ways to streamline permitting process for large non-residential retrofit programs; possibly develop City liaison role in Building Department to assist projects through the permitting process 239 5.6% High; Assumes public outreach campaign is implemented by City Varies (Depends on retrofits voluntarily pursued, if any) C E-2.4 • Develop overarching energy plan for community that considers energy sources and their reliability with regards to estimated climate change impacts • Based on most current Statewide legislation (e.g., CalGreen code) and successful case studies in other cities, explore additional opportunities for building retrofit regulations that generate long-term energy savings in existing building stock • Work with local Realtor community to identify barriers to implementation and opportunities to reduce potential burden on building sellers and real estate transaction process Supporting Measure in 2020 Supporting Measure in 2020 High; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop energy resiliency plan None B E-2.5 A Mandatory Non-Residential Lighting Upgrades (Point-of-Sale or Tenant Improvement) - Ordinance would require property owners and managers at point-of-sale or tenant improvement, to replace inefficient interior lighting with high-efficiency lighting technologies where feasible. • Adopt ordinance that requires non-residential property owners and managers to replace inefficient interior lighting with high-efficiency technologies at point-of-sale or tenant improvements [Could be redundant with CECO requirements, depending on how those are developed] Medium; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop ordinance Varies; Typical simple payback time is 1-3 years with utility lighting retrofit rebates B Parking Lot Light Retrofit Ordinance - Ordinance would require property owners and managers to replace inefficient parking lots or parking structures lighting with high-efficiency lighting technologies where feasible. • Adopt ordinance that requires non-residential and multi-family property owners to retrofit inefficient parking lot or parking structure lighting with high-efficiency lighting technologies at point-of-sale or point-of-lease (for non- residential) [Could be redundant with CECO requirements, depending on how those are developed] • Develop outreach materials explaining simple payback period for lighting improvements and available funding sources (e.g., PG&E lighting rebates, energy performance contracts) Medium; Assumes consultant fees or City staff time to develop ordinance, and outreach to community Varies; Typical simple payback time is 1-3 years with utility lighting retrofit rebates 673 15.7% Public Realm Lighting Retrofit Regulations: Develop a parking lot lighting retrofit ordinance requiring property owners or managers to replace inefficient parking lot or parking structure lighting with high-efficiency lighting technologies where feasible. Cont. from previous page Cont. from previous page Building Retrofit Outreach: Develop aggressive outreach program to drive voluntary participation in energy and water-efficiency retrofits following building sale; program would target new owners. Energy Resiliency Plan: Develop a long-term communitywide energy conservation plan that considers future opportunities to influence building energy efficiency through additional or enhanced building regulations. 2 CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private CostMeasure ENERGY B E-3.1 A Shade Tree Requirement for New Construction - Requirement that new development include properly selected and located shade trees on a per unit or per square foot (of air conditioned space) basis. • Adopt ordinance that requires new residential development to incorporate properly selected and located shade trees (or alternative appropriate building-integrated vegetation) on per unit or per square foot basis • Include guidance on proper selection and siting of shade trees to maximize their energy-saving potential at maturity B, C E-4.1 A Solar Service Provider PPA Promotion - Solar service provider installs, owns, maintains, and insures PV equipment and sells electricity to property owner at an established rate for the life of the power purchase agreement. • Conduct outreach program to educate residents and businesses about potential benefits of solar service providers' power purchase agreements • Host PPA workshop with area PPAs to identify opportunities to streamline PPA installation of solar • Pending result of PPA workshop, remove identified barriers to wide-scale solar installation throughout city • Provide general information on city sustainability website describing various solar PV financing / installation options (e.g., PPA, community shared solar, outright purchase) Medium-High; Assumes high- visibility public outreach campaign is implemented by City None; Participation is voluntary B Community Shared Solar Promotion - Solar-electric system that provides power and/or financial benefit to multiple community members; can be owned by a utility or third party, special purpose entity, or non-profit. • Conduct outreach program to educate residents and businesses about opportunities for community shared solar PV systems; invite neighborhood groups/organizations to help identify potential interest • Work closely with identified candidate to develop successful pilot program (e.g., assist group in navigating permitting requirements) that can be replicated by others Medium; Assumes targeted public outreach campaign is implemented by City None; Participation is voluntary C Solar Empowerment Zones - Strategically selected geographic area where solar power is most viable and beneficial from a technical standpoint (e.g., excellent solar access; large, flat rooftop expanses; minimal number of property owners), and where outreach and program development can be focused. • Conduct analysis to identify areas within city most suited for large scale photovoltaic system development (e.g., excellent solar access; large, flat rooftop or parking lot expanses; minimal number of property owners); identify potential barriers (e.g., regulatory, ownership, technical) to photovoltaic system development in these areas • Identify these areas as "priority solar development areas" and work to reduce existing barriers to system development • Conduct focused outreach to land owners and tenants regarding photovoltaic system development opportunities; partner with PACE program or other renewable energy funders as appropriate on outreach campaign Medium-High; Assumes targeted public outreach campaign is implemented by City; consultant or City staff conduct solar empowerment zone technical analysis None; Participation is voluntary B, C E-4.2 A Solar Thermal Outreach Program - Informational resources on costs, benefits, and available funding/financing sources for solar hot water installations. • Collaborate with PG&E and California Solar Initiative - Thermal Program to develop local outreach program to maximize installation of solar hot water systems and leverage existing funding opportunities • Work with PG&E to identify businesses and multi-family residential building owners with high hot water use, and target with promotional materials for participation in CSI-Thermal Program • Host roundtable discussion with primary hot water users to identify potential city barriers to installation of solar thermal systems; work with city departments to remove/reduce identified barriers Medium; Assumes $500 for installation of two shade trees None; Participation is voluntary Low-Medium; Assumes City staff time to develop shade tree ordinance and planting guidance Low-Medium; Assumes City partnership with PG&E on outreach to encourage participation in California Solar Initiative - Thermal Program 5 0.1% 780 18.2% TBD TBD RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Communitywide Solar Photovoltaic Development: Encourage communitywide solar photovoltaic development through regulatory barrier reduction and public outreach campaigns. Communitywide Solar Hot Water Development: Encourage communitywide solar thermal (i.e., solar hot water) development through regulatory barrier reduction and public outreach campaigns. Shade Tree Program: Increase communitywide use of shade trees to decrease energy use associated with building cooling. NEW CONSTRUCTION 3 CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private CostMeasure ENERGY A E-5.1 A Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Study - Determine feasibility of CCA implementation, geographic scope of project, potential costs to participating jurisdictions and residents, and potential liabilities. • Work with other Santa Clara County partners to conduct feasibility study of multi-jurisdiction CCA program • If feasibility study determines CCA to be feasible and advantageous, work with Santa Clara County partners to prepare necessary study reports, informational materials, and any other supporting research and/or documents to help pursue development of CCA program ENERGY SUBTOTAL (*Does not include CCA, which is calculated for 2035 horizon year; does include mandatory building regulations)3,908 49.6% MT CO2e/yr % of Local Reductions B, C T-1.1 A Pedestrian Master Plan - Document that describes policies, programs and design criteria that contribute to walkability and pedestrian connectivity; also identifies projects in a city that enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. • Update Pedestrian Transportation Plan to reflect current pedestrian safety and access needs; prioritize new projects • Identify internal funding sources to provide city's match for grant-funded project planning, design, and construction B, C T-1.2 A Bikeshare Program - Program provides affordable access to bicycles for short-distance trips in an urban area as an alternative to motorized public transportation or private vehicles. • Continue to operate city bike fleet for city employee use and encouragement of bike fleets at large employers • Evaluate potential demand for citywide bikeshare program; discuss expansion opportunities with Bay Area Bike Share • If participation in Bay Area Bike Share is deemed infeasible, discuss potential for locally-operated system with that organization to identify likely barriers to successful bike share network in Cupertino (e.g., infrastructure limitations, locational disadvantages, land use concerns, low potential user/destination densities) [NEED TO DISCUSS WHERE THIS WOULD WORK IN CUPERTINO] B, C T-2.1 A Transportation Demand Management Program - Program to encourage and/or require city governments and large employers to develop comprehensive TDM programs that reduce the number of commuters who drive to work alone (i.e., reduce single-occupancy vehicle use). • Support regional efforts to implement SB 1339 commute benefit requirements for employers with more than 50 employees • Work with VTA on outreach campaigns targeting employers with fewer than 50 employees to encourage voluntary participation in TDM program activities, including pre-tax deductions for alternative travel mode expenses, transit pass subsidies, and new vanpool development B Parking Cash Out - Reduces number of vehicle commute trips by allowing employees who use alternative transportation methods (i.e., walk, bike to work, take transit, or carpool) to “cash out” their subsidized parking spaces. • Conduct survey of businesses that lease employee parking spaces • Develop program to work with businesses leasing parking spaces that explains benefits of parking cash-out programs for business and employees C Carpool / Rideshare Program - Programs that facilitate carpooling and vanpooling (e.g., Smartphone apps). • Partner with 511 and employers (50+ employees) to leverage new ride-matching technologies and promote rideshare among employees D Guaranteed Ride Home - Supports individuals who regularly commute by public transit, walking or bicycling during personal emergencies (i.e., leave work early due to illness, pick up a sick child, work overtime) by providing free shuttle and taxi services and / or reimbursements. • Work with other Santa Clara County partners to develop Guaranteed Ride Home program for employees who work in Santa Clara County and commute to work with alternative travel options (public transit, carpool/vanpool, biking, or walking) PEDESTRIANS + BICYCLES TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT None; Participation is voluntary; electricity rates vary by CCA program None None Unknown; Program is required per SB 1339, not a result of the CAP Medium-Very High; depends on number of partners and availability of supporting funding Medium-High; depends on depth of plan development and consultant fees or in-house staff costs Very High; depends on scale of program, could begin small and expand per community demand Unknown; Program is required per SB 1339, not a result of the CAP 806 18.8% 27,204 635% Supporting Measure Supporting Measure Supporting Measure Supporting Measure Bikeshare: Bicycles are made available for individual use on a very short-term basis (e.g., hourly), with various operational models implemented internationally. Transportation Demand Management: Provide informational resources to local businesses subject to SB 1339 transportation demand management program requirements and encourage voluntary participation in the program. Pedestrian Environment Enhancements: Continue to encourage alternative modes of transportation, including walking, through safety and comfort enhancements in the pedestrian environment. Community Choice Aggregation: Partner with other Santa Clara County jurisdictions to determine the feasibility for development of a regional CCA district, including identification of the geographic scope, potential costs to participating jurisdictions and residents, and potential liabilities. TRANSPORTATION CLEAN ELECTRICITY OPTIONS 4 CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private CostMeasure ENERGY B, C T-3.1 A Community Bus / Shuttle - Communitywide on-call shuttle service that provides individuals with a ride to transit stops, train stations or the airport. • Conduct feasibility study that evaluates potential for community shuttle between Cal Train, downtown and major employment/retail centers in Cupertino [FURTHER REFINE WITH CITY STAFF] • Explore funding strategies with business improvement districts, major employers, community organizations, and other appropriate partners B, C T-3.2 A Transit Signal Priority - Facilitates movement of transit vehicles through traffic-signal controlled intersections. • Identify opportunities with VTA for transit-priority signal integration along bus routes within city [ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BEYOND STEVENS CREEK BLVD?] Varies; Depends on # of intersections affected (assumes $15,000 cost per intersection) None B Transit Intersection Queue Jumpers - Use real-time traffic planning and management to favor buses in transit movement. • Work with VTA to integrate intersection queue jumper lanes (in conjunction with priority signals) along key bus routes within city Varies; Depends on # of intersections affected (assumes $11,000 cost per intersection) None B, C T-4.1 A Transit-Oriented Development Land Use and Zoning Designations - General plan designated land uses and/or municipal zoning practices that enable and encourage transit-oriented developments. • Identify areas that could support net increase in population or employment through land use changes within 1/4 mile walking distance of priority transit stops [WHERE ARE THESE LOCATIONS WITHIN CUPERTINO?] • Work with Public Works Department to evaluate infrastructure capacity for higher-density/intensity development in transit areas, and develop prioritization and funding strategies to complete necessary improvements • Reduce off-street parking requirements for transit-oriented and mixed-use developments, for developments providing shared parking, and for developments that incorporate travel demand management measures PUBLIC TRANSIT LAND USE None TBD Medium-High; TOD strategies already included in GPA Land Use policies High-Very High; depends on extent of service; Emery-Go- Round total annual costs approx. $670k; West Berkeley shuttle approx. $100k/yr Supporting Measure - Included in GPA VMT estimates Supporting Measure - Included in GPA VMT estimates Supporting Measure in 2020 Supporting Measure in 2020 Supporting Measure Supporting Measure Transit Route Expansion: Increasing transit ridership through increased headways, geographic route expansion, better connections to regional transit hubs, and increased hours of operation - Requires VTA collaboration. Transit Priority: Operational strategy for traffic signals that makes transit service more reliable, faster and more cost effective, especially in areas with heavy vehicle traffic congestion - Requires VTA collaboration. Transit-Oriented Development: Continue to encourage development that takes advantage of its location near local transit options (e.g., major bus stops) through higher densities and intensities to increase ridership potential. 5 CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private CostMeasure ENERGY B, C T-5.1 A Alternative Fuel Vehicle Charging / Refueling Infrastructure - Public or private sector development of alternative fueling stations (EV fast chargers, CNG and/or biofuel stations) and infrastructure. • Continue to explore cost-effective ways to increase alternative vehicle charging / refueling infrastructure within city for public use • Work with VTA to develop informational brochures and technical support for developers / contractors interested in providing public electric vehicle charging ports in new projects • Identify regional partners for collaboration on multi-family EV charging station retrofit program to develop strategies for installing EV chargers in existing multi-family buildings/apartment developments Low-Medium; Assumes partnership with private EV charging companies for free- or reduced chargers None B Charging Pre-wiring Requirements for New Residential Construction (SFR and MFR) - Requires new single-family and multi-family developments to install connections (i.e., pre-wire) for electric vehicle charging ports. • Require pre-wiring for at-home electric vehicle charging ports in new single family and multi-family construction • Update Municipal Code to reflect new requirement LOCAL EXAMPLES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND PALO ALTO: http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=32031 Low-Medium Medium; Assumes $300-500 per unit for pre- wiring (wiring retrofits can cost up to $2,000) C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Public Outreach Program- Information for community members about financial incentives / rebates available for alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., non-gasoline engines), as well as other vehicle benefits (e.g., operational cost savings, environmental). • Provide links on city's sustainability website to sources of cash rebates or other financial incentives for purchase and/or lease of alternative fuel vehicles • Develop local map of publicly-accessible alternative refueling and charging stations to address "range anxiety" for potential battery-powered or electric vehicle owners • Provide links to existing maps identifying Bay Area alternative fuel charging and refueling infrastructure Low None TRANSPORTATION SUBTOTAL 3,760 47.8% MT CO2e/yr % of Local Reductions B, C W-1.1 • Develop public information campaign that demonstrates City projects that conserve water (e.g., drought-tolerant landscaping, efficient irrigations systems) • Partner with community/neighborhood groups to promote existing water conservation programs and participation in voluntary turf-removal programs TBD TBD Medium; Assumes public outreach campaign is developed Unknown; Program is State legislation, not a result of CAP B, C W-2.1 A Recycled Water Infrastructure Development Program - Program to increase ability to recycle and re-use wastewater for irrigation purposes by addressing recycled water infrastructure constraints, expanding treatment and distribution capacity, and identifying large irrigation users that could use recycled water. • Conduct feasibility analysis to determine potential for recycled water systems in Cupertino; map locations of large irrigation water users (now and likely future users) to identify feasible extent of new system [NEED TO DISCUSS FEASIBILITY WITH CITY PUBLIC WORKS IN LIGHT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ON SUNNYVALE / SAN JOSE EXTENSION PROJECT] WATER SUBTOTAL 0 0.0% ALTERNATIVE FUELS URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN RECYCLED WATER None Medium cost to conduct feasibility study; Very High cost to install recycled water infrastructure TBD TBD 2,954 69.0% SB-7X-7: Implement water conservation policies contained within Cupertino's Urban Water Management Plan to achieve 20 percent per capita water reductions by 2020. WATER Community Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Encourage communitywide use of alternative fuel vehicles through expansion of alternative vehicle refueling infrastructure. Recycled Water Irrigation Program: Uses recycled water for irrigation purposes to reduce potable water demands. 6 CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private CostMeasure ENERGY MT CO2e/yr % of Local Reductions B, C SW-1.1 A Zero Waste Plan - Document that describes a goal of zero waste sent to landfills (or incineration) and policies and programs to achieve the goal. • Establish non-binding goal and implementing strategy to exceed 50% communitywide solid waste diversion requirements established by AB 939, either through updates to CIWMP elements or through preparation of standalone strategic plan • Prepare residential waste characterization study to identify opportunities for additional waste diversion within residential sector • Establish timeline and funding mechanism to perform periodic Residential Waste Characterization Study updates to evaluate efficacy of new outreach programs B, C SW-2.1 A Food Scrap and Compostable Paper Collection Program - Collection of food scraps and compostable paper in yard waste bins. • Continue to implement the city's food scrap and compostable paper diversion outreach campaign • Provide information to local elementary schools on existing food scrap diversion program for incorporation into on-going recycling curriculum • Work with franchise waste haulers, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, and other local business organizations to develop and encourage participation in voluntary commercial food scrap collection program B, C SW-2.2 A Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Ordinance (with specific lumber diversion requirements) - Requires recycling / diversion of at least X% of construction and demolition waste; Provide technical assistance to construction firms to recycle >75% of debris, in advance of and to support a mandatory recycling ordinance. • Work with franchise waste haulers to evaluate capability of area landfill operators to maximize C+D waste diversion (e.g., 75-90% diversion) • Consider increasing diversion requirements to 75% diversion by 2020; alternatively, only target scrap lumber with 75% diversion requirement • Consider developing Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Deposit Program to help enforce C+D ordinance, in which deposit is paid to city prior to issuance of building permit and refunded to applicant following submittal / approval of applicable waste diversion documentation SOLID WASTE SUBTOTAL 175 2.2% No new costs WASTE REDUCTION None No new costs ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION Low-Medium; Assumes some outreach to builder community and area landfills/waste haulers Medium-High; Assumes costs to develop zero waste plan and prepare waste characterization study Assumes continuation of existing food scrap collection program; Low-Medium cost to develop voluntary commercial food scrap program 3.4% Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Program: Enforce construction and demolition waste diversion requirements in State's Green Building Code. 147 Supporting Measure 0.7% Zero Waste Goal: Maximize solid waste diversion communitywide through preparation of a zero waste strategic plan. Food Scrap and Compostable Paper Diversion: Promote the collection of food scraps and compostable paper in yard waste bins through public outreach campaigns. Supporting Measure 28 SOLID WASTE 7 CUPERTINO - COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - DRAFT PROPOSED MEASURES AND REDUCTION ESTIMATES 1/20/2014 Alternative Implementing Actions Estimated GHG Reductions % Contribution Cost Estimate - Public Cost Cost Estimate - Private CostMeasure ENERGY MT CO2e/yr % of Local Reductions B, C G-1.1 A Mandatory Tree Planting Requirements for New Development - Requirement for new developments to include street trees on a per unit or per linear foot of roadway basis. [CHECK WITH PLANNING DEPARTMNET FOR EXISTING REQUIREMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND OR ENFORCE: Some cities have requirements to install street trees as part of development agreement, but then new home/building owners may remove trees on their property without need to provide replacements] GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SUBTOTAL 29 0.4% Alternative A - Total CAP Measure Reduction Estimate 27,204 635% Alternative B - Total CAP Measure Reduction Estimate 7,872 184% Alternative C - Total CAP Measure Reduction Estimate 5,764 135% Medium; Assumes installation of two replacement trees Low; Assumes cost to review/revise landscaping requirements to include tree replacement requirements if a tree is removed Urban Forest Program: Support development and maintenance of a healthy, vibrant urban forest through outreach, incentives, and strategic leadership. 29 0.7% GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE URBAN FORESTRY 225,000 250,000 275,000 300,000 325,000 350,000 2010 2020 MT C O 2e/ y r BAU Emissions Forecast 2020 Target Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 15% below baseline levels 15.5% below baseline 16.2% below baseline 22.4% below baseline 8 Attachment D – Community Comments Cupertino community members were given numerous opportunities to provide suggestions and make comments on the preliminary direction of the climate action planning process. The City hosted two community workshops to present the project and engage community members through structured activities. The City also held a focus group meeting with the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce to engage the community’s business leaders. A second focus group meeting with representatives of the Realtor community was also held to solicit specific comments on building-related proposed CAP measures. Materials developed for both community meetings were posted on the CAP website, and two online surveys (via Survey Monkey) were developed to replicate the community workshops for residents that were unable to attend in-person. The following notes summarize participants’ comments from the various engagement opportunities. Community Workshop #1 05/14/2014 General Themes  Provide financial incentives for various actions  Design/develop all-inclusive programs (regardless of income, social conditions) o Environmental justice is important consideration in measure selection/development  Draft reduction target (i.e., 15% below baseline year by 2020) is not aggressive enough – should be straight line between baseline year and 2050 Transportation and Land Use Themes  Bike/Pedestrian o Improve bike safety – infrastructure enhancements, enforcement o Slow down traffic throughout city – improve safety for pedestrians/cyclists o Plant native shade trees to increase walking comfort  Transit o Bring light rail to 85 instead of bus o Bring back VTA busses through neighborhoods o Pursue transit spur to Caltrans/BART  Community shuttle bus  Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction o Require transportation demand management programs (TDMs) for employers and enforce them – link to reduced VMT (e.g., per employee VMT targets) o Build parking structures in dense commercial areas to prevent circling to find parking Energy Themes  Retrofits o Existing homes can be retrofitted to be net-zero/highly-efficient o Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) – there’s not enough turnover in the Cupertino market to make a difference (i.e., low rate of home sales) o Do not want point-of-sale requirements (e.g., mandatory energy audits, upgrades)  New Construction o Pre-wiring requirement for electric vehicle (EV) charging units in garages – Palo Alto has ordinance, as example o Choose lowest level of development for GPA alternative = fewer emissions  Renewable Energy Development o Make solar photovoltaics (PVs) more affordable – property assessed clean energy (PACE), power-purchase agreements (PPAs)…need better information on existing financing options o Install more PVs on City-owned buildings/land o Require PVs on new carports Natural Resources Themes  Water Conservation o Increase water-use regulations / strict enforcement of xeriscaping requirements o Better demonstrate existing City water-conserving activities (e.g., where can xeriscaping examples be seen?) o Conversion/removal of turf lawns – to native vegetation, vegetable gardens, etc.  Native Species o Seed-sharing workshops (native species) o Increase native street tree planting o Community tree-planting drive  Education / Outreach o Increase public education on sustainability issues and what City is already doing  Waste Reduction o Single-use plastic bottle ban Ideas for Project Team to Consider  General o Implement large-scale demonstration project from conception to installation o Additional community outreach – community member offered to give presentation on climate change basics to fill information/knowledge gap of some residents  Energy o Education on cost-comparison of solar to grid electricity/natural gas o Education on how to retrofit your Cupertino home with local examples  Transportation + Land Use o Local mass-transit system (bus) to service distant neighborhoods  Natural Resources o Support services to help residents plant native species in their gardens o Incentivize tree-planting in residential parking strips o Incentivize turf removal / replacement with xeriscaping Community Workshop #2 06/04/2014 Building Regulations Strategies  If these are pursued, should be through regional effort so that Cupertino is not disadvantaging itself from an economic development perspective  Need strong public outreach programs as related to building regulation strategies to link building and home owners with available rebate programs and financing options  Mandatory energy audits slow down the home sales process  Point-of-sale regulations are ineffective in Cupertino because there is a very low turnover rate in the residential building stock  Building energy ratings do not compel action  Need to incentive commercial retrofits; stream-lined permitting process could be good option Clean Electricity Options  Explore partnership with Sunnyvale’s community choice aggregation (CCA) plan Transportation  Promote greater bicycle use o Regional bike maps, beyond Cupertino o Safer streets o Bike-share program  Community shuttle option, with Maguerite example from Stanford/Palo Alto  Bring amenities closer to residential areas Community Education/Outreach  Additional outreach is necessary to encourage participation in many of the programs considered o Use DeAnza College as a resource to information dissemination; Involve schools as well o Use community block leaders  Need more/better access to information on PG&E rebates  Connect residents/businesses with free energy audit/evaluation programs to start the energy efficiency improvement process  How do you convince people to pay more for the energy they use? Re: CCA or Green Option programs Focus Group #1 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce May 22, 2014 Energy  What is the trigger for building retrofits? Realtors are typically opposed to mandates associated with the point of sale  An alternative that the real estate industry supports is to communicate with homebuyers about opportunities for efficiency improvements  The City of Los Altos has an alternative approach that Cupertino could review  Education and outreach about home efficiency upgrades are broadly supported  The cost and timing associated with commercial lighting retrofits are a concern, particularly for small businesses  Providing lists of preferred vendors or other tools to business owners is beneficial  There is often a significant lag time between adoption of state building codes and local customization. It is not easy to modify the local building code  The City of Los Altos Hills offers streamlined permitting for energy-efficient construction, which is supported by the development community Transportation and Land Use  Consider requiring or providing incentives for 2-3 electric vehicle (EV) parking and charging spots in new multi-family residential buildings  Improving safety and awareness of walking and bicycling around schools will help relieve these congestion areas  The impact of corporate buses on Cupertino’s emissions is mostly positive. There may be additional opportunities associated with alternative fuel or electric vehicles for these corporate shuttles  Tesla is considering electric charging stations on the Peninsula, but it is unknown what sites are being considered Natural Resources  There is concern that development allocations that may be allowed under the General Plan Amendment may push the sewage treatment plant over capacity and trigger a development moratorium Other Comments  It would be advisable to build in a study session with City Council prior to the adoption of the CAP to allow adequate review and revision time  Realtors are opposed to point-of-sale regulations, but amenable to working with the City on proactive programs  More specificity in the CAP presentation would be appreciated, particularly with regard to impacts on residents and businesses Focus Group #2 Realtor Group June 12, 2014  Point-of-sale programs can be problematic for disclosure liability o Date-certain programs are preferred (e.g., Perform X by 2020)  Cupertino has approximately 12,000 homes - roughly 3% sells each year (i.e., 360 homes) o Could City sponsor energy audits for new home buyers through a program in which City reimburses for all or part of energy audit, if efficiency improvements identified in audit are implemented? o New buyer welcome package that says “Welcome to our green city”? Could include low-flow showerhead, CFL bulbs, weather stripping, etc.  City tried this before with low-uptake  Energy audit requirements in Austin, TX are problematic due to lack of enforcement from City side o Realtors see values in audits, but do not support mandatory programs because they slow down the real estate transaction process  Energy/water efficiency improvement requirements on sellers can lead to double work o Sellers installs cheapest option for compliance, new owner/tenant rips them out and replaces with whatever they want  Education needed on part of Realtors regarding available energy efficiency retrofit/improvement programs and financing options  City should focus on 97% of homes that are not turning over each year via focused outreach campaigns  Do not support mandatory retro-commissioning program o Should be achieved through incentives rather than mandates o Same with commercial lighting retrofits- incentives, not mandates Online Engagement: Questionnaires Summary SURVEY #1: Posted May 14, 2014 The survey asked participants to read through existing and proposed community actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide their comments and feedback. This activity mirrored the presentation and open house exercise at workshop #1. Eleven people participated in the survey. There was a spike in responses from 6/2- 6/6. Comments are summarized below and organized by topic area. New community actions to reduce energy consumption and use more renewable energy:  Respondents wanted actions that are supported by science, data, and analysis of financing and savings for renewable energy, lighting retrofits and new construction energy efficiency installments. They also wanted easy-to-follow instructions/policies.  Several people expressed concern about how much some of the proposed policies and programs would cost home owners, car owners, and business owners. Opportunities in energy conservation and clean energy use:  Provide a free frequent mid-day shuttle service for seniors, students, and worker to transport people on a route that goes to neighborhoods, transit stations and health services.  Create a tour of energy efficient buildings that have been retrofitted.  Encourage all new construction to incorporate solar energy at the earliest phase of design. New community actions to reduce natural resource consumption and enhance the natural environment:  Respondents showed some enthusiasm for organic waste but want it to be easy and are curious about the costs/benefits.  One responded suggested developing a curriculum to teach students composting, recycling, etc.  People wanted examples of local buildings with water conservation technology and they want discounts and assistance with graywater installation in homes.  Respondents’ comments on urban forestry included: o Drought with trees too close to structures can create major problems in a high fire danger situation. o List local examples and service providers. o Work with Master Gardeners and other experts.  Respondents’ comments on water conservation included: o Share water conservation tips for the public. o Provide incentives for the facility staff to implement water conservation. Comments and suggestions on new community actions to encourage more walking, bicycling, public transit and alternative fuel vehicle use:  Respondents generally resisted alternative fuel vehicle programs. There were a variety of concerns, including coal-fired electricity used to power cars, cost, and that it’s a misplaced priority and the City should focus on reducing use of all cars. Resistance and similar concerns carried through to the survey questions about state regulations to encourage cleaner vehicle fuels.  Respondents had mixed responses to programs and partnerships to help employers reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. One person suggested there should be rewards for employees.  Transit and Bike/Ped requests: o Separated/protected lanes (not on-street bike lanes). o Families involved in walking and biking efforts. o Bike lane on Stevens Creek Blvd. o Senior transportation options to reduce senior isolation; sponsor STAR Program. Other comments, suggestions and ideas:  Some respondents were skeptical of government action and preferred market-based actions  Create an interactive program that can be used to get information on individual buildings and model efficiencies as well as offer information on local sustainable building resources and the companies that supply them.  We need to make smarter use of our city owned-facilities so residents can minimize driving. (Comment referenced the need for exercise classes at Monta Vista Recreation Center.)  There’s a need for more healthy and affordable restaurants that are walkable/bikable.  Respondents’ ideas related to residential energy efficiency programs: o Every time a commercial unit gets a new tenant, they should be given a checklist of energy efficiency items to review, e.g. weather stripping. o Provide demonstration products for retrofits. o New residential homes requirement with turn-key ready solar panels installation. o Community solar program could work with cutting-edge marketing. SURVEY #2: Posted June 5, 2014 The survey provided information about the City’s current efforts and potential new measures to reduce greenhouse gases in Cupertino and asked for respondents’ comments and feedback. One person completed this survey. The respondent was supportive of the need for plans and policy actions to reduce greenhouse gases. They felt that the City should lead the effort and the actions should be voluntary and made as affordable as possible. They didn’t support point-of-sale energy rating because it places the burden on the seller. ENERGY Green Business Program, Commercial PACE Program GreenBiz Local Energy Efficiency Financing Guide CEC Low-Interest Loan; Energy Upgrade California PG&E Rebates & Energy Efficiency Financing Programs EV Pre-wiring Requirement for New Construction Energy Management Systems Installed in some City Buildings GreenPoint or LEED Certification Reimbursement 100% of Streetlights Converted to Inductive Technology Converting Parking Lots and Pathway Lighting to LED with Motion Sensors Indoor Lighting Retrofits in City Buildings, Programmable Lighting Control Systems Reduced Solar Fees for PV Installation DOE American Solar Transformation Initiative Participant E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G R E T R O F I T S A N D E N ERGY ANALYSIS $ $ $ $ $$ $ ENERGY EFFICIE N T C O N S T R U C T I O N L I G H T I N G R E T R O F I T S COMMUNITY SOLAR $ $ $ http://www.cupertino.org/ http://www.cupertino.org/ Green Building Ordinance, Expedited Plan Check for Green Projects, LEED Silver Standard for New City Buildings Green@Home, GreenBiz, green@school, Municipal Benchmarking; Enterprise Carbon Accounting $ C 4H Reduces energy use Improves air quality Reduces traffic congestion Promotes smart growth Extends water supply Improves water quality Extends landfill lifespan Increases local knowledge Increases natural habitat Improves public health Reduces landfill methane Reduces heat island effect Creates local jobs Provides long- term savings Conserves natural resources Improves energy independence Regional strategy ENERGY EXISTING PROGRAMSCUPERTINOcity of general plan amendment Bike-Friendly Community (Silver Status); Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Footbridge TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE Bike Fleet for City Employee Use Alternative Work Schedule for Employees; Commuter Benefits Mixed-Use Development Along Arterials New Bicycle Master Plan; Stevens Creek Trail Safe Routes to School; Complete Streets Public EV Charging Stations Signal Re-timing Project Traffic Signal Coordination P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I C Y C L E S Y S T EMS TRANSPORTATION DE M A N D M A N A G E M E N T P U B L I C T R A N S I T S Y S T E M S LAND USE http://www.cyclelicio.us/ http://www.cupertino.org/ $ C 4H $ $ Reduces energy use Improves air quality Reduces traffic congestion Promotes smart growth Extends water supply Improves water quality Extends landfill lifespan Increases local knowledge Increases natural habitat Improves public health Reduces landfill methane Reduces heat island effect Creates local jobs Provides long- term savings Conserves natural resources Improves energy independence Regional strategy CUPERTINOcity of TRANSPORTATION + LAND USE SECTOR EXISTING PROGRAMS CUPERTINOcity of general plan amendment NATURAL RESOURCES SCVWD Rebate Programs and Irrigation Efficiency Programs Graywater Use Ordinance GreenBiz, Green@Home; Growing Greener Blocks; Stevens Creek Restoration Project City Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance Enhanced Construction Waste Diversion (60%) Citywide Organics/ Composting Collection EPA Food Recovery Challenge National Innovation Award Heart of the City Master Plan; Green Fingers Stewardship Program Tree City USA through Arbor Day Foundation; Reforestation Program; McClellan Ranch Preserve Nature Programs Street Tree Ordinance and “Pick A Street Tree” Program Tree4Free Program; Community Gardens U R B A N W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T SOLID WASTE M A N A G E M E N T U R B A N F O RESTRY Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2011)Give bicycle projects a priority equal to those that serve the automobile;Pursue funding and inter-agency cooperation in the development of bikeway network;Continue actice participation in traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions;Expand and develop new bicycle safety programs;Expand and develop http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/ http://www.yelp.com/biz/cupertino-city-center-apartments-cupertino $ C 4H Reduces energy use Improves air quality Reduces traffic congestion Promotes smart growth Extends water supply Improves water quality Extends landfill lifespan Increases local knowledge Increases natural habitat Improves public health Reduces landfill methane Reduces heat island effect Creates local jobs Provides long- term savings Conserves natural resources Improves energy independence Regional strategy $ C 4H C 4H $ $$ $ C 4H CUPERTINOcity of general plan amendment NATURAL RESOURCES EXISTING PROGRAMS CUPERTINOcity of general plan amendment ENERGY SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES $C 4H Reduces ene r g y u s e Impro v e s a i r qua l i t yReduces t r a f f i c con g e s t i o n Promot e s sm a r t g r o w t h Extends w a t e r sup p l yImpro v e s wa t e r q u a l i t y Extends l a n d f i l l life s p a n Incre a s e s loc a l k n o w l e d g e Incre a s e s nat u r a l h a b i t a t Impro v e s pub l i c h e a l t h Reduces l a n d f i l l me t h a n e Impro v e s e n e r g y ind e p e n d e n c e Conserve s nat u r a l r e s o u r c e s Reduces h e a t isla n d e f f e c t Creates l o c a l job sProvide s l o n g - term s a v i n g s Regiona l Stra t e g y MEDIUM MEDIUMBuilding Energy Data and Analysis Policies and outreach program to increase business and homeowner use of software or hardware to track and analyze building utility data to find efficiency improvements or faulty equipment. Financing options and/or financial incentives that support retrofits and renewable energy installation in existing buildings. Local ordinances and/or building standards to increase energy efficiency in existing homes and businesses. Outreach program and ordinances to increase high-efficiency indoor and outdoor lighting upgrades. Local ordinances, policies, and codes to improve building efficiency and occupant comfort. Outreach program to share available solar financing options; policy revisions to encourage voluntary installation of solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems. HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW Strategies to increase utility renewable energy generation for use in Cupertino and/or opportunities to participate in existing clean electricity programs. Retrofit + Renewable Energy Financing Building Retrofit Regulations Commercial Lighting Retrofits Energy Efficient New Construction Community Solar Photovoltaics Clean Electricity $ $ $ $ $ PROPOSED COMMUNITY ACTIONS GHG REDUCTIONS WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK?COMMUNITY CO-BENEFITS CO-BENEFITS LET’S BRAINSTORM! TRANSPORTATION + LAND USE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIESCUPERTINOcity of general plan amendment $C 4H Reduces ene r g y u s e Impro v e s a i r qua l i t yReduces t r a f f i c con g e s t i o n Promot e s sm a r t g r o w t h Extends w a t e r sup p l yImpro v e s wa t e r q u a l i t y Extends l a n d f i l l life s p a n Incre a s e s loc a l k n o w l e d g e Incre a s e s nat u r a l h a b i t a t Impro v e s pub l i c h e a l t h Reduces l a n d f i l l me t h a n e Impro v e s e n e r g y ind e p e n d e n c e Conserve s nat u r a l r e s o u r c e s Reduces h e a t isla n d e f f e c t Creates l o c a l job sProvide s l o n g - term s a v i n g s Regiona l Stra t e g y HIGH LOW HIGH Land use planning techniques that help reduce the total vehicle miles traveled during daily activities (e.g., work, school, shopping), such as mixing land uses and transit-oriented development. Regional agency partnerships to enhance the transit rider experience, through increased or improved service schedules, system coverage, or transit stop environments; includes partnerships with VTA on local transit priorities (e.g., bus rapid transit) and feasibility assessment for new local community shuttle. Physical infrastructure and programmatic improvements that support active transportation options through increased pedestrian and bicyclist comfort, safety, and convenience. Outreach, incentives, and regional partnerships to help employers comply with SB 1339 to reduce the number of commuters driving to work alone, such as parking cash out, carpool/rideshare services, or a guaranteed ride home. Outreach program and ordinances to accelerate public and private use of low emission alternative fuel vehicles, such as battery-electrics, hybrids, or natural gas, and development of supporting refueling infrastructure. Alternative Fuel Vehicles Transportation Demand Management Pedestrian + Bicycle Improvements Public Transit Improvements Land Use Strategies State regulations that will result in improved vehicle efficiency and cleaner vehicle fuels; includes Pavley I + II, the low carbon fuel standard, and heavy-duty vehicle aerodynamic efficiency standards. State Actions $ $ $ $ $ supporting indirect reductions supporting indirect reductions supporting indirect reductions PROPOSED COMMUNITY ACTIONS GHG REDUCTIONS1 WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK?COMMUNITYCO-BENEFITS CO-BENEFITS LET’S BRAINSTORM! 1 “Supporting” actions provide important community co-benefits, but cannot be accurately quantified to provide emissions reduction estimates at this time, or reductions overlap with those estimated in other strategies. NATURAL RESOURCES SECTOR OPPORTUNITIESCUPERTINOcity of $C 4H Reduces ene r g y u s e Impro v e s a i r qua l i t yReduces t r a f f i c con g e s t i o n Promot e s sm a r t g r o w t h Extends w a t e r sup p l yImpro v e s wa t e r q u a l i t y Extends l a n d f i l l life s p a n Incre a s e s loc a l k n o w l e d g e Incre a s e s nat u r a l h a b i t a t Impro v e s pub l i c h e a l t h Reduces l a n d f i l l me t h a n e Impro v e s e n e r g y ind e p e n d e n c e Conserve s nat u r a l r e s o u r c e s Reduces h e a t isla n d e f f e c t Creates l o c a l job sProvide s l o n g - term s a v i n g s Regiona l Stra t e g y LOW LOW LOW LOW supporting supporting indirect reductions indirect reductions Organic Waste Outreach programs and additional collaboration with the City’s waste hauler to address remaining barriers to increased participation in existing organics diversion programs for homes and businesses (e.g. food/yard waste collection). Programs, policies, and agency partnerships to support statewide water conservation efforts through implementation of the Urban Water Management Plan; leverages numerous existing City and water district programs to increase indoor water use efficiency and irrigation improvements. Water Conservation Programs and ordinances for management and enhancement of a healthy, vibrant urban forest that provides shade, clean air, local habitats, natural stormwater management, and visual amenity to the community; native, drought- tolerant plant species can further support City water conservation efforts. Urban Forestry Analysis of potential recycled water users in the City to determine infrastructure needs to enable recycled water to replace potable water use in landscape irrigation and some industrial applications. Recycled Water Use C 4H C 4H C 4H Ordinances and programs to increase diversion of construction-related waste from landfills for reuse, recycling, composting, or other beneficial uses. Construction and Demolition Debris Outreach and programs to help the City achieve a long-term aspirational goal to exceed statewide solid waste diversion requirements; includes local waste studies to identify additional opportunities for new City programs. Zero Waste Goal PROPOSED COMMUNITY ACTIONS GHG REDUCTIONS1 WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK?COMMUNITYCO-BENEFITS CO-BENEFITS LET’S BRAINSTORM! 1 “Supporting” actions provide important community co-benefits, but cannot be accurately quantified to provide emissions reduction estimates at this time, or reductions overlap with those estimated in other strategies. CO M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T A N D P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T PL A N S A N D P R O D U C T S CE Q A process schedule Project Kick-off Meeting Workshops Community Workshop #1 Draft City Climate Action Plan Final City Climate Action Plan Planning Commission Meeting 7/15 City Council Meeting 7/22 Online Engagement Focus Groups and Stakeholder Interviews Outreach Materials Initiate CEQA Process CEQA Analysis Documentation Public Comment and Responses 8/20 Negative Declaration climate action planCITY OF CUPERTINO Community Engagement and CEQA Support Updated June 2014 Coordination Meetings City Council Meeting 10/7 Outreach Materials Outreach Materials Outreach Materials Workshops Community Workshop #2 Focus Groups and Stakeholder Interviews Public Draft Plan FEBRUARY 2014 MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 2014 Subject: Report of the Community Development Assistant Director Planning Commission Agenda Date:Tuesday, July 8, 2014 Off The Grid Food Truck Use Permit On January 28, 2014, the Cupertino Planning CommissionapprovedUse Permit (U-2013- 09) to allow a weekly mobile food truck event (Off the Grid) in the parking lot of Whole Foods Market, at 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard.As a condition of approval, a permit review was required to be conducted by staff after six months from approval. Staff has conducted three site visits since operation first started (4/22, 5/20, and 6/10) and determined that the food truck operations are consistent with the Use Permit approval. Additionally, the event location and parking are sufficient to support the event operations without causing negative impacts to traffic and circulation on the site. This concludes the review of Use Permit (U-2013-09); in the event that the mobile food market becomes a problem or nuisance situation the Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the operation of the event. Upcoming Dates: Date Event Time Location Thursday, July 10, 2014 Summer Concert Series Steel Horse –The Music of Bon Jovi 6:30 to 8:00pm Memorial Park Amphitheatre Thursday, July 17, 2014 Cinema at Sundown “Honey I Shrunk the Kids” 8:15 p.m.Blackberry Farm Saturday and Sunday July 19 & 20 Shakespeare in the Park “The Taming of the Shrew” 7:30 p.m.Memorial Park Amphitheatre Thursday, July 24, 2014 Cinema at Sundown “Hoot” 8:15 p.m.Blackberry Farm Friday, Saturday, Sunday July 25, 26, 27 Summer Concert Series Daze on the Green 7:30 p.m.Memorial Park Amphitheatre Thursday, July 31, 2014 Cinema at Sundown “Turbo” 8:15 p.m.Blackberry Farm OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org