PC 07-08-2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,.CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVED/AMET MED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JULY 8, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUTNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of Jule 8, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10.350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winne Lee
Commissioner: :Margaret Gong
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: ,Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Asst.Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Sustainability Manager: Erin Cooke
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Amended Miizutes of January 23,2014 Plannini,; Conninission Meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com.Lee,second by Com. Sun, and unanimously
carried 5-0-0 to approve the amended minutes of January 23,2014.
2. Minutes of May 27,2014 Planning Conninission Meeting:
Changes requested by Chair Brophy: Bottorn of Page 2 (City Attorney) Delete text "they can file
a writ ..........City Council first" and insert new text "applicant may appeal the Planning
Commission's decision to City Council."
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and'unanimously carried
to approve May 27,2014 amended minutes.
3. Minutes of June 9,2014 Planning Conninission.fleeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve the June 2,2014 minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 8, 2014
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
STUDY SESSION
4. ClimateAction Plan
Study Session to provide an update on the Climate Action Plan (CAP) process and review
greenhouse gas reduction measures to be considered for analysis in the City's Initial Study/Negative
Declaration.
Erin Cooke, Sustainability Manager; presented the staff report:
• Said staff welcomed the opportunity to present the proposed Climate Action Plan(CAP) and gain the
Planning Commission's perspectives and comments on some of the proposed CAP measures that the
city is considering pursuant to moving forward in the near term. They have done due diligence so far
in bringing their proposed measures to the community and wanted to ensure they have the opportunity
to gain insights and feedback from the Commission. Said she would review some background on the
CAP process to date and go into some specific measures and grouping of measures for consideration,
followed by a presentation by Joshua Lathan,Consultant at AECOM.
• Many cities throughout California have developed CAPs; in 2006 the State of California adopted
AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act which set a 15% reduction target for the State of California as
well as more progressive targets longitudinally and a strategy for the State of California to achieve
those targets. As such a variety of other jurisdictions is realizing the local development and planning
and proximity benefits of shepherding emissions reductions programs through communities; cities
decided that it would make sense to piggyback and partner with the state agency to adopt their own
CAP. As such about 400 different communities in California develop sustainability plans, CAPS, or
greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans and they did so over the course of the last 10 years.
Specifically in the Bay Area in realizing that not a lot of jurisdictions had not had the time, capacity or
resources to develop CAPs, Santa Clara County decided it would make sense to aggregate and partner
with local jurisdictions to develop a regional plan with the goal of identifying opportunities for
regional implementation in realizing that our geographies in many ways provide opportunities for us to
collaborate on environmental programs. Santa Clara County got a grant to pursue the development of a
regional CAP and invited all jurisdictions in the county to partner to develop the template and
ultimately see it through within their localities. The City of Cupertino teamed up with Santa Clara
County and six other jurisdictions and were able to utilize that funding to hire a consultant to do some
of the background and legwork in reviewing what CAPs had been adopted at the state and national
levels, and also consider what best management practices were included in those CAPs so they could
see what made the best sense for Santa Clara County jurisdictions as well as Cupertino in particular.
The reason Cupertino wanted to participate in the CAP process was they have a diverse array of
sustainability focus and environmental focused policies and ordinances, many of which have been
benchmarked, and were originally included in the city's 2000-2005 General Plan and that specifically
identifies the goal of developing a CAP and a green house gas emissions reduction plan as one of the
policies that was set forth in that plan. They realized the opportunity in going through the regional
strategy would be to realize that policy that was originally set forth. They wanted to make sure they
were part of this regional strategy in realizing that there might be infrastructure or joint procurement
opportunities that would arise from a regional plan; and thought it would make sense to team up
regionally and focus on allying with adjacent jurisdictions in seeing through a more effective policy or
plan. Also wanted to make sure they weren't losing sight of potential grant opportunities and
resources that are made available for local jurisdictions. Historically a lot of grant funds have only
been made available for things like planning, CAPs, sustainability plans or greenhouse gas emissions
reduction plans, but the state and federal governments are re-prioritizing and shifting those grant
Cupertino Planning Commission July 8, 2014
dollars toward implementation of CAPs. It also offers some additional opportunities by pairing with
forthcoming draft General Plan the Planning Commission has been reviewing. They want to make
sure they have the opportunity to pair with that document and dovetail from the policies as well as
some of the growth estimates set forth in that document by identifying strategies that really support
and supplement that plan.
Joshua Lathan,AECOM:
• Reviewed the background of the Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Climate action Plan (CAP) is a
roadmap for a community to achieve an emissions reduction.target. The primary building blocks to a
CAP include inventorying baseline emissions; in i�upertino 2010 was chosen at the baseline year.
After projecting the emissions forward, a reduction target is drafted and then develop reduction
strategies, implementation programs and quantify the efficacy that is estimated from those programs
and compare that to the target. There is an interactive process where they ask if they are achieving the
target they want, did they far surpass it, should they be setting more aggressive targets. When the plan
is adopted, implementation and monitoring occurs; and should occur on a 3 to 5 year cycle depending
on what is being implanted and monitored, to ensure that the measures developed and are starting to
implement are having the efficacy estimated; if they are not,you can find places to fine tune them.
• In terms of goal setting, as Erin Cooke referenced, the state has adopted statewide emission reduction
goals through the Global Warming Solutions Act; those goals include a return to 1990 levels by 2020
and further an 80% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050; that is their big long term target. At the
local government level, it is difficult to pull together all the data needed to prepare a 1990 inventory;
the state had the information and they could do it but a lot of local governments have struggled, so
within the CAP community the approximation for a return to 1990 levels that was developed was a
15%reduction below your baseline year; typically the baseline year had been considered 2005 to 08; it
has been expanded to include baselines betwee.-a 2005 and 2010 and after that you might need to
consider increasing that reduction further to make, sure you are getting all the way back to 1990 levels.
How are we going to achieve that goal? It is a statewide target and as such the state has developed
numerous new policies and regulations to put the state on the path toward achieving those targets.
They will be referred to as statewide actions or state level actions; when quantified at the local level
what would their local impact be? Those state actions that will occur regardless of development and
implementation of this CAP approximately achieve 94% of Cupertino's local target by 2020, which is
more than in most communities. It is typically between 75% and 85%, for whatever reasons without
digging into the data too deeply, the statewide actions are having a very strong effect on Cupertino's
ability to achieve a 2020 target.
• Examples of statewide activities are things such as the renewable portfolio standards which requires
the state's utilities to increasingly provide more renewable electricity as part of their portfolio mix;
there are new construction and efficiency standards commonly called Title 24 or Title 24 Part 6 which
address increasingly efficient new building and signifidant retrofits; and there are two large programs
that address the vehicle side of the equation and that is vehicle efficiency improvements making
vehicles more efficient at using their fuels and. then cleaning the fuels that they use, reducing
emissions from vehicle fuel use. Given that context we see that Cupertino if they were to adopt the
15%below baseline to achieve that? The first step was to get a handle doing our best to quantify those
actions and give the city credit for its past good works and hard effort. _It began with a comprehensive
Best Management Practices List for emissions, reducing strategies from cities and jurisdictions
throughout California, the nation and internationally for best practices as well. The list was reviewed
with city staff to identify what the city was already doing and used that to find where opportunities
existed to expand some of those existing programs or develop new non-existing programs.
• The city has a myriad of programs; he highlighted Cupertino's green scene, such as green biz program,
efforts to connect with local businesses, residents, and local schools to identify water and energy
efficiency improvement opportunities. The city already participates in some retrofit financing options
through California First at the Pace financing district which provides retrofit financing to eligible
- - T
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 July 8, 2014
property owners; Cupertino as a whole has seen substantial voluntary installation of solar PV systems
on local businesses and residences. They looked at the California Solar Initiative Data and looked at
the city installations from 2010 through current; they have gone back to 2005 but you can see that
residents and businesses in Cupertino have been taking advantage of existing utility and state level and
federal level rebates and credits. The city has made investments and strides in pedestrian and bicycle
enhancements and improvements, has looked at and facilitated transit oriented' development,
particularly in the upcoming General Plait amendment; they considered the impact of those measures
as well. Also partnerships in water conservation programs with local water utilities as well as city led
efforts through the green biz and green at home programs as well as implementation of compostable
food collection throughout the city.
• Based on those existing actions, we said if Cupertino was going to really push themselves, where are
the opportunities they could expand some of these existing programs to; and after some focus group
meetings and additional community outreach, we heard that targeted building retrofit outreach is
probably a tough nut to crack and potentially substantial source of additional participation; there is still
a disconnect between residences and businesses who want to make energy and water efficiency
improvements or become more sustainable or greener whatever the term is; a disconnect between that
desire and an understanding of the multiple programs that are available; the financing structures, the
utility programs,the best bang for your buck in those types of decisions; so a general targeted building
retrofit outreach could be beneficial to the city. Additionally, possibly expansion of the retrofit
financing options, the city participates in California First, there is a potential to participate in a PACE
financing district that offers financing to residences; a number of jurisdictions throughout the state
have explored and implemented this option; the largest program is in western Riverside County called
Renovate America, and partners do not have to be within the county to participate.
• The city of Sacramento took a different route with their program called Ygrene Sacramento, (energy
spelled backwards); that is a privately financed program, a turnkey program the city opted into an
agreement with the company. Ygrene Energy does all the outreach, all the education, and helps works
through the process with the residents and the businesses. The program is expanding to Solano
County as Ygrene Solano but is not up and running yet. That is another option, looking at ways to
increase residential financing, possibly through an additional PACE district. Expansion of alternative
fuel vehicle infrastructure, the city has made investments and strides at installing community-wide
vehicle charging infrastructure. One of the toughest problems to solve from an alternative fuel vehicle
perspective is how to increase charging stations at home where 80% of charging occurs. This is
problematic in retrofit situations where you have an existing building that wasn't wired for an
alternative vehicle charging station or a multi-family residential unit where you have a number of
potential customers but they don't own the space; the residents are not going to make the investments
themselves so there might be an opportunity there to work with technology companies who develop
this technology as well as other local governinents on their best strategies for installing, charging
infrastructure more deeply throughout the community.
• To build upon the existing organic waste diversion program, it is possible to establish the city already
has to look at community waste reduction target; there may be opportunities to make those more
stringent or to start developing the implementation infrastructure beneath those that really target the
organics which are the emissions generating source of the waste. Finally, is there a possibility, an
opportunity to tighten the requirements on construction demolition diversion requirements; that is a
statewide requirement now through Cal Green; 50% of C and D waste, construction and demolition
waste needs to be diverted from the worksite; some jurisdictions have decided there is enough
infrastructure in place in the waste hauling community in the speculative builder community in the
contractor industry that we can do better than 50%.
• The last component would be what additions could be made; we have looked at the existing programs
and ways to expand those programs; what are the new opportunities that inight exist. The first one,
energy data analysis promotion is building on a new technology and interest in analyzing big data,
getting hands on how does a building use its energy and how can you use data analytics to fine tune
Cupertino Planning Commission _ July 8, 2014
primary building systems, lighting systems, HV AC systems to make sure they are always running
optimally and not wasting energy or water in the middle of the night when no employees are there.
• That could potentially be an outreach or collaboration campaign with the business community to try to
find some large interested participants to help them through this program and then roll it out to
residential units. PG&E has a residential analysis program and are just starting a small business data
analytics program that has not been rolled out. At:that end of the spectrum, PG&E has some options
in place; there are also third party companies who develop their own software and tools and are
looking at large energy users, big offices, industrial facilities, etc. Is there an opportunity.to develop
additional and more stringent building regulations? It is an option that can be looked at; you can look
at building efficiency improvements or specifically lighting retrofit regulations; there are a couple of
cities within California and others throughout the state which have taken this route themselves so there
are case studies to look at and the question we would ask is that something that is appropriate for
Cupertino to explore?
• The third bullet CCA is an opportunity for a jurisdiction or a number of jurisdictions to partner
together to become an energy procuring agency; they would then use existing utility infrastructure to
distribute the electricity and that existing utility would provide the bills to the existing customers, but
that CCA district then has the ability to source the energy they want. These are used throughout the
country in jurisdictions that want to see higher rates of renewable energy use within their community
than what the utility is providing. Programs can be developed with any number of steps in between.
This type of program makes the most sense at a regional level unless you are a very large city.
Economies of scale come into play when you are negotiating for the price of the utilities; Marin Clean
Energy was able to provide electricity at a lower rate than PG&E's prevailing rate because they had
aggregated enough users. Not all CCA's are able to do that. That is an important option to consider
because as seen in the emissions inventory, 47% of the emissions come from the energy sector. If you
can make the electricity clean, 75% clean or 100% clean, you are really attacking one of the biggest
sources of emissions within the community.
• Some of the other options look at transportaidon improvements; is there an opportunity for a
community bike share program within Cupertino? There is one within the Bay Area that works
regionally; Cupertino is currently not involved. Is there an opportunity to develop a local program or
work with the Bay Area bike share to see if Cupertino is a desirable market for such a program?
Similarly, community members made numerous comments on a desire to see either increased transit
service or a community bus or shuttle that could take people to high impact areas within the city, with
some connection to Caltrans or BART. Recycled water infrastructure, in Cupertino the energy use
associated with water is low, the water system is gravity fed; there are not a lot of energy inputs into
the system as compared to So. California where recycled water use program see significant emissions
reductions. However, water is at a premium in California and the city may decide they want to take a
stance or take actions towards additional cormunity-wide water conservation or water re-use
regardless of the emissions reduction potential related to it.
• Solar ready prewiring, what can be done in new construction to set those buildings up so that in the
future if the new owner would like they can install an electric vehicle charging station.or solar hot
water heater or a solar PV system. There are some low costs prewiring steps you would be taking at
the construction phase which are cheaper than having to go back and retrofit those buildings later.
• Municipal clean electricity purchases: CCA is an option that the community could participate in;
PG&E is in the process of getting approval from the CPUC for what they are calling the PG&E green
option; would be set up similar to a CCA as a five,year pilot program where jurisdictions or individual
customers could opt-in and say they want to purchase power at 50% clean electricity or 75 or 100;
they are expecting approval from CPUC at the end of July. If that happens they think the program will
begin enrollment early Fall; it is an opportunity at the municipal city level. Would the city be
interested in purchasing some or all of its electricity from PG&E at the higher renewal rates? They
don't have final cost structures set up yet, their estimate is at the 100% clean option; would be 3 to 4
cents additional per kilowatt hour and then stepping down at one cent increments down by the 50%
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 8, 2014
level.'That is another option that can be considered. There are so many measure options available; we
need to organize it somehow and package them into meaningful units that we can then discuss
comprehensively. We took two approaches here; one was to make sure we could put together the
packages that would achieve that draft 15% reduction target; that was the first test. The second test
was an implementation test or a resource allocation test to see where to spend city dollars or city effort
in implementing these programs.
• Alternative 1 was just the CCA district as a stand-alone program. It is so impactful that if it was able
to be implemented starting in 2015, it would have a 22% reduction below baseline by 2020. It is
unlikely that that program could be implemented that quickly. I think it is likelier that this is a long
term strategy where the city says, yes we are interested in exploring regional partnerships on this
option. We know that city of Sunnyvale is looking at this, and we know other jurisdictions are getting
involved with Sunnyvale to do a preliminary evaluation and we want to be involved in that, so that this
program could be possibly ready to roll out by 2020 and really help drive emissions reductions
towards that 2035 target. So that was one stand alone measure we looked at; it is just so impactful we
just considered it on its own.
• The second alternative we called enhanced voluntary outreach. This package really mirrors other local
jurisdictions' efforts throughout the state; there has been limited .appetite for developing additional
mandatory regulations with the exception of a few big players; Santa Monica has more appetite, Los
Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley are standouts in regard to developing additional regulations.
Most other jurisdiction say "what can we do to really increase our voluntary participation in all these
programs that are available" and it usually falls onto the city to develop a strategic outreach and
education programs. The measures included within that alternative to include continuation of existing
programs; the green at biz program taking credit for voluntary installation of solar PVs, looking at the
city's land use and transportation decisions in the preferred land use alternative, continuation and
expansion of the food scrap and compostable paper diversion program. All of the measures included
within that package are voluntary and would rely on city staff to develop and drive the implementation
process, ideally working with local community groups.
• Alternative 3 says what if we wanted to take a more aggressive mandatory regulatory approach. This
alternative includes all of the existing city policies and expansion of existing city policies that were
included within Alt. 3 and then they add on top of that a number of building oriented additional
regulations. We have looked at the potential impact of a RECO and CECO, which are residential
energy conservation ordinances or commercial energy conservation ordinances. In those situations
when a building comes up for sale, an audit is performed to see if it has met the energy efficiency
threshold, and if not, the seller would need to make improvements to meet that threshold before they
can sell it with residential and cominercial buildings. Some other options are mandatory lighting
retrofits at point of sale or major retrofit, so that would be saying, let's take our T12 fluorescent bulbs
and get them to T8 or let's go from this lumen per square foot to this level; there would be some
establishment of a threshold for what is the appropriate lighting level or lighting technology that the
city wants to see either internally or in parking lots and parking structures. Commercial retro
commissioning requirements, those would require, they could be structured however the city wanted,
typically there is a square footage threshold to whom it applies and says commercial businesses over
50,000 sq. ft. need to perform a major building retro commissioning every 10 years or every 5 years
whatever the threshold is and then report to the city to show they are in compliance. This type of
approach is not common throughout the state; there is potential that some of those ideas listed will be
included in future updates to the Cal Green Code or Title 24 part 6 Energy efficiency requirements;
there has been talk about mandatory energy rating disclosure at the state level but to date those
programs haven't been developed and rolled out. We looked at it as an alternative and the reduction
potential difference between alt. 2 and 3 is small on a 2020 timeline because there's only 5 years of
implementation. We have not run the numbers for 2035 but historically the assumption is if you have a
mandatory program there is greater participation because it is required than if you have voluntary
program. Over time as additional building stock is turned over in the community and more buildings
Cupertino Planning Commission '.l July 8, 2014
and residences were subject to these requirements; you would have greater participation towards the
2035 horizon. Those are three options we will be considering today.
Joshua Lathan:
• Reviewed the pros and cons which were based on comments received at the community workshops,
online and in community surveys, focus group meetings and additional comments made, as outlined in
the staff report.
• Said they would make a presentation to the City Council, getting feedback on the preliminary list of
draft measures, nothing is final, and changes can be made. They would like to share the comments
with Council and make revisions to develop a final list of measures and implementation strategies and
incorporate that into the CAP. Reduction estimates can be refined; there is a potential if they feel they
have inissed a measure to consider that and see if there are emission reduction opportunities associated
with that measure. With that final list of measures and actions and reductions, they will incorporate
them into the admin draft and have a full deck of the admin draft CAP which will be circulated with
city staff for their review and comments, and make revisions and prepare the public review draft.
• They will also be working on the environmental review document, likely to be an initial study
negative declaration (ISND); once that is done both the public review draft and ISND will be posted
and circulated for 30 days of public comments at which point continents from the public will be
incorporated and changes made to the final CAP, brought to the City Council for adoption with a date
of early October,and implementation will begin.
A question and answer period followed.
Com. Gong:
• A large new green project is coming online in a couple of years; has that been factored into the
projections and how is that integrated in the full: study; it is taking away a huge swap of antique
buildings and is also bringing in a lot of energy efficient transportation nodes.
Joshua Lathan:
• There are two answers, one is the transportation aspect; to the extent that the- building and its
transportation impacts were known and evaluated as part of the General Plan Amendment, the
transportation emissions are analyzed within the CAP. They have used the same population
employment and travel projections as used in the General Plan Amendment's preferred alternative, the
hope is that the CAP covers the full extent of:possible emissions as envisioned at buildout of the
General Plan Amendment;the transportation side would be included. The challenge is there is no way
to estimate if there is new construction, there is the potential for electricity reductions if you are
getting rid of older buildings which are conceivably more inefficient and replacing it with a new
construction that is more efficient,that won't be reflected in the CAP; it will be reflected in future year
emissions inventory updates. Those should happen every 3 to 5 years, not a lot of changes from year
to year.
Erin Cooke:
• There have also been limited operations on that property for quite some time which is a good thing
about using the 2010 bench marker baseline inventory. It is assuming what's the status quo, what's in
operation right now which is very limited on that parcel, so any improvements to that site would have
already been incorporated in the General Plan evaluation as well.
Corn. Gong:
• It was mentioned that in Alternative 2 there was less staff oversight; however the staff report said that
Alternative 1 was an estimate of V2 full time equivalent support,Alternative 2 was a minimum of 2 full
time equivalent consultants. How does it reconcile that it actually-requires less?
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 July 8, 2014
Erin Cooke:
• Said it was not part of the scope of work for the consultant to do the financial analysis and a resource
analysis. At this point because they are still considering what package of measures to pursue, it was a
rough estimate prepared by staff and Mr. Latham's comment was likely referencing that the voluntary
program would be more focused on engaging and building a cadre of outreach staff who would need to
help see through those voluntary measures by working extensively with the real estate community, the
local nonprofit partners,managing relative contracts and agreements to specifically amplify the energy
efficiency, water conservation programs and services. Alternative 3 would be much more focused on
building up the building dept. staff who would need to identify and ensure that the measures were
achieved from enforcement perspective and as part of the building code.
Joshua Lathan:
• There is no state level mandate that a local jurisdiction prepare a CAP, the 15% target that has been
taken is done on a voluntary basis; the state provided substantial funding over the last 5 years to local
jurisdictions or to utilities or air districts to help them facilitate the development of local CAPS by
paying for most if not all of the cost to develop that program. That was the way they were trying to
incentivize the voluntary approach. The industry approximation partnered with the Calif. Air
Resources Board estimate was that if a local jurisdiction wanted to inirror the state's efforts, and then a
15% below baseline inventory would be that first step by 2020. It was the only state level guidance
made available.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said it was mentioned that the impact of the statewide initiative has a higher percentage impact on
Cupertino than a lot of the other cities.What are the main elements of the state program?
Joshua Lathan:
• Said it could be a mix of things; it could be the scale of the transportation contributions towards the
inventory; there are really aggressive state level actions at transportation,to the extent you have higher
vehicle miles travelled within your coininunity you are also getting a larger share of reductions
associated from state level actions. Whereas the state has done a lot of things on the energy side, they
are not as robust as those transportation type programs which has led to a situation where there is not a
lot of additional local action that could be done to address the transportation emissions. Another piece
could be past city energy efficiency improvements and programs have reduced the scale of the energy
sector and therefore have also reduced that share of the statewide reductions. It is hard to tell,there are
a lot of factors involved within the inventory.
Com. Gong:
• An interesting thing when comparing to other jurisdictions is that they often have a different mix of
emissions sources than in Cupertino, like landfill emissions or the Smart transfer station in Sunnyvale
or things that can add a higher percentage of emissions from that community perspective; it was
mentioned that Sacramento's was different. It is bare bones here in terms of operations and emissions
sources which are a good thing but sometimes makes it more challenging. They cannot just do
methane landfill gas capture project as part of their CAP; they must focus more on their current
infrastructure.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said a graph illustrated emissions and the impact of the state's efforts, and stated that by 2020 the state
is no longer implementing any new programs.
Cupertino Planning Commission S► July 8, 2014
Joshua Lathan:
• Said it was another interesting problem that would be addressed soon. The state has developed a
substantial number of measures and they have quantified the impact of those in a report called The
California Scoping Plan prepared by the Air Resources Board, which looks at things such as if the
state were to implement its high speed rail plan, these are what the emissions would be; it looks at all
state programs and regulations they are considering and puts a number to them. It is likely the state is
going to develop additional programs so that by 2035 the local gap is much smaller. There are a lot of
unknowns when projecting that far into the future that could be developed or there could be a
technology or program developed that greatly reduces it as well.
Com. Takahashi:
• Relative to the GPA, there are currently three elements and the EIR draft was released recently; is the
impact of that draft EIR incorporated in terns of the maximum growth perspective that the city is
looking at?
Joshua Lathan:
• He said the EIR probably looked the same as the preferred land use alternative they did, so the General
Plan EIR used that growth data and that is what they used as well when preparing their emissions
projections and reductions central.
Com. Takahashi:
• Is it possible to understand and look at the impact of a mix of Option 1 and Option 2 voluntary plus
CCA; what impact would that have and was it analyzed in any way?
Joshua Lathan:
• Said they could; based on experience with preparing CAPs the approach would be if CCA is included,
and if the Planning Commission felt that it should be something considered further, and City Council
agrees that is worth their consideration, it would not be given a reduction number towards the 2020
target. It is unlikely a full program would be implemented by 2020; said he has told some of his other
clients they will make the assumption; will include as a measure, and will say they are going to pursue
these regional partnerships and they are going to do what it takes to share in the costs of studies,
feasibility analyses, etc., with the assumption that by 2020 that program is up and ready to go and it
has been approved by the CPUC which gives 15 years between 2020 and 2035 to reach what would
probably be full participation potential. It will be shown in the plan as one of the pathways toward the
2035 target. They can mix and match if there was anything from Alternative 3 they want to combine
with Alternative 2.
Com. Takahashi:
• Relative. to the PG&E Green Program he felt there would be continued incentive and pressure on
PG&E to have choices with regard to renewable energy. Asked if the concern over a 5 year
temporary program was a legitimate concern over the long haul.
Joshua Lathan:
• 'Said he was not certain how he felt about it; as they are being clear in their advertisement that it is a 5
year pilot program and participation is capped at a certain megawatt potential; there is only so much
renewable energy they are committing to purchase for this program. Staff said the city pays 14 cents
per kilowatt hour.
Com. Sun:
• Said there is a lot of measurement about how to adopt the reduced emission; the focus has been on
general framework and the questions. Said he agTeed with Com. Takahashi if there was any way to
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 July 8, 2014
mix the alternatives together because when considering any measurement or procedure, the cost and
resources are probably all different. The costing related to the commercial building is different from
the residential;they need to first identify who is the stakeholder and who has the financial burden; then
they can consider which is best for the city.
• He questioned for citywide, residential, and commercial real estate, who would receive the most
incentive to implement this measure if the city imposes it. What is the city's motivation and if there is
no regional goal or state goal or just do volunteer and put a random 15% there; what is the force
behind it? Said he agreed with Com. Gong that they need a city budget and see if it is economically
suitable for the city.
Erin Cooke:
• Said they outlined some of the impacted stakeholders relative to each of the measures included in
Attach. 3 (Labeled Attach C) They talked specifically about some of the implementing actions which
is where the focus relies on which stakeholder was being considered whether residential, commercial
or municipal and that was a large driver behind the cominunity outreach, so Attach. D or 4, was
aggregating community comments. The city did invest a lot of time in making sure they did due
diligence in reaching out to stakeholders who may potentially be impacted by the measures. As Joshua
Lathan mentioned, they took the whole suite of measures out there; looked at the morphs atmosphere
of CAP and sustainability plans throughout the state, country and internationally find what were
those measures that were the most impactful in communities that were the most implernentable; and
the ones that required limited resources because they know they are a small city and don't necessarily
have the time, capacity or financial means to create a whole new sustainability division.
• They wanted to be strategic about their approach in taking the large array of measures, making it
Cupertino specific and narrowing it in a way that would be achievable for the community; and once
narrowed, the narrowing included specific evaluation and evaluating all those measures that had
already been implemented by the city. It was one of the struggles they had, they couldn't come up
with a whole array of measures, which started at 150. They hosted community meetings, focus group
meetings, online surveys, and received opinions and perspectives on all the measures up for public
comment and review. They identified that there were three alternatives focused on CCA,Alternative 2
which was voluntary with the burden falling on the city; hopefully really great allies in the real estate
community and Alternative 3 with the burden falling on the residential and commercial sector.
• If ordinances are in place, they would need staff to oversee the implementation of those ordinances,
but in terms of implementing those ordinances she said she would rely a lot more heavily on
investments by businesses and residents. Said she was trying to address some of the feedback about
making sure they were targeting specific stakeholders. The next part of the exercise understands what
the appetite is of the Planning Commission and of City Council to pursue further dives into what the
implementation framework would look like,they did not have a $500K budget,but a narrow budget to
at least allow them to pursue the measure review, define what measures would make the most sense
for Cupertino and then take those measures to the community and to get Planning Commission and
City Council input. Once they have the Commission's feedback they would do a lot more review and
analysis on what implementation framework would work and what additional resources might be
required should we pursue them. The CAP is not looking to implement these right away; the
Commission said they wanted to adopt a residential energy conservation ordinance. In the plan it
would earmark the fact that it was supported and that the city would review it further but are not
necessarily allocating the resources to study it, and not implementing it immediately; it would come
back again for Planning Commission or City Council evaluation before being adopted.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Relative to Alternative 1, it was stated that San Francisco unsuccessfully tried to do what Marin '
County tried, although they said it was easier for large cities to get started. She asked for an
explanation of the history of how San Francisco failed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 July 8, 2014
Joshua Lathan:
• San Francisco didn't fail; they had a CCA in place; but they didn't have the negotiating power
through estimated participation to negotiate lower rates when they were buying the renewable energy,
than what PG&E could provide. Said it was only applicable to the city, not the entire East Bay area;
whereas the Marin County program is all of Marin County, including the city of Richmond.
• Said he was not experienced in developing a CCIA; it was based on case study research and finding
out what cities have adopted a program, review their information on those websites and see how they
frame the scenario and see what they represent as the cost over PG&Es existing rates and the cost
over the prevailing utility rates. Said they did riot do a deep dive into what the costs would be per
kilowatt hour of a CCA.
Corn. Sun:
• Expressed concern whether they were going to do the General Plan Amendment and also the
Environmental Impact Review, and how to fit the CAP into it, and if they just do the General Plan
Amendment to put all the measurements there, is that all they discuss to put on the CAP?
Erin Cooke:
• Said they were moving forward on separate paths, the goal is to ensure they have two independent
documents complementing one another and they are linked by referencing the CAP as an
implementing policy of the General Plan which is the way a lot of jurisdictions have done it. It has
been an effective way to make sure the benefits of the CAP are realized once the General Plan is
implemented. The majority of jurisdictions in the Bay Area have a CAP.
Corn. Sun:
• The basic fonnula is the Planning Commission or City Council pick up from three alternatives; what
is the general"formula other cities stick to?
Erin Cooke:
• They have been presented in a variety of different ways; the way they are laid out was the most
sensible from an emissions reductions standpoint and from a practical and mostly optimization
perspective relative to resource requirements. They wanted to identify resources required to implement
a voluntary approach vs. a mandatory approach. Based on AECOMs research, most agencies have
done more of the voluntary approach which is why they are representing them that way so you can see
what is a typical package or suite of measures that other jurisdictions have adopted. They looked at
which alternative would be ideal for Cupertino based on the Commission's perspective. Which do
you envision being the most feasible; should we pursue one or more alternative; if so, what measures
would you like them to evaluate further? '
Corn. Takahashi:
• Asked from a city budget perspective has something in terms of two full time equivalents been
accounted for,with regard to adoption of the CAP?
Erin Cooke:
• Said not yet; it would be moving forward activity.
• Summarized that they were looking at which altelinative would be ideal for Cupertino based on the
Commission's perspective; which do they envision being the most feasible? Should staff pursue more
than one alternative, and if so,what measures would the Commission like staff to evaluate further?
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was confused why the CCA would produce the magical reduction in emissions, whether or not
a solar panel farm is owned by PG&E.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 July 8, 2014
Joshua Lathan:
• Said the estimate may have beer' based on Marin County's participation at 75% community wide
participation; the numbers have not been run to see how many kilowatts or megawatts of solar would
need to be installed to match that level. A CCA could be viewed as simpler; it is one moving piece,
one item to take action on vs. promoting and possibly incentivizing the installation of that same
volume of solar within the community. Both are viable options and perhaps CCA is not what they
want to do but really do want to double down on community installation of solar PVs. It is a comment
worth noting.
Chair Brophy:
• One of the concerns about the costs involved is the PUC or Energy Commssion, one of the problems
you will have if you are going to more solar and wind energy'is that you don't have 24/7 production
and you need some sort of storage. There is an RFP out for people to provide storage, a couple of
thousand megawatts which is in excess of what the Diablo Canyon plant produces. He asked how the
supposed cost equivalent of use such as solar, wind, holds up once you have to start providing that
expense as well.
Joshua Lathan:
• . Said he did not have an answer to the question.
Com Sun:
• Said CCA was emphasized as one of the alternatives and also CCA involved a lot of cooperation with
PG&E. He said he was informed that PG&E is going-to stop all grants and incentives in the near
future because they have run out of money. Asked how they could put it as one alternative if they
don't know the future of major partners in their alternatives. Most statewide people don't rely on
PG&E but lean more toward partnership with private solar companies. If CCA is an alternative, it is
better to have a clearer picture for the future; how can they rely on this option?
Joshua Lathan:
• Said he did not know if it was true about PG&E stopping the grants. Said he agreed with Coin. Sun's
comments, and that hopefully it would be addressed in the multiple feasibility studies that would go
into pursuing a CCA development.
Com. Gong:
• Said she felt they were not ready to recommend the alternatives as written. There are two
components; the energy component in the buildings and transportation. Looking at the exercise and
with the added infonnation about PG&E coming online relatively soon, and the relatively long tenn
study and whatnot for CCA, she recommended implementation on the energy side of Alternative 1,
beginning with the PG&E new green energy, making it mandatory for the municipals. Said she
struggled with whether or not to make it mandatory for conunercial because they are a large
component, but to incentivize commercial because they are such a large component and to incentivize
the residential with the eventual development of a CCA, so that they are not reliant on PG&E if their
program goes away in 5 years if they decide to increase rates drastically. With the CCA they are
trying to control their own destiny.
• She said relative to transportation, they should replace all city vehicles with electric (percentages not
known yet), and also Com. Takahashi's recommendation for shuttle services, but have them be a
continually running fleet of electric shuttles; it would alleviate many of the daytime trips. It was
touched on briefly, the CAP focuses on the enussions, but at a global level recycling and storing of
water and building a infrastructure for that was barely touched on. The way things are going it should
at least be in their vision.
r
Cupertino Planning Commission 1:3 July 8, 2014
Com. Takahashi:
• Said Alternative 3 wasn't discussed much, and lie did not support adding more requirements on
business in Alternative 3. Said he did not feel it Nvas in the best interest of the city as well as just the
overhead associated with enforcement, which leaves Options 1 and 2. Option 2 is a good option
because it is an extension of what is already being done and something the city can take pride in with
regard to securing a high level of participation in voluntary programs. Option 1 remains, which he
said from his perspective was scary, while the benefits of the CCA sound enticing, and the fact that
PG&E is launching a plan in Option 1 that looks more into that participation, it would be a good
augmentation to Option 2. Also in the General Plan some of the elements highlighted with regard to
other elements that would be beneficial, specifically bike and pedestrian improvements, is an area that
can be dramatically improved in the city; although not sure how you measure any of those elements
and what impact they may have and/or what lever improvements you baked for lack of better tenn in
those years. Given the weight associated with trips inside the city, starting and stopping in the city, vs.
starting or stopping in the city is 100% vs. 50%; so generally speaking bicycle pedestrian
infrastructure is going to address more of the intercity which have the biggest weight. The recent
capital improvement plan that they weighed in on from the standpoint of environmental impact and
consistency with General Plan funded bicycle and bicycle transportation plan to the tune of about
$240K for the coming year and $80K for every year thereafter for the next 3 years. Said it was an area
he would highly recommend significantly increasing that as a means of trying to drive and tying it into
the CAP, looking at the bicycle plan as written anal.possibly improving the bicycle transportation plan
to farther augment biking and walking in the city.
Com. Sun:
• Said his preference on City Council's recommendation is not to use current Alternative 1, 2, or 3;
instead use CCA and the mandatory or volunteering. For the three options it is better to change the
category based on the source of emission as they do the policy research or recommendation or adopt
the measurement based on the 60% transportation, 27% from commercial or 24% from residential;
This is a more logical way to deal with the issue; if dealing with transportation problem they can say
they adopt the pedestrian and the bike alternatives and think about how to put more bike land there and
ways they can put bus or shuttle to transport in the city and intracity. That is what provided the
alternative to solve the problem because Alternative 3 could in itself apply to every scenario. When
considering Option 3 residential and commercial is different, but for the mandatory part, it is for
especially larger commercial or where it is going; to generate more traffic, more congestion they can
put a mandatory measurement because they make a huge profit in the future, otherwise they don't
invest here. If they put volunteer measurement as the basic logic approach and then they don't do it,
for residential they may work with some private solar company to provide some incentive. Ask a
solar company to fund a third party to finance the residence so they have incentive to do the solar
installation.
•. Said it was his recommendation to work from that approach instead of the current one; because when
they state which alternative is feasible, they don't know how much money for each measurement.
They cannot spend a million dollars just to solve the $20 issue. Make sure the cost and benefit is
equivalent,otherwise they cannot say-which one is most feasible.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she supported voluntary,which she felt was most feasible and ideal for Cupertino. Alternative B,
relative to building retrofit outreach, more outreach is needed and staff and community leaders could
help by reaching out to builders,big companies and doing energy data analysis.
• Community workshops gather lots of good info; they all said they wanted additional financing options
on how to retrofit, how to retrofit the parking lots, and inside they didn't know what kind of financing
options and were uncertain how long it would take; would it impact their company and business; they
1
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 July 8, 2014
need more outreach on that. In terms of alternate fuel vehicle infrastructure, they already require
electric vehicle prewire requirements for new construction for multi-family; Cupertino has taken a lot
of steps, done a lot to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; it is already in their plan, they don't have a
need for urban sprawl; some of the other communities ran into trouble because their plans didn't
address emissions reduction but theirs is going to because they already made it a priority to
concentrate building along their transit corridors.- Said she did not feel they would have a problem; it
is good they are reviewing it so they can incorporate it into their General Plan Amendment. Said she
did not support making more stringent requirements for construction demolition; she struggles with
CCA which is Alternative A; likes the fact that they can possibly not depend on PG&E but don't know
what is involved, how much staff time is needed and don't know if they have the resources to go down
the path of Alternative. A. Said they should not get in the business of getting into electricity.
• Relative to transportation, community bike share and community bus and shuttle service, one of the
platforms many City Councils ran on was reducing traffic around schools; each year and every four
years they would look at it and see how much money it costs for bus and shuttle service to decrease
traffic. The cost was not feasible for Cupertino; there is already Walk to School Week and Bike to
School Day. Said it didn't have to be addressed at the CAP because it has already been addressed.
Some people in the community workshops suggested requiring solar ready pre-wiring; Cupertino
already requires electric vehicle pre-wiring, she said she would like to see more charging options in
different cities.
Chair Brophy:
•
Noted fo�'�zeeE)f that the meeting was not ^ p• blie hem Said that they did not have any
public conintents because there was no public attending the meeting. Said he was not certain that a
CAP made sense at the local level for a city the size of Cupertino. A majority of Bay Area
communities have decided otherwise, such as Sunnyvale and San Jose. Some cities proudly adopt
their CAP and then make land use decisions (which Cupertino spends most of its time on) that are
completely at odds with any idea of reducing the carbon dioxide and other emissions from autos when
community after community in the Bay Area approves massive office projects with no ability or
willingness to provide anywhere near the housing need to support the jobs there. Said he did not view
CAPs as a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Because of its very nature, since they have so many
different aspects, he would rather see the city identify those specific areas that it thinks provides the
most bang for the buck and deal with those issues specifically and not attempt to mend it in one
massive ball.
• Relative to the three alternatives presented, No. 3 is the easiest, mandatory building restrictions: It is
difficult to do that at the local level and the people who manage and advise on Cal Green have a
program of updating that every couple of years to make it increasingly strict in terms of effective new
construction on CO2 emissions. Said he was not sure what benefit would have to occur to have a
community developing its own separate rules when the state already manages it and is in the process of
ratcheting it up. Said he was skeptical of the CCA thing, and felt he had no information on which to
make an intelligent reconmlendation to the Council. He has-no sense of costs, what the start up costs
are, what the electric costs would be; the citizens of Marin and San Francisco Counties objected to the
opt-in concept and once they had to specifically sign up, the system collapsed due to lack of interest.
Until there is more data, he did not feel they could make a recommendation. Relative to extended
voluntary efforts to try and do it, Com. Sun's conulnient about making sure what those voluntary items
are; how much would it cost the city in terms of additional staff, what results are expected? Said he
would still like to see some data from it, and would like to see emphasis on, if the Council is going to
go ahead and recognize that for land use in Cupertino there should be some consideration of balance
between housing and jobs; the one thing they can contribute is to try and take that into consideration
when the General Plan Amendment is done. Said Vice Chair Lee did not agree with the bus idea
because of the high cost, but there are possible ideas for a shuttle from Vallco to San Jose State or
Mtn. View Caltrain Station.
Cupertino Planning Commission 1:> July 8, 2014
Erin Cooke:
• Said they raised good points about the presentation of the information; there are ways they can shift
the presentation to emphasize the unimportant elements and do have intersection with the General
Plan like elevating and providing more clarity around transportation as well as what sector the
measures are specifically focused on. It is a very important point to make sure they are moving
forward and will be able to have a more effective:conversation as part of that; also understanding that
there is more need for information and data. It: is a list of measures, not a plan yet and there are
challenges in presenting a list of measure; refranung them might be a good way to proceed to ensure
that they are articulating the vision of the measures that have been identified or set forth in the
document. Staff will do that and surface some of the measures that there was consensus on and
supported amongst the Planning Commission.
• Transportation being a large part of that, refocusing and surfacing the transportation measures
included such as shuttle services, bike share and reinforcing the plans and policies already in place
have identified those as major drivers to create health and wellness benefits and economic benefits for
our community more broadly. There appeared to be a broad consensus that voluntary approaches are
the best way and incentives and financial resources are financing options and a good way to motivate
and encourage participation in some of the programs.
• Said that a closing that has been up for discussion.at a regional level, is that many times some of the
more aggressive measures that have been considered in CAPS haven't moved forward at a local level,
but have been done first regionally in scope and then brought back to the local level, so for things
such as the green building ordinance, a lot of jurisdictions did adopt more stringent green building
ordinances that go above and beyond Cal Green. They did that a regional level and Cupertino
adopted after Palo Alto and Sunnyvale and others. The same things happened with the single use
plastic bag ban as well as the foam foodwarc ordinance. The mandatory approaches may be
something that could happen at a regional level and if the Planning Commission has feedback on
whether or not they might support at least reviewing them from a regional perspective, it would be
helpful to inform Council as well.
Com Sun:
• Emphasized that he didn't favor one particular alternative; but wanted to focus on the issue, and
generate one document in the folder. It does not have to be singled out to state that every city should
have the particular emission reduction plan. Said he felt the problem could be solved by another
document or General Plan Amendment.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said he would entertain mandatory elements that seem to be more broadly adopted that do have a
somewhat measurable impact.
Com. Gong:
• Agreed with Com. Takahashi.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he would prefer to see it at the state level because it is happening. The example of the plastic
bag'issue is that the city dich-i't enact it, it was forced by state; technically it was voluntary.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she felt they should look to the state for a recommendation.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
T
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 July 8, 2014
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No report.
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
• June 1 It".News from TIC Commission; the city is talking to a major cell tower company called Crown
Castle to consider possibility of sites on city-owned land for which they would receive revenues.
Some work being done on accelerating the development of high speed fibernet works as well AT&T
and Sci Fi. City TV Station is doing well.
• 10th anniversary of the Library; Oct. 18"' Teen Commission having celebration relating to the Dewey
Decimal System.
• Poet Laureate had a presentation at Euphrat; Summer reading contest; Slight decrease in library
visitation reported; Presentation on how to use a 3D printer.
• Astronomy Night at Community Hall.
• Fine Arts Commission completed an art catalog of various art projects built as part of the
development; Applications open for emerging artist award. Parks and Rec reviewing capital projects
and priorities.
• Stevens Creek Trail Part 2 now open; Pubic Safety giving $500 grant to each school to report back on
Walk,Bike and Carpool to School campaign.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Written report submitted.
• Daycare application that was approved has been appealed to City Council(July 15 meeting)
• Food truck project at Whole Foods is working well.
ADJOURNMENT:
• The meeting was adjourned to the July 22, 2014,Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabethp4l�ls,Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: August 26, 2014