draft minutes 07-13-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMIVIISSION
DRAFT ;vIlNUTES
6:45 P.M. July 13, 2010 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO C OMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting c f July 13, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tor-e Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairper�on: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner David Kaneda
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: Community Development Di rector: Aarti Shrivastava
Senior Planne�° Aki Honda Snelling
APPROVAL OF MIlVUTES
Minutes of the June 8, 2010 Planning Commi.�sion Meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second b3 Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,
to approve the June 8, 2010 Planni�ig Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM C��I,ENDAR
1. M-2010-02 Modification to �� Use Permit to allow commercial entertainment
Alan Parsano establishments aaid live entertainment activities and to extend the
(Modena Investment hours of operatic n for these uses to 2:00 a.m. at the Oaks Shopping
LP & Sunnyvale Center. Postpon �d to the September 14, 2010 Planning
Holding, LLC) Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date:
21255-21275 Stevens October S, 2010.
Creek Blvd.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to postpone Application M-2010-02 to the September 14, 2010 Planning
Commission meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
CONSENT CALENDAR None
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 13, 2010
OLD BUSINESS None
NEW BUSINESS
2. Green Building Ordinance Workshop (Informationa� R'orkshop; no decisions will be
made).
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Developmen� Director:
• Explained the purpose of the workshop wa;; an educational session for many of the participants
of the first workshop for the Green Building Ordinance, who expressed interest in the Green
Point Rating, LEEDs standards Phase 2, Cal Green and how they all fit as part of a new
ordinance.
• Speakers will include Shiloh Ballard, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who facilitated the
entire process of putting the recommend.itions together for the Santa Clara County Cities
Association, resulting in Phase II recom�nendations that are being used as a base for the
ordinance; and Com. David Kaneda who has a great deal of experience in Green Buildings,
who will explain how Cal Green and some of the LEED and Green Point Rating requirements
mesh together.
Shiloh Ballard, Silicon Valley Leadership G�•oup:
• Said that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVL Group) was similar to a high tech
association, with 300 members that run from Apple to HP to many of the smaller groups,
whose mandate is to advocate on behalf �f the business community for the issues they are
grappling with to make a strong economy i i Silicon Valley.
• About two years ago, the Board of the Leadership Group was interested in getting involved in
environmental issues and climate change �nd decided that green building was an issue they
wanted to focus on. They partnered wilh the Santa Clara County Cities Association and
worked together to develop recommendatic�ns for cities to adopt around green building policy.
Phase II is the end result of that process.
• Reviewed the slide presentation wh ich summarized the process of developing
recommendations for cities to adopt a Gre�n Building Policy. Representatives from different
constituencies met regarding key issues to move forward for adoption of a policy. The goal
was to get all the cities on the same page , and at the same time, by doing so, spur the local
green economy and help develop clean tecl► and green tech in Silicon Valley, and also improve
the environment. They did not want the outcome to be developers going from city to city
dealing with a totally different set of guide lines or policies to have to comply with. The initial
accomplishment was around the near-terni policy recommendations and every city in Santa
Clara County ultimately adopted those rf:commendations; because the underlying rationale
behind those recommendations helps underscore some of our over-arching goals and why we
landed where we landed.
• The reason they started with the near term policy recommendations was because the material
was very new and is cutting edge, and m,iny of the questions they would be grappling with
were fairly complicated and would take sc�me time to respond to; in the meantime we didn't
want to do nothing at all, and we knew th<<t there were some very easy low hanging fruit that
we could adopt right away and encourage most of the cities to adopt. While we were
grappling with these bigger questions, we said here is an easy step we could do immediately
and that easy stuff was what we called c ur near term policy recommendations; the first of
which is to simply recognize GPR and LF ED as the standards they should be working from.
This was to get all the cities on the same p� ge in terms of the standards they are working from.
• The first recommendation was to adopt LEED and GPR. The similarities, both are mission
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 July 13, 2010
driven organizations, non profits interestec in doing something green for the planet; they both
also have a third party verification system, although they are different. The differences, LEED
was formed by USGBC which is a national organization whereas Build It Green, the
organization that formed Green Point Ra:ed is a local organization based out of Berkeley.
Another difference is that when LEED �Nas formed they started on the commercial side,
developing standards for commercial b.�ildings and Green Point Rated started on the
residential side.
• The second recommendation is for the ,ipplicant to complete a GPR checklist or LEED
checklist as an educational measure to he .p people go through the checklist and learn about
green building. Nothing on the checklist is mandatory at this point.
• The third recommendation was in recognition of the fact that cities and local governments
should be leading by example, and if th�, goal is to ask the private sector to adopt green
building practices, cities should help p;ive the way by imposing those same kinds of
requirements on themselves first and accc mplish many things; one of which is readying the
industry both in terms of the products available and the infrastructure in terms of the trainers
and certifiers and Planning staff able to do :hat.
• Moving onto the Phase II recommendation �, we started with the low hanging fruit and once all
the cities had adopted all those recomme�idations moved onto address some of those larger
questions; the idea was to still be w�rking towards similar recommendations across
jurisdictions and raise the bar in a way that was an appropriate nudge on the private sector and
not set the bar too high so that the industr} wasn't necessarily ready to accommodate some of
the needs that were out there. As an exarr ple, years ago we started looking at green building
and convened a focus group of residential developers and some who were already building
green and some who were not building gre�:n and had no intention to build green, and we were
just asking the questions, what do you knc�w about green building; and for the folks who had
been building green, they cited even thou€;h they wanted to be pursuing this, they cited some
real barriers to being able to do it, and one of which was getting green lumber at the scale they
needed and getting it delivered on time. T hat is something we wanted to be cognizant about
when developing Phase II.
• She referred to the slide presenta.tion Page 6+ and reviewed the GBC's Phase II
recommendations for Residential New C�nstruction; Residential Remodels; Nonresidential
New Construction; Nonresidential Remodels/Tenant Improvements. She said it was
determined from the process that there was a difference between new and remodels; it is much
easier to do green building when starting fr�m scratch than it is to remodel.
• Under new construction, there are 9 hom�,s GPR rated or LEED certified, and multi-family
equal to or over 9 homes is GPR or LEED ;ilver. It is an illustration shown elsewhere where it
is broken down between small, medium �nd large projects; what that is a reflection of is a
difference between an ability of a smallE r scale development to do certain green building
� measures vs. a larger scale development.
• The Collaborative quickly came to the cor clusion that for smaller scale projects, it is okay to
have a less stringent green building, a req airement that it is for larger scale projects, and the
general principle will be reflected in the rec-ommendations as well.
• There is a lot of detail on both the remod�ls on the residential side and remodels and tenant
improvements on the non-residential side; a lot of time was spent to ascertain where to draw
the line between a small, medium and laxge project; the Collaborative concluded that every
city is different; and a little project in San Jose could be a big project in Saratoga, and that is
unique to your city, and you may alread � have ways in your planning process where you
differentiate between big projects and small projects, and if you do than go ahead and use that.
Our recommendations are not intended to complicate the process and overlay a whole other
way of screening projects; but if you don't have already something in place, this was a way
that we recommended to break down or help define what those small, medium and large
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 July 13, 2010
projects are. It is based on permit valuaticm, square footage and FAR and they aren't perfect;
it is important to continue to be fle�ble but the principle is the one outlined before and that is
for smaller projects, there should be less of a green building threshold than for larger projects.
She noted on the remodels for the residen :ial sites is that Build It Green has not yet finalized
the multi-family remodel guidelines, so that is why there is a placeholder there, to be
determined. When those come out, we wa�rt to apply those, but it is still premature.
• She noted they were recommending LEEL� silver or Green Point Rated for the larger projects.
She reviewed the rationale for the recomrr endations: big vs. small and the different shades of
green; FAR, valuation and square footage as ways to determine how to define small, medium
and large projects. In the recommendaticns, a choice is always given of LEED or GPR; it is
better to give the private sector a choice.
• An important and sometimes contentious issue within the GBC was verification. Some feel
that you should get certification or being a green building from a third party; an entity separate
from the city and the developer and can d� that in a third party neutral evaluation of whether
or not you as an applicant have met all the green building requirements. Some of the
Collaborative felt that the city could serve the role, they did not see any problem with the city
stepping in and verifying whether an appli �ant had met the green building requirements. After
much discussion of the issue, especially v� ith reps from the different entities such as USGBC
and Build It Green, the result was that if tie city had the resources and was willing to put the
resources into training staff to do that verification; it was accepta.ble; with the understanding
that it is not an easy task. There are cities willing to put the resources into it. Multi-family
remodels was mentioned as well as flexibility.
• After Phase II was adopted, the State adopted Cal Green, which is the State raising the bar for
itself on the building code. What is Cal Green is now convention in terms of green building
or will be shortly. The different standard� will have to be changed and moved to reflect that.
How does the new Cal Green requiremen�:s mesh with what we have recommended in Phase
II? We are still coming to conclusions on that question, but where we aze trending towards, is
with the tiers, Cal Green is another choice. One issue is how you actually verify the different
tiers of Cal Green. Many cities spend a lot of time talking about what the standard is going to
be; are we going to be doing LEED silver, LEED gold, Green Point Rated 75 points, what are
we going to do? Those are important deci sions to make, but at the end of the day, where you
set your standards does not necessarily equal achieving that perfect green puzzle and getting
that green outcome that you want. There is a lot between setting the standard and getting that
green home built that have to do with how you implement and verify. Setting the standards is
an important question, but the implementat ion piece is also equally, if not more important.
• The flexibility is cutting edge matter ancl things are changing and we ultimately want the
building community to embrace tl�ese nev�� techniques. In doing so we need to view them as
partners and not play the Gotcha game, bui try to create that appropriate on-ramp so we can all
be building green building.
Chair Brophy:
• Reviewed Com.. Kaneda's background as an electrical engineer, one of the azea experts in
emerging various green standards, and ha: served on the advisory committee working on the
State Building Code for the addition of the Green Building Ordinance.
Com. Kaneda:
• Reviewed his background which included expertise in designing green buildings; service on
the Planning Commission; a member of th�, Santa Clara County Cities Association; member of
the Building Standards Commission, (ireen Building Code Advisory Committee and
committees for the Public Utilities Comm.ssion related to energy efficiency and lighting; and
also on the California Energy Commission far lighting and energy efficient building design;
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 July 13, 2010
and a member of the research group for the Department of Energy.
• Said he viewed it as a grass roots type of �ffort, meaning instead of something happening top
down, it happens bottom up, so various ��arties including a lot of the local cities started to
realize they wanted to do something related to green building regulations. That is a large part
of why Shiloh Ballard ended up doing �vhat she did with the Santa Clara County Cities
Association, because the cities were starting to move on their own, and different cities were
adopting different standards, which was causing concern a.mong developers and other
organizations because all the standards w�,re going in different directions and different cities
were doing different things. The result is <..ome local recommendations that were starting to be
adopted, including national recommenda� ions, as well as the international Green Building
Code Ashrae 189.1 which was just releasE:d earlier this year which is a model green building
code; Cal Green; the Energy Code which deals only with energy and Ashrae 90.1 which also
just deals with energy. California saw thi � grass roots development happening and wanted to
do something more than just the baze �ninimum. California has some serious potential
problems with energ,y infrastructure and water infrastructure and said there were concerns
about how the State was going to deal witi that. At one point, they were hoping that some of
these model national codes could be devel��ped so they could look at adopting Ashrae 189.1 as
their State Code, but there is a delay in t��e development of that Code due to some technical
reasons. The State decided that they couldr�'t wait and needed to move forward. The State also
realizes that California is like the gorilla ir, the room in that when they adopt a practice, it will
help stimulate the entire industry into movi ng faster in a certain direction.
• He summarized the five key parts of Cal �Jreen which follows the LEED rating system. The
first section Planning and Design; is aboirt site, the soil and preservation, deconstruction of
buildings, etc. The second is energy, which is slim because it defers to Title 24 Part 6. Cal
Green is part of the Building Code which i� all Title 24, Cal Green is Part 11, the Energy Code
is Part 6.
• The Water Section covers indoor and outcioor water use that has some overlap with BOSCA
regulations. There is a material and iesource conservation section; the last section is
environmental quality, which is primarily �.bout air quality inside the building.
• Planning and Design: The main mand;�tory requirement for residential is storm water
management, which comes up in some p�•ojects as runoff from the site. For non-residential
projects there is storm water prevention pl��n that is required; bicycle parking that is required; a
reduction in light pollution; a requirement to drain water away from the building; and a
requirement for parking for different kincls of vehicles including hybrid vehicles or carpool
parking.
• Energy defers to the Energy Code and th� only comment they made, is if you go to Tier 1,
there is a statement to do 50% better than "�itle 24, Part 6 requirements and if you go to Tier 2,
it is 30% better.
• Water efficiency includes an indoor sectio» and an outdoor section; the indoar section calls for
a 20% reduction in indoor water use of fi �ctures; low flow faucets and low flow flush toilets,
urinals; water ef�icient appliances and fixt�ires. The other thing they are looking at for outdoor
is water based irrigation control; either an irrigation control where that has a satellite
connection and it gets weather data or irrigation controllers that have moisture sensors.
• For non-residential there are also requirerr ents to put in separate sub-meters for tenants above
a certain size, so that people can start billing tenants separately; there is an incentive to try to
conserve water.
• Section 4 is material and resource c��nservation; for residential the only mandatory
requirements are annular penetration, like wires or pipes cut going out of the building against
rodents, construction waste diversion, so that it is not just throwing all the construction waste
into a landfill but separating it and recycling what you can and providing something called an
O&M manual.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 13, 2010
• For non-residential, there is a number o: � requirements including protection from weather,
protection from moisture, which include s not having the irrigation system spray on the
building; and control of construction wa:,te. There is a section that requires soil reuse or
recycling so as you are scraping and landscaping, not just dumping the soil out but using it
onsite and/or using it elsewhere.
• Commissioning is taking the building ar d checking the systems, such as air conditioning
system and making sure it works before you hand it over; historically it has not been done well
at all and it is not uncommon to see build� ngs that don't perform correctly because they were
never commissioned.
• Environmental quality is related to the air quality in the building. This is all requirements
related to residential and it is mostly about air quality, volatile organic chemicals and paints,
adhesives, flooring and carpeting; formald �hyde, NIDF or plywood; moisture barriers because
if water gets into your house it can cause rr�old and creates spores and can cause problems with
air quality; bath e�austs, damp air out of �:he bathroom out of the house; and requirements for
fireplaces and wood stoves.
• There is a requirement that when duct wo� k is installed, it be totally sealed off, so that during
construction it doesn't get contaminated � nd you avoid the problems from construction dirt,
debris, dust when the system is turned on.
• The last is related to verifying and inspe cting the systems to make sure they are installed
correctly, especially the HVAC systerr�s. Non-residential is similaz; moisture control,
formaldehyde, VOCs and sealing the ducls, sealed fireplaces; and carbon monoxide controls
and outside air requirements to ensure ther�; is enough fresh air; no CFCs which destroy ozone.
• He said that it was very difficult to detercline how the things stack. They all have the same
groups of things they are looking at, the�y come to some level of consensus on what the
important issues are; and have attacked them in very similar ways, but are all slightly different.
Fortunately the City of San Francisco, the American Institute of Architects, the USGVC and
some other groups are working together to compare these standards and provide some
comment on their meaning.
• Discussed information from Global Gree��; that looked at Green Point Rated (GPR) vs. the
residential portion of Cal Green and what they concluded was that going to a Tier 1 standard
would meet the requirements of GPR; it c��me up with 70 points, and the cutoff for GPR is 50
points but if you go with the mandatory you would be down at around 40 points. They
compared the non-residential standards to the LEED requirements and their conclusion is that
if you have a Tier 2 requirement that woulcl be equal to LEED certified level.
� Codes in the building industry are actuall�� what the State or whoever is adopting the code or
the city says this is the minimum that you are required to do to not be illegal; it is not the
ceiling, it is the floor and that is what the code is. In some ways it is not really green building,
it is just not a brown building. If you look at these on some kind of continuum, where we are
today which is there is no requirement of a green code; it is just standard building code Title
24 and then starting in January 1, 2011 thr, Cal Green will be required and that is higher than
what is currently required. GPR for hor.ies is higher than that, a LEED silver standard is
higher than that and if you went to a LEI;D gold or LEED platinum, it is much higher than
that. How high can you reasonably go; this is a house I was involved in, my house, we
expected to get a platinum rating, quite easily and according to the builder, they are going to
get 265 points, and GPR is 50 points, so ot viously it is not that difficult to get to 50 points.
• Reviewed information related to costs fr��m Mark Franco at the New Building Institute in
Seattle; summarizing that if a designer t�ikes time to think about his design, he is able to
improve the design without changing the c �st at all, in some cases they can reduce the cost. In
theory you can do a better greener building at the same cost, but that at some point as you push
the envelope further the cost will start goi�ig up. If you don't go too far along that curve, you
can end up with a building that will perforrn better and save money on energy.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 July 13, 2010
• Reviewed studies done in 2003; there is a premium between 0 and 2-1/2% to do a LEED
cert�fied building; silver was 0 and 3.3%; gold was 0.3 to 5%, platinum 4-1/2 to 8-1/2%. It
was reported that in 2003/04 there were ssues that you couldn't get certified wood and the
result was that the cost of certified wooc was exorbitant; there were issues with getting no
VOC paints back then; now most of the paints are no VOC and there is very little premium for
it. The numbers aren't that bad; but it is e;xpected that a certified building would be no extra
cost and a silver building would be a smaller premium.
• The other issue related to that is that ther� is some data that green building in a commercial
market command higher rents.
• Photo voltaic systems: The cost of photo �oltaic is dropping rapidly and is now down between
$5.50 and $6.00 per watt. He reviewed data from his office building, estimating $9 per watt
installed for the system; the percent of cc►nstruction was about 1.2% which is a fairly small
number considering it is a net zero energy �uilding.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that if Cupertino or any other city de cides to go with any of the higher levels of tiers of
the California Green Building Policy, the;� would have to have a legal nexus. Discussion in
the last six months has been that it is just paperwork.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said staff would follow up on it. She understood they would have to make a finding; most
cities that have adopted Green Building ��rdinances different from the Building Code have
been able to make the finding.
Com. Giefer:
• Said it was one of the points in the Greer. Building Collaborative often discussed, since they
are all from cities within the Bay Area, sharing the same air space, the same environmental
concerns and issues, and if all adopting the same policies, they can all make the same case.
Chair Brophy:
• In terms of comparing the Green Buildi ng Ordinance with the Build A Green or LEED
program; to some extent those comparisons say that the revised code will be less stringent; but
in looking at the previous materials handeci out at the Kirsch Center, it looks like they were an
apples and orange thing. While it is true that the state code does not cover everything that
those two covered, it does have some ��reas where it does. He questioned whether the
comparisons of the revised Title 24 to the l3uild It Green were a valid comparison.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said they were not e�ctly the same, but �rere fairly close; the big difference is that the rating
systems tend to have a higher requiremem of things, but they are not mandatory. Sometimes
there are occasions when you just cannct do something with a site or building; the Code
doesn't have the flexibility to let you say tiat it doesn't apply to you, therefore you don't want
to do it. In reality it does have that flexibility. The Code is quite difficult and every architect I
know doesn't want to even try that with th � city; whereas with the standards, it is built into the
way you develop your design that you chc�ose the features you think are most appropriate for
your design. They have a higher requirerr ent but you get to walk away from them; that is the
big difference.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Clarified that the difference was that Cal Green only applies to new construction; Phase II
applies to remodel and existing buildin�;s and Cal Green does not apply to multi-family
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 July 13, 2010
residential buildings above three stories. "hose were the two big differences if you did adopt
the Green Building Ordinance.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that the American Institute for Arc:iitects has requirements for continuing education,
specifically in sustainability. Experience indicates that it is on-the-job training for the first
project, and once the first project is conipleted, the basics are known, and after that it is
layering on additional knowledge. He sai i there was also a lot of information available, and
courses and guide books available. USGB�� and Build It Green also has training classes.
Chair Brophy opened the meeting for public ce mment.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada residen t:
• Complimented Ms. Ballard and Com. K�.neda on the presentation about the new issues in
green building; and said it was important tliat the City learn as much as possible about the new
techniques and technology. She noted that the HGTV channel covered many of the topics and
showed homes built in other countries as v� ell as the United States.
• She discussed the use of cork floors whic}i is a sustainable wood product. The outer layer of
cork trees is used without cutting the tree c own; the wood can be grown quickly and harvested
and it may be an incentive to use woods th:�t are easily replaced.
Chair Brophy closed the comment portion of tl� e meeting.
Com. Miller:
• Said they are talking about getting more insulation, which is a good thing because it cuts down
on the energy costs; but at some point an a: r filtration system will be needed.
Com. Kaneda:
• Traditional homes aze so leaky that you don't need to ventilate them because the leaking is the
ventilation; the problem being that wher it is really hot outside or cold outside, you are
ventilating with 100 degree air or you are ventilating with 30 degree air and it is energy
inefficient to do so. HRVs (heat recovery ventilators) are being put in homes. As it is pulling
in outside air and dumping inside air, in the winter if the house is really tight, it will start
getting humid and there may be odors buil iing up. You do want to ventilate the house; as it is
pulling out in that cold air from outside and dumping out the warm air from inside, it recovers
the heat and takes the heat from the air goi �g out and recycles it back into the air coming in, so
you save energy that way; you only lose 30% or 20% of the heat that you are dumping out
instead of dumping all the heat out. Wit�out an efficient fan, the fan energy will use more
energy than the heat being saved.
• Said that the climate still requires the u�.e of insulation in some areas. He referred to an
architect who is working on a passive house in Portola Valley, who believed it was important
to make the house airtight to meet the p�ssive house standards with the use of an adhesive
backed building paper. He said they ma} still be faced with the internal moisture buildup in
the walls.
Com. Miller:
• Com. Kaneda discussed some things that c;ould be done at a lower cost than standard building
materials. It would be important to dissem inate because that provides an incentive for builders
to do that.
• Shiloh Ballard talked about the reduction in operating costs, but that is where the disconnect
occurs because the builder doesn't see :he operating costs benefit; only the reduction in
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 July 13, 2010
construction costs. Part of the equation i� missing, and if we could come up with a way to
transfer some of that operating cost benefit to the builder of the house, the whole system would
work better.
• Said if the city had a well publicized r�ting system, and it wasn't just the home owner
advertising the energy efficiency of the house, it might be a higher benefit associated with the
rating; and therefore a higher value to som�;one who is interested in buying the house.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she heard about something similar to ;in Energy Star rating being put on buildings.
Com. Giefer:
• Recalled that LEED also has plaques that are placed on the LEED certified buildings as well
as Build It Green. Articles have been writ:en stating that green buildings tend to sell at higher
prices. The short term of the reward may not be tl�ere if you are the builder; but in the long
term when you sell it, you should have �. higher return on your investrnent. If you are an
owner/occupier, you reap all the rewards.
Shiloh Ballard:
• Said they were in the awkward phase v��here it is hard to connect upfront costs with the
operating costs; there is many different ar swers. There is definitely a role for the folks who
sell and rent these buildings and they are proactively pursuing the roles of becoming more
educated on those particular aspects of the building and using that as a potential selling point
for the building.
Com. Miller:
• If you are a landlord and particularly it is e asier to see with commercial buildings; you can see
the connection easily because if you lower the operating costs you can then argue to the tenant
that it is justified in charging a higher rent because you lowered the operating costs and the
value of the commercial building is a multiple of the rents that you receive; so every dollar
increase in rent you get, you get a multiplier on the total value of the building, so it is easy to
see the connection there; it is not so easy to see it in a residential single family house where
you are not renting; you are not getting 3ny gain from renting; you are just selling. With
commercial, it is easier to see, but with res idential it means more thought. It is good to have a
rating system, but I think the rating systerr� to make it work as an incentive has to come down
to dollars and cents, so t hat if it is rate�i LEEDs silver, you save this much over a non-
certified and if it is rated LEED gold, you ;;ave this much more and if people see that, they can
translate that in their mind until they ha�e to pay so much per month for mortgage, so much
per month for utilities, and now there is a r�duction here and that might lead them to consider a
higher value to the house.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it was difficult to keep up with the technology and material, but he recalled an assembly
or senate bill related to publishing the en�;rgy use data of a residential building when it was
sold; it was highly controversial and its oulcome is not known.
Com. Giefer:
• Said there was mention about it requiring that all commercial buildings have their energy
rating and policy displayed at the time of s;ile.
Com. Kaneda:
• That was one issue; and the other issue pertained to trying to figure out how to squeeze
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 July 13, 2010
kilowatts hours out of buildings and make them more energy efficient. T'he one obvious thing
as we are going through this process and trying to dig into exactly where t1�e energy goes and
how it is used, is that at some level I car do all types of innovative crazy things to make a
building more energy efficient and we are working on figuring out what is the next thing and
gradually making buildings more efficien t, but at the end of the day the uses have a huge
impact positively or negatively on how tliat building uses energy, so I can design the most
efficient building in the world and you car, still make it into an energy hog or the user can still
make it into an energy hog somehow. It i s not just an issue of putting the right stuff into the
building and if you don't maintain it, it will become an energy hog because it will be
malfunctioning.
Com. Miller:
• Yes, but that is where the free market appr�ach; PG&Es approach of the more energy you use,
the more per kilowatt you pay, puts a da nper on people doing that, because when they see
their bills go up astronomically, they are €;oing to step back and say they cannot afford it and
need to do something different. He said he prefened that solution over a regulatory approach.
Com. Giefer:
• Said when she did a green remodel there were not any rating systems, and she looked into
many different new building construction t�chniques and developed her own remodel strategy.
• The photo voltaics were put on the hol se later, but insulating and planting trees in key
locations azound the house to provide shad�, greatly reduced energy consumption and heat use.
• There are many things one can do to the 5�)s ranch style home in Cupertino; just by improving
the daylighting, adding skylighting, and p atting more insulation in the attics. She added that
when it is 105 degrees outside, she keeps t�e windows shut and the shades open, and the house
stays cool with no air conditioning. The te:mperature in the house is controlled by being smart
about making the site plan work and some of the things that have been added to the California
Green Building Policy is the site pla.nning so that you are producing shade when you need it in
the summer; how the building is situated on the lot as well and you can do a lot in terms of
harvesting daylight and a number of other simple techniques. When replacing windows in the
house, place them across from one another for cross ventilation to cool off the house.
Com. Miller:
• Said in terms of moving forward with implementation, it would likely be more successful if
there is a point where it is actually the sanie or less cost to do some of the things that are easy
to implement; but be cautious about requu ing things that cost significantly over what it would
otherwise; and over time increase those requirements as the cost of those materials comes
down. It would be an approach that would work better than some very strict standards up front
that force everybody to put extra money in to it.
Shiloh Ballard:
• Said it is part of the beauty of how the sta ndards are set up; you get to pick and choose which
options you may be familiar with, or you r ave done it before and you know it is cost effective.
In putting together the Phase II recom�r endations, they also addressed the concern being
raised, and had reached out to some of the residential developers who had been building green
to get cost data from them, which can be p
Chair Brophy:
• Said it was important to have continuin; outreach to the home builders, remodelers, and
commercial developers, so that as they h� ve more knowledge about the options they can get
feedback from realtors. It would make a t�uge difference in terms of getting the most effective
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 July 13, 2010
combination of regulation and incentives tc� achieve our goals.
Mike Weasy, resident:
• He said relative to recent discussions it wc uld be a good idea to have energy guide stickers on
the house, similar to those for refrigerator:,. It is difficult for people to do the analysis, and to
have the information needed to make the decision, it needs to be put out there and would
definitely be a market based incentive for ��eople to lower that number; similar to those for the
appliances.
• He questioned if 15% and 30% over Title 24 is achievable; what happens if Title 24 changes;
does that percentage get changed?
• Relative to opening windows and savin�; energy, he said he understood that commercial
buildings were required to have a fresh air ventilation system; and if so, why would the
windows have to be opened, since the �;ystem should operate automatically. Is there any
thought to adding that as a requirement for residential construction instead of having it only for
commercial; it would work in Northern Ca.ifornia.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he had not seen economizers on houses, likely because most houses have operable �
windows and people tend to open the wind �ws, unless they have severe allergies, and the HRV
as a hepa filter is used. Said he had done buildings beyond 50%, it is doable but takes a lot of
work; 30% is not easy.
Com. Giefer:
• There is precedent for this; the BIG list, ihe GPR list, those are all set at 15% over Title 24
already; every year the Title 24 has grow n and gotten more stringent in requirements. It is
their objective to continue to be 15% m��re efficient or stringent over Title 24; and being
familiar with that program, it is not onerou � to meet that.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said technology is always improving; the CPUC and CEC committees are clearly focused at
this point on trying to get down to zero en �rgy buildings. They have goals of net zero energy
homes by 2020 and net zero energy for �;ommercial buildings by 2030. In theory at some
point it could become a problem.
Mark Burns, Real Estate Agent, Member of Green Ordinance Focus Group:
• Said there were not enough statistics to sh �w that more energy efficient homes sell for higher
prices. He said from a personal experienc � green houses took longer to sell and it may have
taken longer to sell because of the design and aesthetics. It is going to be hard to be able to
determine good statistics when each home; is different; and it is going to be hard to say they
have these lovely homes that talce up too �nuch electricity and energy but people like the way
they look and they feel good living in tl►ose homes; or they are down the street from the
schools they want to attend. There may be issues where the costs of the homes are a lot higher
and the time it takes to recoup those cost� not counting ta�c incentives for insta.11ing solar or
other energy systems. If those are taken o rt of the picture, they take a lot longer to recoup the
time and money. He urged caution abo�rt what is set up as new ordinances that the neat
generation of people are penalized to builcl and sell homes but not the people who have made
the homes previously. It is also a market i� sue as mentioned that when a home has single pane
windows, it is leaking and costs $300 mon th to keep it at a normal temperature. There may be
other issues besides the leaky single pane windows and the lack of insulation and more than
likely that home will sell for less than a liouse with double pane windows and other energy
e�ciencies.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 July 13, 2010
• When talking about sealing up homes, you also have to look into it, besides the heat
ventilation system, also consider the fact i:hat we are not in a radon free area; neither are we
free of other indoor air quality problems that might be brought forth to us once we have sealed
up these homes and made them perhaps nc►t as healthy to live inside because you are working
with the same air in that house all the time We have to take into account all these other issues
that go along with this; we have to look f irther forward than what we are going to save neart
year or the year after and what we are goi ig to be able to accomplish with tax incentives that
we all pay for anyway.
• Said he supported energy efficiency and fc�r making houses better, but does not want to create
extremes in any part of the new ordinance;; that will make it hard for builders to build, people
to buy, or make it hard for people who are e�sting residents here to have an exit tax of having
to make their house energy efficient. Th�;re are people who live in this area that have paid
$30,000 or $40,000 for their home, do w:, make them spend $30,000 or $40,000 to retrofit
their home upon the sale of that house to gE;t out?
• Said there should be a balanced and careful approach on doing these things because as we
reach out to go much farther than what t}ie existing Green Building Ordinance are, then we
push people away from Cupertino and also push up the cost of what it is to be here, so we have
to be very cazeful and take time about thesE; things; don't be extreme in any way.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that deconstruction is part of the G:•een Building Code, taking the building apart and
reusing the usable parts. He said he utili::ed deconstruction with his home; paid someone to
take the building apart, and got money b��ck as a tax deduction as a charitable contribution,
which was practically a wash.
Chair Brophy:
• He asked if there was any consideration of the comment about risk of requiring existing
homeowners to upgrade their building prio � to sale of it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the Phase II requirements don't ask f�r anything if somebody is not planning to remodel
or build a new house.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that the older building will not hav�: a good energy label on it; and there will be the
dilemma of either selling the building a:; an energy hog, and take the risk; or do energy
upgrades on the building.
• He said it is the discussion he heard related to energy labels and one of the discussions against.
Com. Giefer:
• There was legislation specifically requirir g buildings to have posted energy consumption at
the time of sale and to include that as a disc;losure; but it may have been defeated.
Com. Miller:
• He said it was not the same as requiring �eople to upgrade their homes before they can sell
them, which fortunately is not being discussed for Cupertino.
Joe Katz, builder of a net zero energy home:
• Said that a number of issues brought up m��st of the worries about what gets required and what
doesn't get required is creating paranoia: the market will decide. He said the house he is
building will have lower operating costs ar d will sell for more than any other house being built
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 July 13, 2010
around it. Although his house is costing much more per square foot than the houses in his
neighborhood, he will have saved much nore in the next ten years; with the last six solar
panels installed, he will be selling power b�ck to PG&E. He noted that he made money on the
deconstruction taaL credit.
Shiloh Ballard:
• Said one of the fundamental reasons they reached the conclusions they did on Phase II was
they were looking for the appropriate ona•amp and where to set the bar so as not to kill any
particular industry and are giving that ap aropriate nudge to the private sector, that will get
them to achieve their climate change goal� without doing irreparable damage to the economy;
in fact benefiting the economy and the er vironment. That was a core principle of the group
that came up with the Phase II recommend;itions.
Com. Kaneda: .
• Said there was concern about coming u�� with policies that would be uniform across city
boundary lines.
Shiloh Ballard:
• Said that as much as cities collaborate together, they are competing for business; and if the city
of San Jose has really stringent Green Building standards that potentially frighten the
development community and direct them to a city like Cupertino that may have less stringent
green building standards, that was a conc�;rn. The other concern already mentioned was the
ability of the development and contractor community to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
without having to relearn a radically �iew set of rules just because they crossed the
Cupertino/Saratoga border. Those were the core principles behind encouraging cities to adopt
somewhat similar policies across jurisdictic�n.
• The BACC (Bay Area Climate Collabor� tive) is an attempt to scale up the green building
efforts seen on a countywide basis, in particular in Santa Clara County; to take what was done
in Santa Clara County with the Cities Ass��ciation, getting all the cities on the same page and
trying to get the communities in the Bay ��rea to do something similar. That has been going
on for about a year, and is making slow prc�gress.
• It is more difficult to herd communities ac;•oss the Bay Area than it is to herd the 15 cities and
towns in Santa Clara County.
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner:
• Reported that the green building consultant Global Green is putting together a draft ordinance
for the July 22 focus group meeting. The c:omments from the second focus group meeting and
the draft ordinance will be brought back tc► the Planning Commission in about a month or six
weeks. The meeting is scheduled for Thu �sday, July 29�', in Community Hall; the first focus
group meeting will begin at 5 p.m. and the second focus group meeting at 7 p.m.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISS[ON
Environmental Review Committee: No mee�:ing.
Housing Commission:
Com. Kaneda reported:
• Housing Element was approved by the City Council; in the process of waiting for the State to
sign off on it. The CDBU is dissolved and the responsibilities were taken over by the Housing
Commission. The group handles the block grants and services the city provides grants for.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 July 13, 2010
The Consolidated Plan was approved by c:ity Council for federal funding to be submitted to
the Housing and Urban Development.
Mavor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissio�iers:
Chair Brophy reported:
• TIC committee: talked about Clearwire �ViMa�c system which is the combination of cellular
and broadband system currently being rolle d in and scheduled for late FalVearly Winter system
in which at least cell phone coverage through Sprint will occur in that timetable. WiM�
coverage is an alternative to DSL and cab e modems, but wireless not sure what timetable is.
TIC has its own green initiative; they re��iewed the Siemens proposal regarding the use of
lighting for the city; talked about the difierence between induction vs. LED lighting. Also
looking at phone system for possible chang es.
• Library Commission: Teen room up and running; Library is in process of changing checkout
system and inserting RFID chips in eact book. New librarian on site; Circulation is up;
Cupertino Library is the largest circulat on library in the country of cities of 50,000 to
100,000. With San Jose cutting back its branch libraries to 39 hours per week, 3 days per
week, compared to Cupertino's 60 hours, there is an expectation for higher demand on the
library.
• Parks and Rec: Blackberry Farm open i or the summer; trail and pools open for summer;
working on issue of gate to Scenic Drive; Mary Avenue looking into the possibility of using
parking spaces that run along Mary Avenue beyond the Oaks as a conversion into a dog park.
Discussion about geese problem in Memor al Park.
• Bike and Pedestrian Committee: Had a F,ike To Work Day, working on a bike transportation
plan.
• Misc: Mayor Wang said budget was being presented tonight; July 31 st Town Hall meeting at
Quinlan Center; September 24 Commissior�ers' Dinner.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMMUI�TITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional report.
• Staff will be working on the Green Buildin ; Ordinance.
• July 28� — Development permit process fir:ct public meeting;
� July 29�' second Green Building Ordinance focus group meeting
• August 24�' — tentative agenda will be Gree n Building Ordinance
Adjournment•
• The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
July 27, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recc�rding Secretary