HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-12 City Council Agenda Packet
1 05/12/08
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting
Council Chambers
May 12, 2008
5:00 PM
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1. Public Employment
Title: City Manager
Authority: Government Code § 54957(b)
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA, APN: 132-31-071
Negotiating Party: Robert & Patricia Brown and Allan & Patricia Brown,
Loren Brown, Brown Fairchild Park Investment Company, L.P.
City Negotiators: Frank Benest, Kelly Morariu, Glenn Roberts, Mike
Sartor, Cara Silver, F. Gale Connor
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Human Relations
Commission
LETTER
4. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art
Commission
05/12/08 2
LETTER
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
5. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommends Adoption of a Resolution
Approving the Agreement for Assignment of Rights Relating to and
Amending the Seattle City Light Capacity and Third Phase Agreement
by and Among Certain Northern California Power Agency Members,
Including Palo Alto, Which Will Transfer its Interests in the Agreement
to the City of Santa Clara
CMR: 234:08 ATTACHMENTS
6. Adoption of a Resolution Adopting Guidelines for the Submission and
Tabulation of Protests in Connection with Rate Hearings Conducted
Pursuant to Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution
CMR: 232:08 ATTACHMENTS
7. Appointment of Kelly Morariu as City Manager Pro Tem for the May 19,
2008 City Council Meeting
CMR: 245:08
8. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 16.12
(Recycled Water) to Title 16 of the Municipal Code to Require
the Use of Recycled Water for Irrigation, Toilet and Urinal
Flushing and Trap Priming
(First reading April 28, 2008 passed 9-0)
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The
presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than five minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
05/12/08 3
9. Adoption of 1) an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
to Add a New Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) and
2) a Resolution Adopting Green Building Standards for Compliance for
Private Development Projects.
CMR: 237:08 ATTACHMENTS
10. Public Hearing on the Levy of Proposed Assessments in Connection
with the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and
Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Report of the Advisory Board
and Levying an Assessment for Fiscal Year 2008-09 in Connection with
the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District
CMR: 209:08 ATTACHMENTS
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
11. Recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission on
the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvements – Phase 1 Trial
Improvements on Charleston Road and Plan for Phase 2 Trial
Implementation on Arastradero Road
CMR: 241:08 Attachments can be viewed in the Clerk’s Office
COUNCIL MATTERS
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
CMR: 234:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: MAY 12, 2008 CMR: 234:08
SUBJECT: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
AGREEMENT FOR ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS RELATING TO
AND AMENDING THE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT CAPACITY AND
THIRD PHASE AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG CERTAIN
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY MEMBERS,
INCLUDING PALO ALTO, WHICH WILL TRANSFER ITS
INTERESTS IN THE AGREEMENT TO THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARA
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council adopt the attached
resolution enabling the assignment of Palo Alto’s share of the Seattle City Light Exchange
Contract to the City of Santa Clara.
BACKGROUND
The Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) is a party to a seasonal energy exchange
contract (Exchange) of 60 MW with Seattle City Light (SCL) by which SCL delivers energy to
NCPA in the months of June through October (“summer”) and NCPA delivers energy to SCL in
the months of November through April (“winter”). Through an NCPA Third Phase Agreement,
Palo Alto became a participant to the Exchange (CMR:371:92 and Resolution No. 7128)
effective March 16, 1993. Palo Alto’s share of the Exchange is 18.3 percent, or approximately
10 megawatts (MW) with the actual energy volumes varying by month. Other NCPA
participants to the Exchange include the Cities of Roseville, Lodi, Healdsburg, and Ukiah.
The purpose of entering into the Exchange was to meet both parties’ energy profile needs. SCL
needed energy in the winter and had surplus energy in the summer, whereas NCPA’s participants
in the Exchange had the opposite profile. Further, Palo Alto is a part-owner of the California-
Oregon Transmission Project (COTP), an electric transmission line that extends from the
California-Oregon Border (COB) to NCPA. The Exchange provided an opportunity to better
utilize COTP as deliveries of the Exchange take place at COB.
5
CMR: 234:08 Page 2 of 3
NCPA entered into the Exchange when winter energy prices were significantly lower than
summer prices and to maintain a neutral value for the Exchange, summer energy deliveries were
set at 83 percent of the winter energy delivery quantities. Market conditions since the energy
crisis in 2001 have narrowed the spread between summer and winter prices, thus rendering the
Exchange no longer neutral. Additionally, given the reformulation of the Western contract for
hydroelectric energy at the end of 2004, the exchange no longer meets Palo Alto’s energy needs.
Lastly, Palo Alto is contemplating assigning a portion of its share of the COTP, which would
require obtaining alternative transmission to transport the Exchange energy from COB to
Northern California. For these reasons, in July 2007, Palo Alto requested that NCPA consider
options for terminating or assigning Palo Alto’s full share of the Exchange.
DISCUSSION
The value of the Exchange is a function of the seasonal energy price differential, the scheduling
flexibility inherent in the Exchange, which allows NCPA the ability to schedule the energy in the
most valuable periods, and any capacity value available to meet the state’s Resource Adequacy
Requirements for system capacity.
In calendar years 2006 and 2007, the Exchange cost Palo Alto about $200,000 per year. Given
current market prices for energy, the Exchange is expected to continue to be of negative value
for Palo Alto by about $185,000 per year, or about $1.4 million over the period 2009 through
2015.
Through an assignment, Palo Alto can assign all of its rights and obligations under the NCPA
Third Phase Agreement for SCL Exchange to another participant of the Exchange or another
NCPA member. The City of Santa Clara has expressed interest in taking over the entire
Exchange at no cost to the party assigning the Exchange. Staff prefers this alternative, as it is
expected to save the City between $0.7 and $1.4 million over the seven-year period required
under the termination alternative. The City of Santa Clara may have a different electric portfolio
management objectives than Palo Alto’s, the Exchange may fit better into its overall portfolio, or
it may be able to better utilize its transmission assets.
Alternatives
Staff examined several alternative actions for the Exchange besides assignment to the City of
Santa Clara. These include: terminating the contract with notice as allowed for in the contract
and terminating early as allowed for in the contract.
1. Termination
The Exchange can be unilaterally terminated by NCPA or SCL on May 31 of any year provided
advance notice of seven years is given. The next possible termination notice date is May 31,
2008, which would terminate the contract on May 31, 2015.
2. Early Termination
Both parties can mutually agree to terminate early (within the seven year notice requirement).
Early termination may require a termination payment by NCPA to SCL in order to get out of the
Exchange. This alternative is not feasible since not all Exchange participants desire to terminate
the contract.
CMR: 234:08 Page 3 of 3
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At its April 2, 2008 meeting, the UAC voted unanimously to recommend that the Council
approve an assignment of Palo Alto’s share and obligations of the Seattle City Light Exchange at
no cost to Palo Alto (Minutes attached).
RESOURCE IMPACT
Assignment of the SCL Exchange is expected to save Palo Alto approximately $200,000 in FY
08/09 and $1.4 million over the seven-year required termination period. Additionally, Palo Alto
will need to cover its share of NCPA’s expense in preparing the necessary assignment
documents. NCPA does not anticipate the cost to exceed $5,000. Funds to pay NCPA expenses
are available within the electric supply budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with Council policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the resolution approving the assignment of contract rights does not constitute a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no environmental
assessment is required.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Agreement for Assignment
of Rights Relating to and Amending the Seattle City Light Capacity and Third Phase
Agreement by and Among Certain Northern California Power Agency Members, Including
Palo Alto, Which Will Transfer Its Interests in the Agreement to the City of Santa Clara
B: Resolution 08-02, Resolution of the NCPA to Initiate Transfer of Rights by Project
Participants in the Seattle City Light Third Phase Agreement
C: Agreement for Assignment of Rights Relating to and Amending Seattle City Light Capacity
and Third Phase Agreement
D: Minutes from the April 2, 2008 UAC meeting
PREPARED BY: Monica Padilla, Sr. Resource Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
CMR: 232:08 Page 1 of 2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
AND PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MAY 12, 2008 CMR: 232:08
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR THE
SUBMISSION AND TABULATION OF PROTESTS IN CONNECTION
WITH RATE HEARINGS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
XIIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution adopting guidelines for managing the Utility
rate hearings conducted pursuant to Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution.
DISCUSSION
A recent California Supreme Court decision (Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil) held
that certain utility consumption charges are property-related fees subject to the requirements of
Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution. That constitutional provision, which was
adopted by the voters in 1996 as part of Proposition 218, requires that local governments give a
special form of mailed notice at least 45 days before holding the public hearing on the increase
of a property-related fee. The provision also provides that certain affected persons may submit
protests with respect to proposed rate increases.
The requirements of the applicable notice and protest provisions are relatively brief, and do not
make it absolutely clear how local agencies should count protests they receive. Consequently,
the City Attorney’s Office has advised that the City adopt guidelines that interpret Proposition
218 and govern how the City will conduct protest proceedings. These guidelines are found in
Exhibit A to this report’s Attachment A.
RESOURCE IMPACT
No additional staff resources are required to conduct the hearings and tabulate results as required
pursuant to Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution.
6
CMR: 232:08 Page 2 of 2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This policy is new and requires Council adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of this resolution does not require review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) because it does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21065.
ATTACHMENT
A. Resolution
PREPARED BY: JANE RATCHYE
Asst. Director of Utilities, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
________________________________
GLENN ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
CMR:245:08 Page 1 of 1
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
DATE: MAY 12, 2008 CMR: 245:08
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF KELLY MORARIU AS CITY MANAGER PRO TEM
EFFECTIVE MAY 16-22, 2008 AND STEVE EMSLIE AS CITY
MANAGER PRO TEM EFFECTIVE MAY 23-31, 2008
RECOMMENDATIONS
The City Manager recommends that the City Council appoint Kelly Morariu as City Manager
Pro Tem effective May 16-22, 2008 and Steve Emslie as City Manager Pro Tem effective May
23-31, 2008.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter provides in relevant part that “[i]n the absence … of the
city manager and the assistant city manager … the council shall appoint a city manager pro tem
who shall possess the powers and discharge the duties of the city manager during such absence
…”
The City Manager will be on vacation from May 16-31, 2008. Given the vacancy in the
Assistant City Manager position, the City Manager must appoint someone to serve as City
Manager Pro Tem in his absence. Steve Emslie and Kelly Morariu have the knowledge and
skills to serve in this capacity during this period.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The appointment of a City Manager Pro Tem will have no resource impact to the City.
CITY MANAGER: _________________________________
FRANK BENEST
City Manager
CMR: 237:08 1 of 8
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MAY 12, 2008 CMR: 237:08
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF 1) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF
THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER
18.44 (GREEN BUILDING REGULATIONS) AND 2) A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review Board
(ARB) and Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed Ordinance to establish green building regulations, and Resolution adopting
attached tables setting forth green building compliance thresholds, rating systems, and
compliance verification requirements for private development projects, with an effective
date of July 2008.
Staff also recommends that the City Council direct staff to return at the mid-year budget
review with any budget amendment request needed to cover costs including program
management and fees associated with implementation.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
An informational report dated April 28, 2008 provided the Council with background
information, summarized the City’s study sessions, outreach efforts and progress toward
the development of the proposed green building regulations. Staff recommends that
Council implement the mandatory green building program through adoption of a new
Chapter 18.44, Green Building Regulations (Attachment A) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Council adoption of the attached tables A and B by resolution (Attachment B) in
conjunction with the zoning ordinance will allow flexibility for periodic amendments to
the green building requirements by resolution rather than by legislative ordinance
changes, in order to stay current with the latest thresholds and rating systems.
The proposed ordinance and implementing resolution and tables provide green building
requirements for all new development and major remodels. The Standards for
Compliance are outlined in Tables A (commercial) and B (residential), attached to the
proposed resolution. The key components of these standards include:
CMR: 237:08 2 of 8
Table A: Green Building Standards (Nonresidential Construction and Renovation)
a. LEED Silver requirements for new construction in excess of 5,000 square feet
b. LEED Certified requirements for major remodels (over 5,000 sf/$500,000)
c. Pro-rated points required for lesser remodels and smaller projects
d. Exemption for projects less than 500 square feet and $100,000 in construction
valuation
e. Verification for LEED by USGBC for new construction over 25,000 square feet
f. Verification by LEED Accredited Professional (AP) for other (a) and (b) projects
Table B: Green Building Standards (Residential Construction and Renovation)
a. GreenPoint Rated 70 points for new multi-family construction
b. GreenPoint Rated 70 points for new single-family construction between 1,250
square feet and 2,550 square feet
c. Additional points required for larger houses (greater than 2,550 square feet), up to
a maximum of 150 points
d. GreenPoint Rated 70 points for major remodel (> $350,000)
e. Checklist only for smaller additions and remodels
f. Exemption for projects less than $75,000
g. Verification by GreenPoint Raters for (a) through (d)
Staff anticipates revisiting and perhaps modifying the tables after the first year of
implementation, in mid-2009, following an annual review of the program
implementation. The ordinance allows for a two-year transition for implementation after
it becomes effective, with specified targets for compliance at final inspection and within
one year thereafter, and provisions for hardship exemptions and good faith effort.
The PTC report (Attachment D) dated April 9, 2008 provides a relevant discussion
section describing the components of the ordinance and tables. The Historic Resources
Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) report dated April 16 and 17
(Attachment F) includes additional background information. Based upon input from the
PTC, HRB and ARB, the draft ordinance and tables were modified for Council review.
Potential Added Applicant Costs of Green Building
Staff has been meeting with green building professionals to understand the processing
costs for green building certification to property owners. Regarding the residential
program, the estimated costs per home for compliance, including certification costs,
added planning and building fees for green building compliance, and design costs, would
be approximately $2,500 to $10,000. Studies provided by Build It Green indicate such
costs would be recovered eventually in life cycle cost savings. The cost of Green Point
Rater certification currently ranges from $1,500 to $2,500. For LEED certification
through the USGBC, the cost has been estimated by the USGBC at 2% to 5% of the total
building cost of the project, which studies available on the USGBC website again show
are likely to be recovered over the life cycle of the building.
Energy Code Amendments
Building standards related to energy efficiency are contained in Part 6 of Title 24 of the
California Building Standards Code (commonly referred to as the California Energy
Code (CEC)) and are regulated by the California Energy Commission. While the
CMR: 237:08 3 of 8
standards set by the proposed green building ordinance offer some points for increasing a
building’s energy efficiency, cities may require energy efficiency beyond the CEC’s
minimum requirements by applying for a local amendment to the California Energy
Code.
The local amendment process requires that the City make findings that its proposed
energy efficiency measures are cost effective and based on local geological,
topographical, or climatic conditions. The City has contacted an expert in the field of
local energy code modification to assist the City in preparing a study and proposal for
local amendment to the current, 2005 version of the California Energy Code. Staff plans
to submit the study and proposed local amendment to the California Energy Commission
for review by late 2008. The City Attorney also supports staff’s plans for a local
amendment to allow flexibility for increased energy efficiency requirements at the local
level.
Countywide Green Building Effort
The proposed ordinance is being reviewed by other jurisdictions within Santa Clara
County that are moving toward adopting mandatory green building regulations. The
City’s approach to increase the number of green points required on a sliding scale for
larger homes is being considered elsewhere in the county. The Joint Venture Silicon
Valley Climate Protection Task Force has communicated to City staff that momentum is
building for a Joint Venture project to encourage region-wide consistency on green
building policies. Staff will make any current information available regarding recent
efforts and key features of neighboring cities’ green building programs.
Staff Training and Program Development
The April 28, 2008 Informational CMR noted that resource impacts included staff hours
devoted to outreach, education and training. Staff hours devoted to the development of
the ordinance and tables have included meetings (the City’s internal green building
group, the County’s green building collaborative group, focus groups, public study
sessions and hearings) and research time (benchmarking, evaluating approaches and
crafting the documents, discussions with green building professionals). Staff continues to
pursue a better understanding of the point systems (including observing the green point
rating of a home and visits to local green homes). Two staff members are Build It Green
(BIG) certified professionals. Several staff members and consultants involved in the
residential Single Family Individual Review program plan to attend Build It Green’s
trainings in 2008, to better assist applicants and staff at the earliest opportunities in the
planning and building processes. Many of the architecture firms submitting applications
for non-residential projects have LEED AP staff or employ LEED AP consultants. Two
ARB members, two Public Works Engineering Division staff, and a consulting planner
are also certified as LEED AP. Following Council adoption of the ordinance, staff would
continue with education and outreach efforts, preparation of handouts and related tasks,
leading up to the effective date of the ordinance.
CMR: 237:08 4 of 8
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board
On April 16 and April 17, 2008, the HRB and ARB (Boards) received staff’s report
(Attachment F) and provided comments and recommendations on the proposed ordinance
and tables. The report included a summary of the PTC’s April 9, 2008 comments. The
Boards were provided the April 9, 2008 PTC reports, an article on LEED, and the
ordinance and tables. The recommendations of both Boards were unanimous. Summaries
of the boards’ recommendations are provided as Attachment E, and the ordinance and
tables have been modified to address the Boards’ comments. Attachment G to this report,
regarding the benefits of historic preservation, is provided to Council as requested by the
HRB.
One key recommendation of the HRB was to allow as many Green Point points as
possible for retaining historic residential structures. Staff has included in the ordinance
and Table B that required GreenPoint thresholds may be reduced by up to 10 points for
retaining historic structures subject to HRB review of compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards, and by 5-10 additional points for retaining existing structures
(which the resolution defines as keeping at least 75-95% of the existing exterior walls,
roof, and floors in place), regardless of a building’s historic status.
A key recommendation of the ARB was to include detached garages in the square footage
calculation for determining green building thresholds for house size, and to include all
un-conditioned space, including garages (attached or detached) and un-conditioned
basements (usually storage and equipment areas), at a rate of 50% of the floor area for
calculating green building thresholds. Staff has included the garage recommendations,
but has continued to suggest that all basement area 7 feet or greater in height be counted,
since it is very difficult to determine whether that space is conditioned or not and because
of the extensive resource use (concrete, basement dewatering, etc.) involved with the
construction of basements.
Planning and Transportation Commission
On April 9, 2008, the PTC conducted the second of two study sessions on the proposed
green building criteria, then held a public hearing to review and recommend (voting 6-1)
Council approval of the ordinance and resolution, subject to modifications. The staff
report and verbatim meeting minutes for this item are attached to this report (Attachments
C and D). As noted, the ordinance and tables have been modified to address the PTC’s
comments. Staff believes that the Boards’ comments and revisions to the ordinance and
tables were cumulative and productive, and do not conflict with the PTC
recommendation.
One issue of extensive discussion during the PTC meetings was the resource impacts of
basements, and particularly the dewatering of basements during construction. Other
concerns related to the amount of concrete required, groundwater impacts and settlement,
and potential withdrawal of toxic materials from groundwater. Planning and Public
Works staff have retained consultants and coordinated with regional agencies to assess
groundwater concerns and believe that negligible groundwater depletion, settlement or
toxic intrusion impacts result from dewatering. The Public Works Department has, in the
CMR: 237:08 5 of 8
past few years, revised its basement policy to prohibit dewatering from basements after
construction. Dewatering from basements during construction is still allowed, but with
substantial review and restrictions, and only upon the issuance of a permit from Public
Works. Additional information regarding basement concerns is available online with the
staff report and attachments for the April 9 PTC Study Session at:
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp)
Public Works is currently reviewing these issues to report to Council and finds that most
of these concerns can be addressed by technical means, other than the volume of
dewatering during construction and the amount of concrete used. Planning has included a
provision in the green building criteria that larger homes (including basement floor area)
must achieve a greater number of green point credits than smaller homes to help
compensate for these resource impacts.
Council LEED Study Session
On April 28, 2008, the City Council conducted a study session to consider LEED
requirements and a preview of the City’s green building ordinance. Several Council
comments and questions related specifically to LEED compliance costs and timing of the
regulations. Staff responses are provided below:
1. What are the typical hard and soft costs of LEED compliance at the various
certification levels?
Studies available on the USGBC website generally indicate that the cost of LEED
compliance ranges from 2-5% of construction costs (hard and soft costs), depending
on the level of certification. Local LEED engineering and architectural professionals
have estimated, for projects they have worked on, that soft costs (registration and
certification, commissioning, and design) are typically between $150,000 to $350,000
for a 50,000 square foot building.
2. The City’s approach should include both incentives and regulations.
The Utilities and Public Works Departments are developing financial incentives for
project designs incorporating energy saving, water saving, and innovative stormwater
features. These incentives are expected to be in place in conjunction with the rollout
of the ordinance in July or shortly thereafter. Staff determined that planning
incentives (expedited review, increased FAR, etc.) are not practical or meaningful.
3. The regulations should not be phased.
The regulations will be mandatory immediately, applicable to all new project
applications submitted after July 1, 2008. There is a 2-year transition period proposed
for residential projects, however, to require 75% of the green points to be achieved
prior to final building inspection, and at least 90% of green points to be achieved not
later than one year after final inspection. A number of potential points are related to
landscaping, carpeting, painting, etc., that may not be complete at the time of final
inspection. Similarly, LEED compliance would not in most cases require building
commissioning and USGBC certification at this time, with hopes that the costs and
time for certification will come down in the next year or two. This will allow time to
CMR: 237:08 6 of 8
evaluate the effectiveness of the measures and to allow some flexibility for
enforcement during the initial two years.
4. What is the timeline for amending the ordinance to require LEED Gold?
There is no specific timeline, but staff expects to return to the Council, PTC, and
ARB after a year to report on the implementation of the program, and to consider
changes to the ordinance or the tables. It may, however, take two years to adequately
assess the impacts of the regulations, due to the time required to obtain approvals and
complete construction of a project.
Staff is prepared to respond to other Council questions at the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff has considered several alternatives to the proposed ordinance:
1. Require LEED Gold compliance for nonresidential projects in excess of 5,000
square feet (or for larger buildings, e.g., in excess of 25,000 square feet). The
increase from LEED Silver to LEED Gold is primarily a function of cost and, to a
lesser extent, to the location of the building. The cost differential in some cases
does not appear substantial, but may in other cases represent 1-2% additional
design and construction costs. Staff’s primary consideration in proposing LEED
Silver is that as the LEED points are more difficult to achieve, location becomes a
critical factor. For instance, the City’s Public Safety Building gains LEED points
for its proximity to transit and for redeveloping a brownfield site, whereas the
Mitchell Park Library/Community Center building does not, so those few points
may be critical for compliance with the Gold criteria. LEED Silver is staff’s best
professional recommendation for initial implementation, but staff will encourage
development, particularly for larger projects, to attain LEED Gold or Platinum
levels and hopes to provide a range of incentives for such additional
achievements.
2. Defer adoption of an ordinance until updated State energy code requirements and
State green building regulations are implemented by the Building Standards
Commission, which are expected by 2009. This approach would delay
implementing the City’s adopted Climate Protection Plan goals, and there are no
assurances that the City would view these new regulations as sufficient,
particularly to address other resource issues, such as water use, building materials,
and indoor air quality.
3. Require only the basic levels of certification: LEED Certified (26 points) for
commercial, and 50 GreenPoints for residential. Staff believes these levels are
relatively easy to achieve and that greater emissions reductions can be achieved at
a reasonable cost at the higher levels of compliance proposed.
4. Defer implementation of the single-family residential program until July of 2009
(a phasing in of mandatory residential green building requirements one year from
the proposed ordinance effective date of July 2008). This would allow for a more
gradual rollout of the standards for single-family residential to help familiarize
CMR: 237:08 7 of 8
property owners and architects with the ordinance, and was suggested by staff in
the November 2007 report to Council. Staff believes that 70 GreenPoints are not
onerous, however, and that the ordinance provides flexibility for consideration of
hardship situations that may arise.
A number of alternatives are also available related to the various implementation and
verification requirements.
Build It Green Alternatives
Regarding the residential program, staff recently met with a representative of Build It
Green (BIG), who stated that:
• due to changes anticipated in the energy and building codes at the state level, the
“equivalent” Green Point values will increase over the next two years,
• many cities have implemented voluntary residential green building standards, and
• Palo Alto could lower the residential threshold to 50 points and require
certification for these points to be completed in conjunction with the final
building inspection. GreenPoint Raters typically certify residential buildings at
the time of final occupancy, rather than waiting until after occupancy to finish
their inspections for certification.
BIG staff’s suggestion for certification of 50 points at final inspection is intended to
support the City with tracking of built projects and to provide a standard threshold for all
cities within the region, for which 50 points would be readily adopted as a minimum
threshold.
Staff is amenable to requiring certification at the final inspection if desired by Council.
The ordinance proposes that 75% of the proposed 70 points be attained by the final
inspection (which would exceed the 50 point minimum for BIG certification). Again, the
resolution and tables can be amended at such time as the BIG point system changes.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Council adoption of the ordinance will result in resource impacts to the City, particularly
for the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Staff is still developing an
approach to implementing the ordinance through the use of green building consultants
and raters, and education of existing line staff. This will require additional consultant
time and budget for staff and training. It is estimated that eventually additional staff (up
to 1.0 FTE) with technical expertise in green building will be needed to coordinate
education and outreach, training, evaluation of submitted checklists, compliance
verification, data processing and monitoring, and enforcement. Staff is likely to look to
contract services initially to provide for this need, and will either pass those costs along
directly to the applicant or increase development fees to compensate for these additional
costs. The staffing needs will be evaluated over the next six months and resources and
fee changes will be requested with the mid-year budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed ordinance and resolution are consistent with the City’s sustainability
policy, green building policy for City facilities (which also sets a LEED Silver level for
buildings over 5,000 square feet),
CMR: 237:08 8 of 8
and with Comprehensive Plan policies regarding protection of energy and water
resources and natural resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the
Environment is designed to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or
protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for
protection of the environment.
PREPARED BY: __________________________________
AMY FRENCH
Manager of Current Planning
DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Planning and Community
Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Zoning Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.44
Attachment B: Resolution
• Exhibit A: Table A, Green Building Standards (Nonresidential Construction and
Renovation)
• Exhibit B: Table B, Green Building Standards (Residential Construction and
Renovation)
Attachment C: Commission Minutes dated April 9, 2008
Attachment D: Commission Staff Report of April 9, 2008 (without attachments)
Attachment E: Recommendations of HRB and ARB on April 16 and 17, 2008
Attachment F: HRB/ARB April 16 and 17, 2008 staff report with attachments
Attachment G: Historic Preservation documents (HRB 4/16/08 Item #4 Attachment B)
Attachment H: Correspondence
Note: Additional materials (staff reports and attachments) from the March 12 and April 9
PTC study sessions are available online at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp
CMR:209:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MAY 12, 2008 CMR: 209:08
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LEVY OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PALO ALTO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD AND
LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 IN
CONNNECTION WITH THE DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing on the levy of proposed assessments in fiscal year 2008-09 in
connection with the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District and
2. Approve a resolution confirming the report of the Advisory Board and levying an
assessment for Fiscal Year 2008-09 in connection with the Downtown Palo Alto Business
Improvement District
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2008, the City Council:
• Adopted a resolution preliminarily approving the report filed by the Palo Alto Downtown
Business Improvement District Advisory Board for the 2008-09 fiscal year;
• Adopted a resolution of intention to levy the annual assessment for 2008-09; and
• Set May 12, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. or thereafter as the date and time for the public hearing on
the levy of the proposed assessments.
CMR:209:08 Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
The City Council is required to annually hold the public hearing, approve the 2008-09 Budget
Report and determine whether or not to levy the annual assessment for the Palo Alto Downtown
Business Improvement District (BID) for fiscal year 2008-09.
Absent a majority protest at the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution approving the
report for Fiscal Year 2008-09 as filed or as modified by the Council at the conclusion of the
public hearing. The adoption of the resolution constitutes the levying of the BID assessments for
fiscal year 2008-09.
The staff report is attached from April 14, 2008 which describes the actions related to the BID,
including the report of the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association
(PADBPA) to the City Council (Attachment 2).
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Adoption of the proposed BID budget does not directly impact City revenue. BID assessments
are restricted for use exclusively by the BID. It is anticipated that a healthy BID will encourage
growth of the retail community and consequently result in additional sales tax revenue for the
City. Some staff effort is expended annually to administer the collection of the BID.
Staff will continue to monitor staff administrative time devoted to the collection of BID
assessments. If costs significantly exceed the $16,000 estimate for administering assessments,
staff will consider an administrative charge to the Palo Alto Downtown Business and
Professional Association who administer the BID, as allowed for under the contract, to offset
these costs.
Administrative Services staff provides assistance in the collection of BID assessments. The
Economic Development Manager will continue to provide oversight to the BID and will prepare
the annual reauthorization.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action by the City Council does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of
the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore no environmental assessment is
necessary.
CMR:209:08 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming the
Report of the Advisory Board and Levying an Assessment for Fiscal year
2008-09 in Connection with the Downtown Palo Alto Business
Improvement District
Attachment 2: CMR:190:08 Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving BID
Advisory Board’s 2008-09 Budget Report and Adoption of Resolution of
Intention to Levy 2008-09 Assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown
Business Improvement District and Setting a Public Hearing on the Levy
of Assessments
PREPARED BY: ________________________________________
SUSAN L. BARNES
Economic Development and
Redevelopment Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ________________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE
Director, Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________
FRANK BENEST
City Manager
CMR:241:08 Page 1 of 5
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MAY 12, 2008 CMR: 241:08
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ON THE CHARLESTON
ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS –PHASE 1 TRIAL
IMPROVEMENTS ON CHARLESTON ROAD AND PLAN FOR
PHASE 2 TRIAL IMPLEMENTATION ON ARASTRADERO
ROAD.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve the permanent retention of the Phase 1 trial striping and lane configurations on
Charleston Road consisting of:
a) a three-lane cross-section from Fabian to Alma Street, including one travel lane in
each direction, a wide striped median and left turn pockets at intersections; and
b) a modified four-lane cross-section from Alma Street to El Camino Real consisting of
two travel lanes in each direction and a narrow striped median
2. Direct staff to continue monitoring of traffic conditions on Charleston Road after
implementation of traffic adaptive signal timing along the entire Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor and provide an update in December 2008.
3. Direct staff to work with the Gunn High School administration to implement a trial of the
Gunn High School driveway capacity improvements and return to City Council by January
2009 with a recommendation on the Phase 2 trial striping plan for Arastradero Road
between El Camino Real and Gunn High School to be implemented in summer 2009.
4. Direct staff to pursue all available grant funding opportunities for the design and
construction of the permanent safety and streetscape improvements, including street trees
and landscaping, lighting, median islands and bike lane improvements on Charleston Road
as described in the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan.
BACKGROUND
In April 2003, the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation, safety and urban
design/landscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor. Charleston and
Arastradero Roads are residential arterial streets that carry between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicles
daily. Each is a four-lane undivided roadway. The corridor serves numerous residential
CMR:241:08 Page 2 of 5
neighborhoods and 11 schools. In January 2004, the City Council approved the Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan and Phasing Plan (CMR: 122:04) which was developed
to:
• Maintain existing travel time on the corridor to minimize diversion to other residential
streets
• Reduce accidents on the corridor
• Improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel
• Improve the quality of life on the corridor
• Enhance visual amenities along the corridor
On December 2005, Council approved a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of
$965,000 for the implementation of the Gunn High School driveway and signal improvements,
and implementation of a “no frills” trial project consisting of the fundamental elements of the
Corridor Plan, including restriping to the new lane geometry, striped median islands, 3 new
enhanced pedestrian crosswalks with in-pavement lighting, and necessary traffic signal
modifications.
The Trial Plan includes two phases:
• Phase 1 provided for construction of the intersection and traffic signal modifications at the
Arastradero Road/Gunn High driveway, implementation of traffic adaptive signal timing
and the striping changes along only East and West Charleston Roads between Fabian and
El Camino Real. The Phase 1 striping plan and the Gunn High School intersection
improvements were completed in August 2006.
• Phase 2 will implement the three-lane or four-lane striping plan for Arastradero Road
from El Camino Real to just east of Gunn High School. As a result of major underground
utilities construction along Arastradero Road this year, the Council authorized postponing
Phase 2 until June 2009, when Arastradero Road is scheduled to be resurfaced.
During the past 18 months, Planning staff has held regular meetings with the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor stakeholder committee to discuss operational issues arising
from the new trial striping installation, monitor the performance of the Phase 1 trial and to
further evaluate and assess traffic conditions along Arastradero Road with regard to the
feasibility of a trial of the recommended three-lane striping plan from El Camino Real to Gunn
High School. TJKM Transportation Consultants was retained to prepare an Evaluation Report
on the Phase 1 improvements and recommendations for Phase 2 striping of Arastradero Road.
On April 30th, staff presented the findings to the Planning & Transportation Commission of the
staff analysis of the Phase 1 Trial on Charleston Road and next steps in determining the striping
plan for Phase 2 trial on Arastradero Road. Attachment A to the PTC report includes the full
evaluation report prepared by TJKM Transportation Associates, consulting traffic engineers for
CMR:241:08 Page 3 of 5
this project. The original Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan is included as Attachment B to
the PTC report.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 30, 2008, the PTC voted unanimously (6-0, Commissioner Garber not present) to
recommend to the City Council the staff recommendations as detailed on Page 1 of this report,
including: 1) approving permanent retention of the 3-lane configuration on Charleston from
Fabian to Alma and the modified 4-lane configuration from Alma to El Camino Real; 2)
evaluating the traffic conditions along the corridor after implementation of traffic adaptive signal
timing; 3) implementing the trial of the Gunn High School driveway capacity improvements and
reporting on the recommended plan for Phase 2 trial on Arastradero Road to the Council by
January 2009; and 4) directing staff to seek grant funding for the permanent streetscape and
safety improvements described in the Corridor Plan. Draft minutes of the Planning and
Transportation Commission meeting are provided as Attachment B.
The Commission focused on specific segments of the Charleston Road trial and issues associated
with traffic and safety conditions along Arastradero Road. Commissioner Lippert and Chair
Holman inquired about the parking capacity on the Gunn High School campus and scope of the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program offered at Gunn High. Commissioner
Tuma inquired about the safety of implementing an enhanced crosswalk on Arastradero Road to
Briones Park. Commissioners Fineberg and Keller inquired about the design of the merge from
two lanes to one just west of Fabian, and striping issues in front of Hoover Elementary School
and at the design of the turn pockets at Grove and Sutherland. Staff commented that there would
be ongoing monitoring of the specific striping issues raised by Commissioners, and changes
could be made in the future if problems develop. Despite these additional considerations and
comments, Commissioners expressed broad support for the retention of the trial striping plan on
Charleston Road and the planning and next steps in the Phase 2 trial for Arastradero Road.
Approximately 20 members of the public addressed the Commission in person and
approximately 42 members of the public submitted written comments to the Commission. The
great majority supported the staff recommendations. Several speakers commented about specific
striping and operational issues along Charleston Road including the westbound merge from two
lanes to one just west of Fabian, turn pockets at Sutherland and Grove, and others had specific
comments about the future striping of Arastradero Road. Written correspondence received by the
Commission is provided in Attachment C.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PL-05002 provided funding for the implementation
of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Phase 1 Trial and Gunn High School Driveway and
intersection improvements. The Street Maintenance CIP Project PE-86070 will fund the Phase 2
resurfacing and restriping trial on Arastradero Road in 2009. The trial installation of the
driveway circulation improvements on the Gunn High School campus will be funded by the Palo
Alto Unified School District.
CMR:241:08 Page 4 of 5
The estimated cost for the complete streetscape and safety improvements along the entire
corridor as detailed in the Corridor Plan was approximately $6.2 million. The
Charleston/Arastradero Road Pedestrian and Bicyclist Traffic Impact Fee is estimated to
generate over $800,000 over 10 years. Approximately $375,000 of this amount was spent on the
Phase 1 improvements. The balance of the estimated funding will be available as local match
contributions for future federal state and local grant applications. Potential grant funding sources
include the following grant programs: VTA Local Streets and County Roads fund and
Community Design and Transportation, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation
for Livable Communities, Caltrans Safe Routes to School, Federal Congestion Management and
Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and Transportation Enhancements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan on January 20,
2004 (Resolution 8395). The plan included mitigation that would reduce the identified
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The MND covered the implementation of
the full Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project including the trial and Gunn High School
intersection improvements. The trial project has not changed or worsened traffic conditions to a
level of significance and the conditions are consistent with the previous CEQA analysis.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning and Transportation Commission Report dated 4-30-08
B. Draft Minutes of the April 30, 2008 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting
C. Correspondence to the Planning and Transportation Commission
COURTESY COPIES
Charleston/Arastradero Stakeholders Group
Noreen Likins, Principal, Gunn High School
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
PREPARED BY:
GAYLE LIKENS
Transportation Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD:______________________________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:241:08 Page 5 of 5
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:_____________________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE / KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers