The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-10-19 City Council Agenda Packet 1 10/19/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 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 October 19, 2009 6:00 PM ROLL CALL COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM STUDY SESSION 1. Meeting with Senator Simitian Regarding State and Local Issues 7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter COUNCIL CHAMBERS ATTACHMENT 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 period to 30 minutes. ACTION ITEMS Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, and Council Matters 2. Approval of Final Recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force CMR 402:09 & ATTACHMENT STUDY SESSION 3. Discussion of Federal Legislative Process and Preliminary Development of 2010 Federal Priorities CITY MANAGER COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 14, 2009 September 21, 2009 10/19/09 2 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 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 three minutes per speaker. ACTION ITEMS Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, and Council Matters 4. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Espinosa, Kishimoto, and Schmid Directing Staff to Take Actions to Permit Early Opening of Portion of Byxbee Park ATTACHMENT 5. Review of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Pilot Program at Palo Alto City Hall King Plaza and Make Recommendations for Continuation of the Program CMR 405:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT 6. Adoption of a Resolution Revising Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private, Nonresidential and Residential Construction and Renovation, and Review of Report on Implementation of the City’s Green Building Ordinance CMR 332:09 & ATTACHMENT 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Two Ordinances: (1) Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2008 Edition; and (2) Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the 2008 California Energy Code CMR 267:09 & ATTACHMENT COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 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. THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD WITH THE CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS. 10/19/09 3 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 8. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu, Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Marcie Scott, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio) Employee Organization: Local 521 Service Employees International Union Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 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. ,; City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEP AR'rMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2009 CMR:402:09 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Approval of Final Recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council-appointed Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force is forwarding its recommendations to Council after studying organic materials management issues for six months. The recommendations include short term recommendations for Palo Alto's current compost operation and longer term recommendations which would follow closure of the Palo Alto Landfill. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report ("Report") submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF). 2. Direct staff to implement the short term recommendations for current compost operations contained in the attached BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response (Appendix E of the Report). 3. Provide direction to staff with respect to recommendations (B) through (1) in the Executive Summary of the Report. 4. Confirm direction to staff that commercial garbage disposal at the Palo Alto Landfill is to resume following Council action on the BRTF recommendations. BACKGROUND Council created the BRTF on January 12,2009, directing it to "evaluate and recommend alternatives to address Palo Alto's composting needs." The motion adopted by Council in establishing the BRTF is attached. An amendment adopted with respect to the motion directed "that when the priorities (are) set for the composting facility locations that parklands will be considered as a secondary priority after all other non-parkland options have been pursued." DISCUSSION The short term recommendations of the BRTF relating to current compost operations have been reviewed by staff and that review is contained in Appendix E of the Report. Staff agrees with most of the recommendations and is prepared to implement them, as noted. Staff does not recommend implementing a small number of the recommendations for the reasons stated in Appendix E. CMR:402:09 Page I of 3 With respect to the longer tenn recommendations of the BRTF, staff has not had sufficient time to analyze the recommendations. However, it should be noted that the area referred to as the Embarcadero Road! Airport site in the BR TF Report is part of the Palo Alto Airport and is currently leased to the County of Santa Clara. Any use of this area would require approval from the County of Santa Clara, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and possibly the State Lands Commission. Letters from FAA staff and from the Airport Association on Airport issues are attached (Attachments C and D). Following further direction by Council, staff would provide a more detailed analysis of the long tenn recommendations of the BRTF. Commercial Garbage Disposal On January 12,2009 Council passed a motion containing the following provision: "The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting City Council action on the recommendations of the BRTF." Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial garbage upon action by Council on the BRTF recommendations being forwarded by this CMR. Recommendation #4 above requests continnation of this interpretation. NEXT STEPS The next steps are for staff to implement the appropriate short tenn recommendations and for Council to provide direction to staff with respect to the longer tenn recommendations. RESOURCE IMPACT The resources needed to implement the short tenn recommendations of the BRTF as modified by staff are not large, and some will save the City resources. The resources needed to implement the longer tenn recommendations are very significant and would have to be estimated by staff and or consultants prior to implementation. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The overall recommendations of the BRTF are consistent with the City's Zero Waste Operational Plan and the Baylands Master Plan. The Embarcadero Road/Airport site referred to in the BRTF recommendations is currently leased by the County of Santa Clara for airport related uses. The Council has directed staff to develop a Business Plan for the airport and that plan is being prepared. ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW Accepting the BRTF Report and implementing the short tenn recommendations are exempt under 15301 and 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Some fonn of CEQA review would be needed with respect to the longer tenn recommendations of the BRTF. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (September 2009) Attachment B: January 12, 2009 Council Motion regarding the Compost BRTF Attachment C: September 24, 2009 Letter from FAA Staff CMR:402:09 Page 2 of3 .,.. Attachment D: October 14, 2009 Palo Alto Airport Association Comment" Letter Attachment E: October 13, 2009 JCRC for the Palo Alto Airport Letter PREPARED BY: Fi28: PIDLBOBEL DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:402:09 Page 3 of3 PALO ALTO COMPOST TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2009 Task Force Members Steve Albertolle Craig Barney Maria Coladonato Cedric de La Beaujardiere Jeremy Eddy Hilary Gans Bryan Long Emily Renzel Bob Wenzlau i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary................................................................................................... 1 II. Background................................................................................................................ 3 III. Mission and Criteria................................................................................................... 4 A) Mission.............................................................................................................. 4 B) Criteria.............................................................................................................. 4 IV. Approach of the Task Force..................................................................................... 11 V. Findings and Conclusions........................................................................................ 11 A) Acreage Requirement...................................................................................... 12 B) Composting Technologies .............................................................................. 13 C) Advanced Technologies.................................................................................. 13 D) Ranking Tool .................................................................................................. 15 E) Greenhouse Gasses......................................................................................... 16 F) Economic Impacts........................................................................................... 16 VI. Recommendations and Next Steps........................................................................... 17 A) Short Term Recommendations ....................................................................... 17 B) Recommendations for 2012............................................................................ 19 C) Recommendations for 2015-2021................................................................... 19 D) Next Steps....................................................................................................... 19 VII. Alternatives and “Pros and Cons”............................................................................ 20 A) Short Term (Operational) Alternatives........................................................... 20 B) 2012 Alternatives............................................................................................ 20 C) 2015-2021 Recommendation.......................................................................... 21 Appendix A) Short Term Recommendations of the Task Force and Palo Alto Staff Response B) Airport/Compost Issues C) Integrating Airport and Compost Facilities D) 2021 Location Screening (Task Force) E) Task Force Activities F) Greenhouse Gas Impacts (Bryan Long) G) 2012 Cost Analysis (Aerobic Subcommittee) H) Further Analysis 1 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report September 2009 I. Executive Summary Palo Alto’s Compost Task Force was initiated by City Council on January 12, 2009 and operated from March through September 2009. Its Council-assigned objective was to “evaluate and recommend alternatives to address Palo Alto’s composting needs.” Possible short-term improvements to existing operations were evaluated, as well as longer-term technology projects that might reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate clean energy, and lower rate-payer costs. The Task Force found that very substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions can be achieved by diverting food and other wet organic wastes from landfill disposal, and by moving to advanced energy- recovery technology for our sewage, food, and yard wastes. The Task Force employed an initial screening to establish recommendations for implementation by 2012. The Task Force subsequently used a software based ranking tool to evaluate twelve potential locations and thirteen potential technologies that could be implemented longer term, directed at 2021. The results are somewhat grouped, resulting in five locations and five technologies showing the greatest promise. With a desire to keep parkland as a distinctly secondary option, the Task Force decided to link its short and long term recommendations into a phased approach at a non-parkland site adjacent to the Water Quality Control Plant. Accordingly, the key recommendations of the Task Force are: A) Implement the Short Term Recommendations of the Task Force with respect to current Palo Alto compost operations (Appendix A). B) Begin work to establish an Anaerobic Organics Processing Facility at the Embarcadero Road/Airport Site, with the expectation of bringing it online between 2015 and 2021. 2 C) Install an Aerated Static Pile Compost Facility at the Embarcadero Road/Airport Site by 2012 or as soon thereafter as possible. D) Cease composting at the current location when the Aerated Static Pile facility is ready, or upon cessation of acceptance of yard trimmings due to landfill closure (2012), whichever is sooner. E) Take yard trimmings to the Z-Best facility (Gilroy area) for composting if the Aerated Static Pile facility is not completed by cessation of acceptance of yard trimmings. Corollary recommendations of the task Force are: F) While the Embarcadero Road/Airport is the most promising site at this time, other sites adjacent to the Water Quality Control Plant should also be considered. G) The City should determine, in the near term, the availability of the current commercial sites adjacent to the Water Quality Plant. H) The City should utilize the upcoming Master Planning process for the Water Quality Plant to continue to help analyze the long term (2015-2021) options for organics material management within Palo Alto. I) The City should add residential food scrap collection to the GreenWaste contract as soon as practical. J) The City should include small-scale pilot demonstration projects as part of the process in selecting a long term (2015-2021) technology or technologies. K) City staff should maintain the compost email list and webpage and continue to notify Task Force Members and interested parties of proposed and final actions and activities regarding organic materials management in Palo Alto. While, in the long term, anaerobic processing appears preferable, a final technology selection should depend upon an evaluation of responses to a Request for Information (RFI) and, ultimately a Request for Proposals (RFP). Ultimately, the selection of a suitable solution is an iterative process. Vendors require detailed information regarding potential sites before they can provide accurate cost or design estimates. The Embarcadero Road/Airport site has a number of issues which were identified jointly with the Airport Community and are contained in Appendix B. Should Council decide to have this site fully considered, the next steps would be to: ¾ Develop sufficient preliminary design details to request FAA approval, and ¾ Prepare a companion plan for airport improvements to mitigate composting facility impacts. A rough example of such a plan from several Task Force Members is in Appendix C. 3 Available land is very limited and substantial challenges exist for all studied sites. Because the Task Force evaluated sites and technologies in parallel, acreages and site specific details could not be provided to assist vendors. The Task Force envisions the City soliciting Requests for Proposals to obtain more specific information pertinent to the decision-making process once the location has been selected. Final site selection cannot occur now. Many challenges exist with the Embarcadero Road/Airport Site which must be addressed. The overriding recommendation of the Task Force is to select a technology which minimizes the escape of methane currently occurring, and maximizes the extraction of energy from Palo Alto’s organics. II. Background Palo Alto’s landfill is scheduled to cease waste acceptance in 2012. The current compost facility is located on the landfill site, and is required to cease yard trimmings acceptance shortly thereafter. The current plan, should nothing change, is to transport yard trimmings to Z-Best’s compost facility near Gilroy. Many community members were very reluctant to see this option become reality because of the greenhouse gas emissions generated in transporting material there, and the would be failure of the community to deal with its own residuals. Many of those same community members did not want dedicated parkland (the current site) to continue to be used for composting. This dilemma led to the formation of the Compost Task Force. Finding a suitable site and a suitable technology has proven to be extremely difficult. The City of Palo Alto generates roughly 21,000 tons/year of segregated yard trimmings, 12,000 tons/year of food scraps and 24,000 tons/year of sewage biosolids. All three categories and other unsegregated organics are shown in Figure 1 below. Sources of Organics Other 1% Yard Waste 20% Paper 24%Food 55% Disposed Organics 33% or 22,000 Tons Bio Solids 36% or 24,000 Tons Collected Yard Waste 31% or 21,000 Tons 67,000 Tons Per Year Figure 1 Composition of Disposed Organics 4 III. Mission and Criteria A) Mission The Task Force established the following Mission for itself: “The Compost Task Force mission is to evaluate and recommend alternatives, in accordance with the Council’s 1/12/09 Compost Action, to address Palo Alto’s organics material management needs, within approximately six months. Short term improvements, environmental impacts, economic impacts, permitting, location and energy generation will be addressed. Locations on Palo Alto parkland would be considered as a second priority after all other non-parkland options have been pursued.” The Mission summarized a more detailed directive Council approved when it created the Task Force. In its directive, Council stated that the Task Force shall “evaluate and recommend alternatives to address Palo Alto’s composting needs . . .” The Task Force was specifically directed to evaluate the following: 1. Short Term Improvements to Current Operations 2. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 3. Economic Impacts of Alternatives 4. Permitting of Alternatives 5. Prospective Locations of Alternatives 6. Energy Generation of Alternatives The Council further directed: “that when the priorities are set for the composting facility locations that parklands will be considered as a secondary priority after all other non-parkland options have been pursued.” Council also requested that the Task Force consider all three of the major types of organic residuals: yard trimmings, food scraps and sewage biosolids. B) Criteria The following screening criteria were developed to eliminate alternatives for which further analysis would not be productive: 1. Demonstrated Technology – The process should have been demonstrated, preferably in the United States, at a large enough scale to insure success. 2. Permitability – There should be a reasonable possibility of success in obtaining all needed permits. 3. Diversion Credits – Obtaining credit for diversion from landfilling under AB939 should be possible for the process. 5 4. Acceptable for Yard trimmings – The process should, at a minimum, be effective for yard trimmings. It is highly desirable that it also be effective for food scraps and sewage biosolids. 5. City-Wide Scale – The process should be able to manage yard trimmings at a city-wide scale, approximately 18,000 tons per year. The Task Force researched various options with the goal of recommending a class of alternatives, while refraining from specifying a particular technology. Ultimately, the selection of a suitable solution is an iterative process. Many vendors require detailed information regarding potential sites before they can provide accurate cost or design estimates. Because the Task Force evaluated sites and technologies in parallel, acreages and site specific details could not be provided to assist vendors. The Task Force envisions the City soliciting Requests for Proposals to obtain more specific information pertinent to the decision-making process once the location has been selected. Alternatives were evaluated for two time frames: 2012 and 2015-2021. The first one coincides with Palo Alto Landfill closure. The second one allows enough time for emerging technologies to be vetted and constructed. The above Screening Criteria was used for the 2012 recommendations. To use it for the 2015-2021 recommendations would have screened out alternatives which may well be viable by 2015-2021 as the processes are more fully demonstrated, developed and permitted. Another criteria used for 2012 was timing. If the process could not be developed, permitted and installed by 2012, it was initially screened out. With respect to 2015-2021, criteria were developed based upon Council direction, stakeholder interests, and resources to be protected. These are shown in Figure 2. The criteria were then re-categorized to relate to a) Location (Where?) and b) Type of Process (What?). The “Where” and “What” criteria are shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively. 6 Compost Interests & Criteria Attachment A 3/18/09 Figure 2 Council Direction Stakeholders Interests/ Resources Criteria I. Short term improvements to current composting - neighbors - city staff - compost users - short term impacts - short term cost - compost quality - minimize impacts - minimize net costs - improve compost quality II. Environmental impacts of alternatives: • Footprint • Odor • Dust • Noise • Energy use/generation • GHG emissions • Zero Waste - community - environmental advocates • space • odor • dust • noise • energy • GHGs • air contam. • water use • water contam. • unused residuals • minimize space • minimize odor • minimize dust • minimize noise • minimize energy • minimize GHGs • minimize air contam. • minimize water use • minimize water contam. • minimize unused residuals • diversion from landfill • maximize soil enrichment III. Ability to handle: • Organic materials • Food scraps • Sewage solids • Other solid organics • Reduce source generation • Promote home composting - effective for yard trimmingsorganic materials - effective for food scraps - effective for sewage solids -effective for other organics - proven effectiveness IV. Economic viability - rate payers - General Fund - product marketability - money - financial certainty - minimize net cost - minimize cost fluctuations V. Locations - Open Space advocates - affected land users - nearby park users - habitat - regulatory agencies - park land - infrastructure land (environmental impacts from above) - maximize Byxbee Park creation - maximize buffer zone - minimize park use - minimize neighbor impacts - minimize traffic impacts VI. Permitting/Timing - minimize permit problems - minimize implementation time VII. Other - regulatory agencies - local elected government - organics materials manage. professionals - Civic engagement - business expansion - local self sufficiency - liability - education - free compost - maximize local operations and reuse - minimize risks - degree of education - amount of free compost 7 Figure 3 8 Figure 4 9 Note: Description of Locations 1-12 are found in Appendix D. 10 I Cumulative VVhat Contributions to "What?" in 2021 0.7 ~~-~-~~-~-~~-~-~~-~-~-;0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 > o 1> , , < • • ~ , • , < , D , , < I o ~ , D , • , < • , I u ., •• " •• • ! • " • o • o • , i , o U , • Does it minimize hard_to_dispose products? • Does it minimize land use? • Is the cost low? D Can it be permitted and constructed in time? • Is it eliigible for diversion credits? D Does it minimize other environmental impacts? • Does it minimize resource use? • Is it flexible to handle waste types well? • Does it minimize GHG? Cumulative VVhat Contributions to "What?" in 2021 0.7 ~~-~-~~-~-~~-~-~~-~-~-;0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 > o ~ , , < • • ~ , • , < , o , , < I o ~ , o , • , < • , I u • . , • ~ , • ~ ., •• ] • • • • • • ~ , • ~ ! • w ! • • o • o ,~ i , o U o ., , ., • , • Does it minimize hard_to_dispose products? • Does it minimize land use? • Is the cost low? o Can it be permitted and constructed in time? • Is it eliigible for diversion credits? D Does it minimize other environmental impacts? • Does it minimize resource use? • Is it flexible to handle waste types well? • Does it minimize GHG? 11 IV. Approach of the Task Force The City established a website to make available to the public informational documents which were prepared or used by the Task Force. The group met regularly every two weeks for six months. The Task Force was coordinated by Steve Emslie, Assistant City Manager and Phil Bobel, Environmental Compliance Manager. There were no significant consultant resources available so the Task Force divided into three research groups to study the available technologies - aerobic, anaerobic, and high technology. The lack of consultant resources dictated that most of the analysis be qualitative and not quantitative. This limited the extent to which the Task Force could implement the Council directive to conduct analysis. The Task Force held a half day Technology Seminar at which several experts presented information and at which each of the subcommittees reported its findings. In addition the entire Task Force toured the composting facility at Byxbee Park and the Aerobic Subcommittee toured the Z-Best facility. Staff Member Ken Torke provided a decision support software program through which each Task Force member could rank sites and technologies. The output from this exercise helped focus the Task Force and expedite decision making. As the Council did not provide broad consulting support to augment the Task Force’s analysis, this resource limitation caused the Task Force’s efforts to be developed from a more principled approach than a rigorous analytic approach. Given that the resources were not available for rigorous analysis, the Task Force’s approach was to become informed of technologies, attributes of locations, and considerations that informed the criteria that were applied. The Task Force enjoyed a broad skill base that included knowledge of Palo Alto’s land use, solid waste management, finance and accounting and greenhouse gas emissions. As such, this principled approach allowed examining and ranking alternatives drawing upon understandings gained across the term of the Task Force’s service. Only when a recommendation was made toward the Embarcadero/Airport Site did the level of analysis shift to consider more detailed site specific elements. A chronology of Task Force activities is found in Appendix E. V. Findings and Conclusions This section presents a chronological review of the results of the Task Force’s work and serves to answer some of the questions that may arise while reading the overall report. During the Task Force’s six months together, numerous studies have been performed and findings indicate there are many facets, most of them intertwined, to be considered. For example: preservation of natural resources and parkland, the need and desire to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions, and the potential for harvesting more useful by-products, beyond compost, from processing our organic materials such as capturing gasses emitted by decaying matter to produce biofuels or electricity to power vehicles or buildings. 12 An important realization was that “sequestering” carbon, or storing carbon in solid forms so that the carbon molecules do not escape into the air, can take many forms. (See Appendix F). For example, 30% of the carbon contained in yard trimmings is lost as CO2 to the atmosphere as the plants decompose during the composting process. Over time the finished compost applied in the soil decomposes further and emits more CO2. However, regular application of compost increases the total carbon sequestered in the soil, making composting a way to reduce total CO2 released to the atmosphere. If any of the organic materials is missed during the collection process it ends up in landfill and the closed, oxygen-free environment turns it into methane, an even worse outcome (See Appendix F) with respect to GHG. Upon further study, the Task Force realized that organic materials from food scraps (vegetable scraps, fruit rinds, coffee grounds, oily pizza boxes, etc.) present an even greater problem of methane generation in the landfill. Diverting food scraps from the landfill would add volume to local composting operations to improve economies of scale, and would increase both the amount of carbon sequestered and methane avoided. The new GreenWaste Management contract requires that they begin picking up food scraps from multi-family dwellings and commercial enterprises that enroll in this program. While this commercial portion could represent approximately two thirds of the food scrap volume, it may require additional promotion to get 100% participation. Many cities are now offering single-family collection programs which greatly increases the effectiveness of diversion of carbon based materials away from the landfill and subsequent conversion into methane. Based on discussions with Z-Best, food scraps can add complications to composting such as vector control and eliminating some potential commercial uses. This issue is greatly mitigated by utilizing covered static piles which protect and cover the composting material throughout the conversion process, limiting vectors, particulate matter being released into the air, and odors. We recommend the city consider amending the GreenWaste agreement and add this service for pick up in residential green bins as soon as possible. By increasing the potential volume of compostable material stream with residential food scraps and biosolids from the sewage plant, the higher volume (in tons per year or TPY) was then supplied to vendors representing different technologies for determining Palo Alto’s potential use of various technologies for composting. As detailed elsewhere in this report, three sub-committees were formed that studied publicly available consulting studies prepared for other cities, websites, articles and contacting vendors to determine if they met our criteria and what their processes might be. While the process and outcome are detailed elsewhere in the report, the following are some findings and conclusions related to “What” we do: A) Acreage Requirement The acreage requirement for almost all technologies is about 4-6 acres. They require space for trucks to dump the material, for grinding and loading, for removal of the finished product and reloading into trucks. Some advanced technologies claim to use less than 4 acres; however the Task Force did not see clear evidence to support this. An outside expert consultant (Jim Binder) 13 pointed out that cost minimization and efficiency maximization result when the site supports a straight path from beginning to end as opposed to having to create artificial turns to fit a smaller or oddly shaped location. B) Composting Technologies Research on the state of composting technologies indicated that current operations could be significantly improved both in terms of quality of output and diversity of materials processed, by changing to an enclosed system. Enclosing the operation speeds the decomposition process, minimizes odor and release of particulate matter into the air and vector issues while improving the quality of the final product. This can range from open aerated static piles where forced air is used to speed decomposition, to enclosed static piles where the organic matter is covered to capture the water and heat produced to speed the process and minimize exposure of dust, odor and access to vectors. The cost of aerated static piles is also much lower since it involves a simple cement floor, aeration pipes, blowers and biofilters and covering material. For Palo Alto’s organics stream an aerated static pile system would cost approximately $2.5 million. C) Advanced Technologies There are few commercial facilities with operating permits in North America for advanced technologies such as wet anaerobic, low heat carbon cracking technology for bio char production, or higher heat incineration called pyrolysis or gasification. Bio char was identified early in our process as a very promising because the carbon sequestering capability is very high. Using low heat incineration, wood and trimmings are effectively turned into charcoal which can then be ground and used as a soil amendment. The charcoal sequesters the carbon for a much longer period of time than compost and is very beneficial as a soil amendment. All of these technologies, while very promising, are still in the early adoption phase where multiple vendors seems to have a unique approach and standards are not widely accepted. Comparing the technologies involves comparing vendors which makes the process dependent on individual vendor cooperation. Presently, large city operations such as New York, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Santa Barbara are getting much attention as they evaluate these technologies. However, no final decisions have yet been made for these jurisdictions. For example, San Jose has announced that Harvest/Bekon may build an anaerobic compost operation on Zanker Road in San Jose. The outputs of the process will be compost, gas for combustion to generate electricity or for liquefaction for use in cars. Bekon is an experienced German company that has operations throughout Europe and other parts of the world. It is important to note that Europe’s cost of energy and electricity are significantly higher than current US costs and thus the return on investment is much greater. The Task Force expects US oil prices to increase driving energy and transportation costs higher. This would make the economics more similar to Europe and anaerobic composting would become more attractive over the next several years. 14 Other advanced high temperature technologies are beginning to come on line and were also evaluated. These technologies involve incineration at higher temperatures and use the heat from burning the resultant synthetic gases to generate electricity. The heat is high enough to change the molecular structure of the waste so that the byproduct is a non-toxic ash that can be used in road beds or disposed of in landfills. These technologies are only efficient if used to incinerate the whole spectrum of municipal waste that presently ends up in landfill including non-recyclable plastics, rubber, tires, medical waste and other waste streams that currently end up in landfill. Adoption of these technologies as a way to reach landfill diversion goals has been further complicated by competing bills in the California legislature regarding the types of technologies that qualify for diversion credit. One legislative proposal states that once a city is recycling more than 50% of potential materials, it can use advanced technologies to process municipal solid waste (trash and organic materials) and receive diversion credits. The second proposal requires a minimum of 75% recycling before advanced technologies qualify for diversion credit. Once this debate is finalized there may be a way for Palo Alto to work independently or with surrounding cities to utilize its entire municipal waste stream for diversion credit which would greatly increase the contribution of composting and waste disposal to the city’s goal of 100% GHG reduction. Given the state of this industry, and the timing of the GreenWaste Management contract, significant developments in this area are likely to be 7-10 years out. However, given permitting, contracting and implementation timing this is an area that Palo Alto needs to begin studying soon. The logical progression of technology usage over time could flow as follows: 1. Yard trimmings plus the addition of food scraps and possibly biosolids in a simple covered aerated static pile operation 2. Increased recycling efforts to reach 75% or greater of waste stream 3. Anaerobic digestion of organic materials 4. Use of advanced gasification technologies to minimize landfilling and generate significant power for the City using the municipal waste stream currently being sent to landfills. An additional consideration, and part of the theme “What we do is more important than where we do it”, is working with San Jose, Oakland or another regional municipality and take our compostable stream to their anaerobic facility. This would provide an opportunity to move the technology forward and support development of the Task Force’s recommended anaerobic processing. 15 For example, the geographical center of Palo Alto from a garbage collection and transportation perspective (See GreenWaste Management Contract) is Silva Avenue. Relevant distances for hauling follow: ¾ Distance to San Jose Zanker and Los Esteros Road locations: 12.5 miles ¾ Distance to Embarcadero Road site: 4.7 miles ¾ Net additional miles: 7.8 The downsides to teaming with San Jose could be the loss of long term control, the loss of negotiating power (i.e. small fish – big pond), and the loss of leadership that historically has benefitted Palo Alto. D) Ranking Tool As for the “Where” side of this discussion, the tool for the Task Force’s ranking process are described and the output are included in this package. While no tool is perfect, the Task Force considered the tool a significant decision making aid and considered the following important factors: 1. Personal values: The Task Force members came with a set of core values that consciously or unconsciously would be included in the process. The decision making tool acknowledged this and allowed people to express their values so that they would be both visible to all but also weighted equally for each person. Thus the loudest voice or the most stubborn had no more weight than the quietest. 2. Breadth of choices: The tool allowed unlimited choices for selection. Thus several meetings were spent debating the precise definition of what “adjacent to the Water Quality Plant” meant or whether the old Los Altos treatment plant was a viable option for selection and so on. Adjacency to the water treatment plant was discussed throughout the months because there was appealing vacant land around it. City staff indicated it may be easier to secure permits in this area. Further, the Water Quality Plant would be a ready consumer of any power produced from any of the advanced technologies and has a ready supply of recycled water which could be used without the use of any incremental GHG’s to produce water if needed for the composting process. 3. The outcome of the ranking process reinforced a choice near the Water Quality Plant and gave it credibility among Task Force members. The locations surrounding the water treatment plant clustered very clearly at the top. Locations utilizing parkland did not do as well. Locations which seemed unfeasible or impractical compared to others came out lower, increasing confidence in the ranking tool. 16 E) Greenhouse Gasses Substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions can be achieved first by diverting food and other wet organic wastes from landfill disposal, and then by moving to advanced anaerobic digestion technology for our biosolids, food scraps, and yard wastes. Non-local transport of our organic wastes contributes to GHG emissions, but as can be seen from the chart below, how we process our organic wastes matters much more than where that processing occurs. Food scraps and other moisture-rich compostable wastes quickly decompose in landfills, releasing substantial methane gas long before methane recovery systems are in place. Achieving the contract collection target of our new commercial, institutional, and multi- family residence (C/I/M) food scraps program will reduce methane emissions by at least 6,000 and as much as 15,000 metric tons (mT) of CO2 equivalent, depending on emissions model assumptions. Surpassing our collection target or implementing a single-family foodwaste collection program would reduce GHG emissions even more. The use of Advanced Anaerobic Digestion (AAD) facility to process our wastewater sludge, C/I/M foodwaste, and collected yard wastes would reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 14,000 mT of CO2 equivalent. A 50% increase of total foodwaste collections (from the current target of 9,000 mT) would result in an additional reduction of between 6,300 and 16,200 mT of CO2e. Together, these steps could reduce our city’s GHG emissions by 2% to 4% from the total emissions estimated in the Palo Alto Climate Action Plan. It should be investigated whether some of this might qualify for carbon credit sales under the emerging GHG Cap and Trade legislation. F) Economic Impacts Due to the complex nature of the technologies, the proprietary nature of vendor information, and the lack of sufficient time, the Task Force was not able to complete a quantitative economic analysis of alternatives. The Aerobic Subcommittee completed initial work on the current Palo Alto compost operation and the Z-Best (Gilroy) alternative and this work is contained in Appendix G. A preliminary cost analysis of an aerated static pile operation at the Embarcadero Road/Airport site for 2012 was begun by Task Force members but engineering estimates do not yet exist. The next step City staff would have 17 to take for this alternative is to prepare an engineering estimate, should Council so direct staff. With respect to the 2015-2021 recommendations, engineering cost estimates of the alternatives do not exist. Such estimates would have to be made as part of a facilities planning process, which is one of the recommendations of the Task Force. VI. Recommendations and Next Steps A) Short Term Recommendations The following recommendations are being made with respect to current operations at the Palo Alto compost facility. It is recommended that these be implemented within 45 days of acceptance by Council: 1. Transition from potable to reclaimed water saving approximately 3,700,000 gallons per year of potable water. 2. Suspend sale of blends and only sell pure compost - Blends are mixture of finished compost with imported materials like sand to create additional landscaping materials. The blends are not achieving the goal to move finished compost, especially since commercial disposal has been discontinued at the disposal site, and those commercial contractors were a primary customer. The yard has a throughput of about 600 tons per year at $160 per ton. 3. Instead of utilizing chips for hog fuel with the requisite hauling to the Central Valley, use the chips as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) until the landfill closes. (Estimated at 2,800 tons per year based on 2009 numbers.) 4. Limit Size of Finished Compost Stockpile - While the current excessive size of the stockpile may be an anomaly based on the economy, a limit will dictate actions before it becomes a nuisance as was observed by the Task Group during the site visit. The maximum stockpiled amount should not exceed 6,500 tons until 6 months prior to cessation of acceptance of yard trimmings as part of the landfill closure. At that time, the maximum amount stockpiled can rise to the amount needed for landfill closure. 5. Reduce Dust - The estimated 8,625 to 11,500 tons of compost material needed for landfill closure should be managed to mitigate particulate loss, including covering it, if necessary. 6. Increase the throughput of Finished Compost to Market: ¾ Enhance convenience and expand availability of free compost for Palo Alto residents. (For example more convenient pickup locations in town and more frequent or continuous availability of finished compost.) ¾ Review the pricing range (current price to free) of Palo Alto compost to improve the flow of material to the commercial market. 18 7. Improve space utilization toward 7.5 acres or less with a consolidated footprint, for example: ¾ Locate all the materials handling operations (e.g., screening, finished product storage, blending) closer together in the 7.5 acre footprint and closer to the windrows to reduce transportation. ¾ Investigate combining windrows as volumes decrease. ¾ Limit width to 10 feet between windrows (width of the loader bucket) to minimize area used. ¾ Maximize the length of the windrows for land use efficiency. 8. Enhance the final product by initiating improved protocol for compost operations. For example: ¾ Materials need to move through the process on a clear and regular cycle. This better serves commercial customers that can more easily use a predictable and dependable supply. ¾ If the regular cycle cannot be maintained due to equipment breakdown or lack of personnel, then material should be diverted to SMaRT/Z-Best. ¾ Add 100 gpm of reclaimed water at the grinder to enhance quality. ¾ Grind directly into a trailer or A-T dump truck to deliver material to the windrows. ¾ Increase water during windrow processing to 60% moisture content to enhance quality. ¾ Turn more frequently 2x/week, minimum 1x/week 9. Contain composting cost by examining outside expenditures. Recommendations include: ¾ Proactively send organic materials overflows to SMaRT station vs. Half Moon Bay ¾ Avoid contracting out grinding services. 19 B) Recommendations for 2012 1. Install an Aerated Static Pile Compost Facility at the Embarcadero Road/Airport Site by 2012 or as soon thereafter as possible. 2. Cease composting at the current location when the Aerated Static Pile facility is ready, or upon cessation of acceptance of yard trimmings due to landfill closure (2012), whichever is sooner. 3. Take yard trimmings to the Z-Best facility (Gilroy areas) for composting if the Aerated State Pile facility is not completed by cessation of acceptance of yard trimmings. 4. Seek ways to increase commercial/multifamily food scrap collection and implement a single family food scrap collection program. C) Recommendations for 2015-2021 It is recommended that Palo Alto begin work to establish an Anaerobic Organics Processing Facility at the Embarcadero Road/Airport Site, with the expectation of bringing it online between 2015 and 2021. However, it is not recommended that the other technologies be ruled out now. Rather, it is recommended that the process described in D(3) (below) be followed which would ultimately result in final selection of the 2015-2021 technology. D) Next Steps The next steps suggested by the Task Force to implement the Task Force recommendations are: 1. With respect to the Short Term (Operational) Recommendations, Palo Alto staff should prepare and execute a brief Implementation Plan, reporting the outcome to Council as soon as practical. 2. Council should direct Staff to prepare a timeline for execution of the Task Force’s 2012 Recommendation – Aerated Static Piles on the Embarcadero Road/Airport Site. The key components of that timeline are: a. Resolution of the following issues and tasks associated with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site: ¾ Roadway relocation ¾ Airport operations ¾ Future airport needs ¾ Existing utilities, easements and access ¾ Visual screening ¾ Baylands habitat protection b. County, FAA, Corps of Engineers, and State Lands discussions and issue resolution c. CEQA documentation 20 d. Obtaining needed permits e. Facilities planning f. Design g. Construction h. Operations commencement 3. Council should direct staff to begin work on the Task Force’s 2015-2021 recommendations immediately following resolution of issues contained in 2.a above. Assuming that the issues associated with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site are resolved, and Council determines that the site should be used for Organics Materials Management, a facilities planning process for that site for 2015-2021 should be initiated. The first step will be consultant selection for preparation of a facilities plan and CEQA documents, and an RFP for design and construction. The RFP process would result in final selection of a particular technology, insuring that developments in technology which occur in the next several years are fully considered at the time Palo Alto makes its final decision. VII. Alternatives and “Pros and Cons” A) Short Term (Operational) Alternatives The alternative to the Immediate Recommendations is to continue current practices. City Staff have agreed to the majority of the recommendations and most result in cost savings or small cost increases. Therefore a detailed discussion of “Pros and Cons” is not provided here. The City Staff response (Appendix A) explains the reasons that some of the recommendations are not being targeted for implementation. B) 2012 Alternatives 1. Recommended Alternative: Aerated Static Piles at Embarcadero Road/Airport Site. Pros: ¾ Avoids use of parkland ¾ Proximity to current site should facilitate permitting ¾ Fewer emissions than current operation (windrows) ¾ Continues composting locally avoiding impacts on neighbors ¾ Avoids CO2 and toxic diesel emissions from trucking to Gilroy area ¾ Can accommodate food scraps Cons: ¾ More costly than Z-Best facility near Gilroy ¾ Uses land desired by Airport users 21 ¾ Issues associated with proximity to Airport and Baylands ¾ Unlikely able to be ready when needed (2012) 2. Fall-back Alternative: Z-Best Windrow Composting (Gilroy) Pros: ¾ Avoids use of parkland ¾ Lower cost than Palo Alto facility ¾ Certain to be available and ready on time ¾ Produces compost similar to current Palo Alto facility Cons: ¾ CO2 and toxic diesel emissions from trucking to Gilroy area ¾ Organics sent to another community, impacting them ¾ Windrow composting emissions greater than aerated static piles 3. Continuing Current Operations Alternative (Not Recommended) (Note: The Task Force specifically recommended against this alternative.) Pros: ¾ Continues composting locally ¾ Avoids CO2 and toxic diesel emissions from trucking to Gilroy area ¾ Likely substantially easier to secure permits than the Embarcadero Road/Airport site ¾ Likely to be ready when needed (2012) Cons: ¾ Uses parkland ¾ Windrow composting emissions greater than aerated static piles C) 2015-2021 Recommendation 1. Anaerobic Organics Composting at the Embarcadero Road/Airport site. (Recommended Alternative) Pros: ¾ Avoids use of parkland ¾ Proximity to Water Quality Control Plant should facilitate permitting and operations ¾ Fewer emissions than current operation (windrows) ¾ Continue composting locally avoiding impacts on neighbors ¾ Avoids CO2 and toxic diesel emissions from trucking elsewhere ¾ Produces both energy (methane) and compost ¾ Less energy required than high-temperature processing ¾ Less costly than high-temperature processing Cons: ¾ More costly than aerobic composting ¾ Uses land desired by Airport users 22 ¾ Substantial issues associated with proximity to Airport, Baylands, and Water Quality Control Plant ¾ Process does not control emissions at the same level as other energy producing technologies 2. Other Energy Producing Technologies (Note: The Task Force does not recommend ruling these out. Rather, the Task Force recommends a selection process in which the City makes a final choice once the location is finalized.) Pros: ¾ Potentially fewer emissions than aerobic or anaerobic composting ¾ Avoids use of parkland ¾ Proximity to Water Quality Control Plant should facilitate permitting and operations ¾ Continue composting locally avoiding impacts on neighbors ¾ Avoids CO2 and toxic diesel emissions from trucking elsewhere Cons: ¾ Less likely to receive diversion credits than anaerobic composting, but quite possible ¾ Consumes more energy than aerobic or anaerobic composting ¾ More costly than aerobic or anaerobic composting ¾ Uses land desired by Airport users ¾ Substantial issues associated with proximity to Airport, Baylands, and Water Quality Control Plant 3. Other Non-parkland Locations at and/or Adjacent to the Water Quality Control Plant (Note: While the Task Force identified the Embarcadero Road/Airport Site as the top choice, all non-parkland sites at or adjacent to the Water Quality Control Plant scored almost the same in the ranking exercise. Site geometry may, however, impact the feasibility of particular options.) Pros: ¾ Synergies with Water Quality Control Plant operations ¾ Same type of land use as Water Quality Control Plant ¾ Area already has industrial activities Cons: ¾ Depending on exact configuration, proximity to Airport, neighboring businesses, Baylands, and Water Quality Control Plant will all be issues ¾ Purchase of land could be an issue 4. Regional Locations (San Jose, Gilroy, and others) (Note: Currently advanced technologies are not available at Regional sites, although GreenWaste is considering one in San Jose – 12 freeway miles from Palo Alto. Palo Alto should fully evaluate this option, should it become available. 23 Pros: ¾ Could be less costly than a smaller Palo Alto facility due to economies of scale ¾ Would not take up Palo Alto parkland or other Palo Alto land Cons: ¾ CO2 and toxic diesel emissions from trucking ¾ Organics sent to another community, impacting them Appendix A-1 Palo Alto Staff Response to Short Term Recommendations 1) Transition from potable to reclaimed water saving approximately 3,700,000 gallons per year of potable water. Staff has concerns about fecal coliform bacteria and higher salt content from the use of reclaimed water and the resulting quality impact to the finished compost. However, Staff accepts the recommendation with the condition that reclaimed water be used at the composting facility exclusively until such time (if any) that testing shows that reclaimed water is contaminating the compost with unacceptable levels of salts or bacteria or, if sales of compost are affected by reduced quality of finished material. 2) Suspend sale of blends and only sell pure compost - Blends are mixture of finished compost with imported materials like sand to create additional landscaping materials. The blends are not achieving the goal to move finished compost, especially since commercial disposal has been discontinued at the disposal site, and those commercial contractors were a primary customer. The yard has a throughput of about 600 tons per year at $160 per ton. Staff accepts the recommendation for the following reasons: 1) the volume of compost sold from the material yard has been impacted by the suspension of commercial refuse disposal at the landfill that has resulted in commercial customers not hauling back compost from the facility, and 2) it is a costly and labor intensive operation whose profit is marginal. Furthermore, Staff believes that the materials yard operation can be discontinued with only minimal interruption in compost sales. The blended material does account for 17% of the overall sales so projected revenue will be reduced. 3) Instead of utilizing chips for hog fuel with the requisite hauling to the Central Valley, use the chips as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) until the landfill closes. (Estimated at 2,800 tons per year based on 2009 numbers.) Staff is already using chips as well as other ground green material for ADC. Staff accepts the recommendation and agrees that ADC is a less expensive final disposition than transporting the chips to the Central Valley for hog fuel, as long as ADC is counted as diversion in accordance with AB939. 4) Limit Size of Finished Compost Stockpile - While the current excessive size of the stockpile may be an anomaly based on the economy, a limit will dictate actions before it becomes a nuisance as was observed by the Task Group during the site visit. The maximum stockpiled amount should not exceed 6,500 tons until 6 months prior to cessation of acceptance of yard trimmings as part of the landfill closure. At that time, the maximum amount stockpiled can rise to the amount needed for landfill closure. Staff accepts the recommendation and agrees that 11,500 tons can be a viable finished compost stockpile limit with the existing operation. The current finished compost stockpile was recently measured to be approximately 6,500 cubic yards APPENDIX A Appendix A-2 5) Reduce Dust - The estimated 8,625 to 11,500 tons of compost material needed for landfill closure should be managed to mitigate particulate loss, including covering it, if necessary. It should be noted that the compost that will be used in the closure will not be produced until late 2010. Staff agrees to continue implementing dust control measures in accordance with our facility’s BAAQMD permit which include such protocols as water suppression or other measures as necessary to stay in compliance with Air District particulate emission standards. 6) Increase the throughput of Finished Compost to Market- a) Enhance convenience and expand availability of free compost for Palo Alto residents. (For example more convenient pickup locations in town and more frequent or continuous availability of finished compost.) b) Review the pricing range (current price to free) of Palo Alto compost to improve the flow of material to the commercial market. Staff acknowledges that throughput has been slow of late due to lack of landscaping projects from the recession, drought, and the commercial disposal ban (trucks not picking up compost after they drop off). Staff agrees with the recommendation to add more free giveaway days for residents (currently there are 5 per year). Staff will also evaluate whether significant volume discounts should be implemented to promote bulk sales when finished compost supplies are large. 7) Improve space utilization toward 7.5 acres or less with a consolidated footprint, for example: a) Locate all the materials handling operations (e.g., screening, finished product storage, blending) closer together in the 7.5 acre footprint and closer to the windrows to reduce transportation. b) Investigate combining windrows as volumes reduce. c) Limit width to 10 feet between windrows (width of the loader bucket) to minimize area used. d) Maximize the length of the windrows for land use efficiency. Staff believes that the current 7.5 acre footprint is optimized for its equipment, traffic flow and operation. The current windrows lengths, volumes, orientations, and spacing are designed for the specifications of the Scarab windrow turner. Staff believes that combining windrows should be accomplished when the scarab is down. Staff will implement the 10 feet width between windrows. Staff believes that for safety purposes and operational flexibility the option needs to be kept open for placement of only the finished compost pile outside of the 7.5 acres. Appendix A-3 8) Enhance the final product by initiating improved protocol for compost operations. For example: a) Materials need to move through the process on a clear and regular cycle. This better serves commercial customers that can more easily use a predictable and dependable supply. Staff believes that the compost produced by Palo Alto is already very high quality and the materials move through the process on a clear and regular cycle. An exception to this cycle occurred last year when there were excessive and unexpected equipment breakdowns during the year. b) If the regular cycle cannot be maintained due to equipment breakdown or lack of personnel, then material should be diverted to SmaRT/ZBest. Staff agrees that the curbside collected material should be diverted to SMaRT if equipment problems warrant it and have already been implementing that system within the last year. On two intervals in FY 08/09 staff instructed PASCO to take green material directly to the SMaRT station. c) Add 100 gpm of reclaimed water at the grinder to enhance quality. Staff believes that the finished compost produced by the site is already a high quality product and would not need further enhancement of this type. In addition the site does not have the equipment to input this large amount of water during processing. d) Grind directly into a trailer or A-T dump truck to deliver material to the windrows. Staff believes that moving the portable grinder adjacent to the new windrows and pushing the material in place is the most efficient way of delivering material from the ground pile to the windrows. Also, the windrow pad is not comprised of baserock and a truck would not be able to be used during the wet season. e) Increase water during windrow processing to 60% moisture content to enhance quality. Staff believes that the finished compost produced by the site is already a high-quality product and would not need further enhancement of this type. Very wet compost (55 to 60%) can become heavy and clumpy, making its application more difficult and delivery more expensive. A preferred moisture percent for finished compost is 40 -50% (Test Methods & Parameters from the US Composting Council, 2009). f) Turn more frequently 2x/week, minimum 1x/week Staff accepts this recommendation and agrees that this could be accomplished with minimal cost and some benefit. 9) Contain composting cost by examining outside expenditures. Recommendations include: Appendix A-4 a) Proactively send organic materials overflows to SMaRT station vs. Half Moon Bay b) Avoid contracting out grinding services. Staff accepts this recommendation and agrees that overflows to SMaRT is the most cost efficient way to manage excess green material. As mentioned earlier, staff is already doing this. Staff accepts this recommendation and advises that we will only utilize contractor services when equipment problems occur or if landfill labor is in short supply. Appendix B-1 PRIORITIZED Airport/Compost Issues [August 27, 2009-Subcommittee Meeting Results] A) Safety Issues 1. Compost would attract birds 2. Compost too close to Heliport 3. The proposal forces reduced separation between fixed-wing and helicopters B) Approval Issues 1. FAA must approve – may take several years, if possible at all 2. County must approve or give up lease – will be difficult C) Land is Needed for Other Purposes 1. Overflow area for landing helicopters 2. Tie-downs so taxiway can be enlarged 3. Hangers 4. Terminal Building D) Economic Viability of Airport 1. Should not “jump ahead” of Economic Plan now being prepared NEXT STEPS 1. Prepare sufficient detail about the proposal to: a. Demonstrate resolution of safety issues b. Request approval from FAA/County 2. Find solution to Airport facility needs APPENDIX B Appendix B-2 Airport/Compost Issues Identified at 7/29/09 Compost Task Force Meeting & Modified at 8/18/09 Subcommittee Meeting Federal and County Requirements ¾ FAA must approve any non-airport use (per grants received by the Airport) ¾ Cannot cease airport use prior to 2026- otherwise FAA Grant repayment required ¾ Use of land must be consistent with safety plan (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission and FAA approvals of safety plan revisions needed) ¾ FBOs have leases until 2017 The 4-Acre Site is Need For: ¾ Tie-downs so taxiway can be enlarged ¾ New heliport site (safety) ¾ “Overflow” landing site with respect to current site ¾ New hangars ¾ New terminal/administration building ¾ Allow separation between fixed wing and helicopter operations ¾ Changes will be very expensive Helicopter Pad ¾ Compost pile proximity to pad - too close; downwash would create dust and debris Wildlife and Hazards ¾ Compost pile would attract animals and birds (including geese) – hazard to airplane engines ¾ Land is occupied by burrowing owls – endangered species National Defense Issues ¾ Civil Air Patrol functions are located at the Airport Visual Impact ¾ Compost Facility would detract from appearance of the area. City of Palo Alto ¾ City is working on a business plan ¾ Financial issues ¾ “No Intensification” Policy and “no expansion into open space” have prevented use of site ¾ The County’s Lease Expires 2017 – Palo Alto may take over operations then ¾ Transition of the airport to Palo Alto may or may not occur even earlier in 2012 –very uncertain Degree of Use of Palo Alto Airport ¾ Regional and busy airport that is greatly needed ¾ Should not drive air-traffic to other airports ¾ Airport is a Regional “Reliever” for other airport traffic ¾ Council supports airport ¾ New buildings and facilities badly needed Compost Final Report ¾ Should identify options and pros/cons Working Together ¾ Compost could produce methane which could ultimately be a source of fuel Appendix C-1 Date: 9/09/2009 To: Palo Alto City Council From: Craig Barney, Co-chair of Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force Cedric de La Beaujardiere, Co-chair of Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force Bob Wenzlau, Member Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force Subject: A Suggested Integration of the Proposed Composting and Airport Facilities That Mitigates Airport Land Loss by Enhancing Facilities The Blue Ribbon Task Force identified the Embarcadero/Airport site as the recommended location for continued local management of organics in Palo Alto. The Council invited the Task Force to further consider this recommendation during the study session, and subsequently initiated discussions with advocates for the Palo Alto Airport. The development of the integration approach described herein was motivated by a request of several council members to seek a compatible land use arrangement between the airport and compost operations. This memo offers a potential arrangement of an airport that accommodates compost operations, improves the environmental footprint, and provides for needed development of airport facilities. This approach was developed by Bob Wenzlau, Craig Barney and Cedric de La Beaujardiere who served on the Task Force and also on the airport subcommittee that was formed to address concerns introduced by airport advocates when the compost site was announced. This memo was not adopted by the Task Force or the Task Force’s Airport Subcommittee. However, the concepts within this memo were discussed by the Task Force, and time constraints to achieve the Council’s schedule prevented the Task Force’s full consideration and approval. The genesis of this approach formed around the concerns introduced and prioritized by the airport advocates and the Task Force Subcommittee. Those concerns are found in attachment to this memo. Among the concerns, and top ranked were the following: • Maintenance of safety of operations. • Loss of helicopter landing that occurs on the undeveloped land. • Maintaining tie-down capacity for airplanes • Provision for a variety of improvements including improved and expanded heliport, terminal and taxi-way. The airport advocates held an interest in maintaining and growing the airport including use of the same four undeveloped acres targeted for composting. During discussions, there was concern that the inherent loss of airport lands proved irreconcilable within the short time frame to achieve a mutually agreeable approach. Ultimately the airport APPENDIX C Appendix C-2 advocates felt that there should be better alternatives given the concerns raised. This memo, never the less, seeks to respond to Council’s request to create an integrated approach. The proposed plan was informed by several premises: • The airport should improve safety, including taxiways and heliports. • The solution should contribute to, and not harm, the financial viability of the airport. • The airport should improve its environmental sustainability measurement. • The terminals should be replaced and better integrated with other airport facilities. • Any disruption to adjoining land uses should be minimized including disturbing the parks and the golf course. There were several observations made by the authors that informed this plan. Current helicopter landing are not consistent with existing aviation design requirements, and undeveloped land has been informally used as a second substandard landing site. We also learned that any terminal must exist between an automobile parking area and the taxi-way to facilitate safe access to passengers. Additionally, numerous tie-downs on the County lease portion of the airport (north side) are unoccupied. While this may be a manifestation of the economy or the County’s pricing strategy, the vacancies presented land that might be applied to a solution. A proposed solution would have a physical component (the airport/compost layout), and an organizational component (the financial and organization elements). The physical component is framed by land use, safety, and the environment, while the organizational component is framed by economic viability of the airport and its organizational framework. Physical Layout: A proposed layout, shown on Figure 1 and 2, achieves an approach toward the physical layout accommodating the composting operations and allowing for improvements sought by airport advocates: • A new expanded terminal building located just south of the control tower and east of a road serving airport and golf facilities and an existing parking lot. (Shown as red outlined structure on Figure 1) • A new heliport area providing capacity for two helicopters, and likely improving safety by moving the location away from the proposed compost / existing duck pond area, and allowing for a helicopter-safety-compliant area. Figure 1. Detail of New Terminal (T) and Heliports (H) near Existing Tower Appendix C-3 • Improvements resulting in five increased tie downs: 23 tie-downs are eliminated near the tower to accommodate the heliport and new terminal, but 28 new tie- downs are created at the site of the existing terminal (that would be rebuilt in this proposal.) • The improvements do not address the taxiways or hangars, but neither do they impose any restrictions on achieving this. In fact, an airport advocate suggested hangars could be added north of the control tower, an area near the proposed new terminal location. • The improvement uses no golf course or park property. Furthermore, proposed improvements utilize existing roadways and parking lots, both of which appear underutilized. The arrangement achieves integration of terminal and airport operations by placing them on the common access road to the golf course and airport. The existing fuel terminal remains and is undisturbed. Figure 2: Location of Improved Terminal and Proposed Composting Site (with shifted Embarcadero Road) Compost Improvement Area Airport Improvement Area Appendix C-4 Organizational Considerations: Integrating compost and airport operations provides organizational and financial advantages. We anticipated many changes after the city takes ownership, changes that can trigger accommodation of compost operations. As suggested by one of the airport advocates, the compost operation by the City could be designated a new Fixed Base Operator (FBO). When the FBO (in this case the compost operation) pays land rent to the general fund, the land rent could contribute to airport overhead, such as long-term funding of new terminals and heliports. These rent payments, consistent with the four acres utilized, are approximately $400,000 per year. The City, through its compost operation, and as a potential FBO, could also set as a goal the use of biologically-generated methane for airport use. With sustainability fuels integrated into the airport, the FAA might find Palo Alto’s airport a model of sustainability in airport operations. One airport advocate thought that enhancing the sustainability of the airport would ease expected regulatory bars set by the FAA and the County. Potential harmonizing of compost, airport operations within the framework of the Baylands Master Plan moves Palo Alto toward a vision of a sustainable community that develops innovative accommodations to land use challenges. Appendix C-5 Airport/Compost Issues Identified at 7/29/09 Compost Task Force Meeting & Modified at 8/18/09 Subcommittee Meeting Federal and County Requirements ¾ FAA must approve any non-airport use (per grants received by the Airport) ¾ Cannot cease airport use prior to 2026- otherwise FAA Grant repayment required ¾ Use of land must be consistent with safety plan (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission and FAA approvals of safety plan revisions needed) ¾ FBOs have leases until 2017 The 4-Acre Site is Need For: ¾ Tie-downs so taxiway can be enlarged ¾ New heliport site (safety) ¾ “Overflow” landing site with respect to current site ¾ New hangars ¾ New terminal/administration building ¾ Allow separation between fixed wing and helicopter operations ¾ Changes will be very expensive Helicopter Pad ¾ Compost pile proximity to pad - too close; downwash would create dust and debris Wildlife and Hazards ¾ Compost pile would attract animals and birds (including geese) – hazard to airplane engines ¾ Land is occupied by burrowing owls – endangered species National Defense Issues ¾ Civil Air Patrol functions are located at the Airport Visual Impact ¾ Compost Facility would detract from appearance of the area. City of Palo Alto ¾ City is working on a business plan ¾ Financial issues ¾ “No Intensification” Policy and “no expansion into open space” have prevented use of site ¾ The County’s Lease Expires 2017 – Palo Alto may take over operations then ¾ Transition of the airport to Palo Alto may or may not occur even earlier in 2012 –very uncertain Degree of Use of Palo Alto Airport ¾ Regional and busy airport that is greatly needed ¾ Should not drive air-traffic to other airports ¾ Airport is a Regional “Reliever” for other airport traffic ¾ Council supports airport ¾ New buildings and facilities badly needed Compost Final Report ¾ Should identify options and pros/cons Working Together ¾ Compost could produce methane which could ultimately be a source of fuel. Appendix D-1 2021 LOCATION SCREENING Site Acreage* 1. A site solely within the RWQCP Uncertain 2. A site (unspecified location) within and immediately adjacent to the WQCP (This may include Nos. 2, 3, 4 and/or 6.) Uncertain 3. Palo Alto Airport (assumes Airport closure). 100 4. The Embarcadero Road-Airport site (assume Airport continues to operate) 4 5. Z-Best site (near Gilroy) Sufficient 6. A site centered in the RWQCP which may include Nos. 2, 3, 4 and/or 6 and may also include a small portion of Byxbee Hills Park (current landfill), if necessary to provide a minimally suitable site. Uncertain 7. The LATP site 6+ 8. The North Runway-Airport site (assume Airport continues to operate) 22.5 9. The PA Landfill site 7+ 10. An unspecified location on Stanford Land Uncertain 11. Regional site (other than Z-Best) Sufficient 12. An unspecified location to be purchased in the Palo Alto area. (An example includes Park Avenue land South of Oregon Expressway.) Uncertain *Note: Competing potential uses exist for any and all sites. No sites or portions thereof have been reserved for organics materials management. ** Note: SCREENED OUT ON 6/17/09 ** 2. The WQCP-Landfill Interface site 2.3 ** 3. The Embarcadero Way City-Owned City site 2.6 ** 6. An Embarcadero Way site to be purchased 3.6 ** 10. The Police Building site 1.5 APPENDIX D Appendix D-2 Appendix D-3 Appendix D-4 Appendix D-5 Appendix D-6 Appendix D-7 Appendix D-8 Appendix E-1 Task Force Activities Meetings were held weekly in March of 2009 as the Task Force organized itself, selected Co- Chairs, established procedures, and developed communication methods. As a group covered by the Brown Act, agendas were published and posted as required. The City’s website was used to share documents among Task Force members, and members of public. Meetings were changed to every other week in April and continued through September when the Task Force completed its work. Key accomplishments for each month were as follows: March ¾ Administration/Organization ¾ Mission Statement Developed ¾ Timeline Developed ¾ Technical Subcommittees Formed ¾ Screening/Ranking Criteria Developed April ¾ Screening/Ranking Criteria Developed ¾ Three Subcommittees Analyze Alternatives o Aerobic o Anaerobic o High Tech ¾ Permitability of Alternatives Analyzed May ¾ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analyzed ¾ (“What” More Important than “Where”) ¾ Technologies Seminar Held ¾ Technology Timelines Analyzed ¾ Baylands History and Land Use Analyzed ¾ Task Force Report Outline Developed ¾ Input From California Integrated Waste Management Board Obtained June/July ¾ Further Analysis of the following was accomplished: o Aerated Static Piles (Aerobic) o Dry Fermentation (Anaerobic) ¾ Screening and Ranking Alternatives was completed for the following timeframes: o Immediate (Operational) Changes o 2012 Timeframe o 2021 Timeframe ¾ Council Study Session was held on July 20, 2009 August/September ¾ Finalized Recommendations ¾ Finalized Brief Report APPENDIX E Appendix F-1 Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Palo Alto Organic Wastes By Bryan Long 8/17/09 Summary Substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions can be achieved first by diverting food and other wet organic wastes from landfill disposal, and then by moving to advanced anaerobic digestion technology for our wastewater, food wastes, and yard wastes. Non- local transport of our organic wastes contributes to GHG emissions, but as can be seen from the chart below, how we process our organic wastes matters much more than where that processing occurs. Food wastes and other moisture- rich compostable wastes quickly decompose in landfills, releasing substantial methane gas long before methane recovery systems are in place. Achieving the contract collection target of our new commercial, institutional, and multi-family residence (C/I/M) food waste program will reduce methane emissions by at least 6,000 and as much as 15,000 metric tons (mT) of CO2 equivalent, depending on emissions model assumptions. Surpassing our collection target or implementing a single-family foodwaste collection program would reduce GHG emissions even more. The use of Advanced Anaerobic Digestion (AAD) facility to process our wastewater sludge, C/I/M foodwaste, and collected yard wastes would reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 14,000 mT of CO2 equivalent. A 50% increase of total foodwaste collections (from the current target of 9,000 mT) would result in an additional reduction of between 6,300 and 16,200 mT of CO2e. Together, these steps could reduce our city’s GHG emissions by 2% to 5% from the total emissions estimated in the Palo Alto Climate Action Plan. It should be investigated whether some of this might qualify for carbon credit sales under the emerging GHG Cap and Trade legislation. APPENDIX F Appendix F-2 Palo Alto’s organic waste disposal currently contributes between 2.64% and as much as 7.74% of Palo Alto’s annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, depending on assumptions. The large variance in the estimate above is primarily due to differences in estimates regarding how much methane is released from food scraps and other wet compostable matter sent to the landfill (see “A Trip to the Landfill”, below). Once the new GreenWaste program for institutional/multifamily food scraps composting is well established, our organic wastes will still contribute between 1.76% and 5.64% of our city’s total “footprint”. Fortunately, methods and technologies exist that would allow us to substantially reduce these GHG emissions, 1. A reduction of approximately 8,650 mT of CO2e1 could be realized by diverting sewage sludge from incineration to energy-generating Advanced Anaerobic Digestion (AAD). 2. A reduction of 5,300 mT CO2e, or more, could be realized by shifting organic materials, food, and other compostables from composting to AAD. 3. Increasing commercial/multifamily collection rates or implementing a single- family residence collection program would achieve reductions of between 1.4 mT and 3.6 mT of CO2e per additional mT of food and organic materials diverted from the landfill. A 50% increase of total collections from the current target of 9,000 mT would result in a reduction of between 6,300 and 16,200 mT of CO2e. Together, these steps could reduce our city’s GHG emissions by 2% to 45% from the total emissions estimated in the Palo Alto Climate Action Plan2. It should be investigated whether some of this might qualify for carbon credit sales under the emerging GHG Cap and Trade legislation. Transportation of our organic wastes contributes less than 4000 (est.?) mT of CO2, regardless of regional destination, and much of this is due to local collection. Insofar as GHG reduction is concerned, how we process our organic waste is far more important than where we process it. Nevertheless, city ownership of processing operations would provide greater assurance of optimal GHG reductions, and would likely reduce long-term costs to the ratepayers, since contract operators require a profit above capital and operational costs and demand for these services is high. Palo Alto’s Organic Waste GHG Sources 1 CO2e is CO2 equivalent, which translates the GHG impact of methane and other gases, measured over a 100 year timeframe to the amount of CO2 that would have an equivalent impact. See box section: The Methane Effect 2 The Palo Alto CAP estimates a total of 794,049 mT of CO2e from all sources. However this is probably an underestimate due to overly conservative estimates of methane emissions from landfilled wastes. Appendix F-3 Primary organic waste sources of GHG emissions include: TYPE OF ORGANIC WASTE ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS Food scraps and other compostables sent to landfill 21,000 – 61,000 mT CO2e (2008) 14,700 – 44,800 mT CO2e (2010 est.)3 Sewage sludge incinerated at WQCP 21,200 mT CO2 Yard clippings and other greenwaste (compost) 15,000 mT CO24 Transportation and Processing < 4000 mT CO2 (??) TOTAL (2008) Approx. 60,000 – 100,000 mT CO2e As much as 41,000 mT of the above is considered “biogenic” in origin: CO2 that was originally taken up from the atmosphere by plants through the process of photosynthesis before being utilized by humans. Biogenic CO2 is not counted when calculating Palo Alto’s “footprint” of anthropogenic (human caused) GHG emissions. For example, CO2 from composting operations is biogenic, as is CO2 released from landfills. Methane released from landfills is counted as human caused, however, since decomposition under natural conditions would not usually generate methane. The Palo Alto Climate Action Plan estimates our city’s total anthropogenic emissions at approximately 728794,000 mT of CO2e. Landfill-related emissions, however, are probably underestimated. The CAP provides an estimate of 24,183 mT of annual landfill waste-related emissions, including the “upstream” emissions associated with manufactured goods. This was based on generic modeling software, and the assumption that the landfill would have effective methane capture. Such models and assumptions have come under criticism, however, because most landfills do not install methane recovery for several years after disposal of waste into a “working cell”, and wet organic wastes like food and grass will decompose within a few months (see “A Trip to the Landfill” below). Thus for the higher food scraps estimate in the table above, the total city emissions should be increased by an equivalent amount. At the low end, anthropogenic emissions from the above listed organic waste categories, prior to the new food scraps composting program, total about 19,000 mT, or about 2.6 4 % of a 728794,000 mT total. At the higher end, anthropogenic emissions total about 59,000 mT, or about 7.74% of a 768794,000 mT total. After the new commercial & multifamily food composting program goes into effect, anthropogenic emissions from these sources will be between 12,700 mT and 42,800 mT – equivalent to between 1.76% and 5.64% of total city emissions. 3 Estimate for 2010 after new GreenWaste program for collection and composting of institutional and multifamily residence food wastes. 4 Estimate based on 60% water content, 50% carbon content in dry material, and complete release of carbon as CO2. A good bit of carbon is retained in the finished compost, but most of this decomposes over time after application. Appendix F-4 It is important to note, however, that as Palo Alto works to reduce our footprint, any biogenic CO2 reductions achieved by sequestration or “green energy” production are as effective as any anthropogenic CO2 reductions. For example, our current composting of yard waste releases about 15,000 mT of biogenic CO2 per year. The same amount of yard waste in an advanced anaerobic digestion facility will produce only 12,100 mT of CO2, along with a substantial amount of methane. When that methane is burned as fuel, the “missing” 2,900 mT of CO2 will be released. But without AAD, fossil gas would have been burned instead of that methane, producing about the same 2,900 mT of CO2 in addition to the 15,000 mT from composting. Thus, AAD reduces net anthropogenic emissions. Food/Compostable Waste: A Trip to the Landfill Compostable organics compromised about 29% of Palo Alto’s “black bin” and dumpster waste sent to the Kirby Canyon landfill in 2008 (the Palo Alto landfill is open only to “self-haul” from Palo Alto residents). These landfilled organic compostables add up to over 22,000 metric tons per year – a greater tonnage than our yard waste composting operation handles. More than half of the organic compostable waste is food scraps. Food scraps, and moisture rich compostable waste like grass clippings, creates substantial methane gas emissions when landfilled. These wet organic wastes are dumped onto the open, working face of the landfill, and quickly buried under new incoming loads of waste. This creates a moist, warm, low oxygen environment in which anaerobic (low oxygen) decomposition rapidly sets in. Within 120 days, food scraps and grass clippings may be nearly fully decomposed, with substantial methane generation (Brown, et al, J. Environ. Qual. 37:1396–1410 (2008))5. This occurs long before any methane recovery 5 Landfill operations, design, climate, and waste composition will affect the timing and degree of wet organics decomposition, but specific data for the Kirby Canyon landfill was not available for this analysis. Our dry summer climate may reduce decomposition during those months, but our relatively warm wet winters may have the opposite effect. The Methane Effect Methane (CH4) is a molecule consisting of one carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms. It arises in many natural processes, but is of particular concern to us as a product of municipal waste disposal. The specific molecular structure of CH4 makes it much more likely than a CO2 to absorb a heat photon. Fortunately, methane is also not very stable. In any seven year period, a methane molecule has about a 50% chance of breaking down into CO2 and H20 (water). In calculations about climate change, therefore, the effects of methane emissions are calculated over a specified time period, usually 100 years. Over a period of 100 years, methane is 25 times more potent than an equal amount (by weight) of CO2. Over a period of 20 years, however, methane is 72 times more potent than CO2! This makes methane a prime target for near-term GHG reductions while we work on more difficult longer term CO2 reductions. Reducing methane emissions today provides 72 times the impact over the next 20 years than does reducing an equivalent amount of CO2. (source: IPCC) Appendix F-5 systems are put in place (usually 2 years or more after disposal). Although some of this methane will be oxidized to CO2 as it reaches the surface of the landfill, most will escape. Use of simple GHG estimation models such as the EPA’s WARM calculator or ICCLI’s CACP are inaccurate for food and grass waste if landfill recovery of GHG is assumed in the model. The EPA WARM model can be run on food scraps and grass clippings under the assumption of no methane recovery to get a better, but still conservative estimate of GHG emissions. The EPA WARM model gives a conservative result of 21,940 mT of CO2 equivalent emissions6 that would be avoided if our landfilled food, grass, and leaves waste were composted instead of landfilled. Other research suggests that our annual landfilled food, grass, and leaves may generate as much as 68,000 mT of CO2 e from methane (Brown, et al, J. Environ. Qual. 37:1396–1410 (2008), compared with a theoretical maximum of about 10,000 tons of CO2 if diverted to composting. The truth probably lies somewhere in-between: Palo Alto could achieve GHG reductions of 1.4 mT to 3.6 mT of CO2e per mT of food and organic materials diverted from the landfill. It must also be noted that the estimates above refer to 100 year CO2 equivalents. However, methane reduction benefits are “front-loaded”, whereas most governmental plans for CO2 reductions are “back-loaded”, putting off most of the necessary reductions to future decades (see box “The Methane Effect). Keeping in mind that our City goals for GHG reductions are based in our desire to keep the planet livable, we should welcome measures that have their most significant impact in the near term. Using a 20-year CO2e calculation, Palo Alto could achieve GHG reductions of an outstanding 4 mT to 12.3 mT of CO2e per mT of food and organic materials diverted from the landfill! A Good First Step: 2009 Compostables Collection In 2009, Palo Alto begins a new program with our new waste hauler, GreenWaste, to divert segregated compostable organics from the general waste stream, for composting at ZBest in Gilroy. This program will serve only commercial and multifamily residential buildings, not single-family residences. Commercial and multifamily buildings generate around 16,900 mT of compostable wastes annually, which includes compostable paper as well as food and yard waste. The City’s contract with GreenWaste establishes a target of 9000 tons of segregated compostables to be collected annually, with an incentive of $70 per ton for exceeding the target and a penalty of $70 per ton for shortfalls. Experience from other cities (e.g., San Francisco) suggests that this will be about 50% food and organic materials, and 50% compostable paper and other compostables. Thus we can estimate that if the target of 6 CO2 Equivalent (CO2e) emissions converts the warming impact of methane (or other GHGs) over 100 years into the amount of CO2 that would produce the same amount of warming over the same amount of time. Metric tons of methane emissions can be multiplied by 25 to get the 100-year CO2 equivalent (some models use 21 or 23 as the factor, based on older estimates). Over a 20-year evaluation period, the CO2 equivalent of methane would be much higher – a factor of 72. Appendix F-6 9000 mT is reached, this will mean 4500 mT of food and organic materials diverted to composting. This will result in GHG emissions reduction of between 6,300 and 16,200 mT of CO2e, which would be around a 1-2% reduction in our City’s total GHG footprint. Next Steps: Improving and Expanding the Program In auditing GreenWaste collections, the City should measure not just the total tonnage of compostables, but the composition of what is collected. Increasing the percentage of food scraps collected, compared especially with waste paper products, will have the most significant benefit in terms of GHG reductions. If institutional/multifamily collection efficiency could be increased to 75%, that would result in an additional 3,150 to 8,100 mT CO2e reduction. Expanding the program to serve single-family residences should also be attempted, if costs are not prohibitive. A 50% efficient collection of single family residence food scraps compostables would provide a 3500-9000 mT reduction in CO2e. Sewage Sludge: Anaerobic digestion vs. Incineration. Palo Alto incinerates approximately 24,000 mT of sewage sludge annually7. The incineration of the sludge itself releases approximately 16,000 mT of CO28, while the natural gas used to incinerate the sludge releases another 5200 mT of CO29. The end- product of incineration is an ash that is landfilled as low-grade hazardous waste. Many communities around the world are migrating to Advanced Anaerobic Digestion (AAD) for processing of sewage sludge, sometimes on its own and sometimes along with other municipal wastes. AAD would reduce 24,000 mT of sludge to between 3000 mT – 12,000 mT10 of digested sludge cake – a safe and low odor product containing no detectable levels of pathogens that may be used as a valuable agricultural fertilizer11 . More importantly, from 24,000 mT of sludge AAD could generate approximately 66,300 MMBTU of methane natural gas12, while saving an additional 100,000 MMBTU of natural gas that would have been used for incineration. At current spot market prices for natural gas13, the combined generated and saved natural gas is worth approximately $548,790, and much more at retail prices. 7 Only about 35% of this is from Palo Alto, the rest is from neighboring communities. 8 2008 Palo Alto Emissions Report 9 Approximately half of this is methane gas captured from the landfill, but it is gas that could be used for other purposes. 10 Different digestion technologies result in differences in end-product volume 11 Renewable Energy World April 27, 2009 Advanced Anaerobic Digestion: More Gas from Sewage Sludge 12 24,000 mT wet, 25% solids, = 6000 mT dry = 13,260,000 lbs = 66,300,000 cf CH4 = 66,300 MMBTU based on: EBMUD study, “Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste” March 2008; “Stable anaerobic digestion of food waste at both mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures provides more gas production (6 to 8.5 ft3 CH4/lb TS applied) than digestion of municipal wastewater solids (5 ft3 CH4/lb TS applied.)” Different anaerobic digestion technologies may produce more or less CH4 gas. 13 Approximately $3.30 per MMBTU (NYMEX) Appendix F-7 Even more importantly from a GHG perspective, total GHG reductions would equal about 8650 mT of CO2. This is composed of 5200 mT of CO2 would be avoided by not burning gas to fire the incinerator, and a 3450 mT CO2e “credit” from the methane produced14. Thus the use of AAD could reduce CO2 emissions by between 8650, for sewage sludge alone. The use of AAD for other municipal waste is considered below. Advanced Anaerobic Digestion vs. Composting Anaerobic digestion can also be utilized instead of composting for yard waste, food scraps, and other compostable organics. As with composting, anaerobic digestion results in an end-product suitable for agricultural soil conditioning15. AAD, however, captures methane as “green energy” which provides a net CO2 reduction credit. Based on 21,000 mT organic materials, AAD could generate approximately 55,700 MMBTU of CH4 natural gas16, with a resulting emissions reduction credit of approximately 2900 mT CO2. If Palo Alto increased its collection of organic materials from landscaping contractors, it would realize additional green energy. For commercial and multifamily food and compostable waste, based on the current GreenWaste collection target of 9000 mT, AAD could generate approximately 46,500 MMBTU of CH4 natural gas, with a resulting emissions credit of approximately 2400 mT CO217. If we could realize 12,000 mT of commercial/multifamily collections (a 75% vs. 50% collection rate), these figures would increase to 69,700 MMBTU and 3,600 mT of CO2. Any collection of single family residence food scraps and compostables would provide a further increase. The AAD process generates a biogas which is a mixture of methane and CO2 (usually about 60% methane). The biogas is then either burned to generate electricity or “cleaned 14 Methane produced from AAD is “green” because it displaces an equal amount of fossil natural gas that would otherwise be consumed. 1 ft3 CH4 combusted will result in 1 ft3 of CO2 (Gas turbine handbook); CO2 at .00184212 g/cm3 * 28317.016 cm3/ ft3 = 52.16 g/ft3. 66,300,000 ft3 CH4 = 3458 mT CO2. This is the amount considered avoided from fossil natural gas. 15 Quantity and market value may differ, however. In general, compost from 100% organic materials will have higher market value than either food waste compost or digested end-product. 16 21,000 mT @ 40% solids = 8,400 mT dry = 18,564,000 lbs = 55,692,000 ft3 CH4 (conservative estimate, yield 50% less than food waste, below) = 55,692 MMBTU (1 ft3 CH4 contains approximately 1000 BTU of energy) 17 assuming 9000 mT collected, 50% food, 50% paper: 4500 mT * 28% solids = 1260 dry mT 4500 mT * 50% solids = 2250 dry mT = 7,735,000 lbs = 46,410,000 ft3 natural gas (6 ft3/lb, EBMUD 2008) = 46,410 MMBTU CH4 = 2420 mT CO2 when combusted Appendix F-8 and scrubbed” to produce a commercial quality CH4 natural gas. It is possible to capture the CO2 as well, and sequester it, for much larger CO2 reduction credits. This will involve significant additional capital and operational costs, however, and is not calculated in this assessment. Summary of GHG Reductions and Green Energy Production CO2e Reduction MMBTUs Diverting 9000 mT Food/Compost from Landfill 11,250 mT18 0 Utilizing AAD for Food/Compost above 2,400 mT 46,500 Diverting wastewater sludge from incineration19 5,200 mT 100,000 Utilizing AAD for sewage sludge 3,450 mT 66,000 Utilizing AAD for yard/organic materials 2,900 mT 55,700 Total 25,200 mT 268,200 The total reduction of 25,200 mT CO2e is almost 3.52% of Palo Alto’s total GHG emissions as estimated in the Climate Action Plan. The total of 268,200 MMBTUs of natural gas is worth about $885,000 at the current spot market wholesale price for natural gas. Further potential for reductions are: CO2e Reduction MMBTUs Diverting additional 4,500 mT Food scraps 5625 0 AAD for additional 4,500 mT Food scraps 1,200 23,250 Increasing yard/green collections 20% 580 11,140 Total 7405 34,390 Implementation Achieving the GHG reductions and green energy productions listed above may be accomplished in at least three ways: 1. by establishing contracts with waste management companies which specify landfill diversion and CO2e reduction requirements (via AAD or other advanced conversion technologies) 2. by design and implementation of an AAD facility owned by the City of Palo Alto 3. by partnership with other regional cities for the ownership and/or operation of a regional AAD facility 18 Based on the average of the high and low estimates. 19 Natural gas not used for incineration that can be used for other purposes. Appendix F-9 Waste management companies operating organics conversion facilities can achieve economies of scale by serving numerous regional municipalities. However, regional municipal demand for organic conversion services is likely to outstrip commercial facility capacity for some time to come. Service providers will certainly capitalize on high demand by charging a premium for GHG reducing services, and retaining all profits from green energy production. On the other hand, for those municipalities willing to pay the premium, contract services will avoid the capital investment and expertise development required for city-owned facilities. If Palo Alto is willing to invest capital and land in a city owned facility, or to partner with other municipalities in building an AAD facility, utilities rate-payers would likely realize the lowest long-term cost as revenues from green energy production will help offset operational costs. Background Information on Greenhouse Gases Getting to Know the Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere allow visible light photons from the sun to pass freely to the earth, but tend to absorb passing infrared (heat) photons from the earth and then re-emit those photons in any direction, including back where they came from. Just as a blanket over your body retains your body heat, the blanket of greenhouse gases retains the heat of the planet. Human-caused increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases is like adding another blanket – on a hot summer night. source: IPCC Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Of the primary greenhouse gases, CO2 is by far the most prevalent. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas is the primary culprit in climate change. CO2 is a very stable molecule: once in the atmosphere it stays there, unless taken out by processes at the surface of the Earth, such as Appendix F-10 photosynthesis by plants. The flow of CO2 into plants as they grow, and out of plants as they die and rot, is a fairly balanced process20, and so changes in atmospheric CO2 levels have been gradual, until the past couple of hundred years. The human extraction and burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) has created a dramatic, rapid rise in CO2 levels that is already creating climate change, ocean level rise and severe weather events. Our best science suggests we must change our ways, and start reducing CO2 emissions by at least 2% per year to prevent disastrous climate change. Methane (CH4) Methane is a molecule consisting of one carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms. It arises in many natural processes, but is of particular concern to us as a product of municipal waste disposal. The specific molecular structure of CH4 makes it much more likely than a CO2 to absorb a heat photon. Fortunately, methane is also not very stable. In any seven year period, a methane molecule has about a 50% chance of breaking down into CO2 and H20 (water). In calculations about climate change, therefore, the effects of methane emissions are calculated over a specified time period, usually 100 years. Over a period of 100 years, methane is 25 times more potent than an equal amount (by weight) of CO2. Over a period of 20 years, however, methane is 72 times more potent than CO2! This makes methane a prime target for near-term GHG reductions while we work on more difficult longer term CO2 reductions. Reducing methane emissions today provides 72 times the impact over the next 20 years than does reducing an equivalent amount of CO2. (source: IPCC) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Nitrous Oxide is released into the atmosphere from many natural processes, as well as from the use of nitrate fertilizers in agriculture, decomposition of food and animal wastes in landfills, the processing of sewage, and the burning of fossil fuels, (as well as trace amounts from compost piles, dentist offices, whipped cream cans, and open pints of Guinness!) N2O is a stable molecule, and is about 300 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years (289 times more potent over 20 years). Although composting generates some N2O, the application of compost to agricultural fields can significantly reduce the need for nitrate fertilizers and the consequent release of much larger amounts of N2O. Advanced technologies like anaerobic digestion with cogeneration release even less N2O than aerobic composting (Willis et.al., 2008). Technologies Aerobic Decomposition, Anaerobic Decomposition, Incineration and Pyrolysis Aerobic (oxygen rich) decomposition occurs when organic materials decay in the presence of air, as in a compost pile. In these conditions, micro-organisms break down the complex, carbon and hydrogen rich molecules of organic matter primarily into water 20 Except when humans clear-cut forests, or when climate change causes major vegetation pattern changes. Appendix F-11 and CO2. Some trace amounts of methane and nitrous oxide may also be released, but in a well-managed composting operation these emissions are negligible. A significant amount of organic material remains in the finished compost, which will decay over a period of years into CO2 and water. Anaerobic (oxygen deprived) decomposition occurs when organic materials are buried, or otherwise contained without exposure to air. In this case, micro-organisms and chemistry cause the carbon and hydrogen molecules from the organics to form methane (CH4), in addition to CO2 (where the oxygen atoms come from water molecules). The relative production of CH4 and CO2 will vary according to conditions, but typically CH4 will be 50% or more of emissions by weight. Material remaining from anaerobic decomposition is essentially the same as finished compost. Incineration involves heating organic materials to a combustion temperature in the presence of oxygen, and results in a complete release of all carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen into gas form. Properly managed, Nitrous Oxide emissions are minimal, and no methane is released, so CO2 is the predominate GHG. Pyrolysis involves heating organic materials to combustion temperature in the absence of oxygen. This results in the production of “syngas” consisting primarily of methane and CO2, and the production of liquid hydrocarbons “bio-diesel” and/or charcoal. Pyrolysis differs from anaerobic digestion in that conversion depends solely on heat, not on microbes Appendix G-1 APPENDIX G Appendix G-2 APPENDIX G April 6. 2009 Mayor Drekmeier and Members of the Gty Council: I received a free copy card so I used it to copy for you my latest version of the Com posting Costs at Byxbee Park. r have submitted this information to our Composting Task Force as weU. CMR 178:09 in your packet this week includes information on contracts awarded by the City Manager from July 2008 to December 2008. Included in those are the following items which probably also pertain to the composting costs: Ahem Rentals Skylonda Equipment Peterson Tractor Peterson Tractor Power Screen of No CA Morbark Inc. Extec West Skylonda Equipment Tractor Equipment Sales TMT Enterprises Inc. 8/7/08 8/'15/08 9/r:f!/08 9/11/08 9/11 /08 9/15/08 7/10/08 8/14/08 8/27/08 9/26/08 27,149.14' 45,(XXJ.OO' 249,496.68 85,000.00' 27,000.00' 45,000.00' 40,000.00· 85,000.00 65,000,00· 98,000.00· Water truck rental Trucking Services Purchase of Wheel Loader 950H Caterpillar equipment, parts & service Power screen parts and service Wood grinder, parts& service Compost screener rental (2nd year) Trommel screen rental w. operator PM & repairs for Landfill Equipment Purchase of Com posting Material The items from the above list that are not ioclyded* in my summary total $432,149.14 or $20,58/ton, bringing the total per ton to $l2S.36/ton at Byxbee Park. The Composting Task Force will be developing its own numbers, but this is where my numbers are at the present time. Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel 1056 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 April 6. 2009 Mayor Drekmeier and Members of the Gty Council: I received a free copy card so I used it to copy for you my latest version of the Composting Costs at Byxbee Park. I have submitted this infonnation to our Composting Task Force as weU. CMR 178:09 in your packet this week includes information on contracts awarded by the Gty Manager from JuJy 2008 to December 2008. Included in those are the following items which probably also pertain to the composting costs: Ahem Rentals Skylonda Equipment Petersen Tractor Peterson Tractor Power Screen of No CA Morbark Inc. Extec West Skylonda Equipment Tractor Equipment Sales TMT Enterprises Inc. 8/7/08 8/'15/08 9/09/08 9/11/08 9/11/08 9/15/08 7/10/08 8/14/08 8/27 /08 9/26/08 27,149.W 45,000.00' 249.496.68 85,000.00' 27,000.00' 45,000.00' 4O,OOO.(Xt 85,000.00 65,000.00· 98,000.00' Water truck rental Trucking Services Purchase of Wheel Loader 950H Caterpillar equipment, parts & service Power screen parts and service Wood grinder, parts& service Compost screener rental (2nd year) Tremmel screen rental w. operator PM & repairs for Landfill Equipment Purchase of Com posting Material The items from the above list that are not ioclyded* in my summary total $432.149.14 or $20,58/ton, bringing the total per ton to $125.36/ton at Byxbee Park. The Composting Task Force will be developing its own numbers, but this is where my numbers are at the present time. Sincerely, Emily M. Rcnzel 1056 Forest Avenue Palo AJto, CA 94301 Appendix G-3 APPENDIX G What it would cott 10 run the CODlpott Opention .... tadd...:loH operation in 8yxbee Puk by Emily R .... I 3/1"," I .... f/OI ra.;blUty U/UIOOQIoA IIU/OO ..... , ReeuI 3/1100 Reeul3/1IOO S<dy CMlt. 116:09 .-01" beMfltI) C5l$ 1Jeaeft.) LEA AMUai Pamjt Pee 0 0 0 0 fU,722 , U,722 s.&uilll 6; BeNftti , 2lO,<XX) -.... S32a6oW (CMlt 116:09) ........ ''It/193 I""""'''''' ln RCSQ (Dolly Poot2/3/09, 38lI» $l39,IJU ~ r-x diIpoNl.ttendant (.VB $7'1..301) , 12.301 2 t::lau ~pmenl operltort (."1 $9l.909.75) $18!SAI9 1 ec:hnIdan $111,966 ." offW~"""",,, 9< • .....-Solld W_ ,Mar Bnv."""""- En SpedaliIt _ $1.l58,3t2 x .Of • , ",333 Contrlct Servlcea $178.00> $118.000 $i'18.000 (CMR 116:(9) $17"8,000 $118.000 BquI ...... (detoll bolow) I 29,119 $171,898 (_ below) -(8.5 __ $101,163 $22J),64lI ... --""""' ... Clwpo 0 0 ,_ ($107 ..... 529,".) ,-,-Bwtpt-,150,000 $\30,101 IgIndlng) '''',000 (CMR 3117"') '180,000 $1......, ...... 0. 0 0 0 SII~ (ZWOP 5-13) ,,-$II~ MII ............. eam Q Q Q III. I'2WOP 1:131 S ilfUM LlUIII T .... OpoaIbofC_ ........ mJJ.m rm.m 11,1«\.152 .,....,,,. ~" .... 1.5 .,. drop off I: windrow mo.1OI ",",000 S7!O,OOO $7St.'10 (Sloo,l88/aae) $151A1O ""1A1O 1 am ...... <qanIa yant. tWf omc. $1m.188 $100,188 $lIXJ.tM ..-SI,3OO,ooo s ...... m S ...... m SU",,," $>.237,76& ~U4 _ .. OIIMt ($175,000) ($175,000) ("15,000) ($115 _ ($115,000) ($115,000) TnI<MM 11'·,. s"pm "pm IU'"", CEW P""" ~ 111..,_ 21,0lI0''''''''''' ...... "'" ....-....-......... --............ MbaIa-. ...... 2 ..... ,. $ U'I/tDn , ..,,"'" COIt/loD rr 41,.,.,.ar) $ 101.7"" , ... - ,. tan COIIt if ...... of """'u, ia ROO II UNci ~u.,860 ~ Sll.l9t'tDn IlL"""" .,,..17/100 $L1L_ What it would cotI: 10 run lite CODlipoit Opention .... taDd-aloae operation in 8yxbee Puk by Emily R .... I 3/10/", ,-.......... blUty UII!/DO QIoA vu.vo ..... , RnouI3/1IfIJ RnouI3/1IfIJ -. CMlt 116:09 -UI~ badltI) ~ beadle.) LEA Annuli. Pemit Pee 0 0 0 0 , U,722 • U,722 s.&ariftl 6; BeN8t11 2lO,<XXl -.... $32&664 (CMlt 116:09) .... , ... "11,793 I""""'''''' In RCSD (Dolly _2/3/",. 38lI>l ~ r---dlIpoIal.ttendant ('VB $T1..301) "".lJ1! S l2J07 2 ~ ~pmenI: oper.tort (,yS $91.909.75) $185.319 1 ec:hnIdan $111.966 "'of..,.,~ou.=,S. . .....-SoIJd W_ ,Mar Env."""""'- En SpedaliIt -Sl.l58,3t.2 x .06 -S ",333 Cootrltt Ser..,k .. SI"""" SI18,oo:1 Si7a1XXl (CMR 116.1)9) $178,oro SI78.ooo ........... ( ..... boIowl IU __ SI01,163 • 29,119 SI7I,8911 I ...... bolow) -S2'0 .... .......... """"' .... CIwpo 0 D S_ltl07,ooo.,",,1l9) S_ S_ Budpt-S15O,OOO Suo,OOO IgtndIng) ._ (CMR 387"') '180...., $1I10,000 ""'0. 0 0 D SlIf,06C (ZWOt' 5-13) .1-'lIf,06C M!lrjenmqI OM Q Q Q III. rzrNOP 1:131 '116M LlUII T .... Opoallq C_ -.--mJ.m "" .... "-'" ~ .... 1.5 ~ drop off I: windrow "",,,000 " .. ...., .-$7!I.'10 (Sloo.l88/aat) S1!1,t1O ""1.<10 1 acn ..... cqanla y .... ttaff omc. $100.188 '100.'" $100.181 -S1,3OO...., swo.m Swo.." $l.99l,750 $>.237,76& ~U" ....... ""'" ('175,000) 1'175,000) It''''_ Itl"'_ ISI75,OOO) It""....,) XnlCaM I1'ZIt-I"!pm 'Jpm I1l1tm C-. A""" Cooo'Io •• .., _:tI,OIIO ~ f/IJUI/Ioa ....---.stiIon --n_ MlaaIa-. se.m.. 2.oN"" S Ul/ton • ""/Ioa COIt/lon rt 41, ..... .101.1 .... ,0<._ ,. ton...,.. U ...... of "tlt:tttd/u., 1a ROO lI.eel 1u.,a60......,...., ,,1.1_ IIL_ $I1&U/Om --.... U., ... Appendix H-1 Further Analysis A) Short Term (Operational) Recommendations The Task Force visited the current Palo Alto windrow composting operation, received a briefing on the operation and received follow-up data from Public Works Operation Staff. The Aerobic Subcommittee (joined by Hilary Gans) reviewed the information provided with the following objectives in mind: ¾ Minimize expenditures and use of resources. ¾ Minimize the need for stockpiling finished compost. ¾ Maximize the conversion of yard trimmings to compost. ¾ Minimize dust. ¾ Maximize compost quality. Based on these objectives, the Aerobic Subcommittee developed the specific recommendations contained in Section VII. Of the Task Force Report. B) “2012” and “2015 -2021” Recommendations The year 2012 is anticipated to be the year in which the current Palo Alto Compost Facility will cease accepting of yard trimmings, as a result of the landfill reaching full capacity. Therefore it was essential for the Task Force to develop recommendations for that timeframe. Initially two longer term recommendations were considered – one for 2015 and one for 2021. These were ultimately merged into one set of recommendations as it appeared that it may be possible to implement any of the alternatives studied by 2015. Experts advised the Task Force that approximately 4 years would be needed for permitting, CEQA, design and construction of an advanced technology facility. An additional 2 years may be needed for full consideration by all Palo Alto Commissions, Committees and the Council itself and for consultant selection, preliminary analysis and land acquisition. A total of 6 years may therefore be needed, and 2015 became the soonest achievable timeframe. In its final deliberations, the Task Force linked its 2012 and 2015-2021 recommendations by recommending a phased approach at a single site. For that reason, the time frames will described together below. C) Perspective Locations (“Where”) Initially, all sites were screened out for 2012 except Z-Best and the current Palo Alto (Landfill) site because the Task Force concluded that no other sites could be developed in time. However, the desire to avoid dedicated Parkland (the current site) and the desire to keep composting local, were both so strong, that the Embarcadero Road/Airport site was added back to the options, and ultimately selected. The recommendations (Section VII) recognize that the 2012 timeframe may not be met, and it may be necessary to take yard trimmings to Z-Best in the interim. The Task Force recommendations make it clear that composting at the current Palo Alto site should not continue beyond the currently planned cessation APPENDIX H Appendix H-2 of yard trimming acceptance. This recommendation follows Council guidance that parklands only be considered “after all other non-parkland options have been pursued.” Thus the recommended site is the vacant rectangle in the Southeastern corner of the Palo Alto Airport, augmented by adjacent Water Quality Control Plant land and the current roadway, totaling approximately 5.5 acres (see Figure 5 and 6). The key features of the proposed site are: ¾ The site does not use parkland. ¾ The site is local thereby minimizing transportation-derived greenhouse gas generation and toxic diesel fuel emissions. ¾ The site is adequately sized, and could further draw upon about one- half acre of space within the water pollution control plant to arrive at a 6-acre facility for accomplishing most organic waste management. ¾ As a plan that derives from the Council’s immediate attention and City staff’s action, there is greater assurance that the program of the Task Force will be pursued rather than forgotten if its direction were merely strategic toward 2020. There are no existing locations for local municipal-scale composting in Palo Alto unless a new site is developed. Any existing vacant land has multiple competing interests for its use, and is not a short-term practical choice. The Task Force also found that any facility in Palo Alto would optimally be located near the existing Water Pollution Control Plant given the benefit of proximity to its staff and physical infrastructure, generation of wastewater-derived organics (biosolids) which can be processed by the new facility, and production of treated water that can be used by composting and other organics management options with a minimum generation of GHG's to fulfill any water needs that may be required by present and future technologies. The City’s potential take-over of the Palo Alto Airport by 2012 creates a possibility in which a new site can be developed concurrent with the time when a new site is needed. This would allow the City to control the use and development of the land as long as it does not interfere with airport operations. The Task Force realizes that safety considerations, potential conflicts with federal grants that may require the land to remain vacant past 2012, and other airport considerations may Figure 5 Figure 6 Appendix H-3 potentially require fine tuning of the proposed site boundaries. Vacant land between Embarcadero and the Water Pollution Control Plant is used for landscape screening, which the proposal addresses by providing an adequate and substantial landscape buffer to the new Embarcadero road site and all the way around the proposed site for greenery, and an existing bio-filter for odor control. There is an East Palo Alto sewer line and a 56-inch outfall line that may need to be re-routed if significant construction takes place. While the site is City-owned, it is not dedicated as parkland. There are expectations for screening that would need to be maintained or developed as part of this plan. There are also transportation impacts which are similar to existing transportation, but which are none-the-less impacts, which would interfere with access to the parkland. However, given the subtle change in Embarcadero’s routing, little change might be noticed by Palo Altans. As background, another site option considered by the Task Force is located immediately Southeast of the Water Pollution Control Plant. This site is not recommended for several reasons. The site would be on parkland. The site’s southern extent would have been constrained by the edge of the landfill’s lift. The site would have interfered with anticipated screening between the Byxbee Hills Park and the water pollution control plant, and also have been too narrow and small to accommodate a practical operation. Its access would have also conflicted with the park. The option of leaving Embarcadero Road as-is could also be explored. In this case, composting would occur in the same approximated location, but without moving the road. This has inherent disadvantages caused by the need to landscape screen two facilities, and of limiting the storage at pre and post- processed organics. Also, it forces a need to transport biosolids across Embarcadero Road. D) “What?” (Type of Organics Processing) For the 2012 timeframe, an aerated static pile approach has been selected by the Task Force. A static pile approach uses blowers instead of a scarab windrow turner to provide air for the process, and uses fabric covers to control aeration. This approach is offered by several vendors and offers significant advantages including compactness, and dust and odor control. Figure 7 shows an aerated static pile compost by Gore that is representative of the technology. The existing windrow approach now applied appears to require more space, and entails greater heavy equipment usage during the compost process. The static pile could permit the beginning of food scraps composting from Palo Alto residences – a collection not offered by the City now. Given that the recommended site is near the airport, measures will taken to avoid attracting birds. Appendix H-4 Because aerated static pile technology offers improvements over windrow composting, and yet is not a fundamentally different technology, it is believed to be the one more advance technology which could be permitted in time. Staff discussions with the Air District find that permitting new urban sites for windrow composting will be very problematic due to dust and emissions issues. Air emissions from aerated static piles are controlled, and therefore it is believed that the Air District permit can be readily obtained. Task Force discussions with the Integrated Waste Management Board find them quite amenable to assisting with the appropriate permitting actions for the upgrade of operations at a contiguous, City owned location. The Embarcadero Road/Airport site is a contiguous, City owned site. Technologies which convert organic materials to energy (“conversion technologies”) cannot be permitted, designed, and constructed in the 2012 timeframe. The Task Force studied all of the types of conversion technologies and conducted a ranking exercise for them for the 2015-2021 timeframe. A ranking exercise was also conducted for sites for those technologies for the 2015- 2021 timeframe. The ranking criteria are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Task Force members individually assigned weightings to the criteria, and then numerically ranked the criteria. Criterion Decision Plus software was then used to compute overall scores for both the “Where?” (location) and the “What?” (type of process) questions. Figures 8 and 9 show the results of the overall Task Force ranking. Anaerobic Processing ranked highest and was selected by the Task Force as the recommended technology for the 2015-2021 timeframe. The key attributes of anaerobic processing are: ¾ Low energy requirements ¾ Production and capture of methane for energy production ¾ Lower costs than high-temperature processes ¾ Contained in a building with emissions controlled ¾ Produces compost ¾ Amenable to yard trimmings, food scraps, and sewage biosolids Figure 7 Appendix H-5 Aerated Static Pile (ECS) Anaerobic Dry Fermentation (Bekon/Havest) (BEKON Dry Fermentation Plant, Munich-Germany) Appendix H-6 The Embarcadero Road/Airport site was ranked in the top tier of sites for the 2015-2021 timeframe (Figure 10). The scores among the top tier sites were almost identical. The key attributes of the Embarcadero Road/Airport site are: ¾ Can be augmented from 4 acres to 5.5 acres by combining with Water Quality Control Plant land and relocating Embarcadero Road. ¾ Adjacent to Water Quality Control Plant with synergies for organics management ¾ Not on parkland ¾ Fills in land use between two industrial type facilities – the Airport and the Water Quality Control Plant ¾ Appears large enough for aerated static piles initially, with a transition to anaerobic processing in the 2015-2021 timeframe. E) “When?” (Timeframes) Accomplishing this project requires approvals by Palo Alto commissions, state regulatory agencies, an environmental impact report, and the design and construction of the project - all this within 26 months. Fortunately, the proposal may benefit from alignment of constituencies previous at conflict over the fate of Figure 10 Appendix H-7 local composting and parkland. The proposal maintains local composting without the use of parkland, and not interfering with other anticipated public projects. The schedule anticipates three broad scheduling elements: Palo Alto City governance, agency approvals, and project design and construction, all schedule elements constrained by key events. The key events that bracket the schedule include the end of composting at the current Byxbee Park (Landfill site) and the availability of the airport property through its transfer back to the City of Palo Alto. As a practical approach, the schedule anticipates the use of the Z-Best regional compost facility if the local compost operation cannot be readied by the time current compost operations must cease. City staff should maintain the ability to utilize the regional facility, but understand the goal to keep composting local, if possible and practical. Therefore a Z-Best regional option might be necessary for as much as 12 months. The following are additional schedule considerations: ¾ City of Palo Alto Approvals. Staff has indicated an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will likely be necessary for this project, a process that could take 18 months. While not a prerequisite for all development activities, it is on the critical path for the project. The EIR will be considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council. Preceding the EIR, the City would need to procure planning and design contractors to develop the basis of a project and EIR. ¾ State Permits. The Task Force visited with representatives of the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). We found that the state seemed very accommodating to develop permitting approaches to facilitate a composting operation. This is evidence that composting is an alternative supported by the state instead of landfilling. The accommodation could include the ability to extend the boundaries of the disposal site to include new facilities. ¾ Project Construction. The duration of the design and construction of the aerated static pile system has been derived from two representative vendors. The design and construction for shifting Embarcadero, and any necessary rerouting of the sanitary sewer from East Palo Alto would need to be developed, but within the broad constraints of the schedule do not seem critical. The schedule for this project will need to be vetted further. The ability to access airport land is critical to the success of the project, and the interest and approach to win use of this land should be pursued by staff. However the availability and general timing of this land is anticipated by this alternative. The Task Force should consider developing more details prior to completion of their study. Appendix H-8 F) Greenhouse Gasses Substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions can be achieved first by diverting food and other wet organic wastes from landfill disposal, and then by moving to advanced anaerobic digestion technology for our wastewater, food scraps, and yard wastes. Non- local transport of our organic wastes contributes to GHG emissions, but as can be seen from the chart below, how we process our organic wastes matters much more than where that processing occurs. Food scraps and other moisture-rich compostable wastes quickly decompose in landfills, releasing substantial methane gas long before methane recovery systems are in place. Achieving the contract collection target of our new commercial, institutional, and multi-family residence (C/I/M) food scraps program will reduce methane emissions by at least 6,000 and as much as 15,000 metric tons (mT) of CO2 equivalent, depending on emissions model assumptions. Surpassing our collection target or implementing a single-family foodwaste collection program would reduce GHG emissions even more. The use of Advanced Anaerobic Digestion (AAD) facility to process our wastewater sludge, C/I/M foodwaste, and collected yard wastes would reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 14,000 mT of CO2 equivalent. A 50% increase G) Economic Impacts Due to the complex nature of the technologies, the proprietary nature of vendor information, and the lack of sufficient time, the Task Force was not able to complete a quantitative economic analysis of alternatives. The Aerobic Subcommittee completed initial work on the current Palo Alto compost operation and the Z-Best (Gilroy) alternative and this work is contained in Appendix G. A preliminary cost analysis of an aerated static pile operation at the Embarcadero Road/Airport site for 2012 was begun by Task Force members but engineering estimates do not yet exist. The next step City staff would have to take for this alternative is to prepare an engineering estimate, should Council so direct staff. With respect to the 2015-2021 recommendations, engineering cost estimates of the alternatives do not exist. Such estimates would have to be made as part of a facilities planning process, which is one of the recommendations of the Task Force. ATTA{;HMENT .H MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Barton that the Council direct Staff to create a Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate and recommend alternatives to address Palo Alto's composting needs: 1) The Task Force would A) convene for approximately 6 months, B) members would be chosen in a manner similar to City Commissioners, C) candidates would submit an application. A three member City Council sub-committee appointed by the Mayor would determine the size and membership of the Task Force. 2) The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting City Council action on the recommendations of the BRTF. 3) The City Manager would determine the City Staff liaison and appropriate City Staff support to the BRTF. For each alternative solution or technology, the BRTF would evaluate the following: 1) Short Term Improvements a. How might the City reduce the impacts and improve the operation of our existing windrow composting. 2) Environmental Impacts a. The environmental impacts of the alternative technologies including, but not limited to footprint, odor, dust and noise impacts. b. Ability to compost food waste and sewage sludge. c. Production of renewable energy in the process and greenhouse gas impacts. 3) Economic Impacts a. Economic impacts associated with the alternative technologies, including but not limited to operating costs, capital costs, cost avoidance and income generation. 4) Permitting a. What are the permitting processes and timeframes for the various technologies? 5) Prospective Locations a. What viable locations for long term composting exist in or adjacent to Palo Alto? 6) Energy Generation a. What amount of energy might be produced through certain composting technologies? b. Can funds from the Calaveras Reserve be used for an energy-producing composting facility? c. To what extent could they address needs for local energy generation and emergency power? Council Member Burt clarified four points with regard to the Motion: 1) The memo does not permit extension or new permit applications to be authorized for Staff to proceed on. 2) It does not authorize the movement of the compost operation from its present site to an interim site. 3) There has been no decision to extend the life of the landfill. 4) No intention to determine the outcomes of the Task Force are predetermined. AMENDMENT: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Kishimoto that parkland would be considered only as the last resort. Vice Mayor Morton asked colleagues to vote against the Amendment. He stated the technologies are not yet identified as to their land use needs. He stated while it does not limit decisions explicitly, it colored the options available for the Blue Ribbon Task Force. . Council Member Klein stated he was also voting no on the Amendment. He stressed anyone serving on the Task Force likely held parkland in high regard. Council Member Burt suggested a change in wording from last resort to a prioritization of lands other than parkland to be considered first. He stated this made parklands a secondary option after all other land options. AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Kishimoto that when the priorities were set for the composting facility locations that parklands will be considered as a secondary priority after all other non-parkland options have been pursued. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Burt, Espinosa, Kishimoto Schmid, Yeh, yes MOTION PASSED WITH AMENDMENT: 8-1 Schmid no .... U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration September 24, 2009 Mr. Carl Honaker~ Director of Airports County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department 2500 Cunningham Avenue San Jose, California 95148 Dear Mr. Honaker: ATTACHMENTC San Francisco Airports District Office 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 Burlingame, California 94010-1303 Subject: Proposed Composting Site at Palo Alto Airport Palo Alto, California It has come to the attention of the San Francisco Airports District Office (ADO) that the City of Palo Alto may be considering locating a composting site at Palo Alto Airport. Following our review of the draft Compose Taskforce Report, we are providing comments based on the following factors: 1. Airport land for the proposed site is airside property that represents prime aviation use land. 2. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) shows that the proposed site has a planned aviation use. 3. The proposed project will prevent airport land from being used for aeronautical purposes, in effect displacing future aviation uses. 4. There is no landside property that is excess to airport needs and that can be converted to a non-aviation use, including the proposed site. It cannot be said that the proposed site is "not needed for airport purposes." 5. The proposed composting site may create a wildlife hazard problem for aircraft landing and taking off at the airport. Palo Alto Airport is a busy General Aviation (GA) airport with 247 based aircraft and almost 169,000 operations. The airport serves the civil aviation needs of the Santa Clara County and the clear and present needs of civil aviation should not be sacrificed for a composting facility. These factors dictate against the proposal to locate a composting facility on airport property. Justification does not exist to allow airport property to be converted to a non-aeronautical use. In view of the circumstances, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cannot .>-.---_ .. _---- .... .. -2- support the proposal and objects to the proposed use of airport land for the composting site. We expect the City to comply with its siyned Airport Sponsor Grant Assurances obligations about restricting incompatible land uses as discussed under Section C, Sponsor Certification, Paragraph 21, Compatible Land Use. Please contact our office at (650) 876-2778, X627, should you have any questions. Airports Compliance Specialist Attachment D PALO ALTO AIRPORT ASSOCIATION COMMENTS TO PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ON THE REPORT OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMPOSTING TASK FORCE October 14, 2009 Palo Alto Airport Association Comments on the Report of the Blue Ribbon Composting Task Force Introduction The final report (Report) of the Blue Ribbon Composting Task Force (TF) identifies four acres of the Palo Alto Airport (Airport) as the "preferred alternative" wherein to locate an aerobic composting plant. The Palo Alto Airport Association (p AAA) became aware of the proposal due to a Palo Alto Weekly article. As a matter of completeness, fairness, and, if nothing else, the desire to achieve the best sustainable result, the TF should have expressly notified the Palo Alto Airport community of its consideration of using airport property as soon as it anticipated making the airport a subject of its work. While the airport community was invited to meetings after the Weekly article appeared, it was too late to impact the decision-making process. There is an implicit assumption in the site recommendation that airport functioning is of low priority and serves only a small number of residents and has minimal useful public purpose. The only "con" listed in the Report's alternative matrix is that "the land is desired by airport users". It is also stated that the land is only occasionally used by helicopter operations and is otherwise unoccupied. This is erroneous. Furthennore, the P AAA disputes any claim that airport land is unused and available, and is unequivocally opposed to the taking any airport land for non-aviation purposes. Use of the Subject Airport Land It is ironic that for years any proposed airport development of the subject area has been restricted because it has been deemed "intensification of use" which is prohibited by the Baylands Master Plan. Indeed, this is why the land has remained vacant. When the COWlty installed security lighting the City of Palo Alto required that extensive landscaping along Embarcadero Road be undertaken to mitigate the impact of the low intensity lighting and to shield arriving Byxbee Park visitors from viewing a part of the airport. This landscaping was not supported by Federal grants and was entirely paid for by Airport users through the Airport Enterprise Fund. Incredibly, the TF now proposes an industrial scale composting operation with piles of material awaiting processing and finished product awaiting removal with heavy trucks carrying the material to and from the operation--all of this on the exact same area declared off limits to even minimal airport development. As a final indignity, all the landscaping demanded by the City would be destroyed. It is hard to imagine a worse place for the composting operation, considering the impact on park visitors using existing trails and interpretive exhibits a mere two hundred feet from the proposed composting operation. The Report's assessment of the use of the subject area is erroneous. In fact, it is regularly used for helicopter operations, both as an unobstructed area for the many arrivals and departures of the medical transport helicopters and regular training activities and personal transportation using smaller machines. The TF's stating that only occasional use by helicopters in some way makes the area attractive and available for alternative uses is P AAA Composting Comments Page 2 comparable to asserting that a portion of a railway right of way can be taken for alternative uses because trains do not use it continuously. The Palo Alto Airport Working Group (P AA WG) appointed by then-mayor Judy Kleinberg, strongly affirmed the value of the airport to the community, citing critical emergency response functions during an earthquake or other incident, support for local business transportation requirements and economic value as an employer and supporter . of medical and public service transportation requirements. In response, the City Council established a time line to take over management of the airport from Santa Clara County by 2012, and subsequently authorized engaging a consultant to prepare a financial and operational plan for City operation. The TF report fails to mention the P AA WG Report. i FEDERAL ISSUES The FAA provides a national, largely seamless and pervasive regulatory scheme for airport operations and modifications for airports supported by FAA grants. The Airport is a recipient of FAA grants and thus within the FAA's exclusive jurisdiction. FAA approval of taking airport property is mandatory. Moreover, the Airport is a designated regional reliever airport and recognized as a vital component of United States airspace. The FAA operates and maintains the air traffic control tower. FAA grants require that such facilities must continue to operate for at least twenty years subsequent to the grant date. Palo Alto has regularly received such grant funding, and will require future grants to maintain the Airport and make improvements required to meet applicable safety and operational standards. Federal and State grants comprise some 97% of the funding for airport infrastructure, and are essential for the operation of any public airport. In a September 24, 2009 letter from the San Francisco Airports District Office to the County Director of Airports, the FAA states its objection as follows: " ... Justification does not exist to allow airport property to be converted to a oon- aeronautical use. In view of the circumstances, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cannot support the proposal and objects to the proposed use of land for the composting site. We expect the City to comply with its signed Airport Sponsor Grant Assurances obligations about restricting incompatible land uses discussed under Section C, Sponsor Certification, Paragraph 21, Compatible Land Use." The entire FAA letter appears as Exhibit A.1i Effect on Airport Operations The change in the Airport boundary and the proximity of the composting operations would effectively eliminate helicopter operations from the area currently in use. Rotor downdraft wpuld create unacceptable levels of dust and particulate matter blown from the piles of material awaiting disposition. Moreover, the TF report fails to evaluate the problem of attracting birds to the airport. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B (Exhibit B)iil provides guidance in airport planning to avoid the dangers of attracting birds to the airport area. In Section 2( e) it states: "Composting operations should not be located on PAAA Composting Comments Page 3 airport property. Off-airport property compo sting operation should be located no closer than the greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from any AOA or the distance called for by airport design requirements ... " Some TF members have suggested and mapped an alternative airport layout, moving helicopter operations away from the proposed area and reducing.the number of available tiedown locations. This layout is totally speculative and has not been evaluated by any qualified airport design experts. Such evaluation is required as a prerequisite to FAA approval. Furthennore, no revenue source for planning and implementing these very expensive changes has been identified. The Airport is required to be self-supporting, and changes,required to modify the airport layout to accommodate non-aviation activities (on what is now airport land) cannot be covered pursuant to the limitations of the airport enterprise fund revenues. To the extent that the TF report is approved, who will pay for all of this? Consider also that a proposal for making lease payments to the airport enterprise fund for the land constitutes transferring funds from the general fund to an airport enterprise fund and is inconsistent with a self-supporting airport. Changes Required to Meet FAA Airport Design Standards The County of Santa Clara's draft Palo Alto Airport Master Plan 0/2006 (plan)iY states, ''The existing non-standard helipad and helicopter parking area should be considered for replacement with a new heliport designed to comply with FAA heliport design criteria including a separate parking space for one helicopter ... Alternatives to a new helipad include 1) requesting a waiver from the FAA to allow continued use of the existing helipad ... and 2) discontinue using the helipad and conduct all helicopter operations on the runway." And: "Because of its circular configuration and the fact that it is the most heavily utilized taxiway on the airport, Taxiway G is recommended to be reconfigured to confonn to FAA taxiway design criteria." Figure 1, below, shows the document's layout map. Helicopter operations are a vital part of the airport's function and air-ambulance helicopters visit the airport several times daily to refuel, including at night (night operations require greater safety margins). The Plan details a relocated and expanded lighted heliport meeting FAA specifications using space the TF assumes is available for composting. Increasing certain taxiway widths to meet FAA specifications will also demand more of the subject area. In general, FAA grants for airport improvements require that airport designs adhere to FAA specifications. The layout map shows hangars located on the four acres which have been detennined to be a primary feature to ensure profitable future airport operations. While these have been deemed inconsistent with the Baylands Master Plan in the past, they surely would be infinitely less intrusive than the proposed industrial compo sting operation. Nevertheless, their inclusion in the Plan is viewed as a proposal but not a requirement for financial independence. County Relationship Because the County currently holds a lease for the Airport, expiring in 2017, any removal of land subject to that lease would require County agreement. Furthennore, the County Business Plan for the Airport prohibits the County from negotiating an extension and returns the Airport to the City in 2017, or sooner if desired by the City. The City is in a PAM Composting Comments Page 4 planning process with a view to taking the Airport over in 2012, recognizing that the County is committed to doing only minimal maintenance until the airport is taken over by the City. Summary While we do not dispute the environmental value of efficiently composting the materials in question, there is no justifiable and compelling reason for taking airport land for the proposed composting operation, an incompatible use of land within confines of the Airport. The P AAA is not in a position to recommend alternatives, but notes that even if some dedicated but undeveloped parkland in the vicinity of the water treatment plant were to be used, the overall impact on developed parkland in the vicinity would be substantially less than the TF's current recommendation to take Airport property. The site recommended by the TF would hamper and make dysfunctional existing Airport operations and seriously affect helicopter operations, thereby threatening public health and safety. Adopting this site plan is not in the City's best interest and should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Britton President Palo Alto Airport Association i The May 2007 Report of the Palo Alto Airport Working Group (PAA WG) can be found on the City's website see: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org!cityagendalpublishlaU:port-workgroup/documentslPAA WG- DraftReporlpdf ii The FAA letter incorrectly identifies only 247 aircraft based at the airport. Counting aircraft in privately leased hangars and tiedown space, the number is approximately 500. ill The FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/520o-33B can be found on the FAA website; see http://www.faa.gov/airportslresources/advison: circulws/media/150-5200-33B/150 5200 33b.pdf Iv The December 2006 Palo Alto Airport Master Plan Report can be found on the County Airports' Website, see: http://countyahports.orgldocs/MasterPlanlPAD Masterplan-complete.pdf P AAA Composting Comments Page 5 OHIU"TIIJ" 9U1LDNO AFIE'A Figure .... ' Building Area Development Options Palo AtID AIrPOI1 4-10 Figure 1, Proposed Changes, including new helipad and its safety zone. PAM Composting Comments Page 6 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE A rrRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS Advisory Circular Date: 8/28/2007 AC No: 15015200-338 Initiated by: AAS-300 Change: 1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It also discusses' airport development projects (including airport construction, expansion, and renovation) affecting aircraft. movement near hazardous wildlife attractants. Appendix 1 provides definitions of terms used in this AC. 2. APPLICABILITY. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that public-use airport operators implement the standards and practices contained in this AC. The holders of Airport Operating Certificates issued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Certification of Airports, Subpart D (Part 139), may use the standards, practices, and recommendations contained in this AC to comply with the wildlife hazard management requirements of Part 139. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance must use these standards. The FAA also recommends the guidance in this AC for land-use planners, operators of non- certificated airports, and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports. 3. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, dated July 27,2004. 4. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. This AC contains the following major changes, which are marked with vertical bars in the margin: a. Technical changes to paragraph references. b. Wording on storm water detention ponds. c. Deleted paragraph 4-3.b, Additional Coordination. S. BACKGROUND. Information about the risks posed to aircraft. by certain wildlife species has increased a great deal in recent years. Improved reporting, studies, documentation, and statistics clearly show that aircraft. collisions with birds and other wildlife are a serious economic and public safety problem. While many speCies of wildlife can pose a threat to aircraft safety, they are not equally hazardous. Table 1 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-338 ranks the wildlife groups commonly involved in damaging strikes in the United States according to their relative hazard to aircraft. The ranking is based on the 47,212 records in the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database for the years 1990 through 2003. These hazard rankings, in conjunction with site-specific Wildlife Hazards Assessments (WHA), will help airport operators determine the relative abundance and use patterns of wildlife species and help focus hazardous wildlife management efforts on those species most likely to cause problems at an airport. Most public-use airports have large tracts of open, undeveloped land that provide added margins of safety and noise mitigation. These areas can also present potential hazards to aviation if they encourage wildlife to enter an airport's approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). Constructed or natural areas-such as poorly drained locations, detention/retention ponds, roosting habitats on buildings, landscaping, odor- causing rotting organic matter (putrescible waste) disposal operations, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands-can provide wildlife with ideal locations for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape. Even smalrfacilities, such as fast food restaurants, taxicab staging areas, rental car facilities, aircraft viewing areas, and public parks, can produce sUbstantial attraction'S for hazardous wildlife. During the past century, wildlife-aircraft strikes have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives worldwide, as well as billions of dollars in aircraft damage. Hazardous wildlife attractants on' and near airports can jeopardize future airport expansion, making proper community land-use planning essential. This AC provides airport operators and those parties with whom they cooperate with the guidance they need to assess and address potentially hazardous wildlife attractants when locating new facilities and implementing certain land-use practices on or near public-use airports. 6. MEMORANDUM OF AGRI:EMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL RESOURCE AGENCIES. The FAA, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture -Wildlife Services signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in July 2003 to acknowledge their respective missions in protecting aviation from wildlife hazards. Through the MOA, the agencies established procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to address more effectively existing and future environmental conditions contributing to collisions between wildlife and aircraft (wildlife strikes) throughout the United States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to aviation and human safety while protecting the Nation's valuable environmental resources. DAVID L. BENNETT Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards ' ii EXHIBIT A FAA LETTER TO COUNTY AIRPORTS DIRECTOR RE: PROPOSED TAKING OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT LAND FOR COMPOSTING OPERATIONS PAAA Composting Comments Page 7 ·" .... o U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration September 24, 2009 Mr. Carl Honaker, Director of Airports County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department 2500 Cunningham Avenue San Jose, California 95148 Dear Mr. Honaker: San FrancI8co Airports District OffIce 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 Burlingame, California 94010-1303 Subject: proposed Composting Site at Palo Alto Airport Palo Alto, California It has come to the attention of the San Francisco Airports District Office (ADO) that the City of Palo Alto may be considering locating a composting site at Palo Alto Airport. Following our review of the draft Compose Taskforce Report, we are providing comments based on the following factors: 1. Airport land for the proposed site is airside property that represents prime aviation use land. 2. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) shows that the proposed site has a planned aviation use. 3. The proposed project will prevent airport land from being used for aeronautical purposes, in effect displacing future aviation uses. 4. There is no landside property that is excess to airport needs and that can be converted to a non-aviation use, including the proposed site. It cannot be said that the proposed site is "not needed for airport purposes." 5. The proposed composting site may create a wildlife hazard problem for aircraft landing and taking off at the airport. Palo Alto Airport is a busy General Aviation (GA) airport with 247 based aircraft and almost 189,000 operations. The airport serves the civil aviation needs of the Santa Clara County and the clear and present needs of civil aviation should not be sacrificed for a composting facility. These factors dictate against the proposal to locate a composting facility on airport property. Justification does not exist to allow airport property to be converted to a non-aeronautical use. In view of the circumstances, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cannot ... -.-._------ -• -2- support the proposal and objects to the proposed use of airport land for the compostinq site. We expoct the City to comply with itssl~fleu Airport Sponsor Grant Assurances obligations about restricting incompatible land uses as discussed under Section C, Sponsor Certi£ication, Paragraph 21, Compatible Land Use. Please contact our office at (650) 876-2778, X627, should you have any questions. Specialist October 13, 2009 Palo Alto City Council cc: Jim Keene, Phil Bobel To the Palo Alto City Council, Attachment E David Creemer Palo Alto, CA 94306 T +1650 814-0224 dayid@zachalY·copl I am writing on behalf of the Joint Community Relations Committee (JCRC) ofthe Palo Alto Airport. As you may know, we are a City Council directed committee, tasked with working to ensure the Airport's value, service and impact in regards to the Palo Alto community (among other things). We are concerned that we were not invited as a formal city.appointed committee to participate in the composting blue- ribbon task foree, which I now understand may propose significant changes to the airport. Given our broad and long connections to the many stake-holders with regards to the airport and the surrounding Baylands area, I am surprised and dismayed at our non-inclusion, and am open to suggestions as to how to more fonnalJy include our participation in the composting project. Sincerely yours, \ David Creemer, Chair J eRC for the Palo Alto Airport CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum Date: October 19, 2009 To: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL From: KRISTIN HEINEN Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Revising Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private, Nonresidential and Residential Construction and Renovation, and Review of Report on Implementation of the City's Green Building Ordinance. The green building agenda item was originally scheduled for the August 3, 2009 City Council meetfng. The Council voted to postpone it to a later date, October 19, 2009. There were two major changes made to the CMR and/or attachments since the August 3, 2009 City Council meeting, outlined below. 1. With the City's Energy Efficiency Ordinance also on the agenda for consideration on October 19, 2009, staff took the opportunity to create more consistency between the two interrelated ordinances. a. Definitions and proj ect types found in both ordinances were simplified and made consistent. For example, the definitions for Energy Star Portfolio Manager and Time - Dependent Valuation. In addition, the number system was improved for easier cross- referencing. b. The Green Building Tables A and B were enhanced with a new column explicitly calling out the Energy Efficiency Ordinance requirements and acceptable verification methods, where appropriate. c. The Energy Efficiency Ordinance developments influenced the definition of large nonresidential or residential renovation construction. The old definition included HV AC system, building envelope, plumbing systems, lighting systems and interior finishes/partitions to determine the proj ects green building requirements, whereas the new definition is more responsive to energy efficiency, dropping interior finishes/partitions and changing plumbing systems to hot water system (Table A 3). 2. For small nonresidential renovation green building requirements to be triggered in the August 3rd version, a project must have been greater than or equal to 500 square feet. The indicator of $100,000 in valuation was added to the definition to ensure a project was large enough to require the effort of obtaining an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager, Building Energy Performance Rating (Table A 4). f&v~ ~~~ ES KEENE / J ~Manager U KRIs11N HEINEN Associate Planner / Sustainability Coordinator j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2009 REPORT: ACTION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 332:09 SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Revising Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private, Nonresidential and Residential Construction and Renovation, and Review of Report on Implementation of the City's Green Building Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a first year summary of implementation of the City's Green Building Ordinance, (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.44). Over the past year, the program covered 264 permits, valued at $8,306,638 allowing 98,275 square feet of construction. This construction incorporated strategies that are environmentally and socially responsible, and improved occupant health. Staff recommends that Council adopt amendments to the tables adopted in June 2008 in conjunction with the initial adoption of the Green Building Ordinance. The revised tables set forth green building compliance thresholds, rating systems, and compliance verification for private development by project type. The amendments increase requirements for existing buildings with a particular focus on energy efficiency and adjust the covered project definitions based on lessons learned from the first year of program implementation. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review Board recommend that the City Council review this report describing the past year's implementation of the City's Green Building Ordinance, and adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) referencing proposed amendments to Tables A & B (Resolution Exhibits 1 and 2). BACKGROUND In June of 2008, the City of Palo Alto adopted a mandatory Green Building Ordinance ( PAMC Chapter 18.44) requiring specific project types to meet minimum staridards for compliance and verification using the appropriate u.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or Build It Green (BIG) Green Point Rated (GPR) green building rating systems. The goal of the Palo Alto Green Building Program is to design, build and operate a new generation of efficient, environmentally responsible, and healthy buildings in the City of Palo CMR: 332:09 Page 1 of 10 The goal of the Palo Alto Green Building Program is to design, build and operate a new generation of efficient, environmentally responsible, and healthy buildings in the City of Palo Alto. Building green can have a significant impact on reducing energy, water and natural resource consumption, and can improve Palo Alto citizens' well being through improved indoor air quality and comfort. Green building is the practice of taking an integrated approach to building construction, building systems, and building sites to provide more environmentally responsive, healthy, productive, economical places to work, learn and live. Green building also goes beyond the physical buildings to consider how the site and buildings interact with the community and transportation infrastructure. Standards for green building compliance adopted tn conjunction with the Green Building Ordinance include: • . Table A, City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private, Nonresidential Construction and Renovation, and • Table B, City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private, Residential Construction and Renovation. PAMC Section 18.44.040 requires that any amendments to the standards for green building compliance be considered and recommended by the Architectural Review Board. There is also a need to update the Historic Resources Board and Planning and Transportation Commission on the progress made implementing the ordinance during the first year of the Palo Alto Green Building Program. DISCUSSION This report covers the first year of ordinance implementation and performance of the Palo Alto Green Building Program, and describes proposed amendments to the green building requirements (Tables A and B). Since the Green Building Ordinance requires staff to return to Council one year after the effective date to report on program implementation, this report covers program performance from July 1, 2008 -June 30, 2009. Staff anticipates that future program reports will be provided during the annual Earth Day report in April of each year, covering the previous year performance from January 1 -December 31. Over the past year, the Palo Alto Green Building Program was created both to implement the Green Building Ordinance, and to address implementation of and interaction with the City's Energy Efficiency Ordinance and Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion (C&D) Ordinance. Staff has implemented several key Green Building measures over the last year, and has gained insight into areas where the program could be better optimized, as described below. Green Building Implementation Activities The following are staff and community building activities that were undertaken and completed during the past fiscal year to implement the Green Building Ordinance: • Hiring of Experienced Staff and Training of Existing Staff -In early October 2008, the City filled the vacant C&D position (funded by Public Works Operations budget) with a qualified staff member who is a LEED Accredited Professional, with BIG's Green Point Rater (GPR) CMR: 332:09 Page 2 of 10 Training, and experience in green building policy, and development project review. Additional staff members in the Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Utilities Departments have undergone training and/or have become accredited/certified under the USGBC LEED/BIG GPR programs, respectively. • Developing the Palo Alto Green Building Program Guide (Guide) -The Guide was developed as a tool to assist the community in understanding the City's program and to provide information on why green building is important. The Guide describes the City's proj ect requirements and submittal and review processes, as well as presents financial incentives and h~lpful outside resources to assist with compliance. • Developing a New Green Building Website -The Planning and Community Environment Department website added a new green building section that allows applicants to view successful green projects in the City, the goals and purpose of the green building program, links to financial incentives for building green, and outside resources. From the site, users can download the Palo Alto Green Building Guide to find specific information regarding the proj ect type the user is undertaking, at http://www .cityofpaloalto .org/ depts/plnl green building/ default. asp. • Streamlining the C&D and Energy Ordinance Compliance Reviews -C&D and building energy efficiency are a subset of the broader practice of green building; therefore, the requirements for both were merged into one program and application process, ease of implementation by the City and community. The C&D Debris Diversion Ordinance requires covered projects to achieve a 75% diversion rate and requires applicants to bring all debris to an approved facility. The Energy Efficiency Ordinance requires covered projects to achieve energy savings 15% beyond the California State Energy Code. • Integrating Green Building into the Permit and Inspection Process -Staff established new review and enforcement protocol through the planning and building application processes, including updating existing forms, project checklists, and the Accela building permit tracking system to account for green building review and inspection. • Achieving Greater Cost Recovery -Staff assessed the fiscal and staffing needs to run the green building program to ensure greater cost recovery. The FY 2010 budget passed in June 2009 includes new fees ranging from approximately $100 -$800 for projects covered under the Green Building Ordinance to fund staff time to review projects and enforce the requirements. Project fees were determined by the size of the project, and whether the City was providing verification in house, or through the Build It Green or the Green Building Certification Institute. • Adding New Enforcement Options -The Ordinance requires compliance as its primary enforcement mechanism. Final building inspections are delayed until the project can show an adequate level of compliance. In order to expand compliance options, in July 2009, the administrative penalty schedule was updated to allow fines for non-compliant green building projects at $500 per day of non-compliance. Rebates are offered for building green through the Utilities and Public Works Departments. CMR: 332:09 Page 3 of 10 • Creating a Performance Database -Staff established performance indicators for determining the effectiveness of the program including number of projects by type, number of occupants in green buildings, square footage, points achieved, water reduction, energy savings, waste diverted, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and dollars spent on environmentally preferable materials. In addition, the system tracks review time to ensure green building review and inspection are not responsible for prolonging the building process. • Participating in City, Regional and National Events and Efforts -City staff presented a session regarding the Green Building Ordinance and program implementation at the AlA (American Institute for Architects) International Conference and at the Bay Area City Attorney's Association, participated on the Energy and Climate Taskforce to develop green building indicators for cities nationally through ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), participated in the Build It Green Public Agency Council and in the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative to develop policy recommendations for use throughout the county (Attachment E). In addition, the City's ordinance was recognized as a model ordinance by the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Looking Forward The following are some of the green building activities planned for the coming years: • Increase Staff Review Capacity -Reducing reliance on certifying bodies such as the Green Building Certification Institute and Build It Green by increasing capacity for staff reviews and on-site inspections of covered green building projects could reduce costs and time for applicants and can prepare the department for future code requirements for green building at the state level. In particular, staff proposes to increase training and certification in energy efficiency plan review and on-site compliance inspections. It will be necessary, however, to ensure that City review, inspection and costs are not duplicative of those done by outside bodies. • Develop a Recognition Program -Establishing a recognition program to acknowledge all covered projects that have achieved compliance with mandatory green building requirements is particularly valuable for projects that are verified by the City rather than by an outside agency. • Improve Performance of Existing Buildings -Focusing efforts on understanding the current performance of the existing building stock will result in the greatest environmental and performance improvements. These efforts are further outlined in the discussion on the proposed Ordinance amendments. • Continue to Track Rating Systems, Code and Policy Development and Integrate into the Green Building Program -It is important for staff to stay current on green building rating system changes, technology and strategy innovations, and green building codes and policies at both regional and national levels. Staff is particularly interested in finding innovative ways to incorporate the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) program into large projects and within broad City planning strategies and integrating new requirements proposed for the CA Green Building Code changes. CMR: 332:09 Page 4 of 10 Program Performance Over the past year, 264 permits were issued for projects covered under the green building compliance standards with the following distribution: • Residential vs Nonresidential Permits -100 permits, or 38%, were nonresidential and 164 permits, or 62%, were residential; • Mandatory Requirements vs Voluntary -72 permits, or 27%, had mandatory green building requirements and 192, or 63 % had construction and demolition debris diversion andlor voluntary requirements such as checklist submittal only; • Mandatory Requirement Permits by Project Type -22 permits, or close to 30% of those with mandatory green building requirements were for nonresidential existing buildings, and 50 permits or close to 70% were for new construction; • Voluntary Permits by Project Type -114 permits, or 43%, of the total number of permits were for residential renovations or small additions. The mandatory requirements resulted in construction of 666,500 square feet of space valued at $80,412.694. Only five (5) of the 72 permits with mandatory green building requirements have successfully completed the green building program. These projects: • totaled project valuations of $8,306,638 and 98,275 square feet of construction; • include 750 employees in Palo Alto; • achieved on average 24% energy efficiency savings; • reduced indoor water use by 69,500 gallons per year; • reduced outdoor water use by 50,000 gallons per year; • expended $635,174 on environmentally preferable building materials; • diverted 704.98 tons of waste from landfill; and • reduced CO2 emissions by over 200 tons; It is important to note that projects with mandatory green building requirements are also typically those that have a longer construction period; therefore, many projects that were covered under the requirements when the program started, on July 1, 2008, have not yet completed construction. In addition, while only five projects have successfully completed the green building program, there are many other proj ects that predate the mandatory requirements and are voluntarily meeting the City's requirements. All completed projects achieved the exact number of points, or slightly exceeded the minimum number of green building points required for the project. However, staff is seeing (on average) more recent applicants striving for point targets 30-40% higher than the City minimum points. CMR: 332:09 Page 5 of 10 compliance requirements, are consistent with the Green Building Ordinance adopted in June of 2008, which added Chapter 18.44 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The amendments are also consistent with the Energy Efficiency Ordinance, which added chapter 16.18 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code establishing local energy efficiency' standards based on the 2005 California Energy Code. The Green Building Program also promotes the City's Climate Protection Plan (CPP) and Zero Waste goals. In 2007, the City Council approved the Climate Protection Plan (CPP) that provided direction to reduce green house gas emissions associated with buildings as one method to reduce Palo Alto's impact on climate change. The plan proposed implementing specific requirements for green building and adopting the 2005 California Energy Code to achieve emission reduction goals. Finally, the amendments support the City's Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Plan, which identify several green building strategies as key categories of sustainability. RESOURCE IMPACT If the proposed amendments are adopted, relevant resource impacts would include increased staff workload. The amendments are unlikely to cause an increase in the applications submitted under the green building program, but are likely to increase the time necessary to review an individual application. The review time depends greatly upon whether a project with mandatory requirements chooses to use the City for verification instead of using GBCI or BIG. Applicants' motivation to choose one verification method over another may include recognition, time, cost and convenience. Staff is confident, based on the data derived over the past year that a manageable number of non-residential project applicants will choose City verification and the majority of residential projects will choose BIG verification. However, the City may need to adjust its permit fees to ensure cost recovery in the event that residential projects choose City verification. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The adoption of the proposed amendments is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308 of CEQA Guidelines. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~~~.~~ing and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 332:09 Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A. Attachment B. Attachment C. Attachment D. CMR: 332:09 Resolution Table A. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation (Not Redlined / Redlined) Table B. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation (Not Redlined / Redlined) Letter from Silicon Valley Leadership Group dated June 16,2009 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. --- Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Revising Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential and Residential Construction and Renovation WHEREAS, on May 12, 2008, the City Council considered regulations for the incorporation of green building techniques and materials in private nonresidential and nonresidential development projects and adopted Ordinance No. 5006; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5006 specifies that green building standards for compliance shall be set forth by resolution of the City Council after recommendation from the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board. Such standards for compliance shall include the types of projects subject to regulation, green building rating systems to be applied to various types of projects, minimum thresholds for compliance and timing and methods of verification of compliance with green building regulations; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2008 the City Council adopted green building standards for compliance for private development projects set forth in two tables that were attached to Resolution No. 8825; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5006 also specifies that not later than one year after its effective date, a report shall be prepared for presentation to the Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council regarding the results of implementation of the Ordinance. WHEREAS, on October 19, 2009, the City Council received the report regarding the initial year of the Green Building program and considered revisions to the green building standards for compliance associated with Ordinance No. 5006; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board do hereby recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the green building standards for compliance for private nonresidential and residential construction and renovation set forth in Table A and Table B and attached to this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: 1 091009 syn 6050919 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the revised green building standards for compliance for private nonresidential and residential construction and renovation as set forth in Table A and Table B attached to this resolution. SECTION 2. This resolution shall take effect on January 1, 2010, or upon the date that the 2008 edition of the California Energy Code becomes effective, whichever is later; provided that the City's Ordinance establishing local energy efficiency standards for certain buildings and improvements covered by the 2008 California Energy Code has been approved by the City Council and the California Energy Commission. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Deputy City Attorney Director of Planning and Community 2 091009 syn 6050919 Attachment B Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHANGED - -EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2010 Table A. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private DevelapmeBt Nonresidential Construction and Renovation Type of Project N9RFesiEleRtiai C9Rstmeti9R aREl ReR9vati9R 1. New construction:::.. 45,000 sf (including additions to existing buildings) New esaswetisa::: S,QQQ sf aBe < 2S,QQQ sf Rating System. Code or Program USGBC LEED ~tC Cheeklist LEED ~JG. G.l:!eskliFOt LNew Construction ~ 500 sf and < 5,000 sf I USGBC LEED ~JG. G.l:!eskHFOt (including additions to existing buildings) 3. Tenant improvements. renovations. or alterations> I USGBC LEED MG. G.l:!eskliFOt 5,000 sf that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system. building envelope. hot water system. or lighting system. ane > SQ% sf prejeet sf ~ 2: $Q,QQQe valHafisa~ BuilEliRg ImpF9veIBeRts Minimum Threshold Required LEED Silver (33 points) LeeD Silvef LEED PfS fatee psints Prerequisites + 5 points (round up) required for every 500 sf ilfS Fatee fSffBl::lla (Bew e9aswefisa s~/S,QQQ) J( 33 psiBts, but Bet less than 17 psiBts LEED Certified (2~ 1=-lAl1=-ltFO) Requirement to Exceed CA Title 24 Part 6 (15%)* YES YES NO 4. Tenant improvements. renovations or alterations> 500 sf and> $100.000 in valuation that don't fall under Project Type 3. above. USGBC LEED I LEED Checklist I NO Other feasvafisa ::: $1 QQ,QQQe valuatisa NetN esastfl:letisa < SQQ sf aBe Feasvafisa < $lQQ,QQQe sf valuafisa AND Energy STAR Portfolio Manager I Building Energy Performance Rating LeeD CI Cheeklist Submit eheel r . ~ ,1St; laell:iee sa builQiBg ~tS fe€ll::lifemeBt * The requirement to exceed CA Title 24 Part 6 by 15% is also referenced for these project types in the applicable green building rating system, and the City's Energy Efficiency Ordinance. Verification** LeeD/USG~C GBClorCPA Th~FOl:!A1A veFiHeafisa by LeeDAP Tl:!Fe!'lRsle veFiHeafisa by LeeDAPGBCI or CPA GBClorCPA CPA ~elf"'erifisatiA1=-l ** For project types 1) and 2), if CPA is chosen for verification performance 15% beyond California Energy Code Title 24 Part 6 is an acceptable compliance equivalent to the LEED energy prerequisite. The project will not be reauired to do additional modeling bevond state reauirements. Snecial Considerations & Definitions ,~4ixeEl Use 9F OtheF l>evel9pIBeRt Csmmsreial aBe fesieeafialeriteria as applieable4 Mixed Use Developments Historic Structures Multi Year Cumulative Mixed use orojects must comply with the anplicable project type requirements based on the scope of the project. Table aoolicability is to be determined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions of the development. Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to ~18.44.070 eftae eRiiaaB:6e Palo Alto Municipal Code. Tae CelHBlianee Oft.'ieial me alleVi' the ase efalte~ e 6aeelElists fer lHsteFi6 eailEiiags er fer eailaiags that rewa er re ase S1:1l3staatial flertieas eftae eJEistiag stra6Rlre. Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period felle .'lfiag aaefltiea ef these FeEj:wremeats shall be considered as a single project, subject to the highest level of green Construction Unusual Projects USGBCLEED GBCI CPA Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Buildin!! Envelone Prereauisites building requirements for that project, unless exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. Projects with an unusual scope of work or with unique circumstances may apply for an exemption to the green building requirements to be determined by the Planning Director, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.44.070. USGBC LEED stands for the U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Projects must comply with the applicable and current. Camplianse i'lcith atheF LEED® rating system sReslelistsiesh:leieg ht eat limiteel ta bee];) C (CaFe &; gReIl), bee];) CI (CammeFsial. IeteFiaFS), aF bee];) e8 (e~Eistieg 8l:lileiags). An alternative equivalent rating system or program may be substituted feF tae elesigaateel Fatiag system w~eFe eleemeel appF9pFiate as approved by the Planning Director, after recommendation by the applicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is required). The Green Building Certification Institute provides 3rd party verification services for the LEED rating system. City of Palo Alto staffwith expertise in green building will providein-h9J.lSe review similar in structure andustrin~ncy to that of the GBCI. Energy STAR Portfolio Manager (Portfolio Manager) shall mean the program managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that offers an energy management tool that allows an applicant to track and assess energy and water consumption of a building project. Tracked projects receive an energy performance rating on a scale of 1-100 relative to similar buildings nationwide. The applicant is not reauired to achieve a set rating. The building envelope is the ensemble of exterior and demisinjUlartitions of an building that enclose conditioned soace. (Defined by California Energy Code Title 24 Part 6) Prereauisites are green building strategies reauired bv the LEED rating system before pointsIDllY be claimedfQr any project type. They are mandatory measures, not option. Te he aeijl:lsteEi atlflaal1;'te Fetleet ehanges te the City's valaatiea ~er sEJ:l:lare feet efaeY! eeastFUetiea. Page 2 Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHANGES ACCEPTED -EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2010 ~ ----------.1 --~ --------------------,.. ~ ----------------.... ---------~ --. ----. ---------------------~--_. --- Typc·ofProject Rating System, Code or Minimum Threshold Required Requirement to Verification ** Program Exceed CA Title 24 Part 6 (15%)* 1. New construction 2:.5,000 sf USGBCLEED LEED Silver (33 points) YES GBClorCPA (including additions to existing buildings) 2. New Construction 2: 500 sf and < 5,000 sf USGBCLEED LEED Prerequisites + 5 points YES GBClorCPA (including additions to existing buildings) (round up) required for every 500 sf 3. Tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations 2: USGBCLEED LEED Certified NO GBClorCPA 5,000 sf that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. 4~ Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations 2: USGBCLEED LEED Checklist NO CPA 500 sf and 2:.$100,000 in valuation that don't fall under AND Project Type 3, above. Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Building Energy Performance Rating * The requirement to exceed CA Title 24 Part 6 by 15% is also referenced for these project types in the applicable green building rating system, and the City's Energy Efficiency Ordinance. ** For project types 1) and 2), if CPA is chosen for verification, performance 15% beyond California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6 is an acceptable compliance equivalent to the LEED energy prerequisite. The project will not be required to do additional modeling beyond state requirements. Special Considerations & Definitions Mixed Use Developments Mixed use projects must comply with the applicable project type requirements based on the scope of the project. Table applicability is to be determined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions of the development. Historic Structures Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to 18.44.070 Palo Alto Municipal Code. Multi Year Cumulative Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period s shall be considered as a single project, subject to the highest level of green building requirements for that project, unless COJ;lstruction exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. Unusual Projects Projects with an unusual scope of work or with unique circumstances may apply for an exemption to the green building requirements to be determined by the Planning Director, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.44.070. USGBC LEED stands for the U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Projects must comply with the applicable and current LEED® rating system. USGBCLEED An alternative, equivalent rating system or program may be substituted as approved by the Planning Director, after recommendation by the applicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is required). GBCI The Green Building Certification Institute provides 3rd party verification services for the LEED rating system. CPA City of Palo Alto staffwith expertise in green building will provide in-house review similar in structure and stringency to that of the GBCI. Energy STAR Portfolio Energy STAR Portfolio Manager (Portfolio Manager) shall mean the program managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that offers an energy management tool that allows an Manager applicant to track and assess energy and water consumption of a building project. Tracked projects receive an energy performance rating on a scale of 1-100 relative to similar buildings nationwide. The applicant is not required to achieve a set rating. Building Envelope The building envelope is the ensemble of exterior and demising partitions of a building that enclose conditioned space. (Defined by California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6) Prerequisites Prerequisites are green building strategies required by the LEED rating system before points may be claimed for any project type. They are mandatory measures, not option. Attachment C Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHANGED_-EFFECTivE JANUARY 2010 Table B. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private De: .. Residential Construction and Renovation Requirement to Type of Project4 IlYihIiR9' hRRFAVQRlQR~ Cheeklist ReEluiFedRating System. Code or Program Minimum Threshold Required Exceed CA Title Verification Multi-Family Residential LNew construction of 3 or more fattached~ units~ BIG GPR Multifamily Maltifamily GFeeaPeiftt 70 points4 Cheek:list I<er ·aay malti family resiaefttial prejeet with > 30 er mere ftew units prapesea, complete thea LEED-ND (Neighborhood Development) checklist shall alse he eempletea aBa sahmittea with the applieatieft, fer iftfermatieft eftly. 2. Renovations or alterations> 50% of the BIG GPR Multifamily 50 points existing unit sf and that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system. building envelope, hot water system, or lighting sYstem. 3. Renovations, Agdditions. and/or rebuilds to individual units anEl,ler reftevatieftS with permit> . 250 sf and valuation ~ $100,000 in a single unit~ Aaaitiefts aaEl,ler reaevatiefts with permit valaatieft < $1 QQ,QQQ~ Single-Family and Two-Family Residential ~New construction of~ 1.250 sf2,55Q sf }:Tew eeftSfFHetieft ef!:;: 1,25Q sfaaa < 2,55Q sf BIG GPR }.{altifamily GreeaPeiat Cheeklist HERS II }:Te re~airemeftt BIG GPR Single-Family a1=l"ll"l'R"llAi'Rt C:~l"l~kli~t Siftgle I<amily GreenPeiat Cheeklist ~B. Existing home additions or rebuilds ~ 1,250 sf Chose one of the following two options: Option 1: BIG GPR Single Family or Existing Home Checklist Sahmit eheek:list; iftelaae aft hailEliag plaas HERS Rating (requirement effective Januarv 2011) 70 points + 1 point per additional 70 sf over 2,550 (150 points maximum)4 7Q peiftts4 50 points 24 Part 6 (15%)* YES Follow the BIG GPRminimum energy requirements. NO YES YES Use of the"Existing Alterations GreenPoint Rated lferif.ieatieft~ nd/or CPA GreenPoint Rated and/or CPA CPA~ verifisatisFl GreenPoint Rated and/or CPA~ eiat R:atea lferif.ieatieft Gree~aiat &ateEl verif.ieatieft GreenPoint Rated and/or CPA OR The whole house must Performance HERS II 012tion 2: CA Energy Code T-24 Part 6 and demonstrate that the TDV Approach" as Rater and HERS II Energy of the building is at least outlined under CA CPA 15% less than the TDV energy Title 24 Part 6 is of the standard building based on acceptable. the proto!ypical house of its vintage and receive a HERS II rating. (reguirement effective Janu~ 2011) 6. Existing home renovations= rebuilds and/or Hsme RemsEleliag Greea "B1.iilEliag Caeeklist Checklist S1.iamit eaeekiist; NO CPASelf ¥\dditions totaling> 250 sf and < 1,250 sf andfei: BIG GPR Existing Home iael1.iEle sa a1.iilEliBg plaBS ¥erifieatisa reas¥atisas > $1 O~,OOO valuation:5 AND HERS II HERS II Rating (reguirement HERS II effective Janu~ 2011) Rater and CPA * The reguirement to exceed CA Title 24 Part 6 by 15% is referenced for these Qroject t!Qes in the aQQlicable green building rating system and the Ci!y's Energy Efficiency Ordinance. 1<\EiEiitieas aas,leF £eae I atieas ef ':::;;$+§,QQQ~ flefitiit "Ialaatiea ~~e £eEtl%iFeffiem Snecial Considerations l:\'Iil:eEi tlse OF Q~heF De¥elo'lBeB~ CSHlHlefeial aBEl fesiEleatial estesa as aj9plieal91e:l Mixed Use Developments Mixed use projects must comply with the applicable project type requirements based on the scope of the project. Table aoolicabili!y is to be determined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions efd.e Eie eleflfftem. Historic Structures Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to ~18.44.070 of the eFEHaaaee Palo Alto MuniciQal Code. The Compliance Official may allow the use of alternative checklists for historic buildings or for buildings that retain or re-use substantial portions of the existing structure, and may reduce the minimum threshold (points) required as outlined in Section 18.44.050. Multi Year Cumulative Construction Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period fene .. iag aEiefltiea ef these £eEtai£efftems shall be considered as a single project and subject to the highest level of green building requirements for that project, unless exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. Unusual Projects Projects with an unusual scope of work or with unique circumstances may apply for an exemption to the green building requirements to be determined by the Planning Director, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.44.070. Definitions BIGGPR BIG GPR stands for the Build It Green Green Point Rated system. Projects must comQly with the aQQlicable and current GPR rating system including, but not limited to Single Family Multi Family and Existing Home. An alternative eguivalent rating system or Qrogram may be substituted as aQQroved by the Planning Director, after recommendation by the aQQlicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is reguired}. CPA Ci!y of Palo Alto staff with eXQertise in green building will Qrovide in house review similar in structure and at least as stringent to that of Build It Green. HERS II Rating HERS shall mean the California Home Energy Rating System a statewide Qro!m!!!! for residential dwellings administered by the California Energy Commission and defined in the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase I Qrovides field verification and diagnostic testing to show comQliance with Title 24 Part 6, of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase II includes whole-house home energy efficiency ratings for existing and newly constructed homes. The aQQlicant is not reguired to achieve a set rating. Rebuild Rebuild shall mean home imQrovements, or minor additions to an existing structure that do not maintain 75% of the existing roof and exterior walls. TDV Time-DeQendent Valuation (TDV} accounts for the value of electrici!y differences deQending on time-of-use (hourly, daily, seasonal} and the value of natural gas differences deQending on season. TDV is based on the cost for utilities to Qrovide the energy at different times. Refer to the Ci!y of Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance or the California Energy Efficiency Code Title 24, Part 6 for more a more detailed descriQtion. Building Envelope The building enveloQe is the ensemble of exterior and demising Qartitions of a building that enclose conditioned sQace. (Defined by California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6). Renovations Renovations are anv work to an existing building needing a oermit as defined bv the California Building Code. 'Fe ae atljusteslHHiuallj te Fefleet ehaages te the Ci~ 's • alliatiee fleF sEluaFe feet efee¥> eeestruetiee. Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHANGES ACCEPTED -EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2010 ----------.1 ----------------------,.. ---------------..... ------,,-.-. _ ... "'---..... _-_ ... _-_ ... _---_ ..... _-_ ... _ ..... _ .......................... " ... _ ............. Requirement to Type of Project Rating System, Code or Program Minimum Threshold Required Exceed CA Title Verification 24 Part 6 (15%)* Multi-Family Residential 1. New construction of3 or more attached units BIG GPR Multifamily 70 points YES GreenPoint 2:,.30 units complete the LEED-ND Rated and/or (Neighborhood Development) checklist CPA 2. Renovations or alterations 2: 50% of the BIG GPR Multifamily 50 points Follow the BIG GreenPoint existing unit sf and that include replacement or GPRminimum Rated and/or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC energy CPA system, building envelope, hot water system, or requirements. lighting system 3. Renovations, additions, and/or rebuilds to BIGGPR Checklist NO CPA individual units 2: 250 sf and valuation 2: HERS II HERS Rating (requirement effective $100,000 in a single unit January 2011) Single-Family and Two-Family Residential 4. New construction of2: 1,250 sf BIG GPR Single-Family 70 points YES GreenPoint + I point per additional 70 sf over Rated and/or 2,550 (150 points maximum) CPA 5. Existing home additions or rebuilds 2: 1,250 sf Chose one of the following two options: YES GreenPoint Option I: BIG GPR Single Family or 50 points Use of the Rated and/or Existing Home "Existing CPA OR The whole house must demonstrate that Alterations HERS II Performance Option 2: CA Energy Code T -24 Part 6 the TDV Energy of the building is at Approach" as Rater and and HERS II least 15% less than the TDV energy of outlined under CA CPA the standard building based on the Title 24 Part 6 is prototypical house of its vintage and acceptable. receive a HERS II rating. (requirement effective January 2011) 6. Existing home renovations, rebuilds and/or BIG GPR Existing Home Checklist NO CPA additions totaling 2: 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and 2: AND $100,000 valuation HERS II HERS II Rating (requirement effective HERS II January 2011) Rater and CPA * The requirement to exceed CA Title 24 Part 6 by 15% is referenced for these project types in the applicable green building rating system, and the City's Energy Efficiency Ordinance. Special Considerations Mixed Use Developments Historic Structures Multi Year Cumulative Construction Unusual Projects Defmitions BIGGPR CPA HERS II Rating Rebuild TDV Building Envelope Renovations Mixed use projects must comply with the applicable project type requirements based on the scope of the project. Table applicability is to be determined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions. Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to 18.44.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Compliance Official may allow the use of alternative checklists for historic buildings or for buildings that retain or re-use substantial portions of the existing structure, and may reduce the minimum threshold (points) required as outlined in Section 18.44.050. Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period shall be considered as a single project and subject to the highest level of green building requirements for that project, unless exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. Projects with an unusual scope of work or with unique circumstances may apply for an exemption to the green building requirements to be determined by the Planning Director, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.44.070. BIG GPR stands for the Build It Green, Green Point Rated system. Projects must comply with the applicable, and current, GPR rating system, including, but not limited to Single Family, Multi Family and Existing Home. An alternative, equivalent rating system or program may be substituted as approved by the Planning Director, after recommendation by the applicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is required). City of Palo Alto staff with expertise in green building will provide in house review similar in structure and at least as stringent to that of Build It Green. HERS shall mean the California Home Energy Rating System, a statewide program for residential dwellings administered by the California Energy Commission and defined in the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase I provides field verification and diagnostic testing to show compliance with Title 24, Part 6, of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase II includes whole-house home energy efficiency ratings for existing and newly constructed homes. The applicant is not required to achieve a set rating. Rebuild shall mean home improvements, or minor additions to an existing structure that do not maintain 75% of the existing roof and exterior walls. Time-Dependent Valuation (TDV) accounts for the value of electricity differences depending on time-of-use (hourly, daily, seasonal), and the value of natural gas differences depending on season. TDV is based on the cost for utilities to provide the energy at different times. Refer to the City of Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance or the California Energy Efficiency Code Title 24, Part 6 for more a more detailed description. The building envelope is the ensemble of exterior and demising partitions of a building that enclose conditioned space. (Defmed by California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6). Renovations are any work to an existing building needing a permit as defined by the California Building Code. ~ Silican \ ~Va1181 ,leadersblp Graul ~ 224 Airport Parkway, Suite 620 San Jose, california 95110 (408)501-7884 Fax (408)501-7861 www.svlg.net CARL GUARDINO President & CEO Board Officers: AART DE GEUS, Chair Synopsys TOM WERNER, Vice Chair SunPower MICHAEL SPLINTER, Past Chair Applied Materials, Inc. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN III, Past Chair Cassatt Corporation ROBERT SHOFFNER, Secretaryffreasurer Cltibank Board Members: JOHN ADAMS Wells Fargo Bank SHELL YE ARCHAMBEAU MetricStream, Inc. , RICHARD BAIRD ' IBM Corporation MARY ANN BARNES Kaiser Permanente NED BARNHOLT KLA-Tencor GEORGE BLUMENTHAL University of Califomia" Santa Cruz TOM BOTTORFF Pacific Gas & Electric RAMI BRANITZKY SAP Labs North America TORY BRUNO Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company DAVID DEWALT McAfee, Inc. RAQUEL GONZALEZ Bank of America TIM GUERTIN Varian Medical Systems JON HOAK Hewlett-Packard Company MIKEKLAYKO Brocade Communications Systems PAUL LOCATELLI, S.J. Santa Clara University TARKAN MANER Wyse Technology LEN PERHAM Monolithic Systems KIM POL ESE SplkeSource, Inc. WILLIAM E. RHODES III BD Blosclences ABHI TALWALKAR , LSI Logic MAC TULLY San Jose Mercury News DAN WARMENHOVEN NetApp, Inc. KENNETH WILCOX ~VB Financial Group Working Council Chair VICTOR ARRAfJAGA, JR. Applied Materials Established in 1978 by DAVID PACKARD June 16, 2009 City Manager, James Keene 250 Hamilton Ave City of Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear James, Attachment D On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I wanted to thank you for your staff's participation in the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative'. As you likely 'know, in June of 2007, the Cities Association and Leadership Group partnered together to form the Green Building Collaborative. The intent of the group was to develop green building policy recommendations that ,would spur a more rapid adoption of green building practices. One of the underlying goals was to facilitate the, adoption of like-minded green building policies by Santa 'Clara County jurisdictions, helping to ensure the easy adoption of new building techniques by the private sector. Since'the formation of the group, we have had two major milestones. First, as you know, every city and the County in Santa Clara County adopt~d the Near Term Green Building Policy Recommendations in some form. As of last week, Phase II of the Green Building Collaborative's work was formally adopted by the Cities Association., This next phase of green building policy recommendations is i~tended to slightly raise the bar, transitioning jurisdictions from a voluntary approach to a modest set of private sector requirements. Many cities are already moving beyond these recommendations, which is fantastic. Their'pioneering efforts have been a source of valuable information to the Green Building Collaborative. For those jurisdictions just starting to move beyond the initial Near Term Green Building Policy Recommendati~ns, we hope the GBC's work can be of. assistance. Again, I want to thank you and your staff, (Kristen Heinen and Amy French), , for helping to develop these recommendations. Their expertise, information, sharing and thoughtful exchange of ideas has been invaluable throughout this process. Please do not hesitate to call on the Leadership Group for assistance as your city moves forward in raising the bar on green building policy.' We look forward to continuing to work with you and the Cities Association on this important solution to meeting our climate change goals. Sincerely, 8~1J1j Shiloh Ballard Vice President, Housing & Community Development Silicon Valley Leadership Group TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2009 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 267:09 SUBJECT: Adoption of two Ordinances: 1) Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2008 Edition; and 2) Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the California Energy Code, 2008 Edition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2008 California Energy Code is scheduled to become effective on August 1,2009. Embedded within the updated Energy Code are prescribed Building Energy Efficiency Standards that exceed those in the current (2005) Energy Code by roughly 10% -15%. Section 10-106 of the State Standards authorizes cities to adopt and enforce local energy efficiency standards (local Energy Code amendments) that are more restrictive than the State Standards upon the filing of an application with the California Energy Commission. The application must include the proposed local standards, a study with supporting analysis documenting energy savings, and a determination that the proposed standards are cost-effective. The City's mandatory green building regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.44) effectively require that new residential and non-residential construction be designed to consume a minimum of 15% less energy than what the State Standards allow. Staff recommends adoption of local amendments to synchronize the State's Energy Code requirements with the City's green building regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of the two attached ordinances: 1) repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Ti tle 16 to adopt by reference the 2008 California Energy Code (Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), and 2) repealing Chapter 16.18 and adopting a new Chapter 16.18 establishing local Energy Efficiency Standards for certain buildings and improvements covered by the 2008 Edition of the California Energy Code. This second ordinance codifies Palo Alto's local amendments to the new State Energy Code and contains the necessary Findings of Fact supporting these amendments. CMR: 267:09 Page 1 of 5 BACKGROUND Both the California Energy Commission and Building Standards Commission approved new Building Energy Efficiency Standards in 2008 that are scheduled to go into effect statewide on August 1, 2009. The new standards will apply to all Building Permit applications submitted on or after that date and were adopted for a number of compelling reasons, including: 1. To provide California with an adequate, reasonably-priced, and environmentally-sound supply of energy. 2. To respond to Assembly Bi1132, the Global Warming Solutions Act of2006, which mandates that California must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 3. To pursue one ofthe primary goals of California's energy policy, which identifies increasing the energy efficiency of buildings as a preferred strategy to meet the State's growing energy demand. 4. To act on the findings of California's Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), which state that Standards are the most cost effective means to achieve energy efficiency, expects the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to continue to be upgraded over time to reduce electricity and peak demand, and recognizes the role of the Standards in reducing energy related to meeting California's water needs and in reducing greenhouse gas emISSIons. 5. To meet the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative commitment to include aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of state building codes. 6. To meet the Executive Order in the Green Building Initiative to improve the energy efficiency of nonresidential buildings through aggressive standards. Additionally, on June 2, 2008, the Council passed Ordinance No. 5006, adopting mandatory green building regulations for residential and commercial building projects (P AMC Chapter 18.44). The Council also adopted a companion Resolution No. 8825, establishing specific green building standards to comply with the ordinance. The green building ordinance specifies use of the United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) rating system for commercial building projects and the Build it Green organization'S GreenPoint Rated system for residential projects. Both rating systems include minimum energy efficiency standards for buildings that may exceed the requirements of the state standards. Council will consider revisions to the green building compliance standards on October 19,2009. DISCUSSION Adoption of the two proposed ordinances will ensure consistency between the State standards and the City's current green building regulations. CMR: 267:09 Page 2 of5 The first ordinance amends Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and adopts by reference the 2008 California Energy Code in its entirety. Although the State's new energy efficiency standards apply to buildings in Palo Alto whether fonnally adopted or not, adoption of the 2008 Code is a pre-requisite to adopting any local amendments. The second ordinance amends Chapter 16.18 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code and adopts local amendments to the 2008 California Energy Code that establish increased energy efficiency standards beyond those contained in the State Code. These increased standards are consistent with the revised green building regulations presented to Council on October 19,2009. Although the California Energy Code prescribes minimum energy perfonnance standards for new buildings, requiring increased energy efficiency at the local level will further reduce energy costs for building owners, further reduce energy consumption during periods of peak demand and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The ordinance amending the Energy Code would apply to all new residential and non-residential construction and certain types of tenant improvements, renovations and additions and would establish energy efficiency standards for covered projects that are roughly 15% better than the minimum standards in the new State Code. California Public Resources Code Section 25402. 1 (h)(2) states that modifications to California's energy efficiency standards by a local jurisdiction may be done only after a study has been undertaken and findings made that determine that the proposed modifications are cost effective. State law also requires that a noticed public hearing be held prior to the reading and adoption of any ordinance that adopts by reference a model code. The public hearing for this item was originally scheduled for June 1,2009 and was continued to July 6. Consistent with State law, the ordinances and study will be forwarded to the California Energy Commission (CEC) following Council introduction at this meeting. After CEC review and approval, which is expected to take several weeks, staffwill schedule the ordinances for second reading, 30 days after which, the ordinances and local amendments will become effective. Because locally adopted energy efficiency standards also constitute amendments to the California Buildings Standards Code, after the second reading by the Council, the ordinance adopting the local amendments must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and must include additional findings that demonstrate how the amendments are reasonably necessary due to unique local climatic, geologic or topographic conditions pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5. To date, only 14 jurisdictions in the state (12 cities and 2 counties) have amended the current (2005) California Energy Code to establish increased local energy efficiency standards: (http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/ordinances exceeding 2005 building standar ds.html). As of yet however, it is staffs understanding that no jurisdictions have completed the processing of local amendments to the 2008 California Energy Code. Staff is aware that the cities of Berkeley and Santa Rosa, as well as the County of Marin, are in the process of doing so. CMR: 267:09 Page 3 of5 A copy ofthe recently completed study of Palo Alto's proposed local Energy Code amendments, "Palo Alto Revised Green Building Ordinance Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study" prepared by Gabel Associates, LLC, is attached and will be presented more fully to the Council at this meeting. The study concludes that the increased energy efficiency standards of the City'S green building regulations remain cost-effective under the 2008 Energy Code and therefore justifies the approval of them to the CEC for the duration of three-year period that the new State Code will be in effect. RESOURCE IMPACT Resource impacts resulting from the adoption of the two ordinances are limited to staff training costs and implementation of public outreach efforts. As with the enforcement of all building standards by the City, these costs are recovered through Building Permit fees. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The State of California mandates enforcement of the most current edition of the California Building Standards Code and it becomes effective regardless of the City's action or lack of action. As noted though, the City does have discretion to adopt local amendments to the CBSC and must adopt those amendments with appropriate findings. Further, the Energy Code amendments are consistent with and directly support the City'S green building regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed ordinances preserve and enhance the environment, in that they set forth minimum energy efficiency standards within the City of Palo Alto for all new residential and commercial construction. Thus, staffhas determined that these actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 15061(b)(3), because "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." PREPARED BY: LARRY I. ERLIN, PE Chief Buildi !icial DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Hl"r"'~"'" Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 267:09 Page 4 of5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: CMR: 267:09 Ordinance Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2008 Edition. Ordinance Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the California Energy Code, 2008 Edition. Palo Alto Revised Green Building Ordinance Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study" prepared by Gabel Associates, LLC. Page 5 of5 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2008 Edition The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.17 and enacting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: Chapter 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 16.17.0102008 California Energy Code adopted. The California Energy Code, 2008 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2008 Edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Chief Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Violations --Penalties. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provision of this Energy Code is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this Chapter occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.17.030 Enforcement --Citation authority. The following designated employee positions may enforce the provisions of this Chapter by the issuance of citations. Persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this Chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) Chief Building Official; (2) Assistant Building Official; (3) Supervisor, Building Inspection; and (4) Code Enforcement Officer. SECTION 2. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQ A"), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Code herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. 091013 syn 6050794 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2010, or upon the date that the 2008 edition of the California Energy Code becomes effective, whichever is later; provided that the City's Ordinance establishing local energy efficiency standards for certain buildings and improvements covered by the 2008 California Energy Code has been approved by the City Council and the California Energy Commission. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 091013 syn 6050794 2 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment Director of Utilities ATTACHMENT B NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. ---- Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18 Establishing Local Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the 2008 California Energy Code The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds that: 1. The City of Palo Alto's (City) Comprehensive Plan sets forth goals for preserving and improving the City's natural and built environment, protecting the health of its residents and visitors, conserving water and energy, and fostering its economy; and 2. The City Council has identified Environmental Protection as one of its top three goals, and energy efficiency is a key component of environmental protection; and 3. The City's Climate Protection Plan, adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2007, states that natural gas and electricity use within the City accounts for approximately 310,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, or 42.5% of total annual City-wide emissions; and 4. The provisions of California Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) require actions on the part of State and local governments to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such that statewide GHG emissions are lowered to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; and 5. Local government, by itself, cannot fully address all of the challenges posed by climate change and comply with the mandates of AB 32; and 6. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emISSIOnS, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change; and 7. On June 2, 2008, the City Council adopted regulations for the incorporation of green building techniques and materials in private residential and nonresidential development projects (Green Building Regulations), Ordinance No. 5006; and a resolution revising those standards was introduced to Council on October 19, 2009; and 1 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED 8. Building Standards Code establishes building standards for all occupancies throughout the State; and 9. Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides that a city may establish more restrictive building standards if they are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and 10. Based on the findings contained in this Ordinance, the City Council has found that certain modifications and additions to the California Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary based upon local climatic, topographical and geological conditions; and 11. In accordance with the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1 and 6 (Standards) all residential and nonresidential development must meet or exceed the energy efficiency requirements contained therein; and 12. California Public Resource Code Section 25402. 1 (h)(2) authorizes a city to adopt and enforce increased energy efficiency standards, provided that a determination is made that the local standards are cost effective and they are approved by the California Energy Commission; and 13. On October 19, 2009, an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2008 Edition was introduced to the City Council; and . 14. It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to amend the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards as described herein; and 15. City staff has prepared a new Chapter 16.18 to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Local Energy Efficiency Standards; and 16. On March 23, 2009, the City hired Gabel Associates, LLC, an expert in the field of building energy analysis and Energy Code compliance, to assist the City in preparing a study and proposal for local amendments to the 2008 California Energy Code, and said study demonstrated the cost effectiveness of these local amendments; and 17. The City will include the Gabel Associates study in an application for consideration by the California Energy Commission in compliance with Public Resources Code 25402.1(h)(2); and 2 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED 18. The modifications to the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards required by this Ordinance are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geologic and topographic conditions, specifically: a. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only municipal utility in California that operates City-owned-utility services including electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater services, and as such, the City Council is uniquely concerned that CPAU be able to provide reliable power to Palo Alto residents and businesses, especially in periods of peak energy demand. b. Summer ambient temperatures in the City during the months of June, July and August can reach over 100 degrees, creating peak energy load demands that can cause power outages, affecting public safety and causing adverse local economic impacts. c. The total square footage of conditioned habitable space within residential and nonresidential buildings in the City is increasing and using more energy and resources than in the past. d. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101. e. Reduction of total and peak energy use as a result of incremental energy efficiency measures required by this Ordinance will have local and regional benefits in the cost-effective reduction of energy costs for building owners, additional available system energy capacity, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; and 19. In order to maintain and advance the energy efficiency standards adopted herein, it is in the best interest of the City to revisit this Ordinance prior to its expiration, ensuring that local energy standards meet the goals of reducing energy consumption, thereby saving on energy bills and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions; and 20. The study conducted by Gabel Associates, LLC has concluded that the energy efficiency measures contained in this Ordinance are cost-effective. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions of the study and authorizes its inclusion in an application for consideration by the California Energy Commission in compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2). Upon approval by the California Energy Commission, this Ordinance shall be presented to the City Council for final adoption. 3 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Chapter 16.18 of Title 16, "Building Code," is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.18 and enacting a new Chapter 16.18 to read and provide as follows: Chapter 16.18 LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2008 EDITION Sections: 16.18.010 16.18.020 16.18.030 16.18.040 16.18.050 16.18.060 16.18.070 16.18.010 Purpose. Definitions. Buildings Covered. Compliance. General Compliance Requirements. Solar Photo voltaic Energy Systems for Multi-Family Residential Construction and Nonresidential Construction. Expiration. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto residents, workers, visitors and the environment by minimizing the use and waste of energy in the construction and operation of the City's building stock. The Ordinance sets forth minimum energy efficiency standards within the City of Palo Alto for certain types of residential and nonresidential new construction and renovation, and should be used in conjunction with both the City's Green Building Regulations, located in Chapter 18.44 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the City'S Green Building Standards for Compliance, adopted by City Council Resolution. This Chapter is intended to amend the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1 and 6 (Standards), adopted by the City at Title 16, Chapters 16.04 and 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Compliance with the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards is required even if the increased minimum efficiency standards in this Chapter do not apply. 16.18.020 Defmitions. (a) For purposes of this Chapter 16.18, words or phrases used in this Chapter that are specifically defined in Parts 1,2 or 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations shall have the same meaning as given in the Code of Regulations. In addition, for the purposes of this Chapter 16.18, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings indicated herein: (b) "2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards", or "California Energy Code", shall mean the Standards and regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission 4 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED contained in Parts 1 and 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as such standards and regulations may be amended from time to time. (c) "Energy STAR Portfolio Manager" (Portfolio Manager) shall mean the program managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that offers an energy management tool that allows an applicant to track and assess energy and water consumption of a building project. Tracked projects receive an energy performance rating on a scale of 1-100 relative to similar buildings nationwide. (d) "GreenPoint Rated" shall mean a residential green building rating system developed by the Build It Green organization. (e) "HERS Rating" shall mean the California Home Energy Rating System, a statewide program for residential dwellings administered by the California Energy Commission and defined in the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase I provides field verification and diagnostic testing to show compliance with Title 24, Part 6, of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase II includes whole-house home energy efficiency ratings for existing and newly constructed homes. (0 "IEED@" shall mean the "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" green building rating system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. (g) "Multi-Family Residential" shall mean a building containing three or more attached dwelling units. (h) "Nonresidential" shall mean a new or replacement retail, office, industrial, warehouse, service, or similar building(s). (i) "Nonresidential Compliance Manual" shall mean the manual developed by the California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.1(e) of the Public Resources Code, to aid designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the state's 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for nonresidential, high-rise residential, and hotel/motel buildings. G) "Proposed Design" is defined in the Residential and Nonresidential Compliance Manuals developed by the California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.1(e) of the Public Resources Code, to aid designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the state's 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for nonresidential, high-rise residential, and hotel/motel buildings. (k) "Rebuild" shall mean home improvements or minor additions to an existing structure that do not maintain 75% of the existing roof or exterior walls. (1) "Residential Compliance Manual" shall mean the manual developed by the California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.1(e) of the Public Resources Code, to aid 5 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the state's 2008 Ca1ifornia Building Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings. (m) "Single-Family or Two-Family Residential" shall mean a single detached dwelling unit or two units in a single building. (n) "Solar Photovoltaic Energy System" shall mean a photovoltaic solar collector or other photovoltaic solar energy device that has a primary purpose of providing for the collection and distribution of solar energy for the generation of alternative current rated peak electricity. (0) "Standard Design" is defined in the Residential and Nonresidential Compliance Manuals developed by the California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.1(e) of the Public Resources Code, to aid designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the state's 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for nonresidential, high-rise residential, and hotel/motel buildings. (p) "Time Dependent Valuation of Energy (TDV Energy)" shall mean the time varying energy caused to be used by a building to provide space conditioning and water heating and, for specified buildings, lighting. TDV Energy accounts for the energy used at the building site and consumed in producing and in delivering energy to a site, including but not limited to, power generation, transmission and distribution losses. TDV Energy is expressed in terms of thousands of British thermal units per square foot per year (kBtu/sq.ft.-yr.). 16.18.030 Buildings Covered. (a) Nonresidential Construction. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all nonresidential construction (including Mixed Use and other development) for which a building permit has been applied and accepted as complete by the Building Division on or after the effective date of this Ordinance for: 091014 8yn 6050795 (1) New construction greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. (2) New construction between 500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. (3) Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (4) Tenant improvements, renovations or alternations greater than or equal 500 square feet with greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit, that are not otherwise covered under Section 3 of Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction". 6 NOT YET APPROVED (b) Residential Construction. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all residential construction for which a building permit has been applied and accepted as complete by the Building Division on or after the effective date of this Ordinance for: (1) Multi-family new construction of three or more attached units. (2) Multi-family renovations or alterations greater than or equal to 50% of the existing unit square footage that include replacement or alternation of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (3) Multi-family renovations, alterations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual units greater than or equal to 250 square feet with greater than or equal to $100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit. (4) Single-family or two-family new construction greater than or equal to 1,250 square feet. (5) Single-family or two-family existing home additions or rebuilds greater than or equal to 1,250 square feet. (6) Single-family or two-family existing home renovations, rebuilds and/or additions between 250 square feet and 1,250 square feet, with greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit. Subject to the foregoing limitation, applicability of the residential or nonresidential sections of this Chapter shall be determined in accordance with either the Residential Compliance Manual or the Nonresidential Compliance Manual, as appropriate for the proposed occupancy. 16.18.040 Inspection. Compliance Required to Receive Building Permit and Final The Chief Building Official shall be charged with enforcing the provIsIOns of this Ordinance. A building permit application subject to the provisions of this Chapter shall not be issued a building permit by the Chief Building Official unless the energy compliance documentation submitted with the permit application meets the requirements of this Chapter. A final inspection for a building permit subject to the requirements of this Chapter will not be approved unless the work authorized by the building permit has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, conditions of approvals, and requirements of this Chapter. 16.18.050 General Compliance Requirements. 7 0910 14 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED In addition to the requirements of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards the following general compliance requirements shaH apply to all building permit applications subject to this chapter: (a) Nonresidential Construction. 091014 syn 6050795 (1) New construction greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design is at least 15.0% less than the TDVEnergy of the Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of LEED's minimum energy prerequisite as described in Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation." (2) New construction between 500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of LEED's minimum energy LEED prerequisite as described in Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation." (3) Tenant improvements, renovation or alterations greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. Energy efficiency beyond 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standard minimums is not required for projects covered by this section. (4) Tenant improvements, renovations or alternations greater than or equal to 500 square feet with greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit, that are not otherwise covered under Section 3 of Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction." The applicant shall attain an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Building Energy Performance Rating prior to the issuance of a building permit, although achievement of a particular rating is not required. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of the Building Energy Performance Rating described in Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation." 8 NOT YET APPROVED (b) Residential Construction. 091014 syn 6050795 (1) Multi-family residential new construction of 3 or more attached units. The building permit applicant must determine whether the building is low-rise or high-rise as defined by the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and then use the appropriate approach as described below: (i) Low Rise (3 stories or less). The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "Multi-Family Residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (ii) High Rise (4 stories or more). The applicant shall model the building envelope and mechanical system of the Proposed Design consistent with the 2008 Title 24 performance method rules. The applicant shall demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design is less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design by the percentage (%) required for minimum energy performance specified in the 2009 GreenPoint Rated new "Multi-Family Residential" construction guidelines. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite required for new "Multi-Family Residential" construction as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation." (2) Multi-family renovations or alterations greater than or equal to 50% of the existing unit square footage that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. The building permit applicant shall determine whether the building is low-rise or high-rise as defined by the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and then use the appropriate approach as described below: (i) Low Rise (3 stories or less). The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute 9 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "Multi-Family Residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (ii) High Rise (4 stories or more). The applicant shall model the building envelope and mechanical system of the Proposed Design consistent with the 2008 Title 24 performance method rules. The applicant shall demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design is less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design by the percentage (% ) required for minimum energy performance specified in the current GreenPoint Rated new "Multi-Family Residential" construction guidelines. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite required for new "Multi-Family Residential" construction as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation." (3) Multi-family renovations, alterations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual units greater than or equal to 250 square feet with a building permit valuation greater than or equal to $100,000 in a single unit. The applicant shall attain a HERS II rating prior to issuance of the building permit, although achievement of a particular rating is not required. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of the HERS Rating requirement as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". Compliance with this Section is not required until January 1, 2011. (4) Single-family or two-family residential new construction greater than or equal to 1,250 square feet. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "Single-Family and Two-Family Residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (5) Single-family or two-family residential additions or rebuilds greater than or equal to 1,250 square feet. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be 10 NOT YET APPROVED used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "Single-Family and Two- Family Residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (6) Single-family or two-family renovations, rebuilds and/or additions that are between 250 sguare feet and 1,250 square feet, and that have greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit. The applicant shall attain a HERS II rating prior to issuance of the building permit, although achievement of a specific HERS II rating is not required. Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of the minimum energy requirement as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation", This Section has an effective date of January 1,2011 16.18.060 Solar Photovoltaic Energy Systems for Multi-Family Residential Construction and Nonresidential Construction. (a) Installation Criteria and Energy Credit. The installation of any solar photovoltaic (PV) energy system must meet all installation criteria of the California Energy Commission's Guidelines for California's Solar Electric Incentive Program Pursuant to Senate Bill 1. An energy credit from solar PV energy systems may be used to demonstrate compliance with the general compliance requirements of this Ordinance when evaluating LEED® energy performance. This credit is available if the solar PV energy system is capable of generating electricity from sunlight, supplying the electricity directly to the building, and the system is connected, through a reversible meter, to the utility grid. The methodology used to calculate the energy equivalent to the photovoltaic credit shall be the CECPV Calculator, using the most recent version available prior to the permit application date, which may be found on the web site of the California Energy Commission, at www.gosolarcalifornia.org; or shall be another Senate Bill 1 compliant method as approved by the California Energy Commission. (b) Documentation. In order to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Section, a permit applicant may be required to submit supplementary forms and documentation in addition to the building drawings, specifications, and standard energy compliance (Title 24, HERS and Energy STAR Portfolio Manager) report forms, as deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official. 16.18.070 Expiration. This Chapter 16.18 shall expire upon the date that the State's 2011 Building Energy Efficiency Standards take effect. 11 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. Efforts to Enhance Local Compliance. Given that the purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt stricter local energy efficiency standards for the construction of new buildings within the City, the Council further recognizes that the adoption of new standards without additional education and training for City staff responsible for enforcement of the standards could diminish compliance and potentially undermine the efficacy of the Ordinance. Therefore, in order to ensure greater compliance and enforcement of the applicable energy efficiency standards, better equip staff and provide a greater resource to the City's building community, the City will seek additional education and training opportunities for staff in the areas of energy standards, technology and Energy Code implementation and enforcement. SECTION 5. Environmental Compliance. The proposed Ordinance preserves and enhances the environment, in that it would set forth minimum energy efficiency standards within the City of Palo Alto for all new residential and nonresidential construction. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), "[C]EQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." Staff has determined that the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review. /I /I II II II II II II II /I /I 12 091014 syn 6050795 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective on January 1, 2010 or 30 days after its adoption, which ever is later, provided that the Ordinance has also been approved by the California Energy Commission by that date, and shall be published or posted as required by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 091014 syn 6050795 13 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment Director of Utilities ATTACHMENT C Palo Alto Revised Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-Effectiveness Study October 6, 2009 Report prepared by: Michael Gabel Gabel Associates, LLC 1818 Harmon Street, Suite #1 Berkeley, CA 94703 (S10) 428-0803 E-mail: mike@gabelenergy.com Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary.. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. 1 2.0 Impacts of the New Ordinance ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 3.0 Cost Effectiveness .............................. .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. 19 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 0 1.0 Executive Summary Gabel Associates has researched and reviewed the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of requiring building permit applicants to exceed the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards to meet the minimum energy-efficiency requirements of the City of Palo Alto's updated Energy Efficiency Ordinance. The study contained in this report shall be included in Palo Alto's application to the California Energy Commission for approval of the City's local Energy Code Amendments. The application to the Energy Commission must meet the requirements specified in Section 10-106 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, LOCALLY ADOPTED ENERGY STANDARDS. The City's updated Energy Efficiency Ordinance shall be enforceable after the Commission has reviewed and approved the local energy efficiency standards as meeting all requirements of Section 10-106; and the Ordinance has been filed with the California Building Standards Commission. Please note that this cost-effectiveness study has been completed with respect to the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2010. The following data has been developed and compiled 'from individual case studies as a means of illustrating energy cost-effectiveness of the Palo Alto ordinance. The goal of the case studies is to provide relatively real-world order-of-magnitude results for a local jurisdiction to understand and calibrate energy and cost impacts of a local green building or energy ordinance. In this limited study no attempt has been made to gather statistically significant data that can be applied to all new construction projects and thereby determine macro-effects of specific policy decisions. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 1 2.0 Impacts of the New Ordinance The energy performance impacts of the new ordinance have been evaluated using five case studies, which collectively reflect the broad range of building types covered by the Ordinance. • Three single family home designs: 1,705 sf; 2,682 sf; 5,074 sf • Single family addition analyzed alone (without the existing house): 1,295 sf • Low-rise multi-family residential building: 8,442 sf, 8 dwelling units • High-rise multi-family residential building: 36,800 sf, 40 dwelling units • 1-Story nonresidential office building: 10,580 sf • 5-Story nonresidential office building: 52,900 sf The methodology used in the case studies replicates how actual buildings are designed and evaluated to meet or exceed the State's energy efficiency standards. (a) Each prototype building design is tested for compliance with the 2008 Standards, and all energy efficiency measures are adjusted with commonly used construction methods to just barely meet the Standards. The energy efficiency measures chosen are a combination of measures which reflects how designers and builders are most likely to achieve a specified level of performance. (b) Starting with a 2008 Standards minimally compliant set of measures, various energy related elements are changed to just reach the minimum energy performance required by the Ordinance (e.g. 15% better than 2008 Title 24). In this study, the design choices selected are based on many years of experience by the author working with architects, mechanical engineers and builders coupled with general knowledge of the relative incremental costs of most measures. The intent of this approach is to ensure that the study reflects how building energy performance is actually evaluated and used to select final energy efficiency measures. (c) A minimum and maximum range of incremental costs of added energy efficiency measures is established by a variety of research means. A construction cost estimator, Building Advisory LLC, was contracted to conduct research and surveys to derive accurate and current costs of measures. Site energy in KWh and Therms, is calculated for each model run to establish the annual energy savings, energy cost savings and C02-equivalent reductions in greenhouse gases. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 2 2.1 New Single Family Homes Energy design descriptions of the single family building prototypes which just meet the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Single Family House: 1,705 square feet, 2-story, 16.3% glazing/floor area ratio -Option A Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-O Slab on Grade Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 Furnace: 80% AFUE Air Conditioner: 13 SEER R-6 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct LeakagelTesting (HERS) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.60 Single Family House: 1,705 square feet, 2-story, 16.3% glazing/floor area ratio -Option B Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-O Slab on Grade Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 Furnace: 80% AFUE Air Conditioning: None R -6 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct LeakagelTesting (HERS) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.60 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 3 Single Family House: 2,682 square feet, 2-story, 21.1 % glazing/floor area ratio -Option A Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier R-15 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Low E2 Vinyl Windows) U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 Furnace: 80% AFUE Air Conditioner: 13 SEER R -8 Attic Ducts 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 Single Family House: 2,682 square feet, 2-story, 21.1 % glazing/floor area ratio -Option B Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier R-15 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 Furnace: 80% AFUE Air Conditioner: None R-8 Attic Ducts 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 Page 4 Single Family House: 5,074 square feet, 2-story, 22.7% glazing/floor area ratio -Option A Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Housewrap Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (2) Furnaces: 80% AFUE (2) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER (2) Air Conditioners: TXV + Refrig. Charge (HERS) R -6 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakagelf esting (HERS) (2) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 Pipe Insulation Single Family House: 5,074 square feet, 2-story, 22.7% glazing/floor area ratio -Option B Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R -19 Raised Floor Housewrap Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (2) Furnaces: 80% AFUE (2) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER (2) Air Conditioners: TXV + Refrig. Charge (HERS) R-6 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakagelf esting (HERS) (2) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=O.62 Pipe Insulation Energy Measures Needed to Meet the City's Ordinance The following energy efficiency features have been modified from the Title 24 set of measures so that the home designs use 15% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case designs per the 2008-2011 Build it Green GreenPoint Rated minimum energy requirement. The incremental first cost estimate to provide each measure in comparison with the equivalent base case measure is listed to the right in the following tables. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 5 The incremental energy efficiency improvements specified above to meet the proposed Ordinance requirements are variables selected by designer, builder or owner. There are a number of considerations in choosing the final mix of energy efficiency measures including first cost, aesthetics, maintenance and replacement. 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case, Option A 1705 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Tvpe Min Max Avg R~38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier -$ -$ -$ - R~19 Walls (from R~13): 1,328 sf @$0.31 to $0.541sf UpQrade $ 412 $ 717 $ 564 R-:O Slab on Grade ~ $ -$ _ $ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U=O.36 SHGC-0.30 -$ -$ _ $ - Furnace: 90% AFUE (from 80% AFUE) Upgrade $ 500 $ 1000 $ 750 Air Conditioner: 13 SEER 11 EER (HERS) Upgrade $ 25 $ 75 $ 50 Air Conditioner: TXV + Refrig .. Charge (HERS) Upgrade $ 100 $ 150 $ 125 R-8 Attic Ducts (from R-6) Upgrade $ 225 $ 325 $ 275 Reduced Duct Leakagerrestjn~I (HERS) -$ -$ -$ - 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.62 (from EF=0,60) Upgrade $ 100 $ 200 $ 150 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 1,362 $ 2,467 $ 1,914 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.80 $ 1.45 $ 1.12 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case, Option B 1705 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Tvpe Min Max Avg R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier -$ -$ -$ - Walls (from R-13): 1,328 sf @ $0.31 to $0.54/sf Upgrade $ 412 $ 717 $ 564 R-O Slab on Grade -$ -$ -$ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U=0.36 SHGC-0.30 -$ -$ -$ - Furnace: 92% AFUE (from 80% AFUE) Upgrade $ 500 $ 1200 $ 850 Air Conditioning: None -$ -$ -$ - R-8 Attic Ducts (from R-6) Upgrade $ 225 $ 325 $ 275 Reduced Duct Leakagerresting (HERS) -$ -$ -$ - 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=O.62 (from EF=O.60) Upgrade $ 100 $ 200 $ 150 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 1,237 $ 2,442 $ 1,839 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.73 $ 1.43 $ 1.08 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 6 15%· Better Than Title 24 Base Case, Option A 2682 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Bficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Tvpe Min Max Avg R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier -$ -$ -$ - R-15 Walls -$ $ -t - R-19 Floor -$ -$ -- Law E2 Vinyl Windows. U-0.36. SHGC=0.30 -$ -$ -$ - Furnace: 90% AFUE (from 80% AFUE) Upgrade $ 500 $ 1000 $ 750 Air Conditioner: 13 SEER 11 EER (HERS) Upgrade $ 25 $ 75 $ 50 Air Conditioner: TXV + Refrig. Charge (HERS) Upgrade $ 100 $ 150 $ 125 R-8 Attic Ducts -$ -$ -$ - ReducedDuct LeakagefTesting (HERS) Upgrade $ 300 $ 600 $ 450 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=O.62 (from EF-O.60) Upgrade $ 100 $ 200 $ 150 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 1,025 $ 2025 $ 1,525 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.38 $ 0.76 $ 0.57 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case. Option B 2682 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Type Min Max Avg R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier -$ -$ -$ - R-15 Walls -$ -$ -$ - R-t9 Floor -$ -$ -$ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U-0.36 SHGC=0.30 -$ -$ -$ - Housewrap: 2 137 sf @ $0.50 to O.75/sf Upgrade $ 1,069 $ 1603 $ 1336 Furnace: 90% AFUE (from 80% AFUE) Upgrade $ 500 $ 1000 $ 750 Air Conditioner: None -$ -$ -$ - R-8 Attic Ducts -$ -$ -$ - Reduced Duct LeakagefTesting.{HERS) Upgrade $ 300 $ 600 $ 450 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.62 (from EF=O.60) Upgrade $ 100 $ 200 $ 150 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 1·969 $ 3,403 $ 2686 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.73 $ 1.27 $ 1.00 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6109 Page 7 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case. Option A 5074 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Type Min Max Avg R-38 Roof wi Radiant Barrier -$ -$ -$ - R-19 Walls (from R-13): 2,590 sf @$0.31 to $0.541sf Upgrade $ 803 $ 1399 $ 1 101 R-30 Raised Floor (from R-19): 3 044 sf @.$0.25to $0.35 Upgrade $ 761 $ 1,065 $ 913 Housewrap -$ -$ -$ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U-0.36 SHGC-0.30 -$ -$ -$ - 2 Furnaces: 92% AFUE (from 80% AFUE) Upgrade $ 1000 $ 2400 $ 1700 2 Air Conditioners: 13 SEER, 11 EER (HERS) Upgrade $ 50 $ 150 $ 100 2 Air Conditioners: TXV + Refrig. Charge (HERS) -$ -$ -$ - R-8 Attic Ducts (from R-6) UPQrade $ 400 $ 600 $ 500 Reduced Duct LeakaQelTestinQ (HERS) -$ -$ -$ - 2 50Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF-O.62 -$ -$ -$ - Pipe Insulation -$ -$ -$ - Total IncrelTlental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 3,014 $ 5614 $ 4,314 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.59 $ 1.11 $ 0.85 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case, Option B 5074 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Type Min Max Avg R-38 Roof wi Radiant Barrier -$ -$ -$ - R-19 Walls (from R-15): 2,590 sf @$0.15 to $0.40/sf Upgrade $ 389 $ 1,036 $ 712 R-19 Floor -$ -$ -$ - Housewrap -$ -$ -$ - Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC-0.23, 1151.8 sf@$1.4O-$1.75/$f Upgrade $ 1,613 $ 2016 $ 1814 I (2) Furnaces: 90% AFUE (from 80% AFUE) Upgrade $ 1000 $ 2000 $ 1500 Air Conditioners: None -$ -$ -$ - R-6 Attic Ducts -$ -$ -$ - Reduced Duot LeakagelTesting(HERS) -$ -$ -$ - (2) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=O.62 -$ -$ -$ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 3,001 $ 5052 $ 4,028 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.59 $ 1.00 $ 0.79 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance. 10/6/09 PageS 2.2 Addition to Existing Home The energy design description of the addition prototype which just meets the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is listed below: 1-Story 1,295 sf Addition, 19.5% glazing/floor area ratio Energy Efficiency Measures R-1 9 Roof wI Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-13 Raised Floor Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=O.36, SHGC=O.30 Furnace: 80% AFUE Air Conditioner: 13 SEER R-8 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct LeakagelTesting (HERS) No Water Heating Calculation Allowed for Addition Alone Energy Measures Needed to Meet the City's Ordinance 16% Better Than Title 24 Option A 1296 sf Energy Efficiency Measures Change Tvpe R-38 Roof wI Radiant Barrier (from R-19 wlRadiant Barrier): 700 sf @ 0.30 to 0.45/sf Upgrade $ R-13 Walls -$ R-19 Raised Floor (from R~13): 700 sf @ $0.1 0 to $0.25 Upgrade $ Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) Upgrade $ LoW E2 Vinyl Windows U-0.36 SHGC=0.30 -$ Furnace: 80% AFUE -$ Air Conditioner: 13 SEER -$ R-6 Attic Ducts (from R-B) Downgrade $ Reduced Duct LeakagelTesting (HERS) -$ No Water Heating Calculation Allowed for Addition Alone -$ Total Incremental Cost of Energ.y Efficiency Nleasures: $ Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016/09 Climate Zone 3 Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg 210 $ 315 $ 263 -$ -$ - 70 $ 175 $ 123 450 $ 600 $ 525 -$ -$ - -$ -$ - -$ -$ - (325) $ (225) $ (275) -$ -$ --$ -$ - 405 $ 865 $ 635 0.31 $ 0.67 $ 0.49 Page 9 15% Better Than Title 24 Option B 1295 sf Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental C.ost Estimate Type Min Max Avg R-30 Roof wi Radiant Barrier (from R-19 w/Radiant Barrier): 700 sf @ 0.25 to 0.35/sf Upgrade $ 175 $ 245 $ 210 R-15 Walls (from R-13): 1212 sf@$0.14to$0.18/sf Upgrade $ 170 $ 218 $ 194 R-19 Raised Floor (from R-13): 700 sf @ $0.10 to $0.25 Upgrade $ 70 $ 175 $ 123 Low E2 Vinyl Windows U-0.36 SHGC-0.30 -$ -$ -$ - Furnace: 90% AFLIE (from 80% AFUE) Upgrade $ 500 $ 1 000 $ 750 Air Conditioner: 13 SEER -$ -$ -$ - R-6 Attic Ducts (from R-8) Downgrade $ (325) $ (225 $ (275) Reduced Duct LeakageiTesting (HERS) -$ -$ -$ - No Water Heating Calculation Allowed for Addition Alone -$ -$ -$ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 590 $ 1,413 $ 1,001 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.46 $ 1.09 $ 0.77 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 Page 10 2.3 Low-rise Residential Building Energy design descriptions of the high-rise residential prototypes which just meet the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Low-rise Multi-family Residential: 2-story 8,442 square feet, 8 units, 12.5% glazing Option 1 Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wi Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-O Slab on Grade Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (8) Furnaces: 80% AFUE (8) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER R-6 Attic Ducts (8) 40 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 Option 2 Energy Efficiency Measures R-38 Roof wi Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-O Slab on Grade Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (8) Furnaces: 80% AFUE Air Conditioners: l\Jone R-6 Attic Ducts 1(8) 40 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 Energy Measures Needed to Meet the City's Ordinance The following energy features have been modified from the Title 24 set of measures so that the building design uses 15% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case design per the 2008-2011 Build it Green GreenPoint Rated minimum energy requirement. The incremental first cost to provide that measure in comparison with the equivalent base case measure is listed to the right. The incremental energy improvements specified above to meet the proposed Ordinance requirements are variables selected by designer, builder or owner. There are a number of considerations in choosing the final mix of energy measures including first cost, aesthetics, maintenance and replacement. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 11 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case, Option A 8442 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incrementa' Cost Estimate Tvpe Min Max Avg R-38 Roof wi Radiant Barrier -$ -$ -$ - Walls (from R-1S): 10,146 sf@$0.31 to $0.54/sf UDQrade $ 3,145 $ 5479 $ 4,312 R-O Slab on Grade -$ -$ -$ - Housewrap: 10146 sf @$0.50 to 0.75/sf Upgrade $ 5073 $ 7610 $ 6,341 Low E2 Vinyl Windows U-0.36 SHGC=0.30 -$ -$ $ - (8) Furnaces: 80% AFUE -$ -$ -$ - (8) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER -$ -$ -$ - R-6 Attic Ducts. -$ -$ -$ - (8) 40 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.63 (from 0.62 EF) Upgrade $ -$ 600 $ 300 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 8218 $ 13,688 $ 10953 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.97 $ 1.62 $ 1.30 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case, Option B 8442 sf Climate Zone 4 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Type Min Max Avg R-SO Roof wi Radiant Barrier (from R-38 wlRadiant Barrier): 4,221 sf @$0.20 to $0. 15/sf Downgrade $ (844) $ (633 $ (739) R-21 Walls (from R-13): 10146 sf @$0.45to$0.70/sf Upgrade $ 4,566 $ 7102 $ 5,834 R-O Slab on Grade -$ -$ -$ - Housewrap: 10146 sf @ $0.50 to 0.75/sf Upgrade $ 5,073 $ 7610 $ 6341 Low 62 Vinyl Windows U-0.36 SHGC=0.30 -$ -$ -$ - 1(8) Furnaces: 80% AFUE -$ -$ -$ - [(8) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER -$ -$ -$ - R-6 Attic Ducts -$ -$ -$ - 1(8) 40 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF-O.62 -$ -$ -$ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 8,795 $ 14,079 $ 11,437 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.04 $ 1.67 $ 1.35 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 Page 12 Renovations or Alterations Covering 2:: 50% of Existing Building For renovations or alterations that exceed 50% of low-rise multi-family residential buildings, the City's Green Building Compliance Standards specify meeting the requirements of the Build it Green GreenPoint Rated program. The energy efficiency requirement for GreenPoint Rated for Existing Homes and Existing Multi- Family Buildings is normally achieved through the HERS 2 energy rating system. However, Table B of the Compliance Standards requires that a building in this category must exceed the 2008 Title 24 standards by at least 15%. The cost- effectiveness of this requirement should be essentially self-evident for the following reasons: (1) Upgrades of lighting, plumbing or interior finishes are generally made in conjunction with upgrades in water heating, mechanical and, in many cases, improved insulation (if not windows). Including these sorts of changes in the proposed building will achieve an overall energy performance of 15% better than the Title 24 standard design without having to target additional measures to improve energy efficiency. (2) Incremental savings derived from upgrading the existing building conditions to the new energy measures will generally be much larger than the savings associated with the case study in Section 2.3 above. Therefore, the overall cost-effectiveness of complying with this section of the ordinance is likely to be substantially greater than for new construction. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 13 2.4 High-Rise Residential Building Energy design descriptions of the high-rise residential prototype which just meet the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: High-rise Residential: 4-story 36,800 sf, 40 units, Window Wall Ratio = 35.2% Energy Efficiency Measures R-30 Roof R-19 Metal Stud Walls R-O Raised Slab Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.35 Room PTACs: HSPF=7.2, EER=10.2 (No Ducts) Central DHW Boiler AFUE=82.7% High-rise Residential Energy Measures Needed to Meet the City's Ordinance. Incremental energy efficiency measures to meet the Ordinance have been evaluated for the above high-rise residential building. The following features have been modi'fied 'from the Title 24 measures so that this building usees at least 15% less TDV energy than the corresponding base case design. The incremental first cost to provide each measure in comparison with the equivalent base case measure is listed to the right in the following tables. 15% Belter Than Title 24 Base Case. Option A 36800 sf Energy Efficiency Measures Change Incremental Cost Estimate Type Min Max Avg R-30 Cool Roof (Reflectance-a, 70, Emmittance=0.75); 9,200 sf @ $0.25 -$0,40/sf Upgrade $ 2300 $ 3,680 $ 2,990 R-19 Metal Stud Walls -$ -$ -$ - R-O Raised Slab -$ -$ -$ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0,36, SHGC=0.25 6,240 sf @ $1.40 -$1 ,60/sf Upgrade $ 8,736 $ 9984 $ 9,360 Room PTACs: HSPF=7,84, EER=11 ,2 (No Ducts) 80 units @ $150 -$250/unit Upgrade $ 12 000 $ 20 000 $ 16 000 Central DHW Boiler AFUE=82. 7% -$ -$ -$ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 23,036 $ 33,664 $ 28,350 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.63 $ 0.91 $ 0.77 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016/09 Page 14 15% Better Than Title 24 Base Case, Option B 36800 sf Energy Efficiency Measures ! Change Incremental Cost Estimate T'-e Min Max Avg R-30 Roof -$ -$ $ - R-19 Metal Stud Walls -$ $ -$ - R-O Raised Slab -$ -$ -$ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=Q.36, SHGC=0.25 6,240 sf @ $1.40 $1.60/sf Upgrade $ 8736 $ 9984 $ 9,360 Room PTACs: HSPF=7.84, EER=11.2 (No Ducts) 80 units @$150 $250/unit Upgrade $ 12000 $ 20,000 $ 16,000 Central DHW Boiler, AFUE=94%: 2 @ $2000 -$3000 each Upgrade $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 4,500 Totallncrernental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 23.736 $ 35,984 $ 29860 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.65 $ 0.98 $ 0.81 Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016/09 Page 15 2.5 Non-residential Buildings The following measures were first evaluated so that the following non-residential prototype building just meets the 2008 standards as follows: (Al 10,580 sf 1-story building, 24.1 % Window Wall Ratio glazing area • R-30 attic insulation, R-19 in metal 'frame exterior walls, slab-on-grade 1 st floor; • NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=O.SO, SHGCc=0.38 (e.g., Viracon VE 1-2M) wi no exterior shading • Lighting = 0.8S2 w/sf: 120 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures @ 62w each and 100 26w CFLs @ 26 w each; 6 SOw-halogens; no lighting controls • (4) 7.S-ton Packaged OX units: 11.0 EER; 80% AFUE; all standard efficiency fan motors • Ducts in conditioned space, R-4.2 duct insulation • Domestic hot water assumed to be standard gas water heater LEED vs. Title 24 Building Energy Performance The United States Green Building Council's LEED rating system applies a different metric than California's Title 24 to establish a proposed building's energy performance with respect to the required baseline energy performance. LEED 2009 requires the use of an Energy Cost Budget (ECB) method to demonstrate that the annual energy cost of the proposed building is at least 10% less than the annual energy cost of either: (a) the ASH RAE 90.1-2007 baseline reference building; or (b) the 200S Title 24 standard design. In either case, all site energy must be included as part of the LEED calculation of annual energy cost, which includes exterior lighting, interior lighting, process loads and receptacle loads. By comparison, the energy performance metric used in California's 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) Energy measured in KBtu/sf-yr. Process, receptacle and lighting loads in non-residential buildings are fixed in both the Standard Design and the Proposed Building within the performance calculation and as such, are considered unregulated energy use components. A current study for PG&E by Gabel Associates concludes that there is no simple or consistent correlation between a building that meets California's 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the extent to which it compares to the LEED baseline annual energy cost. To resolve this apparent dilemma, Palo Alto's proposed Energy Efficiency Ordinance (the companion to its Green Building Ordinance) creates a level playing field for all non-residential buildings by requiring that they must reduce Title 24 TDV energy use by at least 1S%. This is the same approach used by the City of San Francisco and almost all other jurisdictions implementing green building ordinances under the 2008 Title 24 standards whereby 1S% > Title 24 is considered equivalent to meeting the LEED 2009 energy prerequisite. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 16 Energy Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards The following energy efficiency features have been modified from the above Title 24 set of measures so that the proposed design uses 15% less TDV energy than the 2008 standards. The added first cost of each measure compared with the equivalent 2008 Title 24 design measure is listed to the right in the tables below, as well as the sum of all incremental costs. (An 10,580 sf building: Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Energy by 15% • Lighting = 0.693 w/sf: 120 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts @$35.00 -$60.00/fixture • 30 (25% of) T8 fixtures on 15 occupant sensors, small offices: @$75.00 -$100.00 each • U=0.50, SHGCc;;0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) 1,960 sf @$2.00 -3.00/sq.ft. • R-30 cool roof Reflectance=0.70, Emmittance=0.75 10,580 sf @ $0.35 -$0.50/sf Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: Incremental cost in $/SF: $ 4,200 -7,200 $ 1 ,125 -1 ,500 $ 3,920 -5,880 $ 3,705 -5,290 $ 12,950 -19,870 Avg = $16,410 $ 1.22 to $1.881sq. ft. Avg = $1.55 Isf (A2) 10,580 sf building: (Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Energy by 10% • Lighting = 0.693 w/sf: 120 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures with high efficiency instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50 input watts @$35.00 -$60.00/fixture • (4) Global Energy Group 1400 Series 7.5-ton Packaged DX, EER = 13.0 @$1950 -$2450 each • R-30 cool roof Reflectance;;0.70, Emmittance=0.75 10,580 sf @ $0.35 -$0.50/sf Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: Incremental cost in $/SF: Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 $ 4,200 -7,200 $ 7,800 -9,800 $ 3,705 -5,290 $ 15,705 -22,290 Avg = $18,998 $ 1.48 to $2.11/sq.ft. Avg = $1.80 Isf Page 17 The following measures were first evaluated so that the following non-residential prototype building just meets the 2008 standards as follows: 52,900 sf 5-story building, 29.1 % Window Wall Ratio glazing area (A) 52,900 sf 5-story office building which just meet Title 24: • R-30 attic insulation, R-19 in metal frame exterior walls, slab-on-grade 1st 'floor; • NFRC-rated Low-E windows: U-factor=0.50, SHGCc=0.38 (e.g., Viracon VE 1-2M) wI 2' overhang on 1 st floor only • Lighting = 0.909 w/sf: 720 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures wI high efficiency ballasts @ 58w each and 230 26w CFLs @ 26 w each; no lighting controls • 4 identical Packaged VAV units: Aaron 25 ton, EER=10.4, 10,000 CFM, standard efficiency fan motors, 30% V A V boxes wI reheat • Ducts in conditioned space, R-4.2 duct insulation • Hot water assumed to be standard gas water heater or boiler Energy Measures Needed to Exceed the 2008 Standards The following energy efficiency features have been modified from the above Title 24 set of measures so that the proposed design uses 15% less TDV energy than the 2008 standards. The added 'first cost of each measure compared with the equivalent 2008 Title 24 design measure is listed to tl1e right in the table below, and the sum of all incremental costs is listed. (A1) 52,900 sf building: Reduction in 2008 T24 TOV Energy by 15% • (5) Trane 25 ton units, EER=11.0 @ $9,000 to $13,000 each wI premium fan motors • 10 NEMA Premium fan motors on supply & return fans • R-38 wI Cool Roof 10,580 sf @ $0.40 -$0.50/sf • Installed LPD=0.785: 720 2-lamp 4' T8 fixtures wI high eff. instant start ballasts and premium T8 lamps, 50w input @$10.00 -$20.00/fixture • Switch 20 « 9%) of 26w CFLs to 18w CFLs • 100 occupant sensors controlling (2) 2-lamp T8 fixtures; @$75.00 -$100.00 each • R-21 in exterior walls: 20,730 sf @ $0.08 -$0. 12/sf • U=0.50, SHGCc=0.31 (e.g., Viracon VE 2-2M) 8,500 sf @$2.00 -3.00/sq.ft. Total incremental cost of Ordinance energy measure: Incremental cost in $/SF: Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 $ 45,000 -65,000 $ 750 -1,250 $ 4,235 -5,290 $ 7,200 -14,400 $ 0 -0 $ 7,500 -10,000 $ 1,660 -2,490 $ 17,000 -25,500 $ 83,345 -123,930 Avg = $103,638 $ 1.58 to $2.34/sq.ft. Avg = $1.96/sf Page 18 3.0 Cost Effectiveness The results summarized in this section are based upon the following assumptions: • Incremental site electricity (kWh) and natural gas (therms) saved per year are calculated using the state-approved energy compliance software for the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, EnergyPro Version 5 and Micropas Version 8. • Average utility rates of $0. 14/kWh for electricity and $1.67/therm for natural gas in current constant dollars as provided by City of Palo Alto Utilities. • No change (i.e., no inflation or deflation) of utility rates in constant dollars over time as per City of Palo Alto Utilities. • No increase in summer temperatures, even though recent scientific studies suggest that global climate change will increase temperatures in the Western United States, which in turn will increase energy use associated with air conditioning. The Simple Payback data includes a cost-effectiveness analysis of the City's ordinance with respect to each case study building design and assumes: • No external cost of global climate change (and corresponding value of additional investment in energy efficiency and C02 reduction) is included. • The cost of money invested in the incremental cost of energy efficiency measures is not included. • City of Palo Alto Utilities incentives that may be applicable in some cases are not included. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 1016109 Page 19 3.1 New Single Family Homes Average Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 1,705sf«)p~-15%) $1,915 $107 17.9 1,705 sf «)ptB-15%) $1,840 $110 16.7 Averages: $1,877 $109 17.3 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.41 Ibs./sq.ft.-year Average Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 2,682 sf «)p~-15%) $1,525 $165 9.2 2,682 sf «)ptB-15%) $2,686 $177 15.2 Averages: $2,106 $171 12.2 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.41 Ibs./sq.ft.-year Average Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 5,074 sf «)p~-15%) $4,314 $223 19.3 5,074 sf «)ptB-15%) $4,027 $218 18.5 Averages: $4,170 $221 18.9 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.28 Ibs./sq.ft.-year 3.2 Addition to Existing Homes Total Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 1,295 sf Add (OptA -15%) $635 $36 17.5 1,295 sf Add (OptB -15%) $1,002 $41 24.4 Averages: $818 $39 21.0 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.24 Ibs./sq.ft.-year Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 Page 20 3.3 Low-rise Multi-Family Residential Building Total Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 8,442 sf (OptA-15%) $10,953 $461 23.8 8 442 sf (OptB-15%) $11,437 $454 25.2 Averages: $11,195 $458 24.5 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.32 Ibs./sq.ft.-year 3.4 High-rise Multi-Family Residential Building Average Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 36 800 sf (Opt-A -15%) $28,350 $2,106 13.5 36,800 sf (Opt-B -15%) $29,860 $2,855 10.5 Averages: $29,105 $2,481 12.0 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.32 Ibs./sq.ft.-year 3.5 Non-residential Buildings Total Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 10580 sf (A1) $7,013 $1,534 4.6 10,580 sf (A2) $13,298 $1,638 8.1 Averages: $10,155 $1,586 6.3 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.48 Ibs./sq.ft.-year Total Net Incremental Incremental Annual Energy Simple Payback Building Description First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($) (years) 52,900 sf (A 1 ) $71,563 $6,781 10.6 Annual Reduction in C02-equivalent: 0.38 Ibs./sq.ft.-year Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 Page 21 Conclusions In considering the issue of energy cost-effectiveness, it's worth noting a few points, which put the above data in a slightly different context. 1. The first cost data for incremental (additional) energy measures is generally conservative since the average between a low-value and a high-value is used. Builders could focus on obtaining materials and equipment at the lower end costs which would reduce the simple paybacks. 2. No significant attempt was made in the case studies presented to optimize cost- effectiveness by performing multiple computer runs with different combinations of energy efficiency measures. That approach however, would likely be used for actual projects where reducing first costs to meet a specified energy performance level may be the driving force in the design process. 3. As noted in the above assumptions, the predicted rise in temperatures in California over the next 20 years from global climate change has not been included. Increased cooling loads due to rising temperatures will increase the energy savings for cooling system efficiencies and therefore also reduce simple paybacks. Regardless of the individual building design, occupancy type and number of stories, it is reasonable to conclude that: (a) the paybacks are equal to or less than the useful life of the energy measures needed to meet the energy efficiency requirements of the City's ordinance; and (b) the incremental improvements in the overall annual energy performance of buildings required to meet the City's ordinance are cost-effective. However, each building's specific design, occupancy type and the design choices used to meet the State's energy efficiency standards, and exceed them to meet the requirements of the City's proposed ordinance, allow for a large range of incremental first costs and paybacks. As is the case in meeting the requirements of the State's Title 24 energy efficiency standards, a permit applicant complying with the energy requirements of Palo Alto's proposed Energy Efficiency Ordinance should carefully analyze building energy performance to reduce incremental first cost and payback for the required additional energy efficiency measures. Cost-Effectiveness Study for the Palo Alto Energy Efficiency Ordinance, 10/6/09 Page 22