HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-27 Planning & transportation commission Summary Minutes_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Action Agenda: October 27, 2021 2
Virtual Meeting 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
Approximately 6:03 pm 7
Chair Hechtman welcomed the Commissioners and Staff to the regular meeting of the Planning 8
and Transportation Commission (PTC) for October 27, 2021. 9
10
[An automated voice recording begins to play disclosing Zoom procedures.] 11
12
Chair Hechtman requested that Mr. Nguyen call the roll. 13
14
Mr. Nguyen announced that all Commissioners are present except Commissioner Summa. 15
Oral Communications 16
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 17
18
Chair Hechtman reminded that oral communications is the section where the public can 19
address the Commission on any items that are not listed on the agenda. 20
21
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate III, disclosed that there are no public speakers for 22
oral communications. 23
24
Chair Hechtman moved to agenda changes, additions and deletions. 25
26
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 27
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 28
29
Commissioner Chang wondered how questions from the public that come in through email are 30
handled. 31
32
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, answered that Staff does respond to questions that are 33
sent in that are related to current practices. Some questions are policy questions and 34
Commissioner can respond to those questions in writing, ask those questions during 35
Commissioner comments, questions, and announcements or during the Director’s Report. 36
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Chang restated that some of the questions asked by the public should be 2
addressed by a different City department such as the Office of Transportation or Public Works. 3
She wanted to know if those questions are forwarded to the right department. 4
5
Ms. Tanner noted that the specific comment regarding traffic was responded to by the Office of 6
Transportation. She remarked that Staff will begin forwarding any Staff responses to public 7
comments to the Commission. 8
9
Chair Hechtman agreed that often questions that should be addressed to staff are misdirected 10
to the PTC understandably because of the name of the Commission. He recalled a few months 11
ago an email regarding a stoplight on Embarcadero that came in, staff responded to the 12
comment and the dialog was included in the PTC Packet. He noted that if there are questions or 13
comments raised by the public that a Commissioner is interested in discussing with the full 14
Commission, that discussion can be agendized. 15
16
Commissioner Chang concurred that it would be helpful to see the answers to the questions. 17
18
Chair Hechtman moved to City official reports. 19
City Official Reports 20
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 21
22
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, announced that Staff is recruiting new members for the 23
PTC, Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), and the Parks and 24
Recreation Commission. She announced that enough applications were received for each of the 25
open positions. With respect to what is happening at the City Council level, she reported that 26
they reviewed and continued the discussion on the Objective Standards to November 8, 2021. 27
City Council will also be reviewing the work done by the PTC and the Human Relations 28
Commission (HRC) regarding renter protections on November 8, 2021. Also, the first quarterly 29
report was presented to Council and the Planning and Development Services Department has 30
hired a new Staff member to help in the Development Center. On November 1, 2021, Staff will 31
be presenting to Council the item from the Office of Transportation regarding advancing 32
parking initiatives. Council will also be discussing grade separations at one of their November 33
2021 meetings. She announced that Mr. Nguyen has accepted the Deputy City Clerk position in 34
the City Clerk’s Office and she expressed her congratulations to him. 35
36
Vice-Chair Roohparvar thanked Mr. Nguyen for his hard work and dedication to the PTC. 37
38
Commissioner Templeton also congratulated Mr. Nguyen on his promotion. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III, thanked the Commissioners for their support. 1
2
Chair Hechtman moved to the study session item. 3
4
Study Session 5
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 1,3 6
2. Study Session: Staff Recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 7
Conduct a Study Session Regarding Furthering the Electrification of Buildings in Palo 8
Alto by Amending the Municipal Code to Reduce Review by Planning Staff and 9
Thereby Streamlining Permitting Processes. 10
11
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, introduced Jodie Gerhardt and Sam Gutierrez who have 12
been working with her on the project. She mentioned that the City has a goal of reducing 13
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030 (80 by 2030) 14
to slow climate change and make the City more sustainable. The City has reduced emissions by 15
38 percent below the 1990 levels as of 2019. The largest area where the City will see more 16
reduction in GHG was reducing emissions produced by buildings and transportation. The City is 17
exploring several key technologies that will help buildings within the City shift to cleaner 18
energy. Those technologies included electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), solar 19
photovoltaic panels (PV), energy storage systems (ESS) and electric heat pumps. Through the 20
Sustainability Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), Council is considering policy changes and other ideas 21
to encourage the use of the technologies. TRC, a City consultant, identified areas where the City 22
can improve it's permitting to increase adoption of the technologies as well. The City has been 23
exploring SolarAPP+ which is automated home solar permitting app. It integrates with existing 24
government software, automatically reviews plans, provides permit approval, project tracking, 25
standardizes up to 90 percent of standard system plans, and provides a checklist verification 26
and final sign-off after installation. SolarAPP+ can approve a PV system up to 38 kilowatts, but 27
the system has to only be located on certain roofing materials. SolarAPP+ is working on their 28
next iteration where the app can review plans for both PV systems as well as ESS. This app will 29
allow the City to streamline the process for folks who want to install a PV System. When a 30
Building Permit is reviewed, at least four departments review the permit. The City prioritizes 31
clean energy technologies during the review process and the goal is to review all permits for 32
these technologies within 14-days or less. From May 2021 to August 2021, the City has received 33
142 applications, it took Staff 10-days to provide first-round comments, and the average 34
number of days from the Building Permit Application submitted to Building Permit issued was 35
38-days. Staff has been exploring two main paths in how to streamline the process further. One 36
was to reduce review by improving communication materials and creating a clean checklist for 37
applicants. The other way is to have policy changes and eliminate code requirements for the 38
height of PVs, allow equipment in the setback if it has low noise decibels, allow historic 39
structures to use solar panel shingles, automatic approval for interior garage encroachment of 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
equipment, and explore possible changes to the tree canopy in terms of tree trimming and tree 1
removal in terms of trenching. Staff was seeking feedback from the PTC regarding the pros and 2
cons for each approach and if there are additional approaches Staff should explore. 3
4
Commissioner Lauing suggested that Staff explore the difference between EV versus PV. He 5
asked if all the changes are code changes or if some are policy and process changes. 6
7
Ms. Tanner answered that it is a mix of both. The reduced review approaches will be Staff 8
working on improving the process internally. For the other items, those would be accompanied 9
by Municipal Code changes. 10
11
Mr. Sam Gutierrez, Planner, noted that in terms of trees, several factors are to be considered. 12
There is canopy trimming either on private or public land and trees that are protected by a City 13
ordinance. It is easier if the tree is located on the subject property and is not a protected tree. 14
Folks are allowed to trim and/or cut down private trees. In terms of trenching, the Tree 15
Protection Zone may be violated and so those are times when the Urban Forestry Department 16
will have to review the project. 17
18
Ms. Tanner added that oftentimes trees are not shown on the plans that are submitted and 19
planners only discover that a tree is nearby using Google Maps. If those types of applications 20
come in, they may need a further review from the planning Staff or the Urban Forestry 21
Department. 22
23
Commissioner Lauing inquired when the item comes back to PTC, will it include both the 24
procedural changes as well as potential ordinance changes. 25
26
Ms. Tanner answered yes. 27
28
Commissioner Chang wanted to know if the City has a ton of carbon amount that it wants to 29
reduce through buildings. 30
31
Ms. Tanner could not recall what the percentage is for buildings specifically. 32
33
Commissioner Chang wanted to understand what 90 percent reduction meant in terms of 34
SolarAPP+. 35
36
Ms. Tanner explained that SolarAPP+ is a nationwide initiative and their pitch is that the app 37
can approve 90 percent of single-family home applications for PV. One of the constraints for 38
Palo Alto is that the utility is publicly owned and that makes the process longer. She noted that 39
one of the current trends is folks are installing PV along with ESS. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Chang asked how many of the 140 applications were PV applications. 2
3
Ms. Tanner disclosed that heat pumps and EV chargers are becoming popular. She emphasized 4
that the City must massively increase the number of applications received for these 5
technologies to reach the 80 by 2030 goal. 6
7
Commissioner Chang appreciated the answer and disclosed that she was trying to understand 8
the magnitude of the issue. She mentioned that Council will be updating the existing Tree 9
Ordinance and she wanted to know how much of the update has taken into the City’s goal with 10
respect to PV. 11
12
Ms. Tanner disclosed that is something that Staff will be working on between now and when 13
the Tree Ordinance is presented to Council in April of 2022. She shared that the initiative to 14
update the Tree Ordinance began in 2017/2018. It was delayed due to COVID-19 and is now 15
being revived. Staff will be exploring how to have the new technologies and the updated Tree 16
Ordinance live in concert with each other. 17
18
Chair Hechtman summarized that the data shown regarding the number of applications 19
received between March 2021 and August 2021 were all electrification project applications. 20
21
Ms. Tanner answered yes. 22
23
Chair Hechtman noted that the 38-day review was not only planning review but all departments 24
that had to review the application. 25
26
Ms. Tanner added that the 38-days included feedback and any revisions from the applicant. 27
28
Chair Hechtman inquired if the PTC is exploring how to reduce the Planning Department’s 29
review or if the PTC is exploring how to reduce the process for all departments. 30
31
Ms. Tanner concurred that it could be both. Any code changes would be brought back to the 32
Commission for review. 33
34
Chair Hechtman rephrased his question to if the planning department review is ministerial, 35
would that save 11 days of the 38-day turnaround time? 36
37
Ms. Tanner confirmed that SolarAPP+ will reduce the number of days it takes to process the 38
applications. She emphasized that the applications are Building Permit applications, not 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
discretionary planning applications. The applications are already ministerial and there are no 1
procedural challenges to them. 2
3
Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager, agreed that the applications are ministerial Building 4
Permits and that all the different departments review them concurrently. She noted that the 5
fewer departments involved in reviewing an application, the less coordination there is, and 6
there is savings in that regard. 7
8
Ms. Tanner agreed. 9
10
Mr. Gutierrez reminded the Commission that the Commission approved code changes for minor 11
encroachments for commercial properties to accommodate EV charges in parking lots. He 12
acknowledged that allowing equipment to encroach in the parking space inside a garage is 13
different than a commercial parking lot. 14
15
Chair Hechtman wanted to know if the discussion regarding the relationship between 16
electrification technology and the tree is theoretical or if it is practical. He asked if there have 17
been instances where there was a conflict between a PV and trees. 18
19
Ms. Gerhardt explained that a downtown church wanted to install solar carports into their 20
parking lot. That was along the perimeter of the property and there are several large trees 21
along the perimeter. There was a discussion about removing the trees but Staff denied the 22
request to remove the trees. The trees helped with the City’s parking lot shading requirement 23
and only trees can be used to meet the requirement. 24
25
Ms. Tanner believed that the Urban Forestry Department would have a better understanding of 26
how many conflicts arise when PV installation conflicts with trees. 27
28
Ms. Gerhardt predicted that as installing PV systems becomes more common and as the 29
Building Code changes where it triggers more PV installs versus a planned PV system. More 30
retrofitting will happen which could possibly increase the conflict with trees. New residential 31
houses are often built with the assumption that the owner will install a PV system and are more 32
flexible in terms of planning. 33
34
Chair Hechtman requested that Mr. Nguyen call on any members of the public who wish to 35
speak during public comment. 36
37
[Staff worked through some technology issues] 38
39
Ms. Tanner called on Mr. David Coale for public comment. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Mr. David Coale remarked that he has been installing PV systems in the City for over 20-years 2
and has been trying to improve the permitting process for the majority of that time. He strongly 3
encouraged the City to use SolarAPP+. He stated that the key highlights of using the app are 4
standardization and no plan review. He mentioned that the downfall is that the City has Palo 5
Alto only requirements and Staff is trying to incorporate those into the app. Those Palo Alto 6
only requirements, torque tests and a two-ground rod requirement, constrains folks from 7
installing a PV system. He shared that he has not seen any evidence that the Palo Alto only 8
requirements improve safety and going with the standard will reduce processing times. He 9
concluded that a PV with ESS application is taking roughly 4 months to go through the process. 10
11
Chair Hechtman closed public comment and invited Commissioners to discuss the topic. He 12
suggested that each Commissioner take up to 5-minutes to share their preliminary thoughts. 13
Then the second round of comments will happen if necessary. 14
15
Vice-Chair Roohparvar inquired if Staff has heard of Aurora being used for solar. She shared 16
that Aurora is a very popular program with the PV community. The program determines how 17
shaded a property is and if a PV would be beneficial or not. 18
19
Ms. Tanner answered that she has not heard of that program. 20
21
Vice-Chair Roohparvar mentioned that is a very easy program to use and suggested that the 22
City provide a link to it on the City’s website for the community to explore and/or use. 23
24
Mr. Gutierrez explained that the Aurora app analyzes a home’s roof using Google Maps aerial 25
photos. Then based on longitude and latitude, it determines the position of the roof forms 26
relative to the sun. 27
28
Vice-Chair Roohparvar asked if Aurora is free. 29
30
Mr. Gutierrez disclosed that he did not know but Staff can investigate. 31
32
Ms. Gerhardt agreed that the tool would be useful for the do-it-yourself type people. She 33
shared that solar companies also do a shading analysis and help homeowners understand what 34
fits for their house. 35
36
Chair Hechtman requested that Staff display the review issues and the six policy changes to 37
help the Commission focus the discussion. He asked how neighboring jurisdictions that have 38
adopted SolarAPP+ contend with the issues that Staff has raised regarding trees. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner confirmed that Staff has spoken with several southern California jurisdictions that 1
have adopted the app as well as several Arizona jurisdictions. They have all given positive 2
reviews about using the app. SolarAPP+ does not address trees. That impact comes when folks 3
want to maximize their solar potential and have to remove a tree to do that. 4
5
Chair Hechtman summarized that any issues with trees are a separate process outside of 6
SolarAPP+. 7
8
Ms. Tanner clarified that the issue regarding trees is to think globally about the role of trees and 9
the interconnection. Not that there is a specific conflict in the solar itself. 10
11
Ms. Gerhardt added that the single-family and multi-family commercial processes are very 12
different processes. For a single-family home, any tree removals would go directly through the 13
Urban Forestry Department and any PV installations would be processed by the Build 14
Department. For multi-family commercial properties, that is a coordinated process through a 15
planning application. 16
17
Ms. Tanner clarified that installation of a PV system may require tree trimming but the 18
installation of the other electrification technologies may require trenching. That is where Staff 19
would have to assess the trees and see how they may be affected by that. 20
21
Commissioner Chang found it hard to prioritize the proposed streamlining approaches. She 22
requested more information about the Palo Alto only requirements and if any streamlining 23
proposals would help with those requirements. 24
25
Ms. Tanner emphasized that the specific requirements that Mr. Coale mentioned are not Palo 26
Alto only requirements. They are requirements listed in the California Building Code and so 27
there are no changes that Staff can make to those requirements. Palo Alto does do more 28
rigorous inspections of solar installations than other cities and so the City has been working on 29
improving the inspection process. Also, there are several safety features that the City’s Utility 30
Department requires that go beyond what PG&E requires. 31
32
Commissioner Templeton emphasized that it is important that the City work reduce its impact 33
on the environment. She asked if there are any reasons why Staff should not improve 34
communications materials and draft a checklist for applicants. 35
36
Ms. Tanner answered that there is no problem with the height of PV systems right now but it 37
could be a problem in the future. 38
39
Commissioner Templeton clarified that she was talking about communication materials. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Tanner apologized and said that there is no reason why Staff should not improve 2
communications materials and draft a checklist. 3
4
Commissioner Templeton acknowledged that some community members have strong opinions 5
about some of the approaches proposed under the policy changes and eliminated code 6
requirements. She wanted to hear more from them before policy and code requirements are 7
changed. Regarding noise and allowing equipment in the setback, she agreed that with more 8
flexibility more electrification equipment would be installed. Regarding the height of solar 9
panels, she expressed concern because the panels may encroach into the daylight plan and she 10
suggested that Staff explore the impacts further before implementing it. She asked if the height 11
of solar panels is a primary obstacle or a secondary obstacle. 12
13
Ms. Gerhardt concurred that most solar panel applications propose the panels be close to the 14
roof. She acknowledged that further discussion needs to happen on how to define what is 15
considered close to the roof. She noted that SolarAPP+ allows the panels to sit up to 10-inches 16
off the roof. 17
18
Mr. Gutierrez added that the height of the solar panels depends upon the system, the efficiency 19
of the system, and how the system will be used. 20
21
Ms. Tanner stated that Staff rarely receives complaints about solar panel placement and 22
heights. 23
24
Commissioner Templeton noted that the City should explore and incentives ways that 25
homeowners can make their homes more energy-efficient. She mentioned that her neighbors 26
enjoy gardening and any obstruction of the sun would decrease their quality of life. She wanted 27
to understand what the marginal gain would be by allowing folks go to closer to the edge of the 28
property with elevated panels. She acknowledged that the technology for solar shingles is 29
changing rapidly and she wanted to understand how to make those technologies work within 30
the city. Regarding interior garage space, she noted that many folks use their garages for the 31
storage of things other than vehicles. She mentioned that it makes sense to allow equipment to 32
encroach in the interior space, but then the City must review and possibly amend the definition 33
of what a garage is. She asked if there is any reason why the City would not allow such 34
encroachments. 35
36
Ms. Tanner answered no and that it makes sense to have an EVSE located in the garage. She 37
predicted that many folks would be cognizant of if their car will fit in the garage with the EVSE. 38
She inquired what the Commission thought of having a heat pump or an ESS system in the 39
garage; or should the City only allow EVSE. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Templeton shared that her family has an electric vehicle but the car is not 2
housed in the garage. She mentioned that it would be nice to see an organizational chart of 3
how these electrification technologies would be arranged in a garage, but she acknowledged 4
that the City would only be guiding that process. 5
6
Commissioner Lauing concurred that the reason there are inspections is to address the safety 7
issues and there could be collateral damage if there are no inspections. In general, he 8
suggested that Staff start with proposals that are less technical and less problematic. He 9
suggested that Staff bring forward details about those and move quickly on them. Other 10
concepts such as tree canopy and tree removal, need further study. After the technologies are 11
installed, he recommended that the City do audits to make sure that it is installed correctly. 12
13
Commissioner Chang agreed that streamlining electrification is very important and the 14
proposals listed are areas that constrain folks from installing the technologies. She concurred 15
that Items One and Two listed under reduced review are easy to implement. With respect to 16
policy changes, she requested more information on the items except for allowing equipment in 17
the setback and garage encroachment. She felt that the City should allow equipment in the 18
setback if the noise it produces is lower than a certain decibel. She supported allowing EVSE in a 19
garage because they occupy a much smaller space. With the other technologies such as 20
batteries and heat pumps being placed in the garage, those need to be explored further. She 21
acknowledged that there is a lot of debate about whether if the tree is more important than 22
the savings in carbon emissions from PV systems. She encouraged Staff to explore those topics 23
more. 24
25
Commissioner Alcheck stated that the City has to update the Municipal Code to encourage 26
electrification in every way possible. He recommended that Staff approach electrification by 27
first looking at all electrification rules within the Bay Area and then highlighting the differences 28
between those rules and the City’s rules. Then identify which Cities are leaders in the process 29
and then reach out to local providers to find out what those providers do not like in the leading 30
City’s programs. He reported that Council reviewed the tree canopy rules early in the week and 31
they are considering making the rules more strict. He confessed that he did not watch the 32
Council meeting but wondered if the conversation discussed the impacts trees will have on 33
electrification. He noted that the Staff report stated that the first few inches for a solar panel 34
installation on a roof are not reviewed and he wanted to know how many inches that is. He 35
suggested that rules regarding the height of a PV system should be liberal and state that as long 36
as the system is within the daylight plan. Then Staff will not do an extensive review. He strongly 37
encouraged Staff to identify what lead Cities are doing before making any changes. He 38
mentioned that there may be an article discussing PV systems and neighbors’ trees. He wanted 39
to understand that more in detail before recommending any changes. He mentioned that new 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
development is required to be constructed to handle electrification technologies. He 1
acknowledged that newer equipment does not produce as much noise but wanted more 2
information. 3
4
Vice-Chair Roohparvar agreed that Items 1 and 2 under reduced review are straightforward. 5
She also agreed that additional information is needed for the policy change concepts. Especially 6
for trees and she wanted to understand the tradeoffs for that approach. With respect to 7
equipment in the setback, she suggested that Staff investigate the size of the equipment and if 8
the size will impair access. 9
10
Chair Hechtman recognized that the discussion is a launch point for Staff to pursue the 11
proposed concepts. He predicted that the next step is that Staff will investigate all the 12
proposals and bring back recommendations and information on what Staff believes will be the 13
most helpful proposals to encourage electrification. He liked the idea of the City being able to 14
facilitate as many over-the-counter, same-day permits as it can. He indicated that there cannot 15
be a one-size-fits-all process, but there can be a dual process. He envisioned there being two 16
paths a person could go. They could either follow the Objective Standards set by the City and 17
have less review time, or they could have a unique system that is outside of the Objective 18
Standards which would require a longer review period. He suggested that Staff draft Objective 19
Standards that are broad and a clear checklist for folks to follow. With those in place, he felt 20
that any of the policy changes proposed by Staff could be addressed. If an installation has a 21
conflict with trees, then the application would have to follow a longer review period. With 22
respect to solar shingles and historic structures, he recommended that the shingles be placed 23
on the portion of the roof that is not visible from the right of way. If that can happen, then the 24
project can go through a streamlined process. He agreed that many folks in the City do not use 25
the garage to house their cars. He asked Staff if the Commission has provided enough feedback 26
to move forward. 27
28
Ms. Tanner found the conversation extremely helpful. She predicted that each item will come 29
back to the Commission individually with a more detailed report. She recommended that the 30
tree canopy and tree removal discussion be incorporated into the discussion regarding the new 31
Tree Ordinance. 32
33
Chair Hechtman moved to Committee items. 34
Committee Items 35
36
Not seeing any, Chair Hechtman moved to Commissioner questions, comments, and 37
announcements. 38
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 1
2
Chair Hechtman announced that he attended a meeting with the Mayor, Vice Mayor and the 3
Chairs of the City’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees. The Vice Mayor asked if the PTC 4
would be interested in being included in the discussion of re-envisioning California Avenue. 5
6
Commissioner Templeton answered yes and felt the PTC would have a lot to contribute to the 7
conversation. 8
9
Commissioner Alcheck asked if the suggestion is to have a cross Commission Committee. 10
11
Chair Hechtman understood it would be a stakeholder group that would include 12
representatives from the Boards and Commission that want to participate as well as individuals 13
who are not on a Board or Commission. 14
15
Commissioner Alcheck inquired if the goal is to create a specific plan or concept for California 16
Avenue. 17
18
Chair Hechtman agreed that it sounded like a planning project. 19
20
Commissioner Alcheck found it odd that the Vice Mayor would invite the different Boards and 21
Commission into a discussion. If a stakeholder’s group is formed, he encouraged one of the PTC 22
Commissioners to be involved. 23
24
Commissioner Templeton envisioned California Avenue as being more than buildings. It could 25
be a park or a place that has arts and safe sidewalks and streets. 26
27
Ms. Tanner announced that there will be a joint study session with PTC, ARB, and City Council 28
on November 15, 2021. 29
30
Chair Hechtman expressed his disappointment, but excitement, that Mr. Nguyen is moving on. 31
32
Commissioner Lauing recommended that the meeting be adjourned in Mr. Nguyen’s honor. 33
34
Chair Hechtman adjourned the meeting in Vinh Nguyen’s honor. 35
Adjournment 36
8:15 pm 37
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Action Agenda: October 27, 2021 2
Virtual Meeting 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
Approximately 6:03 pm 7
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Chair Hechtman, we’re on live so we can begin at any 8
time. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Thank you, thank you. Good evening fellow Commissioners and members of 11
Staff. We don’t have any public with us yet to welcome and I welcome those of you who are 12
present to this regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission for October 13
27th, 2021. Mr. Nguyen, will you roll the tape, please? 14
15
[An automated voice recording begins to play disclosing Zoom procedures.] 16
17
Chair Hechtman: May we have a roll call, please? 18
19
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Present. 22
23
Mr. Nguyen: Vice-Chair Roohparvar? 24
25
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Present. 26
27
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Alcheck? 28
29
Commissioner Alcheck: Present. 30
31
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 32
33
Commissioner Chang: Present. 34
35
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 36
37
Commissioner Lauing: Present. 38
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa is absent. Commissioner Templeton? 2
3
Commissioner Templeton: Here. 4
5
Mr. Nguyen: We have a quorum. Thank you. 6
7
Chair Hechtman: Thank you, Mr. Nguyen. We are now moving on to oral communications. 8
Oral Communications 9
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 10
Chair Hechtman: This section is for the public to speak on items not on the agenda; which 11
would mean anything other than the electrification project tonight. Please raise your hand if 12
you wish to speak. On the Zoom App, there is a raise hand button on the bottom of your 13
screen. If you are dialing in from a phone, please press *9. Mr. Nguyen, are there any public 14
speakers for oral communication? 15
16
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Chair Hechtman, we do not have any speakers. 17
18
Chair Hechtman: Then we will move onto City… actually before we do that, agenda changes, 19
additions and deletions. 20
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 21
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 22
Chair Hechtman: Commissioners, are there any of those that any of you would like to bring up? 23
Seeing none we will move to City official reports. Ms. Tanner, do you have a report for us? Oh, 24
I’m sorry. Commissioner Chang? 25
26
Commissioner Chang: I don’t… thank you. I don’t know where the right place is for this because 27
I’m still not entirely familiar with protocols. But I had a question and if we can… if you want to 28
delay it till later, that’s fine. 29
30
I was just wondering, for the public comments that come in that are asking questions of us. 31
That are not necessarily questions for us but might be directed at Staff, or might be more 32
appropriately directed at Staff who would have the answers. How do we handle that because 33
there were two comments that came in and I didn’t know how we as a Commission handle 34
that? Maybe it should be delayed till after the meeting that we discuss this or I mean at the end 35
of the meeting? I’m not quite sure. 36
37
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: I can offer maybe some insight. So, a couple of things, 38
we do, as Staff, try to get back to folks when they have questions that we can answer. Some 39
questions are often… sometimes things can be posed as questions that are policy-related. And 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
so, if it’s a policy question, then the Commissioners may give their opinion on what they think 1
the policy direction should be. But we, as Staff, can answer current practices and current 2
policies that have been adopted by the City Council. Commissioners may also choose to ask 3
those questions of Staff if they feel oh, that’s an interesting question that we should discuss or 4
even that you want to know what your fellow Commissioners think on that matter. Again, if it’s 5
kind of more maybe policy or future practice kind of oriented. So, I hope that helps a little bit, 6
but we do try to get back to the members of the public when they have questions that we can 7
answer. But we can also have them incorporated into the discussion as the members of the 8
Commission want to have them incorporated. So, I don’t know if that helps Commissioner 9
Chang or if other (interrupted) 10
11
Commissioner Chang: It does sort of generally but I’m just wondering… so for example, there 12
are some… a member of the public wrote in about a traffic, I think it… suggestion to add a 13
mirror. And that’s something that would traditionally be handled and probably directed to Palo 14
Alto 311 for example. But I’m wondering did somebody ever get back to this individual and tell 15
him that? 16
17
Ms. Tanner: I do know that the Office of Transportation Staff did see and respond to that. So, I 18
can see what was the response and one thing that we can also do is to try to make sure that 19
you all get those responses. Especially when it’s not related to an agenda item. Like if it’s an 20
agenda item, I think it’s easier to incorporate but if it’s just kind of a comment. Then it is a little 21
bit harder sometimes. 22
23
Commissioner Chang: Right, so that’s… and then there was one about are we going to publish 24
some… a guide to ADUs the way Sunnyvale does. And again, that’s probably best answered by a 25
Staff member and I assume some… you know, you guys saw it. But I… you know, I just want to 26
make sure we’re getting back to people with the answer to something that’s truly a question 27
and not. I mean there is some policy in there too but yeah. 28
29
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, I think… and I would just welcome the Commission to also, to the degree that 30
you want to bring it up during Commissioner comments and questions; or even as part of… if 31
you want to ask it as my Director’s report. We’re happy to do that because I know also 32
sometimes it can be mystifying for the public too. Just like how do I get my question answered, 33
where do I go, and we want this to be… you know, Commission [unintelligible] I think can 34
sometimes be a little stiff just cause of our protocols. Which is fine but I can make some 35
limitations that can not always be as public-friendly maybe as we would want to be. 36
37
Commissioner Chang: Great, thanks, that’s… so now I know where to bring… were to ask those 38
questions. Thank you, I appreciate it. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, of course. 1
2
Chair Hechtman: Sometimes in this situation, questions are misdirected to the Planning and 3
Transportation Commissio understandably so because of the name of our Commission, where 4
the starting point is really with our Transportation Department or our Planning Department, 5
but maybe that’s not as clear. I have seen… I think it was maybe 3-months ago, we had a similar 6
traffic email from somebody wanting to know about a stop light on Embarcadero. They 7
perceived an uncomfortable condition and that email came in early enough in the cycle that 8
Staff not only responded to it directly as you’d expect, but they also included that dialog in our 9
public comment. So, by the time we got to our meeting, we could also see that not only was the 10
question asked, it had been answered. But I think there are times where some… a question like 11
that could come up and if it’s of interest to a Commissioner, then what we want to talk about is 12
do we want to bring that back… are we interested in that? Should that come back to us in a… as 13
an agenda item and that’s a dialog we can have on these sorts of things. 14
15
I thought initially your question was about what to… how do we respond when questions are 16
asked during oral comments because we have a… but… sorry. 17
18
Commissioner Chang: No, my question was just wanting to make sure that some of these… so 19
some of these questions that came in, into our in box, where things that would be better… you 20
know, the member of the public would be better served if it went straight to, as you said, the 21
Transportation Department or the Planning Department. And I just wanted to make sure that 22
somebody was… I just didn’t know what the process was for those and it sounds like Staff is 23
just… Staff answers those then. Yeah, it would be helpful if we saw it as in the prior example 24
just so we know. Thanks. 25
26
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, that’s great. We can also work to incorporate that in the updated answers to 27
the responses. We might be lagging in the next Packet but at least then it’s there. 28
29
Chair Hechtman: Alright Ms. Tanner, City official report. 30
City Official Reports 31
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 32
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: Alright, want to just do a few report-outs today. Thank 33
you, you all may have gotten on Monday an email. We’re seeking a new member to our PTC, 34
ARB, HRB, and the Rec and Park Commission. So, a lot of recruitments going on. It’s part of the 35
effort to consolidate the recruitments into a one-time a year for the Council. So, that there can 36
be just kind of some efficiency. It also means there’s quite a bit of work in interviewing that the 37
Council Members will have to do. So, thank you if you forwarded those to your network and I 38
believe we did get enough applications, at least as a City, to… for each of the open positions. 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, I think we… and we may have even exceeded that but I know we at least had enough for the 1
open positions. So, I know the City Clerk is working to schedule those interviews. And so, we’ll 2
be looking forward to seeing how those interviews go and how the rest of the Commissions get 3
filled out. So, we will keep you posted as those are happening. 4
5
Last week at the Council… well, not last week, this week, a few days ago, at City Council 6
meeting we had a couple of items kind of in the planning and transportation world. In 7
particular, we had an item go… there was Objective Standards which came before the PTC. But 8
that was continued and so that will be heard on November 8th. The November 8th City Council 9
meeting is when we expect Objective Standards to be brought forward. And then we have also 10
the renter protection item which you all spent I think it was in the spring of this year, worked 11
on the renter protection item for a couple of meetings. That then went to the Human Relations 12
Commission and then it going to be going to City Council also on November 8th. So, I’m hoping 13
that it doesn’t get bumped because, you know, the Objective Standards just got to be quite 14
late. It was almost 10 o’clock and so they weren’t able to take up that item and to advance that 15
discussion. We did have a couple of pre-screenings for housing projects as well as not a 16
planning-related item, but we had the first-quarter report for 2022 for the City and so that we 17
certainly an interesting topic. We’re really happy that our department was able to get another 18
Staff person to help us with our Development Center. Especially, as we look to opening up that 19
center for more in-person appointments as the pandemic continues to hopefully wane and 20
allow for more in-person services for those folks who want to have those in-person services. 21
We also have coming up on… this is… sorry, just need to find the date. On December 6, we will 22
have… or sorry, excuse me, I believe it’s next week, November 1st, but I want to verify. The 23
Parking item that came to you and the agenda’s changed a little bit. But that was the item that 24
Mr. Baird brought a few weeks ago regarding advancing parking. It will be on next week… on 25
November 1st the Consent Agenda for the City Council. City Council may pull that and decide to 26
hear that item. And I believe also coming up in November, but I think I will have to get the new 27
date because it may have shifted since Monday, is a discussion of grade separations. So, I know 28
Commissioner Templeton you spent a lot of time working on grade separations. So, it continues 29
to advance down the track if you will and we will again look forward to hearing that, and I will 30
send out these dates. Just want to confirm, some of them have shifted, so I want to make sure I 31
have those right dates. And we’ll just have three meetings for City Council in November. The 1st, 32
the 15th… the 8th, and the 15th. They may add a fourth meeting after Thanksgiving but we will 33
see. 34
35
And then we are… sad here… sad but I guess proud to announce that Mr. Vinh Nguyen has 36
received a promotion to the City Clerk’s Office and has accepted a job there. I believe Vinh, are 37
you going to be the Deputy City Clerk? Am I seeing, that right? 38
39
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Yes, that’s right. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Tanner: Yes, so a very well-earned position for him. He’s absolutely fabulous. I cannot say 2
enough things about him and his efficiency. So, Lesley is great, who’s our new clerk. She’s 3
wonderful, so I knew Vinh had a bright career and his star was rising very quickly. And so, I’m 4
just glad that we got to be part of that rise and got to benefit from his services. So, thank you 5
Mr. Nguyen and we will certainly miss you here at the PTC. But he has trained up like I said he 6
has trained up two other Staff people along the way. So, he knew that he needed to make 7
himself indispensable but not irreplaceable. And so, we will be still having some technology 8
support for our virtual meetings; which will again continue through the end of this year and 9
we’ll perhaps be meeting in person or a hybrid in January. So, that is the end of my report and 10
I’m available for questions. 11
12
Chair Hechtman: Questions Commissioners? Vice-Chair Roohparvar. 13
14
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: I didn’t have a question but I did want to say thank you… you know 15
thank you for all your service Vinh. It’s been wonderful working with you, just here, and then 16
behind the scenes. We’ve seen I think, you know, Chair Hechtman, and I have defiantly seen 17
behind the scenes all that you do to make things happen. So, thank you again for all your hard 18
work. 19
20
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you. 21
22
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 23
24
Commissioner Templeton: I also want to congratulate you, Vinh. I am so happy to hear this 25
news. You made last year even possible for us, getting very flexible and creative. Taking 26
feedback and coming back with really innovative ideas. So, I’m so glad to hear this, that you’re 27
staying with the City, and that your career is progressing. I just couldn’t be happier for you. 28
Congratulations. 29
30
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you, I appreciate that. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: Alright, let’s move now to our action items, and tonight we have a study 33
session on our agenda. 34
Study Session 35
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 1,3 36
2. Study Session: Staff Recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 37
Conduct a Study Session Regarding Furthering the Electrification of Buildings in Palo 38
Alto by Amending the Municipal Code to Reduce Review by Planning Staff and 39
Thereby Streamlining Permitting Processes. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: It’s Agenda Item Number Two. Staff recommends the Planning and 1
Transportation Committee… Commission conduct a study session regarding furthering the 2
electrification of buildings in Palo Alto by amending the Municipal Code to reduce review by 3
planning Staff and thereby streamlining permitting processes. May we have a Staff report? 4
5
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: Certainly, and I want to just… I’ll be giving the 6
presentation today but I’m joined by Jodie Gerhardt who’s our manager of current planning, 7
and Sam Gutierrez, one of our Staff planners. They are the expert practitioners and so we’ll 8
have a great discussion I think hopefully both the high-level policy. But also, how does that 9
translate when folks are trying to put solar panels on their rooves or really what happens when 10
folks are in that building process. I know sometimes that can be a little bit hidden from the 11
Commission’s work. So, happy to dig into the nuts and bolts if you will as well as the high-level 12
discussion. 13
14
I’m going to share my screen and just go over a presentation that really just highlights some of 15
the aspects that we had in the Staff report. OK, so just a little background about kind of what is 16
bringing this to the forefront right now for the City of Palo Alto and Planning and Development 17
Services. You know, overall, our goal as a City has been for some time to reduce our GHG 18
emissions or greenhouse gas emissions. This is to help slow climate change and to make our 19
City and our world more sustainable. And specifically, the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas 20
emissions 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030. So, this is often short-handed as 80 by 21
2030. And so, you can see on the right-hand side of the screen what our 1990 emission levels 22
were and then 2019. And so, you can see that the levels have gone down and then you can also 23
see what is that… what does it look like in percent. So, again, the target reduction is 80 percent 24
below 1990 levels by 2030 and at the current pace, we’ve reached 38 percent below the 1990 25
levels in 2019. So, that’s… at that time at least 11-years to go, now 9-years to go, or soon to be 26
8-years to go, in increasing that reduction even further. So, we’ve made progress, we’ve got a 27
bit of a ways to go. And one of the big areas where we can see more reduction in greenhouse 28
gases in the City and really typically, I mean this would go for almost any city in the United 29
States. Would be reducing emissions that are produced by buildings as well as emissions from 30
transportation. But today we’re going to focus on the emissions from buildings reduction. 31
32
So, one of the chief ways that we can help to transition buildings to cleaner energy is through 33
some newer technologies, and some are older technologies, but by proliferating them more 34
and more throughout the City. So, electric vehicle supply equipment, EVSE. So, that’s an electric 35
vehicle charger; solar photovoltaic panels, PV or often just called solar panels; energy storage 36
systems, ESS. They’re also referred to a battery storage or batteries and electric heat pumps. 37
These are four technologies that can really make a big difference in helping a home or a 38
building, commercial building, not need fossil fuels any longer. And of course, we want to make 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
sure that the energy that’s being used is also clean electricity. Because electricity can obviously 1
not always be green, but certainly we want to move in that direction. 2
3
So, City Council right now is considering policy changes and other ideas to further the 4
proliferation of these technologies and other ways to help us reach the target of 80 by 2030. 5
That’s through the S/CAP update and there is a Council Ad Hoc Committee as well as a City Staff 6
Internal Committee that is working on the update, and bringing that before the Ad Hoc and 7
ultimately before the City Council. 8
9
Earlier this year, we had a team of consultants, TRC is the name of the company, that looked at 10
our City’s permitting process. Particularly, for solar, but also for the other energies… 11
technologies that we’re talking about and identified areas where the City can improve it's 12
permitting to increase the adoption of these technologies. So, for the better part of this last 13
year, we’ve really been thinking about how can we as a City, Planning, and Development 14
Service in particular and our partner departments, advance these technologies through more 15
efficient permitting processes. 16
17
And one of the newer opportunities to further that is something called SolarAPP+. So, 18
SolarAPP+ is automated home solar permitting. It integrates with existing government software 19
and provides automated plan review, permit approval, and project tracking for solar permit… 20
solar installations on roof tops. It standardizes up to 90 percent of standard system plans and 21
provides an inspection checklist for verification by field inspectors for final sign-off after the 22
inspection. This system has some great capabilities. It can work on solar arrays that are up to 23
38-kilowatt hours maximum. It can only be on certain roof materials, so some rooves like metal 24
rooves for example. It cannot review plans for solar installations on metal rooves but for other 25
more traditional type of roofing it can. Electrical upgrades cannot necessarily be needed when… 26
for this project to go through SolarAPP+, but a lot of homes may not need that for their solar 27
installation, and right now, it’s only serving mainly solar and… alone. Right now, we’re seeing an 28
uptick in applicants who want to have solar panels, but also that ESS. That battery storage 29
system that can store the energy from the solar panels for use at a later time. Those being a 30
higher combination of applications. And SolarAPP+ is though working on their next iteration 31
where it could review the plans for both the solar and the battery storage system. So, that 32
would be definitely very, very beneficial. And so hopefully you can see how this could provide 33
some potential streamlining impacts for the City and for would-be permit holders. That they 34
can go online, a qualified contractor, put in the information about the solar installation that 35
they’re going to do. It can check… if that plan that they have meets the criteria that’s needed 36
and then they can have an automatic approval. They can go get their… have their Building 37
Permit, install the solar installation, and then have it verified by one of our building inspectors. 38
So, it has a lot of potential for efficiencies, especially for homeowners. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, this next section I’m not going to go into detail, but this does redo the table in the Staff 1
report that kind of goes over what is the Planning Department’s role when we are looking at 2
these types of energy installations. So, just at a high level, the bubble on the right shows when 3
we’re talking about Building Permits. Typically, there’s at least four departments who are 4
looking at the permits. There may be more involved and so this is just four of them. You have 5
Planning. We have our plan review Staff, so that’s our engineering Staff who are looking at it 6
against the Building Code, and planning Staff are looking at it against our local Planning Codes. 7
We have our Utilities Department which you can imagine with energy is particularly important. 8
We may have our fire department looking at it depending on what the project is and we may 9
have Urban Forestry or Public Works if the project is in the public right-of-way, or if it’s dealing 10
with protected trees. But that’s on always the case for every energy storage system, but this 11
just gives a sense of what are some of the departments that are involved. 12
13
And right now, one of the things we’ve done in our department in our City is really prioritize the 14
clean energy technologies. They are prioritized in the review process. So, our goal is review all 15
of those permits in 14-days or less. Some of the permits have a 1-day or same-day turnaround 16
time. They may have a 3- to 5-day turnaround time and the maximum is 14-days. So, we really 17
are trying to make sure that when these come in the door. They are one of our top priorities to 18
make sure that we are reviewing these permits and at least getting comments back to the 19
applicant. We may not always be able to approve the permit on the first go around, but we 20
really are trying to make sure we’re getting that feedback to them as soon as possible. So, that 21
they can make any corrections or updates that might be needed. 22
23
This is a little bit of a blurry slide, I do apologize. I tried to cut it out of a different document, but 24
we have seen improvements from these changes that we’ve made even just this year. So, you 25
can see on the left side in the white boxes are from 2020 and 2020 or May 2020 to August 26
2020. So, that would be the second box here. The number of records 83, the average days to 27
receive first-round comments was 19, and the average days from Building Permit submitted to 28
permit issued… so, Building Permit applications submitted to Building Permit issued was 83. 29
And already, we’ve seen one bigger increase which is likely due to the pandemic kind of 30
changing pace compared to 2020, 142 records. We’ve seen an average of 10-days to get in 31
those first-round comments and then 38-days from application to permit issuance. So, we’ve 32
made big strides in improvement and we want to continue to make even more strides and 33
improving the efficiency of this process. 34
35
As I said, I’m not going to go over each of these charts in detail but they are here in case we 36
want to refer to them as we’re having our discussion. We have here where planning is involved 37
in the electric vehicle charging infrastructure and you can see on the left side single-family and 38
duplex. On the right commercial which includes multi-family residential if it’s in more than a 39
duplex. For solar panels, which is very similar for homes or for commercial, and so you don’t 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
see a differentiation here for what we review for solar panels. Here are energy storage, 1
[unintelligible] those batteries and then again, the difference between the single-family and 2
duplex and the commercial size installations that we might look at, and lastly, electric heat 3
pumps. Again, showing what are we looking at, what might planning de looking at in those 4
plans. 5
6
So, one of the questions we want to talk about is how can we maybe streamline this further 7
than we already have in our process. So, two main paths that we are identifying which is are 8
there ways to reduce the time that it takes to perform a review. That might be improving the 9
communication materials for improved applications. So, that way when we get an application in 10
the door, it looks great. It has all the information that Staff needs. We don’t need to have back 11
and forth with the applicant which takes more time for them to ultimately get their application 12
approved. We want to have clear checklists for applicants so that they know exactly what they 13
need. And Staff can see, you know, that they’ve checked the box and said yep, I have this and 14
here’s the detail. It just makes it a lot easier to make sure we can see where things are. You can 15
manage with different companies, different businesses, they have different formats for certain 16
things, and having a standardized checklist that fits us. Just helps us to orient ourselves a little 17
bit quicker to those plans. 18
19
The second are to look at is are there policy changes and perhaps codes that we can eliminate 20
requirements or update requirements. So, that planning review is not needed which means 21
there’s one less department in that review circle that needs to take a look at the plans. So, with 22
some the topics that we’ve talked about are can we come up with and identify a height of the 23
solar panels above the roof. So, that can be standardized and if you fall within that category, 24
then the Planning Department doesn’t need to look at that review. And just for visual aid, this is 25
an image showing here’s a solar panel tilted at an angle to maximize the impact and the rays 26
from the sun and so there’s a height difference here. We want to make sure that if these are 27
proliferating across the City, that our daylight plan regulations don’t inhibit the proliferation of 28
these panels that might intrude into that plan. And Ms. Gerhardt and Mr. Gutierrez can explain 29
more about that if the Commission is interested. 30
31
A second thing is allowing equipment and mechanical equipment in the setback. And I put noise 32
in parenthesis because a lot of the mechanical equipment is not allowed in the setback because 33
its noise producing. However, items that are identified as noise-producing equipment these 34
days may not make that much noise as they once did. And our code says that at the property 35
line, the noise can’t be above 66 decibels and we have equipment that can be at 50, can be at 36
40. It can be at these lower decibel levels even closer, it may be at 3-feet, and so having it in a 37
setback doesn’t really create that noise nuisance for neighbors. And so, can we change our 38
requirements so that the equipment can be located there and planning doesn’t have to review 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
that it’s located there. There could be a cut sheet or other manufactory information to allow 1
that. 2
3
Items three and four may be a little more sensitive, thinking about tree canopy and tree 4
removal. Tree canopy would be more thinking about if folks need to trim trees, cut down limbs 5
in order to have their roof have better access to solar and to the sun so the solar panels are 6
more efficient. Canopy, you know, trimming can be not as sensitive maybe as removal but 7
certainly, can… you have to think about how many limbs are you cutting. Does it endanger the 8
tree? Can the tree be viable? It is really meeting our canopy coverage standards as well? 9
Especially when you get into commercial where we really want to have commercial… with trees 10
covering our parking lots for example. That could be great in terms of limiting solar heat island 11
effect or urban heat island and other things. But that means if you have let’s say carports in a 12
parking lot covering the parking lot but it’s also covered with trees. There could be a conflict 13
there and how can we maybe minimize that conflict or make a trade-off there? With tree 14
removal, it’s not so much for tree removal we might think how… why would you need to 15
remove a tree for some of these? Well, some could be for the solar. Maybe someone wants to 16
have a tree removed in order to have better direct sunlight from the sun onto their solar 17
panels. But when you start talking about batteries, you start talking about heat pumps, you 18
start talking about a combination of these systems at a house. You may… they may need 19
trenching for certain infrastructure connected to that equipment and that trenching could 20
impede into the Tree Protection Zone. It might disrupt the root system, it might have a conflict 21
with that tree, and sometimes in some properties, there may not be an alternate location that 22
allows both the tree to be unimpeded and for the technology to be installed. And so, thinking 23
about the rub there of how do we balance protecting our trees with also adding this 24
equipment. And also, that’s something that the Planning Department does try to review for is 25
take a look at these plans, see where the trees are, double-check to make sure that these 26
equipment aren’t going to be endangering the trees at all. 27
28
Number five, solar shingles and historic structures, this is kind of a smaller… maybe smaller 29
item in terms of it only effects historic structures which are not every structure in the City. Solar 30
shingles are kind of, you know, think about a shingle but it’s a solar panel, and so we’re seeing 31
that technology being used more and more. We think that it could be pretty compatible with 32
most historic buildings. Particularly, if they have kind of just typical roofing shingles there, but 33
some historic structures might have a terracotta roof. They might have a slate roof. They might 34
have an architectural feature that is really part of the roof material. And so how can… do we 35
want to look into allowing solar shingles there or maybe, in that case, we would just really want 36
to emphasize the solar panels versus the solar shingles. 37
38
And item six, I want to note was not in the Staff report but it is something that Staff have 39
thought about as we’ve been preparing for this presentation. One of the things that we may 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
often get a question on when someone submits an application for an EV charger is you know, 1
our Staff may look at that and say hey, this is going into the garage. Is it going to prevent 2
someone from parking their car in the garage? And it could be for EV charger, but there may 3
also be other again clean energy technology that might be best suited to be placed in a garage. 4
And so, we could consider saying hey, if it’s one of these technologies that’s being put into a 5
garage. It’s OK for that to encroach into the parking space and we don’t need to review it. 6
Because again, the trade-off of saying yes, we want to get these technologies proliferated and 7
we want them to fit into people’s homes. We want them to retrofit their homes and they’ve got 8
to put them in the places that they can that they have available. So, that’s another option that 9
we could consider. 10
11
So, that concludes my presentation and really, it’s a discussion tonight. We would love to hear 12
from PTC any input regarding pros and cons of those approaches or maybe on specific items 13
you think yeah, that one’s OK. This is one uh, not as comfortable with, and we’re also interested 14
if you have questions if you have other additional approaches, or thoughts about how we could 15
continue to streamline our review and proliferations of these technologies. And of course, this 16
an opportunity for further public comment regarding this topic and as you know, it’s a very 17
popular topic amongst members of the public. So, this is our contact information, my and 18
Jodie’s and Sam’s as well and we are very happy to turn it back to the Commission. 19
20
Chair Hechtman: There we go. Thank you, Ms. Tanner, for the report. Commissioners, do you 21
have questions of Staff before we go to public comment? Alright, so we’ll now open the floor 22
for… oh, sorry. Commissioner Lauing, there you go. 23
24
Commissioner Lauing: Thanks, just two quick ones. One is are in the first graph that you 25
showed, is that for all of the things in total that are being changed? That potentially could be 26
changed? 27
28
Ms. Tanner: I believe that it is all of the types. I would need to double-check that but that’s 29
what I understand it’s from. 30
31
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, at some point it would be good to see the difference with EVs 32
versus solar panels and see how that ties up because some are probably going to take longer. 33
34
Ms. Tanner: Yeah. 35
36
Commissioner Lauing: And then second, are all these changes that would be made code 37
changes or some of them just policy changes or process changes? 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: That’s a good question. It’s a mix of both. I think on the reduced review kind of 1
end, where it might be better communications, checklists, etc. That would be more internal, 2
like can we improve our process, and how we’re communicating with the applicants for 3
example. So, that they just have better applications and we have better internal review 4
processes. For the other items, like the one through six, those would be accompanied by code 5
changes. So, the height of the solar panels, allowing a certain height above the roof, the noise-6
producing equipment in the setback, or certain mechanical equipment in the setback. The solar 7
shingles, it might be not so much a policy. It’s just that for historic it tends to go property by 8
property and so maybe if we knew a general rule. Then it wouldn’t have to be evaluated per 9
each property each time a historic property comes before us. So, it’s a policy change in that 10
regard. Tree removal and tree canopy, you know I think there would be some adjustments that 11
could be made. I don’t know Jodie if you or Sam want to speak to the tree removal or tree 12
trimming let's say kind of question. I don’t want to say it depends but you know I think it’s a 13
little bit more complicated when it comes to the tree item. 14
15
Mr. Sam Gutierrez, Planner: I could add a little to that. So, in terms of trees, it’s a number of 16
factors. So, you could have canopy trimming which can vary if the tree is located on the project 17
site, or if it’s adjacent. So, we get into kind of state law and other things where you can trim a 18
tree, but it’s limited to you can’t kill or damage your neighbor’s tree. Unless they say sure, pay 19
to remove it, I don’t care, and then there’s another layer to that. If we have a tree that’s 20
protected by City Ordinance which it could be complicated further if it’s on the neighbor’s 21
property and they say, sure remove the oak. And then together in concert, they have to submit 22
an application to the City and go through the property processes there. But if it’s only on the 23
subject property and not a protected tree, it’s a little easier. They could trim it, they could cut it, 24
but if it is a protected tree then we need to consider the tree canopy still and then the root 25
zone because there might be trenching needed. So, that could get into the root zone and the 26
Tree Protection Zone and that’s where arborist reports come in. So, there’s definitely things 27
that we need our Public Works, Urban Forestry division to look at because they’re the ones who 28
have that level of expertise. The planners have some high-level understanding because we do 29
review projects often with trees and we look at the reports. But we just don’t have that 30
technical ability like our urban foresters do. 31
32
Ms. Tanner: And I think maybe to further try to elaborate that point, part of it is I think that 33
between planning and also Urban Forestry. When we get these applications taken in, there may 34
not be a tree shown on the plan, and sometimes our planners are using the tools we have, 35
including Google Maps. Looking at the property and saying well, there’s a tree that I see that 36
seems pretty close to what is not shown here. And so that’s kind of a check that’s performed 37
that might trigger well it actually should go to Urban Forestry. It should go these other routes 38
and so I think it’s an area… I think you heard one public comment in that was emailed in where 39
that person said the trade-off between trees and solar. I chose solar and I don’t know how 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
everyone feels about that. Everyone in the City may not have that same mind set and so if we 1
as planning and Urban Forestry are going to continue to be guardians of the trees. We just 2
might need to take in these applications and look at them and verify and it may not be 3
something that can just go without planning review. Sometimes that review is just a quick 4
review, right? It doesn’t mean it needs to take days, but again, it’s… it may not be able to be 5
eliminated in some cases if want to keep that type of let’s say double-check on going. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: OK, so just a quick follow-up to my second question based on what you 8
said. So, when this next comes back to PTC, it will include both the policy or procedural changes 9
that you make as well as potential ordinance changes, right? So, the public gets to weigh in on 10
all of it. 11
12
Ms. Tanner: Yeah. 13
14
Commissioner Lauing: OK, thank you. 15
16
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, your microphone is a little funky tonight. I don’t know if 17
it’s something you can move, but you’re a little bit warbly in your online voice and I know that 18
you’re not warbly in your real voice. Commissioner Chang. 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: I had a paper here and some stuff. So, that’s probably what was doing it. 21
Thanks for telling me. 22
23
Commissioner Chang: So, my first question was about the very first slide you showed where we 24
have this 80 percent by 2030 goal. Do we… does the City kind of behind the scenes have a 25
target amount of tons of carbon that it wants us to reduce through buildings? Is there a… 26
because you had mentioned that there are many different ways? And I didn’t know if in getting 27
to our goal Is there a particular penciled-in kind of assignment that we’ve given to ourselves? 28
29
Ms. Tanner: A great question. I can look that up while we’re on the line. I don’t have… am I still 30
muted? No? OK. There was a little thing, you’re muted. I’m like what’s happening. So, I can try 31
to look that up. I do know just kind of off the top of my head that transportation emissions and 32
building emissions tend to be the second... the first and second most remaining sources of 33
emissions. But I would need to look what is the percentage that’s attributed to buildings and 34
what’s the reduction target. We probably have it. Jodie’s helping me out here. Sending me it so 35
let me through it and see if I can get that to you maybe by the time we’ve finished public 36
comment. 37
38
Commissioner Chang: Thanks, and then I had another question about for the Solar App system 39
which seems like it would be fantastic. I think your presentation said that it could potentially 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
reduce was it… it said something about 90 percent reduction and I wanted to understand more 1
about that. Whether that was 90 percent of the time or would be applicable to 90 percent of 2
the applications that we receive in the table that you showed of the 140 odd applications that 3
we’ve now received this year. So, how applicable is it to the applications that we receive? 4
5
Ms. Tanner: That’s a great question. I will say that is from Solar App and Solar App is actually a 6
nationwide initiative that’s supported by our Department of Energy. So, it really is trying to 7
work in each state to understand the Building Codes of that state and to make an application 8
that can work in that state. And so, what I think it’s trying to represent is that at 90 percent of 9
solar installations for homes, and this is… it’s primarily for homes. So, it’s not for I have a big 10
commercial buildings. I’m this, that, the other. It’s really focused on single-family homes or that 11
style of building and 90 percent of the time that an installation that a homeowner would do 12
could be approved through Solar App, or at least that’s what they're asserting. 13
14
As far as our percentage, I think some of the things that we’re working through internally are 15
very closely with our Utilities Department. Because one of the things that I think is just not that 16
common in California and in other parts of the country as well is the public utility. And so, for a 17
lot of the time what would happen is a homeowner goes to the Building Department, goes 18
through Solar App, gets their application, and then they work with the utility on the outside of 19
that system to get the utility’s approval for what’s needed. We in Palo Alto have a public utility 20
which means that it can seem like our process is longer but it’s including that process with the 21
utility as well and so just working to make sure that we can have that work seamlessly. That’s 22
more on the utility side but that would be where we would get the greatest gain I think is in 23
that scenario and then when they add battery storage to the application. That will also be a big 24
advancement. We are seeing a trend now where we’re seeing solar in concert with batteries 25
and so that might further diminish that percentage right now until that part of the app is up and 26
running. 27
28
Commissioner Chang: So then about those 140 odd applications we’re getting. Is the vast 29
majority of them solar or and just a tiny bit of them… so is the vast majority of them solar or 30
solar plus battery and then just a little bit of it is the heat pump water heater? Or what’s the 31
distribution there? I mean I’m not asking for a number. I’m just trying to get a sense of 32
(interrupted) 33
34
Ms. Tanner: I do know that most of the solar applications that we’re receiving do include 35
battery storage. That’s just… it’s a growing trend. I don’t want to… I would hesitate to say what 36
percentage but there’s definitely like that’s where that industry and popularity seems to be 37
heading. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Heat pumps, EV charges I think and heat pumps are becoming… they’re all becoming much 1
more popular and so we have some numbers from… that are… we’re looking at projecting 2
where are we now. I do have those numbers. Let me pull them up but you know, thinking about 3
orders of magnitude. For example, I know in one of the categories, I can’t remember which one 4
now, I will get the table in front of me. But it’s like maybe we have 100 applications this year 5
but if we’re going to be on target for these goals. We need to be getting to like 500 applications 6
a year in the next few years. We need to massively increase the number of folks who are 7
adopting these technologies at their homes. So, let me look up that table as well while we’re 8
talking. 9
10
Commissioner Chang: Yeah, well thanks for that context because that’s kind of what I was 11
trying to understand. Like in terms of opining on what right path is to take, I wanted to 12
understand the magnitude of the issues that we’re facing here. 13
14
And then one last question, for now, is about the Tree Ordinance. So, I know that there’s a new 15
Tree Ordinance or the City’s looking at updating the Tree Ordinance and it’s slated to go back to 16
City Council again in April or by April I think. And so, was wondering if anybody here knows how 17
much of the update has taken into account the City’s goals with respect to solar? 18
19
Ms. Tanner: I think that would certainly be something that we would want to work on over… 20
between now and April when it comes back. And I think one of the good things to know… so, I 21
would say, I don’t… the history of that particular update is a couple… it comes from a couple of 22
years ago. So, it was an initiative that was started I want to say in 2018 or thereabouts, maybe 23
even 2017. It’s kind of got paused for a bit and revived this year and so it’s kind of being dusted 24
off and looked at again. And then I think in this context where we’re moving much more 25
aggressively towards these green technologies. I think we want to make sure those live in 26
concert. I think one of the good advantages is that our Public Works Department is also leading 27
our S/CAP initiative and also houses Urban Forestry. So, they have that I think both parts of 28
that. You know, on one hand, they’re trying to do this, on one hand… so I think they’re really 29
well-posed along with planning and other partner agencies. Who really think about how to both 30
achieve both policy objectives of preservation of tree and also adoption of clean technology. 31
And so, this definitely needs to be folded into how do we strike that balance. 32
33
Commissioner Chang: OK, thank you. 34
35
Ms. Tanner: And I did get an answer, the table that I shared is all of the technologies. So, it’s all 36
of those four technologies together. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioner questions before public comment? I’ll ask a couple so 39
just to restate what I think you just said. The table we saw, that March to August of this year, 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
142 applications came in. Those are all electrification project applications and one or more of 1
the electrification-type utility improvements that we’re talking about tonight. 2
3
Ms. Tanner: Yes. 4
5
Chair Hechtman: And then the 38-days average to Building Permit, that was the time it took not 6
just for planning review but for every involved department, which will be different from 7
application to application, but it was all departments. Correct? 8
9
Ms. Tanner: All departments and including any let’s say feedback, further information, revisions 10
from the applicant. 11
12
Chair Hechtman: Then in our task, tonight are we in a position to be recommending steps to 13
take to reduce that 38-day average overall; or are we only talking tonight about taking steps to 14
reduce the Planning Department’s involvement as one of the possible four involved 15
departments that you showed on that wheel? 16
17
Ms. Tanner: I think it could be both. So, I think in regard to code changes, I think those would be 18
the code changes we’d bring back to this Commission. If there are other ideas though that 19
might branch into other areas. We’d certainly want to gather those and think about them 20
because we do work in concert with these departments and so. And especially through our PDS 21
Department where we have planning and development services together. We can suggest 22
changes as well and also work if it has to go through Public Works or a code in another… that’s 23
in another purview of another department. We can certainly work with them on that change as 24
well. Our greatest control is over our planning and building part of it though. 25
26
Chair Hechtman: Right, right, so I’m… again, I’m trying to understand if we can, for example, 27
make the planning part of the process… Planning Department part of the process ministerial. 28
Are we only going to save 11 of the 38-days because the other 27-days are in some other 29
department that we’re not going to be changing? 30
31
Ms. Tanner: So, part of the days will be reduced through Solar App and I would say… and maybe 32
this is where Jodie can help a little bit. When we’re talking about these applications, typically 33
they are Building Permit applications. So, they’re not discretionary planning applications like 34
you might have for a new multi-family building. So, we’re already ministerial with these and so 35
there’s not a procedural challenge to them being more quick. Other than if a code requirement 36
requires extra review, constantly tripping people up, things like that. 37
38
Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager: So, thank you, Rachael. I would agree that these are 39
ministerial Building Permits already. So, they are fairly streamlined in that way and all the 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
different departments are reviewing them concurrently. And so, it’s not, you know, if you take 1
away one department, it doesn’t completely shrink down. It may lessen the time but not in the 2
way that you might be thinking initially. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: That’s helpful, so that means if we can’t make the recommendations that 5
really affects all the departments that are being involved, we’re not going to be shortening the 6
ultimate time. We may be reducing who’s involved in taking that time, but it’s still going to take 7
the same amount of time. 8
9
Ms. Gerhardt: I mean the less departments you have, the less coordination there has to be. So, 10
there certainly is some savings in that. 11
12
Ms. Tanner: I think an example that I think is kind of interesting is, it might seem minute, but if 13
you multiple it's times 100. It becomes bigger, so with the EV chargers for example. Someone 14
wants to put an EV charger in their garage and our project coordinators who are our first point 15
of contact for folks who are doing these Building Permit applications may look at it and say. 16
Hey, they’re putting something in their garage. They need to have enough space in their garage 17
to park a car because they’re required to have covered parking. Hey Sam, can you go into the 18
system and look at this application. Sam goes in, looks at the application, has to maybe say the 19
same answer he said before but again that time of review. Taking a look, getting back, does it 20
need planning, does it not need planning? And so, in that case, is kind of why we said well 21
maybe if we just said for these technologies’ encroachment into the parking space in the garage 22
is fine and our coordinators know that. They know I don’t need to ask Sam anymore what to do. 23
It’s a charger in a garage. It’s fine and just go ahead and go with it. So, again it might seem 24
minute but over the scale that we’re talking about can be a time saver for us. 25
26
Mr. Gutierrez: And I should add that PTC might recall that we did allow code changes for minor 27
encroachment for commercial properties for parking lots for these chargers. Approximately a 28
year ago now I think when we went to PTC with that. But the single-family home situation is a 29
little different with the requirement for a 10 by 20 covered parking spot with clearances, which 30
is different than the commercial parking garages. But we could perhaps, as Rachael suggested, 31
follow that train of thought and allow minor encroachments to solve the issue. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: Alright, one more question, one of the things we’re going to talk about is 34
really the relationship between I think it's primarily solar panels but it could be other 35
electrification equipment and trees. And I’m interested to know if that discussion is primarily 36
theoretical or if it’s really practical? And so, what I’m curious about is we’ve been permitting 37
solar panels for a while now. Have there been some instances where this conflict… potential 38
conflict came to the front where someone said I want solar, I want to remove these three 39
trees? And if so, tell me about… help us understand a little bit about that process and is that a 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
6-months ordeal or? Anyway, but I’m looking for actual experiences that we’ve had to see if 1
that can illuminate our discussion. 2
3
Ms. Tanner: Great, thank you for the question. Ms. Gerhardt or Sam, did you want to answer 4
that? I (interrupted) 5
6
Ms. Gerhardt: So, if you wanted an example, I have a commercial example if that’s relevant. 7
8
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, I think that would be great. 9
10
Ms. Gerhardt: Did I… I think I froze a little bit. 11
12
Ms. Tanner: I think you froze but we can hear you. 13
14
Ms. Gerhardt: OK, you can hear me. So, we do have at a downtown church they did want to put 15
in solar carports into their parking lot and that was along the perimeter of the property. There 16
happened to be several large trees along the perimeter of the property and so there was a lot 17
of discussions about could those trees be removed. Ultimately, we said no, they were nice 18
healthy trees. They also were part of the… all the parking lots have a shading requirement. That 19
you have to have 50 percent shading on your parking lot to reduce the heat island effect and 20
we only use trees to meet that standard. So, we needed to save the trees for that reason as 21
well and there was a lot of negotiations that had to happen to ultimately fit those car ports 22
onto the property. 23
24
Ms. Tanner: And I can think of another commercial property where I don’t know actually what 25
ended up happening with the project because I think COVID slowed it down quite a bit. But 26
similarly, they wanted to do a lot of solar panels on their parking lot, which is a big parking lot, 27
and it was kind of like but how is that going to conflict with the trees? Or do you need to do it 28
everywhere and things like that. So, it may be, I should say more common, but the shading 29
requirement for the parking lots is applying to commercial and larger scope parking lots. So, 30
that’s going to be relevant there, whereas the home I’m not sure if we have that conflict as 31
much but Urban Forestry would know probably better. And I’m sure they do get lots of requests 32
for people who want to remove trees for a variety of reasons and that’s something that they 33
certainly are skilled at dealing with. 34
35
Mr. Gutierrez: And I could touch a little bit on the residential being a reviewer of projects like 36
this for what, 6-years now? So, I think as solar catches on more and as the Building Code 37
changes where it triggers more solar installed versus a plan to solar. We’ll start to see maybe 38
more retrofitting and I believe that’s where we’ll notice more of these conflicts where when 39
you have a new house. That house and the site is more open to being planned because they’re 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
starting new. So, then the roofs and the angles of the roof and so forth are typically planned 1
with the solar. I rarely see a new house, for example, that has detached solar panels that aren’t 2
on the roof somewhere. So, they kind of go hand in hand but the retrofitting, where you have 3
an existing house. That’s where this might present some conflicts with trees because you have a 4
site that never had solar and you have had trees, protected or not, and then now you want to 5
put solar. But you’ve always had these large trees on your site and the tree removal would 6
remove canopy from the overall City’s canopy. So, that… those would be instances but again, 7
that doesn’t happen as much as the new homes which are a little more flexible in terms of 8
planning. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you all of Staff. Helpful additional information. Alright, unless 11
there are any other questions of Staff, let's move on to public comment. Let’s open the floor of 12
that. Please raise your hand if you wish to speak. On the Zoom App, there is a raise hand button 13
on the bottom of your screen. If you’re dialing in from a phone, please press *9. Mr. Nguyen, is 14
our sole attendee tonight wishing to speak? Mr. Nguyen, you are muted. [note – video, and 15
audio cut out] muted. 16
17
Ms. Tanner: I think Zoom is giving him some trouble for his last meeting. Vinh, if you want, if 18
you can hear me if you want to promote me. I can… or if you can hear us, I think you could just 19
let Mr. Coale speak, and then we could… if we can hear him we could start the timer. Let’s see. 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Well hold on, we are trying to get the technologies to work so that you can 22
speak. 23
24
Ms. Tanner: Vinh is sending me a message. His computer has frozen. 25
26
Chair Hechtman: So, on his way upstairs, Mr. Nguyen is showing us how important his role is in 27
these meetings. 28
29
Ms. Tanner: Exactly. Alright, I think what he’s going to do, he’s going to try to use his phone to 30
make me the… what am I saying, the host. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: And then you can maybe promote Mr. Coale to a panelist. 33
34
Ms. Tanner: Maybe he’s back. Are you there Vinh? 35
36
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Hello, I’m back. Sorry about that. 37
38
Ms. Tanner: OK, great. No worries. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Nguyen: OK, Rachael you’re the co-host. 1
2
Ms. Tanner: Oh ok, so can I (interrupted) 3
4
Mr. Nguyen: In the meantime, I’m going to restart my computer. 5
6
Ms. Tanner: OK, so I’m going to make a… get a timer really quickly Commissioners and then I 7
will unmute Mr. Coale and he will be able to speak. Interesting timer when you Googler time. 8
OK, well, I got one now and (interrupted) 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Ms. Tanner, I’m not so concerned with the timer. 11
12
Ms. Tanner: OK. 13
14
Chair Hechtman: I can watch the clock. There’s only one speaker and (interrupted) 15
16
Ms. Tanner: Alright. 17
18
Chair Hechtman: I mean we don’t have anything else on our agenda tonight so. 19
20
Ms. Tanner: It’s true, we don’t. 21
22
Chair Hechtman: So, I’m just going to encourage Mr. Coale to keep his remarks to about 3-23
minutes. 24
25
Ms. Tanner: Alright, I think… Mr. Coale, are you unmuted? 26
27
Mr. David Coale: Yes, I think I am. Can you hear me? 28
29
Ms. Tanner: Oh, yes, we can, great. 30
31
Mr. Coale: Yes, thank you very much for this opportunity to address the Commission. I’ve been 32
installing solar in Palo Alto for over 20-years now and have been trying to improve the process 33
of permitting in Palo Alto for most of that time as well. If you read my comments, I have a big 34
plug-in for SolarAPP+. This application, as you said developed by NREL, would eliminate plan 35
review entirely on the code side and it’s free to jurisdictions. There’s $25 million in state 36
funding to help jurisdictions incorporate this. It will cover storage soon. It will also be covering 37
all aspects of electrification, so your heat pumps, water heaters, and heat pump furnaces and 38
those things will be covered. The main thing here is standardization and the reduction… and no 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
plan review. By the time you go through Solar App, your plans are correct to NEC Code. So, it 1
eliminates the electrical code review. I think this would be great for Palo Alto. 2
3
The downfall here is that I think the Planning and Transportation… the Development Services is 4
trying to make sure that this app will include the Palo Alto only requirements. A lot of these 5
Palo Alto only requirements are what trips up most of the solar installers because everywhere 6
else the requirements are basically the same. Except Palo Alto where we have torque tests on 7
roof and solar panels and electrical panels and we have two ground rods required. The beauty 8
of Solar App is to just go standard. It will bring Palo Alto back in line with our neighbors and our 9
neighboring jurisdictions. And so far, on these extra Palo Alto only requirements, I have not 10
seen any information that’s making our installation safer or faster or better. They’re just extra 11
dotting the I and extra crossing the T for no real benefit. So, Solar App would be really good 12
thing. 13
14
In terms of the time listed in your tables, right now solar with storage is taking nearly 4-months. 15
So, you have to be careful when somebody hands you table with averages because an EV 16
Permit takes a couple of days and so that average is really a misnomer. 17
18
The other thing, when we looked to the future, it’s going to be about 2,300 heat pump water 19
heater permits per year. So, we cannot afford to scrutinize every last one of these and in fact, 20
currently, 95 percent of all replacement water heaters are not permitted at all. So, we really 21
have to make some drastic changes if we’re going to support the electrification that’s required 22
to meet our 80 by 20 or 80 by 30 goal. 23
24
So, Solar App can do this. It will do electrification later on (interrupted) 25
26
Ms. Tanner: That’s [unintelligible] 3-minutes. 27
28
Mr. Coale: OK, the real thing is to make sure to go standard with it and not change it around. 29
Reduce any requirements that Palo Alto might have that are extra and go with the standard. 30
That’s where you’re going to realize a lot of your savings. Not just current things but as we go 31
forward with electrification. Thank you so much for the extra time. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Mr. Nguyen, it doesn’t look like we have any other public speakers 34
since we don’t have any other public attendees. So, I am going to conclude the public comment 35
portion and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. This is a study session so we’re not 36
required to conclude with any sort of motion. But rather I think Staff is looking for direction 37
more generally from a consensus of the Commission. So, what I’d like to do is give everyone an 38
opportunity to start to share their thoughts. I would suggest that each Commissioner take up to 39
5-minutes and recognize that if you can’t get it all out in the first 5-minutes, you’ll have an 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
opportunity to say more after we’ve been once through the Commission. So, who would like to 1
lead off? Thank you, Vice-Chair Roohparvar. You’re muted. 2
3
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Sorry, I actually had a follow-up question. Have… has City Staff heard of 4
Aurora being used for solar and I was just wondering if you’re aware of that? Because that’s 5
another technology that I’ve heard is really prevalent in the solar space and that is used I think 6
to determine the degree of shading over a property. So, you can tell very quickly whether it 7
makes sense or not to put solar panels on because you wouldn’t want to put solar panels in if 8
there’s shade and you’re not getting any sun. So, I was just curious if you guys had thoughts on 9
that. 10
11
Ms. Tanner: I had not heard of that. I don’t know if Ms. Gerhardt or Mr. Gutierrez have heard of 12
that. It might be something that our Utilities Department might be familiar with. I know we do 13
help folks to assess their properties for different types of energy, but I’m not sure if that’s the… 14
is it a company or like an application or is it? 15
16
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: It’s a company and they have an app and I heard about it from… I was at 17
this conference with a bunch of solar experts and they were raving about it. And I’ve looked at 18
it too as well like on the side. I think it’s very easy to use. Maybe it will be something that we 19
can put a link to on our website or I don’t know what, that can make it easy for constituents to 20
figure out if solar makes sense for them or not. 21
22
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, it seems like an easy way… maybe not easy but a way maybe if people are 23
thinking about it right? They want to do it but like a first step of oh yeah, it would make sense 24
at my home to pursue this. 25
26
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Yeah, I heard it's easy to use too. So, I just wanted to flag it as 27
something, you know, maybe if Staff wants to look into further. 28
29
Mr. Gutierrez: The Aurora App analyzing your roof using Google Maps aerial photos and then it 30
could help determine based on I think longitude and latitude the position of the roof forms 31
relative to the sun. And then it's kind of tells you where you would best-put panels. I’m sure it 32
has some margin of error obviously but it’s better than maybe you and a notebook piece of 33
paper trying to figure it out on your own because where do you start. But it’s a software to 34
assist in designing the system for solar gain is my understanding. 35
36
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Is it free? Is that something that’s free that we can just [unintelligible] 37
(interrupted) 38
39
Mr. Gutierrez: I don’t know about that. We could look into it. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: It would be cool if it was something free that we could offer. So, people 2
don’t have to necessarily hire somebody to come out and pay for them to tell them whether 3
solar makes sense or not. 4
5
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, for sure. 6
7
Ms. Gerhardt: So, it would be good if we had this extra tool but I think also too, in talking with 8
solar companies. I’ve got solar on my house. The companies themselves will do this kind of 9
analysis and help homeowners understand what fits or not, but this would be good for the do-10
it-yourself kind of person. 11
12
Chair Hechtman: Ms. Tanner, to help us focus our discussion, can you pull up what I think is the 13
last slide that had a… identified the review issues and the five or six policy changes. Great. 14
15
Alright, and while I’m waiting for Commissioners to step up and start the dialog, let me ask 16
another question. We heard from our public speaker about other jurisdictions that have 17
adopted this SolarAPP+ and I’m curious whether Staff has been able to investigate any of those 18
other jurisdictions? Are they neighboring jurisdictions and how, if at all, did they contend with 19
the kinds of issues that we are going to talk about tonight, where maybe the installation of solar 20
might conflict with their Tree Ordinance? 21
22
Ms. Tanner: Certainly. I think for SolarApp+, we have talked with some other California 23
jurisdictions that have adopted it. It’s still I think… I think there are quite a few cities in Arizona. 24
I don’t know if that’s where it launched first or what but there’s quite a lot of adoption in 25
Arizona. Some in California, we have spoken with them, and so pretty good reviews I would say 26
generally across the board. And sometimes we can be skeptical when folks are promising it’s 27
going to do this or that and you kind of say OK, is it really going to, but so far very positive 28
reviews. I think with the tree issue it’s not so much an issue I think when it comes to the app in 29
that it’s an installer could certainly go and say hey, here’s the kind of… here’s the solar system 30
that I’m putting on this roof. Here are the metrics and the different parameters of it and it can 31
go onto SolarApp and be fine. Because rarely does a rooftop solar need trenching or anything 32
that would actually endanger a tree. It’d be more than the homeowner might say well, in order 33
to maximize my solar array. I need to apply for a Tree Removal Permit and go through that 34
process. And so, it’s not that it would be the same permit necessarily but it could be an 35
outcome or even [unintelligible] if they do it before of that solar installation. Hopefully, that 36
makes some sense there. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: If I’m understanding that correctly then we don’t… we wouldn’t need to try to 39
fold into the SolarApp application our tree issues. It’s just a separate process that the applicant 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
has to know based on our instructions maybe that if you’re not touching a tree, here’s your app 1
and process to get a permit. But if you are touching a tree, then in addition to doing that you 2
have to do this. Is that (interrupted) 3
4
Ms. Tanner: Right, even right now today without the application, when there’s not trenching or 5
thing. When it’s just roof tops solar purely, I think we’re fine. Maybe, Ms. Gerhardt, she’s going 6
to say something but I think it's more kind of thinking globally about the role of trees and solar 7
and the interconnection. Not necessarily that there’s a specific conflict in the solar itself. The 8
application if that makes sense. So, Jodie, did you want to speak to that? 9
10
Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to explain that the single-family process and the multi-family 11
commercial process would be very different. For a single-family house, the tree removal is not 12
associated with a new house or things like that. Tree removal would go directly through our 13
Urban Forestry team and the solar may be processed by building fairly quickly. So, those would 14
be two separate processes. For multi-family, it would be more of a coordinated process through 15
a planning application. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. 18
19
Ms. Tanner: And just to complicate things further, I think where the conflict can be… so there’s 20
the conflict of… potential conflict of my solar panel may be enhanced if I trim or remove this 21
tree but when there’s the other technologies that may require trenching. That’s where we 22
might need to look at is this infringing on the Tree Protection Zone. Is there an impact to the 23
tree from the trenching that’s related with the other technologies primarily? Not so much the 24
solar panels themselves. 25
26
Chair Hechtman: Thank you for that. Commissioner Chang followed by Commissioner 27
Templeton. 28
29
Commissioner Chang: So, I had a follow on question. I guess I’m finding it hard to opine on what 30
the best thing is to do or because I would say look into all of them or whichever ones affect the 31
most applications or chew up the most of your time right now. But one question I have to 32
follow on with what Commissioner Hechtman [note – Chair Hechtman] was asking and also as a 33
result of the public comment that… the public commenter who just spoke. Do you have… are 34
you able to offer more information about the Palo Alto only requirements that he eluded to 35
and whether any of these proposed streamline or any of the streamlining proposals would help 36
with any of those so-called Palo Alto only requirements? 37
38
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, that’s a great question. The specific requirements that Mr. Coale mentioned 39
are not Palo Alto only requirements. They are in the California Building Code and so there’s not 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
really a change that we could make as a municipality to the California Building Code. What we 1
do find is that we, in Palo Alto, do tend to perform perhaps more rigorous inspections of solar 2
installations than other cities. And so, we’ve been improving our inspection process to really 3
just do a few… test a few things at each solar installation. But anecdotally, we have heard about 4
just other cities kind of drive-by and just kind of sign off on the inspection. And we do get up on 5
the roof and actually take a look at the installation. So, that can seem a little bit different than 6
others but those specific requirements are not Palo Alto only. They may be more rigorously 7
inspected or just routinely inspected at all here in Palo Alto. Some of the ones that we have 8
been working through a little bit more tightly are things that are our Utilities Department does 9
require. In particular, and I’m going to not be able to answer very many questions and this is 10
definitely not my area of expertise, but there are some… I can’t even think of the word of what 11
it is. But basically, there are some safety measures that our Utility Department requires when 12
installing solar that are a little bit more than what PG&E requires and PG&E provides a service 13
for pretty much everywhere around us. And so, there are some different requirements there 14
and we’ve been working to see other alternatives that can provide workforce safety but may be 15
not as challenging for the contractors. 16
17
Commissioner Chang: OK, thank you. 18
19
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 20
21
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. First of all, thank you so much for putting this together, 22
this study session, and it’s incredibly important that we work together as a City to reduce our 23
impact on the environment. And this is a great way to do it so thank you for bringing this 24
forward. 25
26
For point number one, any reason not to do this? This one looks like a slam dunk. 27
28
Ms. Tanner: I don’t think so and we were talking, Ms. Gerhardt and I, and kind of is this really a 29
problem we’re seeing? And we said it’s not really a problem right now but it could be with the 30
proliferation of solar. If more and more people see it, some people don’t think it looks 31
attractive, and so if we could just set some parameters. And also, that way people… we have all 32
sets of folks who’ve proposed some pretty interesting instillations as well that would probably 33
be beyond the extents of what we would want to see. And so, I think this could give some good 34
boundaries that folks know what to expect. Oh, the neighbors putting up solar, it might have a 35
tilt or an angle that’s a little bit different than the slope of their roof and it’s something that we 36
need to get ready for. 37
38
Commissioner Templeton: I’m sorry, I meant the reduced review part. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: Oh, sorry, number one. 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah. 3
4
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, number one and two, yeah, no reason to not do that. 5
6
Commissioner Templeton: Ok, so let’s just (interrupted) 7
8
Ms. Tanner: Sorry. 9
10
Commissioner Templeton: No problem, you got into it. You’re ahead of me. So, for the second 11
large bullet point there, policy changes and eliminated code requirements, it’s good that we did 12
a study session. I would love to have heard from a few more people that live in Palo Alto. Some 13
of these things are very near and dear to folks’ hearts around here and our tree canopy is 14
incredibly important. The trade-offs as you described are a personal preference and it’s going to 15
be important for us to gauge that before we change the rules there. 16
17
I will say regarding the noise equipment setback. We investigated… at my home we 18
investigated getting a heat pump and were a couple of inches shy of being able to do that so we 19
didn’t pursue that. So, I think your instinct here is that if we had a little bit more flexibility that 20
we would see some of these improvements implemented. So, that’s an anecdote but just to let 21
you know, I have a feeling that we’re not the only ones that have hit that obstacle, and from 22
our conversations with the contractor that is the case. Palo Alto does have some well-known 23
obstacles towards implementing some of these energy efficiency measures. So, it’s really good 24
that we’re talking about changing that and I think that one, in particular, is something we need 25
to look very seriously at. 26
27
The height of the solar panels, I’m concerned about that one because it does get into the 28
daylight plan a little. So, we would have to really study what those changes would be if we did 29
go that direction. Do you know… you mentioned a few minutes ago but I was stuck on point 30
number one and I’m not sure if you addressed this. Do we think this is a primary obstacle or a 31
secondary obstacle towards implementing solar panels [unintelligible] the height? 32
33
Ms. Tanner: Ms. Gerhardt, do you want to speak to the height of the solar panels, kind of the 34
slope and I’ll maybe advance this picture just to… if it helps at all? 35
36
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I think the picture is very helpful but Sam might have some more relevant 37
information about what’s happening lately. I think most of the time though; solar panels are 38
proposed fairly close to the roof. Now what the definition of close is, I think we could talk that 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
through some more, and I think even with the SolarApp. I think they were saying 10-inches, 1
correct Rachael? 2
3
Ms. Tanner: Yeah. 4
5
Ms. Gerhardt: So, maybe that becomes our definition of what close to the roof means. And 6
(interrupted) 7
8
Commissioner Templeton: That makes sense. Go ahead. 9
10
Ms. Gerhardt: But maybe we want to allow more than that too if we want to encourage even 11
further. So, that would be the discussion we would appreciate hearing. 12
13
Commissioner Templeton: Well again (interrupted) 14
15
Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah. 16
17
Commissioner Templeton: With an anecdote… oh, go ahead Mr. Gutierrez. 18
19
Mr. Gutierrez: Oh sure, sure. I was going to add that for example in this particular case, my 20
understanding with solar, again dealing with it for several years and just reviewing these 21
applications. It depends on the system that you’re going for and the efficiency. If you want to 22
run 100 percent whatever the calculated energy that you’d consume. Let’s say your AC unit is 23
on high and all of your… your electric oven is running and everything. You just go I want to put a 24
system that fully covers me and then some. Or I want to generate revenue from my solar 25
system, whatever it may be, you have different kilowatt systems and then that means larger 26
panels or more. and then that needs to be put on the roof, that’s the primary location, in a 27
particular manner to capture the sun. So, this house in this example it’s angled where the sun is 28
passing by its kind of in a perpendicular way. So, in order for those panels, where they placed 29
them, to gain that efficiency. They need to tilt it up so it wouldn’t be tilted away from the sun as 30
much. It would still get exposure but it would reduce the efficiency pretty significantly. You 31
know, just using my hand, the solar panel would be like this, the sun is here. It’s still going to 32
get light but not as much. So, they do this, now you get the direct light. So, it really depends on 33
the system that they’re placing on the house. I mean this example here is an Eichler and they’re 34
not the most efficient houses in terms of energy. So, it is a counterbalance there. If we limit the 35
tilt, then they’re going to limit the system, and then that might go against our GHG goals 36
ultimately as well. So, we have to understand holistically what’s going on. This is a single pane 37
glasshouse and probably has the large, nice open back as some of these Eichler-style houses do. 38
But they do result in poor energy numbers, so there’s a balancing act here that we could 39
consider. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Templeton: Definitely. 2
3
Ms. Tanner: I would say, I don’t know that we get a lot of complaints about solar panels. But we 4
just (interrupted) 5
6
Mr. Gutierrez: We don’t. 7
8
Ms. Tanner: We kind of prepare for the future I think. 9
10
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, I would say as far as the other energy efficiency issues that we 11
may have with our structures. That’s a whole other discussion and maybe we can find ways to 12
incentives those; or encourage those kinds of changes to for example the window efficiencies 13
and things like that. But just sticking to this discussion, for now, another anecdote I would share 14
from our neighborhood is that we’ve got a lot of avid gardeners. And that daylight plan is really 15
important to them in making sure that the sun is going where it should and so I think that’s part 16
of the daylight plan discussion. It doesn’t look like in this example the daylight plan is messed 17
with too much but it would be interesting to understand what is that margin gain by allowing 18
you to go further, closer to the edge of the property with those elevated panels. So, I think it 19
warrants further study I guess is what I’m trying to get at. Is it’s a really intriguing idea and I 20
think it would allow people to have more efficient installations. We just want to make sure that 21
we understand the downstream implications to adjacent properties as well before going 22
forward with the change. But it’s very promising because, like you said, it is more efficient. 23
24
OK, so can we go back to the slide with the bullets? The… I think that the solar shingles situation 25
is changing rapidly and this might not be much of an issue. We do need to prepare for it but I 26
think I would like to find a way to understand how we can make it work because I think we’re 27
going to see a lot of people who like this. I just… I really do, especially with the example that 28
you gave of what some of the other solar installations look like. I think people are going to be 29
very excited to embrace the shingles and especially for the historic structures. So, I think it’s 30
good that we’re talking about that as well. 31
32
The interior garage space, I… that’s… I mean that’s a whole can of worms. There’s a lot of folks 33
in our community that use the garage for storage for things other than vehicles. So, it makes 34
sense that we would be more permissive with the installation of charging. But then we kind of 35
sort of have to redefine what a garage is and that’s complicated. So, I guess… is there any 36
reason not to do that? Like 2.6 here? 37
38
Ms. Tanner: I don’t think that there’s a reason to not pursue that. I mean I think in particular 39
with the EVSC, it makes sense. I mean if somebody is installing a car charger, I think they also 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
want to make sure their car can fit into a garage to get to the charger. So, I think that there’s a 1
self-interest in making sure there’s enough space to accommodate their vehicle. Hopefully, 2
their contractor is checking on that if we’re not going to check on that anymore because we 3
have rough dimensions that you need to maintain and their car could be smaller than that. So, I 4
don’t know if we need to be the check on that. Maybe it would be interesting to know from the 5
Commission if you’re interest in like yes, EVSC chargers Ok to encroach into garage space but 6
what about other things? If a heat pump was in there if a battery were in there, would that be 7
OK, or do we really just want to focus on a vehicle charging equipment? Sure, makes sense to 8
have it encroach because you got to have it where your vehicle is parked. And in that case, that 9
family may not be having storage in the garage because they’re going to charge a vehicle in it. 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, I mean we have an electric vehicle and our car does not live in 12
our garage and we make it work but your point is valid. There’s a lot of things that are utilities 13
that we want to do and sometimes those… like in our home, personal properties and 14
sometimes those things live in the garage. Our water heater’s back there and our car charger 15
and all those things so it’s possible. But it would be nice to have this organized and maybe 16
that’s something that’s going to happen with the industry and not necessarily through the City. 17
Right, like how are people going to start organizing their home utility system? But in the past, 18
most of that has been guided by the City rules. Where’s your circuit breaker and what kinds of 19
things can be under the roof versus outside of the structure, those kinds of things so. In other 20
words, I guess what I’m saying is we may be a little early in the game for some of this, right? 21
We’re going to make some changes, we’re going to try things, but we may have to iterate on 22
this as the industry grows. And I know I’ve gone over my 5-minutes so I’ll stop there. Thank you. 23
24
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner… excuse me… Commissioner Lauing followed by Commissioner 25
Chang. 26
27
Commissioner Lauing: Thanks. I think the overall… I mean the reason there are inspections is 28
because there are safety issues that have to protect the neighborhoods; electricity, fire, and all 29
that. And there are building requirements like… to protect the neighbors like [unintelligible] and 30
there’s also collateral damage that can happen if we don’t have inspections like tree damage 31
and tree canopy. 32
33
In general, which is how I’m talking right now, I think that what you need to do on all of these 34
issues relative to Page… Packet Page… Table One, Packet Page 9 and 10. Is kind of start with the 35
things that maybe are less technical and less problematic on all those categories that I 36
mentioned. For example, solar charging stations and say yes, we should be able to do that 37
pretty fast and I’m just throwing this out on the table. Maybe if 240 is already there, it doesn’t 38
need any Building Permit or any inspection. It just needs… you have to sign that it was put in by 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
a licensed electrician. So, we should get those kinds of things as simple as we can and as fast as 1
we can. 2
3
Some of these other things since we’ve already brought up tonight, tree canopy and tree 4
removal. I mean that’s very intricately involved not only in the roots. I use the pun in the roots 5
of our City but with the other legislation that will be correcting and improving that Tree 6
Ordinance. So, by definition, that all has to be integrated. I don’t think it’s going to be one way 7
or the other. I think there’s five different basically kinds of trees from specimen… heritage trees 8
to very, very large trees to California trees to crappy trees that shouldn’t be here. So, that will 9
all be categorized and there’ll be some adjustments that are going to have to be made on 10
trade-offs between canopy on a house that needs solar and not. 11
12
But to me, I feel like maybe that’s as far we can go tonight, and as Commissioner Templeton 13
was saying that we need some iterations on this. If we were really going to sit down tonight and 14
look at it deeply. We would need to go through that table, like you guys have done before as 15
Staff, and give us a nice 30-page document analyzing each one of those bullet points and saying 16
this is… like the discussion that we just had. I would rather had spent 30-minutes on that with a 17
lot more science and measurements and what is happening and how it impacts with the 18
daylight so we can make some judgments. 19
20
Now I would basically say in conclusion and going back to general. I think that stuff that you can 21
find to do right away. Certainly, those two items on reduced review, improve communication, 22
and so on. You don’t need to come to us for that. You’ll figure that out and just do a great job of 23
it. But the thing that you can make quicker changes on, even bring in piece mill and say let’s just 24
look at these chargers now. What can we do to really get that part going? Let’s not hold this 25
whole thing until we have all of the things that are on there and then bring us more data about 26
that in a public hearing. So, that the public can hear and then as you look at maybe removing 27
some of these things, which is going to make a number of citizens correctly concerned. I think 28
you also need to be able to do audits, even if there’s less restrictions after it's done. The City 29
gets to come back and say OK, you know how it’s supposed to go in. Now we’re going to go and 30
check and yes, that’s a cost, but it’s also a safety net that we have to have on projects. The IRS 31
does this so the City can do it. So, stop there, thank you. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: Thank you, Commissioner Lauing. Commissioner Chang. 34
35
Commissioner Chang: Thank you. So, I want to reiterate also what everybody has said so far 36
where this is just really important for us to do and anecdotally from personal experience. I’m a 37
big environmentalist person and I’m really into… really support solar and really support trees 38
and we have an electric car. And I’m actually looking at my second in solar installation right now 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
and these things are barriers. And so, if we really need people to adopt, we really need to make 1
it as easy as possible. 2
3
So, I agree with what Commissioner Lauing, Commissioner Templeton said where I think 4
number one is a no-brainer and City Staff is going to do a great job with that. With respect to 5
the policy changes, again I do think we need more information and a better look at all of the 6
items. Thinking about the setback, the number two, that one also seems possible. I mean 7
there’s issues that I’m not aware of but that one might be a bit of a no-brainer because I think 8
that those rules about allowing equipment in the setback were established at a time where the 9
equipment was much lower. 10
11
And then looking at number six, the garage spaces for encroachment, I think that may also be 12
an opportunity where there’s some really low hanging fruit, and maybe we do want to be less 13
of… police that a little bit less. For chargers in particular because that occupies a much smaller 14
amount of space than say batteries. So, I think we would need to look into it a little bit more for 15
what are the dimension in the batteries right now and these things are going to get… be getting 16
smaller and smaller and better and better over time. 17
18
I think the heat pump water heater, that one, which we also have, is a bigger issue, and putting 19
that into a garage is not necessarily an exception that you want to make because there are real 20
safety considerations there. And they also occupy a lot of space and it’s not something that’s so 21
easy for a person to change once it’s in there. So, that would be my two cents on a couple of 22
the items at least. 23
24
With respect to the tree canopy versus solar, that’s a tradeoff that I myself have faced. I was 25
doing a little bit of Googling about that and I think maybe if significant changes are going to be 26
made, and this is really more for not planning since this is not where the ordinance sits. There’s 27
been a lot of… there’s a lot of debate out there about whether the tree is more important 28
versus the savings in carbon emissions from installing solar. And there are some data that I’ve 29
looked at that says that a small system can be the equivalent of 40 trees in terms of the amount 30
of carbon savings. That said, trees offer a lot more so I think there is a… an it is something that 31
so many people are passionate about but it’s something that we should look at. Especially given 32
the coming update to the ordinance. Thanks. 33
34
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Alcheck, preliminary round of comments. 35
36
Commissioner Alcheck: I think… oh, let me put my video on, sorry. I think… I don’t know that I’ll 37
need to go a second round. I’m just going to use the few minutes to share thoughts. I think the 38
writings on the wall. We need to develop our code to encourage electrification every way we 39
can. I think that we should… I think this process… if I was in charge of this process it would 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
begin like this. I would instruct my Staff to find the electrification rules for every City in the Bay 1
Area. And then I would say hey guys, highlight all the things that are different between our 2
electrification rules and the… what are other cities doing that is different than us? And then 3
we’d have this big binder that showed what everyone else is doing. And then I would say which 4
cities are leaders in this process? And then after that, I would say let’s reach out to local 5
providers and find out whether they work in the cities that we’ve described as leaders and ask 6
them what they don’t like about those City’s programs. 7
8
And then the last thing I would say would be I think that it would… one of the ironies of this 9
discussion because it references our tree canopy, is that the Council reviewed the tree canopy 10
rules earlier this week I think and consider making the rules a lot stricter a la Los Altos. Los Altos 11
would not be a City that I would look to as an example of anything coming close to progressive 12
changes. So, for example, I think in Los Altos their rules about tree removal are far more 13
restrictive than ours. And I think that it’s interesting that we’re talking about how we would 14
interact with tree canopies in relation to some environmental goals and reason I’m saying irony 15
is because the City Council probably had this discussion earlier this week. And I wonder because 16
I didn’t actually watch it, whether the discussion included the concept of removal for the 17
purposes of solar installations; or whether it was a discussion about how to preserve trees in 18
the absence of other goals like solar installations. So, that’s the… to me there’s a little irony 19
there. 20
21
I would suggest that the picture we saw of that solar panel on top of that Eichler looks like an 22
old installation. It’s a… but I think it would interesting to… one of the things in the Packet said 23
that installations that were a few inches weren’t subject to the same review. My first thought 24
when I read that sentence was how many inches? What is the exact inches because obviously, 25
the picture that you used in your Packet is so… I mean that’s not inches. Those are feet. So, I 26
think that if I was interested in furthering electrification then I would be… it would be really 27
liberal with the rules like as long as it’s within the daylight plan. We’re not going to spend a lot 28
of time worrying about how it diverges from the angle from the roof, whether it’s inches or feet 29
if you’re within the daylight plan. That to me would seem like a policy that highly encourages 30
electrification over aesthetics. Those are obviously decisions that have to be made. We have to 31
balance those things and I think it’s really hard to have that discussion in the absence of 32
comparing where we are relative to the rest of what we see as our peers or what we see as 33
leaders in this area. So, I think it’s really premature to say well what’s the height of a solar panel 34
should be or even the alternative which is what I suggested like well any height is OK as long as 35
it’s within the daylight plan. Those discussions are premature because if we… I think it’s easier 36
for the City Council to decide where it wants to sit when it knows what cities that it considers 37
either leaders or peers are doing. I think that… so that’s why I sort of suggested those steps in 38
the beginning on how to set this up. How to set this discussion up when it comes back. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
I would… I think there should… there’s probably some writing, like an academic writing, on the 1
topic of what does it mean for a homeowner who can’t access solar energy because of a 2
neighboring tree? I bet there’s some academic writing on this topic. I think that would be 3
interesting to understand like how do… do we want every Palo Altan to have a right to solar 4
access and if that’s the case. How does that [note – video and audio cut out] 5
6
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Alcheck? 7
8
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t know [unintelligible]… sorry I don’t know what just happened. I 9
think we have to ask that question sort of globally and it would be interesting to know if there’s 10
some thoughts on that, that are… that we don’t have to come up with ourselves. 11
12
And then I would suggest… there was a comment in the paper and the way I read it was sort of 13
asking. You said that planning does not review the installation of EVSC in these properties 14
referring to single-family and duplex. It’s kind of seemed like you had highlighted that to say 15
should we and my understanding is that right now when you do new development. You do have 16
to equip a garage for example with the 50 amp circuit that an EVSC would plug into. So, when 17
you order the thing from Tesla, it’s a far easier connection on the wall in your garage because 18
you’ve got a 50 amp… you know the equivalent of… my understanding of the current code is 19
that you have to put that… a dryer plug on the wall of your garage. Which is essentially bringing 20
your garage right up to the spot where all someone has to do is buy the right plug. And so, I 21
think if the statement on that Packet Page 9, planning does not review the installation of EVSC 22
in these properties, I just think that that’s not really… I don’t think we have to go there. That 23
makes it sound like we’re not really pushing it and I think we are. I think we’re saying you’ve got 24
to have this infrastructure in this new garage or new whatever you’re building and why would 25
someone need an electric vehicle charger until they bought an electric vehicle. So, I don’t think 26
we need to go farther there and review the installation of actual charging stations for let's say a 27
property that’s going to be sold to maybe somebody who doesn’t have an electric vehicle. So, 28
it’s like a stretch. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Alcheck, do you want to maybe hold… if you have much more, 31
hold your additional comments for another round? 32
33
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I mean I was going say one more comment which has to do with 34
the lot coverage or the setback issue. And I would just say that again, I think this is an area 35
where we could use a better understanding of what other jurisdictions are doing. I think that’s 36
one of the things we learned in the ADU discussion is that new equipment doesn’t produce as 37
much sound. And so, there’s maybe less… and there may be less… and more energy-efficient 38
equipment produces less sound and so… and maybe we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Maybe 39
batteries are installed predominantly undercover because being exposed to raw elements are… 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
so I just think it would be interesting to get a little bit more information about that before we 1
jump down the road and go oh well I don’t know what a hazardous battery close to a fence, etc. 2
3
So, in general, I’d love to have this discussion in an environment where you buried us in 4
relevant information from local jurisdictions and also discussions about solar energy access 5
rights. And then finally, what the perception was among the City Council? Is our… was… is the 6
direction to be a leader in this space and to encourage… unapologetically encourage solar or is 7
it to bring us in par with our neighbors? And I think once you have those three pieces then this 8
study session could have… then the next step would be to have a really in-depth conversation. 9
Thank you. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Commissioner Chang, your hand is still up. Is that a ghost hand or 12
do you have more? OK, Vice-Chair Roohparvar. 13
14
Vice-Chair Roohparvar: I just had a few minor comments. I agree with everything everyone’s 15
said. You know, number one I would say is pretty straight forward and I do think that we need 16
additional information. I think the tree issues are going to be… I’d like to better understand the 17
trade-offs there. 18
19
And then I did want to flag one issue with number 2.2, align equipment in the setback, with 20
respect to noise. I don’t know if this is going to be an issue but I would also take a look at 21
whether we want to think about size as well. Like how big the equipment is in order to make 22
sure that whatever’s being put in the setback doesn’t impair fire access or something like that. 23
Where people can’t get proper access for example in the case of a fire or an emergency and 24
that’s it. I’ll keep my comments brief, thank you. 25
26
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. So, first of all, I want to recognize that tonight we’re really having a 27
discussion from 30,000-feet as a launch point for Staff to pursue these ideas. And so, to the 28
extent, I’ve heard other Commissioners talk about how it would be nice to see the meat that’s 29
on these bones. I agree with that but I think this is premature because I think the amount of 30
information at 30,000-square foot level is basically everything you can see for 30,000-feet and 31
that’s too much to take in and it’s too much for Staff to process. I think the step after this after 32
we give them direction, is they go away and they start to look at the information. And they start 33
to synthesize and come back with a set of recommendations and language for policy changes 34
and the information that informs those suggestions. And that’s where I think it will be our 35
opportunity to wrestle with the details but for now, I think it would overly complicate our task. 36
37
So, turning to the substance, I will say that generally, I like the idea of a City being able to issue 38
as many over-the-counter same-day permits as they can. The fewer things that need 39
processing, the better the customer experience, and obviously the easier for Staff to focus on 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
the things that need processing. So, but you can’t… in the topic that we’re talking about here, 1
there is… you can’t have a one size fits all. But you can have a dual process and I think this is 2
really one of the things I got out of the Staff report, one of the things that they’re asking us to 3
think about. I can envision a fork in the road situation where you can choose a path where 4
there are Objective Standards and fit into basically an envelop or a box. And you can choose 5
that for your solar panel if you want to fit into these dimensions and if so, you can get your 6
permit over the counter. And if you can’t or don’t want to fit into that box, then you go in a 7
longer review period that maybe is something akin to what we are doing now. Increased for 8
efficiency as much as we can make it. So, to accomplish that I think you need Staff effort 9
upfront to not only come up with Objective Standards that are as broad as we can make them 10
without going too far. And I think that’s really where the excitement of that developing that 11
kind of legislation is. Is where are the boundaries? For example, is one of those Objective 12
Standards to get your over-the-counter solar permit that you’re not touching canopy, or is 13
there something a little bit farther than? Is there some little bit of touching of the canopy that 14
still will fit into that box? Same with excavation, does the box have to only work for no 15
excavation or is there some amount of excavation that can fit in the box, and does it matter 16
what kind of tree is in the vicinity of where you’re going to excavate? 17
18
So, but to me, I think if we can come up with those objective standards to create the box and 19
come up with item 1.2 here. A clear checklist for applicants so that they know exactly if they 20
want to fit into the box what has to come in. Then I think the 500 hour… the 50 hours that Staff 21
spends putting that together saves 500 hours of Staff time because we can do all of those 22
permits in a day. And some… I’m hoping a large number of applicants will say this is just too 23
easy to pass it up. For the 4 percent aesthetic benefit that I would perceive in taking this longer 24
route, I don’t… it’s not worth it. So, I view those… the people that would fit in the boxes as the 25
low hanging fruit and so I think we should speed up our overall process by speeding those 26
people through. 27
28
And I think that kind of approach can work for the height of solar panels, for the equipment in 29
the setback and I think they're one of the keys… is one of the things to be in that box is your 30
equipment has to be able to demonstrate through its specifications that it doesn’t exceed the 31
decibel limit. Because that’s the issue with that equipment in the setback is we’re trying to keep 32
the noise from crossing the property line at an unacceptably high volume. 33
34
Tree canopy and tree removal, I just I think this is a really fascinating issue because we’re… 35
these are [unintelligible] and solar energy storage. They’re rowing in the same direction, but 36
running into each other potentially, and so I think as go forward if we’re looking at Objective 37
Standards. Again, it may be that these… where these issues arise, you just can fit into the box 38
and so you’re going to have to go with the other longer review period. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Solar shingles and historic structures, I guess… I have to admit I’ve never seen solar shingles but 1
when I think about historic structures there’s something called facadism which is sometimes a 2
derogatory term. But in its kinder version what it means is that the part of the historic building 3
that the people can see as they drive by on the public thoroughfare, that is particularly 4
important. That face should look the same and you shouldn’t be allowed to alter that. And so, 5
when I think about solar and historic structures, I’m wondering if again part of the box for the 6
streamlined review is it’s on the part of the roof that is not visible on the face of the building 7
from the street. Now that of course won’t work for some historic buildings but it will work for 8
some and if we can move those through. We don’t have that issue then it doesn’t have to be 9
solar shingles necessarily as long as it’s on the backside. And I just don’t know enough about 10
solar shingles to know if putting those on the front part of a building would actually change the 11
look such that somebody just passing by that house would say oh look at that old house. That’s 12
a new roof, that’s a modern roof and it affects the aesthetic. I just don’t know. 13
14
I don’t have a strong opinion on the last item. I agree, I think Commissioner Templeton said 15
many people in Palo Alto don’t use their garages exclusively to park their cars. I’m… that’s true 16
at my house and so I think if we’re improving our energy efficiency as one of the things that 17
gets stored in that garage is the charging unit, I think that’s worth pursuing. Why wouldn’t we 18
look at that as a possibility? 19
20
So, those are my comments. Commissioner Alcheck, I see your hand. Is that a new hand? OK. 21
Second round of comments from any of you Commissioners? OK, I’m not seeing any hands so 22
then let me turn to Staff and ask them if they have direction from us that’s satisfactory to help 23
you move forward. Or are there a couple of important items we missed you’d like us to talk 24
about and provide you direction on? 25
26
Ms. Tanner: Great. I’ll speak and then I’ll just invite Jodie and Sam if you have any other 27
questions or comments that you want to make to also make them. I think this have been 28
extremely helpful. I think as you all noted it is kind of the 30,000-foot view and then we would 29
expect probably for each of these items we would bring them back individually and zoom in 30
closer. And so, daylight plan discussion for example would be more robust and then we 31
wouldn’t have that the same night as we have the discussion about the garages. And so, we 32
want to be able to take these one at a time. 33
34
I think Commissioner Templeton, to your point about can there be groups people who may be 35
interested in these at different levels. Especially when you start actually talking about 36
ordinance changes and things like that. We may see more than one attendee for example as we 37
start talking about some of these issues. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
I think I would summarize the comments on the tree canopy given the emergence of the 1
directive from the Council to look closer at our Tree Ordinance that maybe we would fold that 2
work project into that. And that way it can really be holistic and not be something that’s apart 3
from those larger efforts to care for trees. Again, and I think our Public Works Department is 4
well suited to help have that discussion, but certainly, I think it’s enough for us to know that 5
there’s interest. And I think the wisdom of saying let’s look at kind of what we can do maybe 6
more… where can we be nimble about this and get those changes because even though it’s like 7
every permit that we’re helping to be a little bit faster. Helps all permits be faster because then 8
it’s removing that workload and then we have more time to give to the permits that do need 9
maybe a more robust review. So, even though it might be a small change if it’s across a number 10
of permits it really can help our system improve and increase. 11
12
So, I feel like we got a lot of great insight from you all and I… hopefully you got an introductory 13
kind of to the topic area that our City is pursuing. Jodie, Sam, anything you would want to add 14
or any questions that you might have for the Commissioners? OK, not seeing anything. I want to 15
thank you both for your time here and also for all the work that you do working very, very hard 16
on our permit review process. 17
18
Chair Hechtman: Yeah, thank you very much for the great discussion Staff and Commissioners. 19
Let’s move on from the study session item and also wanted to thank our one public speaker for 20
participating both in our written comments in advance and taking the time to be here and 21
speak with us tonight. I’m going to move us now into Committee items. 22
Committee Items 23
Chair Hechtman: Do we have items that any Commissioner wants to bring up? Very well then, 24
we will move to Commissioner questions, comments, announcements or future agenda items. 25
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 26
Chair Hechtman: Commissioners? Alright, I have one for a brief discussion. So, last week I 27
attended a meeting… virtual meeting with the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and the Chairs of other Palo 28
Alto Boards and Commissions. And toward the end of that meeting, Vice Mayor Burt brought 29
up the topic of a re-envisioning of California Avenue. I know we’re all aware of, actually what 30
started before the pandemic, the efforts to make it more walkable. The wider sidewalks and 31
then of course with the effects of the pandemic and taking over the street. In any event, Vice 32
Mayor Burt is interested in moving forward with that concept to look at re-envisioning and 33
bringing a more vibrant art and music scene there. And he brought this up to the assembled 34
Chairs to ask the question do you think that your entity would want to have a seat at the table 35
for that discussion? And so, I’m bringing back to you my fellow Commissioners to see what you 36
think about that so that I can respond to the question from the Vice Mayor. Commissioner 37
Templeton. 38
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Templeton: Absolutely, I think we would have a lot to contribute to that 2
discussion. Thank you for bringing it up. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Commissioners, anybody feel differently? OK. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just curious what… how does… they… was there kind of idea of how 7
that… is the suggestion that there would be a cross Commission Committee created that 8
would… be represented presumably by parks and arts and human? I mean what… I’m trying to 9
understand how that would work. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: I don’t think he described that level of detail but certainly what he was talking 12
about gave me a sense of kind of a stakeholders group that could include representatives from 13
the Boards and Commissions that wanted a seat at that table as well as other individuals who 14
aren’t on a Board or Commission. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: And would the… is… in your mind does that sound like the goal would 17
be like sort of a specific plan kind of concept? Like it would or is… would the idea… is the idea 18
about planning concepts or? 19
20
Chair Hechtman: To my ear, it sounded a lot like planning so and so I was thinking yeah of 21
course we need to be involved in that. 22
23
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I guess my first thought when you said it was like yeah there’s 24
seven people that probably could host a great discussion with the community on that topic. 25
And I could name names but yeah, it strikes me as sort of an odd idea to invite maybe other the 26
ARB I guess who could… would have probably a valuable. It just seems kind of odd to 27
incorporate all the different Boards and Commissions into a discussion like that unless you are 28
specifically interested in those individuals. Because at the end of the day, I feel like our role isn’t 29
to give our own personal thoughts on what California Avenue would be. If that conversation 30
happened it would be to host a discussion and then try to share perspectives on what we’ve 31
learned so interesting idea. Obviously, I think if there was some assemble… avengers assembled 32
group then I would hope that one of you could be a part of that and sit on that group and 33
participate. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. You’re muted. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. Just to respond, I mean if you imagine what one could do 38
if they completely re-envisioned California Avenue. It could be more than just buildings, right? 39
It could be a place that became a de facto park or maybe we would change it to a park. It could 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
be a place that would have arts. It would… we would have to have discussions about 1
architecture and making sure that the sidewalks and streets were safe. You know there’s… in 2
other words there’s a need for us to collaborate and re-envision that. So, it makes sense to me 3
that if he were addressing a group of representatives from each Commission to get their input. I 4
think it could make sense. Thanks. 5
6
Chair Hechtman: Alright, any other Commissioner questions, comments, announcements, 7
future agenda items? Well then before… oh, Ms. Tanner? 8
9
Ms. Tanner: I just noted I forgot in my opening, November 15th, joint study session; PTC, ARB, 10
City Council. It will be via Zoom for us so that will be a lot of people in one room and a lot of 11
Commissioners. So, if you can participate, that would be great and it will be a study session and 12
it will be remote for all of us but the Council Members will be in the Chamber. 13
14
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Alright, before I adjourn us I think I do want to just say and I think 15
I’ve hid it well tonight but I think I’m pretty disappointed that Mr. Nguyen is moving to a 16
different job. That’s entirely selfish of course because he has been instrumental for running our 17
smooth meetings since well March of last year, March of 2020, and really has been a pleasure 18
to work with. So, I’m… it seems like a good idea for him to do that and of course I wish him well 19
but we will miss you here at the PTC. And we are looking forward to working with the people 20
that you have trained because I know that the same effort you have brought to all the things 21
that you’ve done with us, you probably… I’m sure you’ve brought to that training. So we’ll look 22
forward to seeing you at the Council level at the City Clerk’s Office and I see Commissioner 23
Lauing’s hand. 24
25
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I was going to suggest with a lot of thanks and respect that we 26
adjourn the meeting in honor of Mr. Nguyen. I think he’s done a fantastic job with us. He’s 27
taken on a very big job and I have got zero questions about the fact that he’s going to excel in 28
that. And as we thank you as a thank you gift, we’re going to pick a very long meeting next year 29
and invite you back and make sure it lasts till at least midnight. So, thanks for your service and I 30
would recommend that we adjourn in his honor. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: Alright, I think that’s a terrific idea and I’m seeing nods and applause from all 33
my fellow Commissioners. So, this meeting is adjourned in honor of Vinh Nguyen. Thank you. 34
Adjournment 35
8:15 pm 36