Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 215-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s y LE CI~T¥ COUN~ ............. FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE DATE: SUBJECT: APRIL 23, 2007 CMR: 215:07 UPDATE ON EARTH DAY 2006 COLLEAGUES’ MEMO ASSIGNMENT TO REVIEW AND UPDATE: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND RECYCLING PROGRAM; DOWNTOWN RECYCLING; BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL DISTRICT COMPOSTING; GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE BUSINESSES; AND THE STREET TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1)Direct staff to continue development of the Urban Forest Master Plan as outlined in this report. 2)Direct staff to move forward with the planned program adjustments for the Construction and Demolition Debris program as outlined in this report. 3)Direct staff to continue exploring programs for incentives and requirements related to Green Building policies for private businesses as outlined in this report. 4) Direct staff to proceed with the implementation of the enhancements to recycling programs in commercial districts as outlined in this report. 5) Direct staff to implement a pilot expansion composting program for florists and nurseries and to include an organics collection program for the commercial sector with the new collection services agreement. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2006, the Council adopted the recommendations outlined in a Colleagues’ Memorandum related to various environmental initiatives in preparation for Earth Day 2006. The recommendations included the following: 1) Update the Street Tree Management Plan - Council should consider updating the 1983 Street Tree Management Plan; direct staff to consult with CANOPY and other interested citizens and return to Council in the Spring of 2007 with a draft update to the Street Tree Management Plan. 2) Review and update the City Ordinance related to the Construction and Demolition Debris Reuse and Recycling Program - Direct staff to examine deconstruction and reuse as elements of the Zero Waste Operational Plan and/or the C&D ordinance and return to Council by Spring 2007 with recommendations for how reuse of C&D debris could be substantially enhanced, perhaps with doubling the present standard. CMR: 215:07 Page 1 of 11 3)Review green building policies as they relate to private businesses - Direct staff to examine the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) memo and the policies described in it and return to Council by Spring 2007 with recommendations for incentives and policies. 4) Review recycling programs in commercial districts - Direct staff to explore the benefits and costs of: installing additional and more user-friendly recycling containers on the streets in business districts; a related public awareness campaign; and how the costs might be borne through public and/or private means. 5) Study the feasibility of developing a more comprehensive composting program for commercial and business districts - Direct staff to study the feasibility of developing a more extensive and inviting program, comparable to that in existence for residential areas, for the recycling and composting of plant materials generated in business and commercial districts. On most of the initiatives, the Council asked staff to return in Spring 2007 with the completed updates or work programs. This report provides a status report on the various initiatives and, in some instances, recommends specific next steps for the Council to consider. DISCUSSION Street Tree Management Plan: On January 22, 2007, staff provided the City Council with an informational progress report on the Urban Forest Master Plan development (Attachment A). In September 2006, a gro,up was formed to begin work on the update to the Street Tree Management Plan. This group includes staff from Public Works, Administrative Services, Utilities, Parks and Open Space, Planning, the City Manager’s Office and representatives from CANOPY. At the outset, the team identified the need to broaden the scope of the Street Tree Management Plan to encompass all elements of the City’s urban forest. Currently, the City has numerous documents that address different elements of the urban forest, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Technical Manual. However, there is no single document that identifies the overall goals and management strategies for the urban forest. The goal of the working group has thus become the creation of a comprehensive document that addresses the management, protection and enhancement of the City’s urban forest resources. The document will identify the issues facing Palo Alto’s urban forest and will provide concrete actions for addressing these issues. It will also provide a framework for updating both the Street Tree Management Plan and the Tree Technical Manual. The update of the Street Tree Management Plan will likely occur simultaneously with the development of the Urban Forest Master Plan. The January report provided the Council with the draft mission statement and framework for the plan. Since January, staff has learned that the City did not receive the State Proposition 40 grant that would have helped to fund development of the plan as well as the community engagement process envisioned for the plan. Despite this outcome, the working group intends to continue developing the plan, albeit with a reduced scope, with a targeted completion date of December 2007. Staff will also be evaluating the need for alternate funding strategies for the plan. Staff plans to reapply for the Proposition 40 grant next year and the application will likely include proposed funding for implementation of programs in the final plan. The hiring of a new Public CMR: 215:07 Page 2 of 11 Works Arborist later this month will also aid in the development of this more strategic outlook on the urban forest. Review and update the City Ordinance Related to Construction and Demolition (C & D) Debris Reuse and Recycling Program: In May 2004, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 4830), Requirement to Divert Construction and Demolition Waste from Landfill, which added Chapter 5.24 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In November 2004, the program was fully implemented with the primary goal of diverting construction and demolition debris from local landfills. November 1, 2006 marked the completion of the second year of the program. The C&D program directly addresses debris generated from every demolition permit as well as all building permits with a valuation greater than $75,000. Year in Review: The second year of the program included review and approval of 483 participating projects. It was estimated that these projects would account for nearly 40,000 tons of construction and demolition debris. Each project that is approved in the program is categorized into one of nine different project types ranging from residential home demolitions to commercial remodels. The second year of the program saw significant increases in the overall participation as compared to the first year. The total number of tons diverted from the landfill increased from 2,253 tons to 21,710 tons. The number of projects completing salvage increased from 5.5% to 11%. The number of finished jobs that complied with the requirements of the program increased from 6.6% to 33%. (See Attachment B for complete details.) The most common material diverted from the landfill was concrete. Mixed C&D material (e.g., wood, metal, gypsum board, concrete, etc. all mixed together), metal and dirt were the other materials most often diverted from the landfill. Additional program results include: ¯Demolition projects generated 94% of all debris diverted from the landfill. ¯65% of all C&D related projects were residential projects. ¯70% of all C&D debris diverted from the landfill came from non-residential (commercial) projects. ¯Zanker Materials Processing Facility accepted the largest amount of C&D debris of any approved recycling facility, accepting 39% of debris diverted from the landfill. ¯71% of all C&D debris diverted from the landfill occurred during the months of August and October. Planned Program Adjustments: Upon evaluation of the program’s second year, as contained in the attached report (Attachment B), the following adjustments to the program are planned to enhance the overall results: ¯Placing more focus on salvage as a viable option for diversion. Options include: Developing recommendations for a Resource Recovery Center for building materials that still have reusable value. []Establishing a parmership with local reuse facilities to generate more options for salvageable building materials. CMR: 215:07 Page 3 of 11 Working with various City of Palo Alto environmental committees, such as the Green Ribbon Task Force and the Environmental Sustainability Steering Committee, to help further the development of the program as a whole. Working more effectively with the Building Department to help increase compliance during the final inspection phase of project. Considering that approximately 25% of Palo Alto’s waste being disposed in landfills is C&D debris, this program will continue to play an important role in the City’s sustainability efforts. The Zero Waste Strategic Plan suggests the City consider requiring or encouraging building owners to remodel existing buildings through adaptive reuse rather than demolishing the building. In an adaptive reuse design, the major building elements of the existing building are kept intact and are incorporated into the new use (e.g. factory buildings converted to condominiums, warehouse building converted to live-work lofts). These additional program enhancements or goals will be considered by staff as work on the above program adjustments continues in the coming year. Any implementation proposals would be reported back to the Council, along with progress reports on the planned adjustments. Review Green Building Policies as they relate to private businesses: For the past four years, the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) has been encouraging green building in its reviews, requesting a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar checklist and reviewing the projects’ sustainability features under the existing ARB Findings. The ARB held a retreat in November 2006, at which the Council’s 2006 Earth Day memo was discussed. The attached ARB staff reports (Attachments C and D) provide background on existing and proposed green building policies for ARB-reviewed projects, consistent with the Green Ribbon Task Force Building Committee’s recommendations. The February 15, 2007 ARB staff report notes possible benchmark cities with various incentive programs and indicates that requiring certified LEED buildings for every ARB application would be too onerous and likely could not be enforced without additional LEED-trained City staff. Finally, it cites possible incentives, and encourages the City to ask developers for their perspectives on good incentives. On February 15, 2007, the ARB recommended (Attachments E and F): A. Updating the existing sustainability finding (#15) found in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review, subsection (d) Findings, incorporating categories contained in the LEED checklist, and B.Adding to Chapter 18.77, Section 18.77.020, Applications, the criteria ’Council Adopted Sustainability Policies’ for reviewing applications and thereby allowing the Director to require a sustainability checklist(s) with ARB applications rather than just requesting the checklist. The April 19, 2007 ARB staff report (Attachment D) proposes a different approach to amending finding #15 (Attachment C to the April report) and asks for ARB discussion of the program Chair Solnick submitted at the joint Council and ARB meeting on April 3, 2007 (Attachment G). The cities matrix and 2030 Challenge document provided to the Council in the packet for the April 3, 2007 meeting are also attached to this report (Attachments H and I). CMR: 215:07 Page 4 of 11 In Palo Alto, most development projects are not subject to review by the ARB because most are single family homes subject only to the Individual Review process or simply a building permit (one-story homes and additions). The Development Center staff has been providing homeowners and architects with copies of the Build It Green guidelines and checklist. A kiosk provides green building information for all customers doing business at the Development Center. The benefit of adding the Council Adopted Sustainability Policies to Chapter 18.77 is that this chapter is applicable to most discretionary applications, including ARB, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions, Individual Reviews, and Home Improvement Exceptions. The Council may therefore adopt a Sustainability Policy that staff can then require an applicant to address in their application materials. Planned Policy Implementation: During the first phase of proposed implementation, staff plans to begin requiring planning entitlement (discretionary) applications to include a Build It Green (BIG) checklist for residential projects and a LEED or similar checklist for non-residential projects. Staff would also require these checklists upon submittal of building permit plans after planning entitlements are obtained for those projects. By requiring the applicant to provide such checklists at both entitlement and building permit submittals, staff believes many more projects will incorporate sustainable design components into the buildings and the site. This would be implemented following action on the recommended code changes. The second phase of implementation would include staff training ’and possible mandatory levels of green design within two to three years. Leading up to the second phase, staff would work with the City Attorney’s Office to identify and resolve any legal issues that might be implicated by this implementation. Staff has recommended an implementation schedule to ARB that includes a requirement that green building checklists (LEED, BIG or equivalent) be submitted for all new nonresidential, multi-family, and single-family development, at either the discretionary review stage.or building permit review, or both, beginning in July of 2007. A minimum number of LEED or BIG points would be suggested, though compliance would be voluntary. Mandatory compliance with LEED certification levels is proposed to be required by July of 2008, after further staff training and other implementation tools are in place. Compliance for new single-family residences with BIG certified levels is proposed to become mandatory in July of 2009. The ARB is scheduled to discuss this program on April 19, 2007, and staff will report on the Board’s recommendation at the April 23 Council meeting. Anticipating Council direction to implement the ARB-recommended code changes, staff has tentatively scheduled a Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) hearing of these changes on May 9, after the P&TC’s sustainability study session on the same evening. Exploring Prog~"ams for Incentives and Requirements: Staff has begun researching nexus requirements for establishing green building requirements and fees. In the coming fiscal year, staff proposes to benchmark other cities’ programs, work with Utilities staff on developing and implementing meaningful incentives, and begin outreach to determine possible paths for making green buildings mandatory in Palo Alto. The Utilities staff has reviewed its l O-Year Energy Efficiency Plan with the Utilities Advisory Commission and CMR: 215:07 Page 5 of 11 will be presenting it to City Council in April of this year. This plan includes incentives for new construction and remodeling to support the City’s green building efforts. Before the City requires any buildings to be certified green buildings, staff believes the following actions, at a minimum, are needed: (1) benchmarking other cities’ successful green building policies; (2) identifying and resolving any potential legal issues; (3) conducting outreach to developers and architects; (4) preparing a nexus study to establish unique building standards; and (5) training existing Staff or contracting for expertise in LEED and Build It Green (BIG). Legal Parameters of Green Building Regulation." The City Attorney’s Office has determined that if the City wishes to impose mandatory green building regulations on non-public buildings, it may work within three general frameworks: adoption of local amendments to the California Building Code, adoption of local amendments to the California Energy Code, or enactment of local zoning regulations. While any proposed regulation will require independent analysis, each method presents unique legal considerations. The first method involves adopting local amendments to the California Building Code, part of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). Cities may amend the California Building Code to require green building measures (perhaps requiring certain types of building materials in new construction) that are more restrictive than state law. The California Building Standards Commission permits amendment only if the city can show how amendments are reasonably necessary because of unique local climatic, geologic or topographic conditions. It may be difficult to demonstrate specific local conditions to support such amendments relating to building materials. The second method is to adopt local amendments to the California Energy Code, also part of the CBSC. The City may require more stringent energy efficiency standards on new construction after presenting a study demonstrating the expected energy savings and cost effectiveness of the proposed standards, in addition to presenting findings that amendments are reasonably necessary based on unique local climatic, geologic or topographic conditions. Although local energy efficiency standards must be approved by both the California Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC), .it is easier to amend the Energy Code than the Building Code because the requirements are easier to satisfy and the CEC actively encourages cities to adopt more stringent energy efficiency requirements. The third method emphasizes the aesthetic, architectural, site design and zoning elements within green building. Although the City has some authority pursuant to its police powers to impose green building standards on non-public buildings via zoning regulations, local standards must be carefully crafted to avoid conflict with state law, particularly state building codes. To reduce conflict, an incentive based approach would be preferable to a regulatory scheme. Additional Sustainability and Green Building Implementation: Staff would like to highlight the sustainability/green building features that have already been incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance over the past year: CMR: 215:07 Page 6 of 11 ¯Adoption of commercial/mixed use criteria to better facilitate a mix of uses that reduce trips and encourage neighborhood walkability. ¯Allowance for small markets or other retail in large multi-family residential projects, to minimize external retail and service trips. ¯Adoption of a Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) district near the California Ave. Caltrain station, facilitating transit use and walkability of the neighborhood. ¯Enhanced landscape requirements, including a requirement for 50% tree canopy cover over parking lots within 15 years. ¯Stream corridor protection (introduced greater setback requirements). ¯Storm water requirements, and integration of storm water and landscape planning. ¯Context-based design (form code) sections of the commercial/mixed use, PTOD, and multi-family chapters of the code, including a section on sustainability, as well as other sections related to landscape, permeable materials, storm water, pedestrian and bike connections, etc. ¯New transportation demand management (TDM) criteria, outlining possible TDM measures, performance standards, and monitoring. Review Recycling Programs in Commercial Districts: A report (Attachment J) was prepared in response to the 2006 Council Colleagues’ memo. The report considered the business districts of University Avenue, California Avenue and Midtown and included: the benefits and challenges of ~providing recycling for pedestrian traffic on City sidewalks of the three business districts; the current inventory of trash and recycling receptacles in business districts; results of a waste and recycling audit; recycling receptacle options; and recommendations for the three business districts. Benefits of providing recycling in business districts includes reinforcement of the recycling message and leading by example, illustrating the City’s commitment to help reduce waste sent to landfills. Challenges are the cost of replacing or retrofitting existing trash receptacles with a combination trash/recycling receptacle versus the effectiveness of recovering recyclables from the trash at the SMART Station. A waste study performed on the contents of Downtown trash and recycling receptacles indicates there is little recycling to be recovered from receptacles on City sidewalks in business districts. Based on the cost of recycling receptacles, collection service costs and the quantity of recycling expected to be recovered from the business districts, staff recommends implementation of the following: Downtown: As grant monies become available, replacement of the existing trash receptacles with combination trash/recycling receptacles will be phased in. Future City-purchased receptacles will be of the combination trash/recycling receptacle type. Public Works will apply for grants to fund receptacle purchases. The contents of existing trash receptacles will be sorted off-site at the SMART Station to recover recyclables. Businesses will be contacted by a Recycling Coordinator and asked to improve their efforts to provide access to recycling for their customers (e.g., coffee shops, casual dining). CMR: 215:07 Page 7 of 11 California Avenue: As part of the California Avenue Street Improvement Project and upon approval of the CIP budget, the existing trash receptacles will be replaced with combination trash/recycling receptacles. Businesses will be contacted by a Recycling Coordinator and asked to improve their efforts to provide access to recycling for their customers (e.g., coffee shops, casual dining). Midtown: Future City-purchased receptacles will be of the combination trash/recycling receptacle type. Businesses and property management of shopping centers will be contacted by a Recycling Coordinator and asked to improve their efforts to provide access to recycling for their customers (e.g., coffee shops, casual dining). Public Works will apply for grants to fund receptacle purchases. As grant monies become available, replacement of trash receptacles with combination trash/recycling receptacles wilt be phased in. In addition to recycling in business districts, there is a greater need to incorporate access to recycling in both public and private projects (e.g., shopping centers, parks, corporate campuses, transit stations). Consistent with the proposed Zero Waste Operational Plan, staff will, in the future, explore the adoption of an ordinance, resolution or other law that would require the availability of recycling wherever access to trash is provided to ensure consistency of access throughout the community. This will help make recycling the standard and not the exception. This requirement could also become part of the land use entitlement process for new projects as well as phased in to existing projects. Study the feasibility of developing a more comprehensive composting program for commercial and business districts: A report (Attachment K) was prepared to study the feasibility of developing a more extensive and inviting yard trimmings collection program for businesses and commercial districts, comparable to that in existence for residential areas. The report includes: a review of the current yard trimmings collection program for the commercial sector; the waste characterization data derived from the May 2006 Waste Characterization Final Report; three options for program expansion; and staff recommendations. Yard trimmings collection is currently available to the commercial sector through either curbside wheeled carts or debris boxes. Cart service is offered on a case-by-case basis while debris boxes are offered to any business that would like to have one. There are currently 42 businesses with cart service and 6 with debris box service. The May 2006 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study found that 38% percent of the commercial sector’s waste stream is compostable. However, only 2.6% of it is from material that is accepted by the current yard trimmings collection program. Three options were’ explored to determine the feasibility of creating a more extensive and inviting yard trimmings collection program: creating a new yard trimmings collection route; expanding the current routes to all florists and nurseries; or implementing an organics collection program with the new collection services agreement. As a result of this study, staff recommends a twofold approach. First, implement a pilot expansion program to florists and nurseries. Although this has a limited scope and will have only CMR: 215:07 Page 8 of 11 a minimal impact on City diversion levels, it does immediately expand the current program to more businesses that generate material accepted by the current yard trimmings collection program. A pilot program would allow the City to gain accurate data to better evaluate the viability of this as a permanent program. Second, include an organics collection program for the commercial sector with the new collection services agreement (in 2009). An organics program would target the majority of the compostable waste stream, include all of the businesses within the City and be more efficient and cost effective than a yard trimmings only program. RESOURCE IMPACT Street Tree Management Plan: As mentioned above, the City did not receive the State Proposition 40 grant that would have helped fund development of the plan as well as the community engagement process envisioned for the plan. Despite this outcome, the working group intends to continue developing the plan, albeit with a reduced scope, with a targeted completion date of December 2007. Staff will also be evaluating the need for alternate funding strategies for the plan. Staff plans to reapply for the Proposition 40 grant next year and the application will likely include proposed funding for implementation of programs in the final plan. Additionally, the final Urban Forest Master Plan document will identify the resource needs associated with each of the action items included in the plan. Construction and Demolition (C & D) Debris Reuse and Recycling Program: Staff will evaluate the possibility of using grant money to fund facilities for reuse. Staff will also analyze the cost impacts of conducting site audits to help applicants identify salvageable items prior to the demolition phase of a project. Review Green Building Policies as They Relate to Private Businesses: Staff will continue to evaluate the resource impacts associated with expanding Green Building policies to address private businesses. As staff moves forward with the actions identified in this report, there will need to be a discussion of the resource impacts of any proposed incentives or regulatory measures. In addition to financial resources, these types of programs will require staff time dedicated to implementation and administration. Review Recycling Programs in Commercial Districts: Attachment J to this report identifies the specific resource impacts associated with expansion of recycling programs in commercial districts. As mentioned above, staff will pursue grant oppommities to fund the replacement of existing commercial district receptacles. Composting Program for Commercial and Business Districts: Attachment K to this report identifies the specific resource impacts associated with expansion of the composting program for commercial and business districts. The proposed expansion of service to florists and nurseries has a specifically identified cost that would be absorbed in the existing program, depending on the success of the pilot program. Additionally, costs for the inclusion of organics collection in the new collection services agreement will be evaluated as part of that RFP and negotiations process. CMR: 215:07 Page 9 ofll General Impact: Although many of the initiatives cited above are not adequately developed to assess their resource impact, they will result in additional costs. Applications for grant funding are important. Financial impacts to the General and Refuse Fund should be considered carefully. The former is under considerable pressure given the need to fund old and new infrastructure needs and the latter’s rates will rise as new recycling and other green efforts emerge. As a whole, residential and commercial utility rates will be strained as commodity and infrastructure costs (e.g., water) continue to increase. The potential for General Fund financial support for any of the programs will be evaluated against other General Fund budget priorities and the availability of funding. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report is consistent with existing City policies and with the Council’s designation of global climate change as a top priority for 2007. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: ~Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: January 22, 2007 staff rep0rt - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development City of Palo Alto Construction and Demolition Year Two Review Architectural Review Board staff report dated February 15, 2007 Architectural Review Board staff report dated April 19, 2007 Minutes of February 15, 2007 ARB meeting Chapter 18.77 text amendments recommended by staff and ARB Thresholds for requiring and encouraging sustainable development proposed by ARB Chair Solnick City Green Building Program Comparison 2030 Green Building Challenge information Public Recycling in City of Palo Alto Business Districts -Feasibility, Costs and Implementation Composting Plant Materials in Commercial and Business Districts PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: Kelly Morariu ~tto the~ Ci/ty, M~nagf; GLENN ROBERTS Director of Public Works CMR: 215:07 Page 10 of 11 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: STEVE Director of Planning and Community Environment E~L~Y H~ON Assistant City Manager CMR: 215:07 Page 11 of 11 Attachment A: January 22, 2007 staff report - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE JANUARY 22, 2007 CMR:121:07 PROGRESS REPORT ON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2006 (Earth Day), the City Council adopted recommendations from a Colleagues’ Memo related to several environmental initiatives. One of these initiatives was the update of , Palo Alto’s Street Tree Management Plan. The Council adopted this plan in 1983 based on the recommendations of the Palo Alto Tree Advisory Task Force. The planhad the following goals: 1) Tree Canopy Density: Required 50 percent density on eeeh single lineal block on both sides and tree removal and replacement at the end of the tree’s useful life; 2) Solar Access: Provide for amicable co-existence of trees with solar energy; 3) Species Selection: Provide for the "right tree in the right place;" 4) Replacement Criteria: Health of tree, 50 percent of canopy, and retaintrees as long as practical; and 5) Public Education and Involvement: Solicit and incorporate resident input. Given that many of these original plan goals have been met, the Colleagues’ Memo identified areas of concern that a future plan would address, including: an updated database of street trees; a. more refined inventory of street trees in parks and non-residential rights-of-way; planned replacement of trees whose roots cause sidewalk ruptures; and an analysis of the mortality rate of street trees by species and age. The Council directed staff to work with CANOPY and other interested citizens and to return to Counell in Spring of 2007 with a draft update to.the Street Tree Management Plan. This staffreport will provide an update to the Council on progress made to date and will outline next steps for plan development. DISCUSSION In September 2006, a group was formed to begin work on the update to the Street Tree Management Plan.. This group includes stuff from Public Works, Administrative Services, Utilities, Parks, Open Space,. Planning, the City Manager’s Office and representatives from CANOPY. The team has been working since September to define the scope and process for the update. At the outset, the team identified the need to broaden the scope of the Street Tree Management Plan to encompass all elements of the City’s urban forest. Currently, the City has CMK: 121:07 Page 1 of 4 April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 1 of 7 Attachment A: January 22, 2007 staff report - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. One of the key action items under this focus area will be the update of the City’s Tree Teelmleal Manual. The final focus area is interdepartmental coordination. The oonfliets between trees and the City’s infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, utility pipelines) are a key issue in the management of the urban forest. The City should be setting the example for effectively working together on these issues. Some of the key action items under this focus area may include: de-~eloping a working group for capital ~rojects and creating urban forest guidelines for capital projects. Attaehrnent A demonstrates the proposed organizational structure of the plan. The next steps for the working group will be to develop the eommunlty engagement process and to further define and refine the action items, resources and timelines. This work will continue throughout the spring. Staff anticipates ieturning to Counell in late spring or early summer with a draft of the plan. RESOURCE IMPACT In support of this work effort, the City has applied for a State Proposition 40 grant from the California Department of Forestry. The grant would potentially help fund the development of the plan as well as the community engagement proeess. The grant application also included a request for funding to enhance the City’s GIS sofia~care to enable effective integration ofthe City’s tree inventory. The pre-proposal deadline for the grant application was December 6, ,2006. Staff anticipates receiving notification regarding the grant within the next month. These resources are key to the development of the plan. If the City is unsuccessful in receiving this grant application, staff will need to reevaluate the scope of the master plan work program. Depending on the outcome of the grant application, staff may return to Council with alternate funding strategies for the plan. The final Urban Forest Master Plan document will identify the resource needs associated with each of the action items included in the plan. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This work effort is consistent with the City Counoil’s direction in the April 2006 Colleagues’ Memo and the City’s Sustainability Policy. Additionally, this work effort is consistent with the policies and programs under the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goal N-3: A thriving "urban forest" that provides ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Pale Alto. . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachment A: Urban Forest Master Pla~ Proposed Organizational Structure PREPARED BY: ’ L~LYMO-’~U CMR: 121:07 Page 3 of 4 April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 3 of 7 Attachment A: January 22, 2007 staff report - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development DEPARTMENT HEAD: GLENN ROBERTS Public Works Director CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 121:07 Page 4 of 4 April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 4 of 7 Attachment A: January 22, 2007 staff report - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development Attachment A: Urban Forest Master Plan Proposed Organizational Structure 3o 5o Executive Summary/Mission Statement Mission: Manage the City’s urban forest to maximize sustainable outcomes for the community Status Update on initiatives from Street Tree Management Plan/Comprehensive Plan Definition of value andbenefits of urban forest resources Goal 1 Section: Understand and maintain the existing urban forest conditions a. Focus Area: Community/stakeholders i. Identify action items ¯Timeframe for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible depm~ments/entities b. Focus Area: Bestpraetices i. Identify action items ¯Timeframe for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible departments/entities c. Focus Area: Land development and management i. Identify action items ¯Timeframe for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible departments/entities d. Focus Area: Interdepartmental coordination i. Identify action items ¯Timeframe for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible departments/entities Goal 2 Section: Evaluate the most appropriate and effective mechanisms for enhancing and expanding the tree canopy a. Focus Area: Community/stakeholders i. Identify action items ¯Timeframe for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible departments/entities b. Focus Area: Best practices i. Identify action items ¯Timeframe for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible departments/entities Page 1 of 2 April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 5 of 7 Attachment A: January 22, 2007 staff report - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development numerous documents that address different elements of the urban fore, t, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Technleal Manual. However, there is no single document that identifies the overall goals and management strategies for the urban forest. The goal of the working group has thus become the creation of a comprehensive document that addresses the management, protection and enhancement of the City’s urban forest resources. This document will identify the issues faeing Palo Alto’s urban forest and will provide concrete actions for addressing these issues. The overall mission for the plan, as defined by the working group, is as follows: Manage the City’s urban forest to maximize sustainable outcomes for the community. One of the key elements of the plan will be to define the value and benefits of the community’s urban forest resources. This element provides the foundation upon which the rest of the plan will build. The working group has defined two overarching goals for the plan: 1) To understand and maintain the existing urban forest eonditiorts, and 2) To evaluate the most appropriate and effective mechanisms for enhancing and expanding the tree canopy. The action items to achieve ¯ these two goals will generally fall under one of four focus areas: 1) community/stakeholders; 2) best practices; 3) land development and management; and 4) interdeparlanental coordination. The first focus area is e0mmunity/stakeholder’s. The involvement of the community and key stakeholders in both the development and implementation of the plan is critical. CANOPY is already providing resources to support the working group’s efforts and will continue to play a role in the plan’s development and implementation. Additional!y, staff intends to engage the community in the plan development. The working group will define this process over the next few months and plans to go out to the community before returning to Council with the dear plan. The final plan will identify ways the community contributed to the plan development and will outline action items for encouraging future partnerships. It will also define meehanlsms for edueatlng and motivating the community around the urban forest. Some of the action items under this focus area may include: developing a policy on memorial tree requests/donations and identifying incentives for tree planting. The second focus area is best practices. Under this focus area, the working group wilt identify action items related to industry best practices for urban forest management. This will include items related to technology, tree care, habitat protection, and natural resource management, among others. This will form the nuts and bolts of the plan and will identify technical resources that the organization needs to effectively accomplish the plan goals. Some of the action items under this focus area may.include: defining criteria for species seleetlon; updating the street and park tree inventories and integrating these with the City’s Geographic Information Sys}em (GIS) software; and developing an integrated urban forest education/resource website. The third focus area is land development and management. This focus area will primarily work to integrate the protection and addition of trees within the land development process. The key action items will revolve around polleies for public and private sector development in both the CMR: 121:07 Page 2 of 4 April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 7 Attachment A: January 22, 2007 staff report - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development Attachment A: Urban Forest Master Plan Proposed Organizational Structure c. Focus Area: Land development and management i. Identify action items ¯Timeframe for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible departments/entities d, Focus Area: Interdepartmental coordination i. Identify action items ¯Timefxame for implementation ¯Resources necessary ¯Responsible departments/entities Maintenance/monitoring plan for document a. How do we measure success? b. How do we keep the plan updated? Page 2 of 2 April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 6 of 7 Attachment A: January 22, 2007 staff report - Progress Report on Urban Forest Master Plan Development April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 7 of 7 Attachment B: City of Palo Alto Construction and Demolition Diversion Program Year Two Review February 16, 2007 Prepared By: Jason Nortz Assoc. Planner/Sustainability Coordinator City of Palo Alto (650) 329-2189 jason.nortz@cityofpaloalto.org ProRram Overview: November 1, 2006 marked the second full year for the City of Palo Alto’s Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Program. The main goal of the C&D program is to help reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris that is being disposed of in our landfills through reuse and recycling. It is estimated that nearly 25% of all waste generated in Palo Alto is construction and demolition debris. Year two of the C&D program covered every demolition permit and all building permits with a value of $75,000 and greater that were issued a permit from November 1, 2005 through October 31, 2006. During that time there were 483 projects that were obligated to comply with the requirements of the C&D Program. These projects were estimated to generate 40,000 tons of debris. This number was established by adding up the totals from the debris management plans that were completed by every applicant prior to the permit being issued. The second year of the C&D Debris Diversion Program saw significant increases in the overall participation as compared to the first year. The total number of tons diverted from the landfill increased from 2,253 tons to 21, 710 tons. The number of projects completing salvage increased from 5. 5% to 11%. The number of finished jobs that complied with the requirements of the program increased from 6. 6% to 32. 7% Program Improvements ¯There were a few key adjustments made during the second year of the program that helped increase the overall participation with the C&D program. These adjustments were a direct result of a list of improvements that were recommended at the end of the first year. 1.The most significant change was working with the building department to require all demolition permits get finale& In the past, demolition projects were not getting finaled by the building department. This was making it very difficult to get recycling tags/receipts to confirm compliance. As it stands now all demolition permits must be finaled. In order to get finaled you must submit all recycling tags/receipts that show compliance with the diversion requirements. Final inspections will not be scheduled by the Building Department until this condition has been met. This is a significant modification to the program considering that 94% of all c&d debris diverted in the past year came from demolition projects. 2. Conducting regular site visits has helped increase the compliance, most notably with demolition permits. The interaction with on site personnel is critical in assuring all parties involved are familiar with program requirements. 3. Incorporating C&D "Conditions of Approval" for all Individual Review planning applications. These conditions have helped with the awareness of the program, specifically for the contractor who is usually the one dealing with the debris. City Council Meeting - Attachment BApril 23, 2007 Page 1 of 7 4.Developing a stamp that the Building Department uses for C&D approval. This is put on the job site copy of the plans. The stamp acts as a compliance tool to help ensure those directly involved with the project are aware that the C&D Program requires approval as part of the inspection process. 5.Developing utility bill inserts for all residents in Palo Alto. The focus of the bill inserts was on salvage and reuse options for demolition projects. Program Results (November 1, 2005 - November 1~ 2006): Total # of C&D Projects The second year of the C&D program reviewed and approved 483 total projects for participation in the program. It was estimated that these projects would account for roughly 40,000 tons of construction and demolition debris. The 483 projects that were approved for the C&D program can be categorized into 9 different project types that totaled 21, 710 tons of debris being diverted from the landfill. Listed below are the 9 types of projects. Residential Demolitions Commercial Demolitions Residential New Structures Commercial New Structures Residential Remodels Commercial Remodels Residential Remodels/Additions Commercial Remodels/Additions Tennant Improvements Below is graph identifying the total # of projects by project type. # of Projects 100- 90. 80 70 60. 50. 40 30 20 10 0 Res New Type of Projects Res Res T,I.Com Corn Rm Res Rm Corn Com Rm/Ad Demo Demo New Rrn/Ad El Res New El Res Rm/Ad ~Res Demo El T.I. El Com Demo []Corn Rm El Res Rm []Corn New [[]Corn Rm/Ad As seen by the chart, 311 or 65% of all projects were residential. The remaining 172 or 35% of the projects were commercial related projects. Of the 483 projects that qualified for the C&D program 159 or 33% of the projects were finaled. Finaled projects are those projects that completed the job and submitted all of the necessary documentation (recycling receipts, weight tags, etc...) to confirm compliance with the C&D program. The remaining 324 or 67 % of C&D projects were issued a permit but did not complete the project by the end of the second year (10/31/06). The chart below illustrates the breakdown of projects by: April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment B Page 2 of 7 1.Residential Projects - Finaled 2.Commercial Projects - Finaled 3.Residential Projects - Not Finaled 4.Commercial Projects - Not Finaled Com. Projects Finaled Res. Projects Finaled 85 Com. Projects Not Finaled 98 Total # of C&D Diversion Projects Residential Projects Not FinNed 226 []Residential Projects Not Finaled [] Com. Projects Not Finaled [] Res. Projects Finaled []Com. Projects Finaled C&D Diversion by Project Type 85 residential projects made up 53% of all finaled year two C&D projects. 74 commercial projects accounted for the remaining 47% of all finaled year two C&D projects. Commercial projects however were responsible for generating 70% of all C&D debris diverted from the landfill. Residential projects accounted for the remaining 30%. The chart below illustrates the amount of tons diverted by each type of project. Demolition projects by far were the largest generators of debris combining for 94% of all debris. Tons 16000.00- 14000.00- 12000.00- 10000.00- 8000.00- 6000,00- 4000.00- 2000.00- 0.00~ Tons of C&D Debris Diverted By Project Type April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment B Page 3 of 7 C&D Diversion by Material Type The initial amount of debris to be diverted from the landfill during the second year of the program was estimated at 40,000 tons. This number was calculated using the Debris Management Forms from each of the 483 projects that qualified for the C&D program. As mentioned earlier, of the 483 total projects approved by the C&D program 159 of these projects completed the job and submitted all of the necessary paperwork (weight tags, recycling receipts, etc...) to confirm compliance with the program. Based on the weight tags that were submitted by the 159 finaled projects, 21, 710 tons of construction and demolition debris was diverted from the landfill. This number increased from 2,253 tons after the first year of the C&D Program. The diverted c&d debris can be categorized into 8 different material types. The chart below summarizes this activity. C&D Diversion By Material Type Tons 12000- 10000- 8000- 6000- 4000- 2000- O- Concrete represented the largest type of c&d debris being diverted from the landfill, accounting for 10,081 tons or 46% of all materials diverted. Mixed c&d debris (drywall, wood, metal and small amounts of inerts) which generated the largest amount of c&d debris during year one of the program generated nearly 9, 000 tons or 41% of all materials diverted. Zanker Road Materials Processing Facility accepted the largest amount of c&d debris of any of the approved recycling facilities, accepting 8,500 tons or 39% of all the c&d materials diverted from the landfill. Listed on the next page is a breakdown of the c&d recycling facilities that received the largest amounts of c&d debris. 5 facilities on the city’s approved list were responsible for accepting 18,671 tons or 86% of all debris diverted. The remaining 14% of c&d debris was sent to other approved recycling facilities. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment B Page 4 of 7 Most Popular C&D Diversion Locations SRDC 1,093 tons-"\ \ Sims 1,848 Other 3051A7 Raisch " 3,327 tons ~ Stevens Creek Quarry 3,884 tons Zanker ~=8,507 tons []Zanker []Steven Creexk Quarry []Raisch 13 Sims []SRDC []Other C&D Diversion by Month The majority of debris generated remained constant throughout the year with the exception of August and October. These 2 months generated roughly 15,000 tons or 71% of all c&d debris for the year. The main reason for the increased activity during these 2 months was because of two large commercial demolition projects that occurred at 3401 Hillview and 1010 & 1101 E. Meadow. The remainder of the year averaged 637 tons per month which is about 2.9% per month of all c&d debris generated throughout the year. The least amount of diversion activity was seen during the winter months (December-February). This decrease in activity is a direct result in less construction occurring due in part to the weather. The chart below summarizes the monthly activity C&D Diversion Activity By Month Tons 10000- 9000- 8000- 7000- 6000- 5000- 4000- 3000- 2000- 1000- Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting- Attachment B Page 5 of 7 Salvage One of the requirements of the C&D program is that all covered projects (specifically demolitions) must make an attempt to salvage valuable items for reuse. This process is referred to as deconstruction for salvage. This aspect of the program has experienced the least amount of success to date. The first year of the program had only 5.5% of all finaled projects doing salvage. The good news is the second year of the program nearly doubled it efforts to 10.7% of all finaled projects doing salvage. The list below briefly summarizes the materials that were salvaged. This list includes only those items where actual weights were provided by the applicant. Salvaged Items _umber 93, 000 linear feet ~ricks 8 tons Vlolding 2,500 ft. Some of the other items that were salvaged include: Sinks, toilets, light fixtures, cabinets, copper wire, doors and various appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators and stoves). Weights for these materials could not be established because only inventory lists, pictures, emails and invoices were produced. This is typical for this type of diversion activity. Waivers There are also projects that are required to comply with the C&D program but are unable to due to various reasons. The C&D program provides an option for the applicant to complete the waiver form that allows the applicant not to meet the requirements of the program. There were 26 projects representing 16% of all finaled projects that completed the waiver form during the second year of the program. The main reasons why the waiver form was completed include: 1.Asbestos contaminated materials could not be recycled. 2.Equipment removal - no waste being generated but the value of the permit exceeds the $75,000 threshold. 3. Tenant Improvements projects - These types of projects did not typically generate c&d debris during the building phase of the tenant improvement. Most of the c&d debris was generated during the demolition phase of the project which happened under a separate demolition permit. Recommendations As mentioned at the beginning of the report, the second year of the C&D Debris Diversion Program saw significant increases in the overall participation as compared to the first year. The total number of tons diverted from the landfill increased from 2,253 tons to 21, 710 tons. The number of projects completing salvage increased from 5. 5% to 11%. The number of finished jobs that complied with the requirements of the program increased from 6. 6% to 32. 7%. All of these key improvements can be directly related to the adjustments referred to in the Program Updates section of this report. There is still plenty of room for improvement. Some of the areas that staff will focus on for year three of the C&D program include: 1.Increasing the overall participation in salvage as a viable option for diversion. Some of the ideas for helping with this include: April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment B Page 6 of 7 a.Bringing in outside personnel to conduct site audits to help the applicant identify what items are salvageable prior to the demolition phase of the project. b. Outreach tools that can be incorporated into the Green Building Kiosk that help increase the awareness of salvage for reuse, recycling and other forms of diversion. c.Creating "green pages" on the city website. This outreach tool will create an ongoing list of available & wanted building materials for residents. 2.Requiring that all C&D covered projects must be finaled prior to getting the final inspection from the Building Department. As it stands now only demolition permits are falling into this requirement. When this adjustment was made to demolition permits an immediate increase in compliance occurred. 3.Researching the possibility of developing a Resource Recovery Center for building materials that still have reusable value. 4. Establishing a partnership with local reuse facilities to generate more options for salvageable building materials. 5.Working with various City of Palo Alto "green committees" to help further the development of the program as a whole. The April 2006 Council Colleagues’ memo focused on possibly making modifications to the current C&D ordinance. The memo was written prior to the completion of the second year of the C&D Program. Based on the notable positive changes that happened between year one and year two of the program, it is probably not necessary at this stage of the program to make any significant changes to the ordinance itself but rather to the core of the program. In order to see continued positive progress, more focus should be placed on the following areas: 1.Compliance review - more staff time needs to be devoted to following up with those projects that have finished the job and have missed the 30 day window to submit all of the weight tags/receipts that are required to demonstrate compliance. For example, during year two 89 total c&d projects required follow up to ensure they complied with the program requirements. Follow up consisted of a compliance letter that gave the applicant an additional 2 weeks to submit all the necessary paperwork. In all but 8cases this letter was a success. The remaining 8 cases were sent to Code Enforcement. The fact of the matter is that too many c&d projects are not submitting their weight tags/receipts on time which is creating more work which should be spent implementing ideas to help improve the program. This issue could be significantly improved upon if, as stated above, all C&D covered projects were required to be finaled before any final inspection could be approved. 2.Increasing the awareness of the salvage component - We are not capturing as much salvageable material as is required by the ordinance. The main reason for this is because most jobs that are able to do some kind of salvage already have prior to the demolition permit being issued. It’s not that the applicant is not willing to comply; it’s more of an issue of not being aware of the salvage requirement prior to applying for the permit. If more emphasis is placed on getting the word out about salvage prior to the permit being issued the better the results will be. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment B Page 7 of 7 Attachment C PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Amy French, AICP Planning Manager DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment February 15, 2007 Discussion of Green Buildin~ Policies A discussion of the potential purview of Architectural Review Board (ARB) with respect to reviewing the sustainability of designs in accordance with potential sustainability policies or ordinance(s) that may be directed and adopted by the City Council and recommendation for possible modifications to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review, subsection (d) Findings, and Chapter 18.77, Section 18.77.020, Applications, with respect to adding the criteria ’Council Adopted Sustainability Policies’ for reviewing applications and thereby allow the Director to require sustainability checklist(s) with ARB applications. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the ARB: (1) review the recommendations of the Green Ribbon Task Force (GRTF) presented to the Council in December 2006 and attached to this report (Attachment A, Building Committee Recommendations); (2) revisit the April 2006 Council Colleagues’ Memorandum on Environmental Initiatives (also known as Earth Day Memo) Item III (Attachment B to this report) that the ARB had discussed at their November 2006 retreat; (3) recommend Council modify Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 to ensure staff’s ability to require green-building checklists and include Council adopted sustainability policies within the list of criteria for reviewing applications (Attachment C); and (4) provide formal comments with respect to implementation of the GRTF recommendations, and any additional suggestions regarding potential green building policies for Council consideration. February 15, 2007 ARB Staff Report for Green Building Policies Discussion Page 1 BACKGROUND: ARB Findings Following their January 2003 retreat discussion at Foothills Park on green building guidelines, the ARB met with City Council on June 2, 2003, to discuss adding standard(s) to the ARB Ordinance Standards of Review, formerly in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 16.48, to require applicants of private projects to incorporate sustainability elements and green building components into projects. The 2004 streamlining efforts to address audit recommendations resulted in the relocation of the majority of the contents of Chapter 16.48 into the Zoning Code, now Chapters 18.76 and 18.77. The ARB Standards became Findings (Section 18.76.020) which included the same Item 15 regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy design elements. For four years, staff and the ARB have been using Standard/Finding #15 and ARB policy as a basis to request that applicants submit a list of proposed sustainability features for ARB review. The formal adoption of an updated sustainability finding was added to the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) work program, but has not occurred to date. This report is now the vehicle to forward ARB-recommended code changes to the Council to require the submittal of sustainability checklists and allow the inclusion of Council adopted green building policy into review criteria. These changes would allow for approval conditions to require sustainability measures and would provide greater ARB pmwiew in reviewing and recommending projects with respect to their Sustainability components. Council’s "Green" Priority During the joint meeting of the ARB and Council on October 10, 2006 (Boardmember Kornberg, Mayor Kleinberg and Councilmember Beecham were absent), Councilmembers noted the target response deadline, Spring 2007, as cited in the Earth Day Memo for Item III. During their retreat on February 3, 2007, Council unanimously established climate protection and response to the climate crisis as one of its four priorities for 2007. On April 23, 2007, staff will present the Council with two "green" reports. One report will describe activities, necessary participants and efforts underway toward implementation of the GRTF recommendations, as well as feasibility, additional research and anticipated obstacles to their implementation. The other report will describe the status of completed and planned efforts in response to the Earth Day Memo. ARB’s Retreat and "Green" Task At the last ARB retreat on November 16, 2006, the ARB discussed the Earth Day Memo Item III among other items. The premise of the discussion at the ARB retreat was that ordinances would be required to make green building a requirement and research on the range of possible incentives would be necessary. It was aclcnowledged that eventually, and with direction from Council, PAMC Title 16 (Building Code) may be modified to require every new non-residential building to have a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating (e.g., LEED Silver, as is required of new City buildings) and every new residential building to meet a specified number of "Build-It-Green" (BIG) points. During the retreat, the ARB asked staff to forward to board members the GRTF recommendation February 15, 2007 ARB Staff Report for Green Building Policies Discussion Page 2 list to be presented to the Council in December 2006, noted the green building policies of several California cities (San Jose, Berkeley, Santa Monica), and recommended that the City review case studies (including Austin, Boulder, Pleasanton) to learn of various incentive programs. The board noted that the 26 points it takes to create even a minimum level, Certified LEED building would be onerous without incentives and likely could not be enforced without additional LEED- trained City staff. Some suggested examples of incentives included: (1) reduction of impact fees for LEED silver rating, and shifting of the fees to non-LEED buildings, (2) establishment of a green impact fee on a sliding scale which would be based on the level of LEED certification achieved, and (3) tying allowable parking adjustments to having a LEED rated building. The ARB finished its discussion by noting that the City should ask developers what would be good incentives from their perspective, and that their answers may include increased FAR, height, daylight plane encroachments, and reduced parking. Purview of ARB Mayor Kishim0to forwarded to staff a member of the public’s email correspondence commenting on the desirability of designing buildings with stairways in visible and convenient locations for health benefits, rather than featuring elevators and hiding the stairways, especially in buildings housing medical services. Staff forwarded the email to the board and noted it would be appropriate to include in the sustainability discussion in a public hearing setting. There may be concern about broadening the ARB’s purview to building interiors, when the purview to date has only included the exterior of buildings. The ARB may wish to explore policy in this regard. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES AND OPTIONS: Staff, based on prior ARB input, has identified issues and has evaluated various options including modifying the Zoning Code as set forth in Attachment C, identifying an appropriate transition period to prepare for green building requirements, an interim program, and possible incentives for green building as noted below. Modifications to Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 Staff requests the ARB provide input into the suggested ordinance changes (Attachment C) for Council consideration. The draft changes amend Section 18.76.020 (d) Finding #15 to broaden the scope beyond requiring energy efficient design and renewable energy design elements, and amend Section 18.77.020(a) to add item (5) Council-adopted sustainability polices. Staff anticipates that any Council action to adopt any such modifications would occur after the April 2007 recommendations are received. Build It Green and LEED Systems Currently, Planning staff encourages applicants to provide for green building design by providing "Build-It-Green" (B!G)’s green building guidelines for new home construction and asking applicants to include with their application materials a LEED or similar checklist for new non- residential development, or a BIG checklist for new residential development. The GRTF Building Committee recommended an incremental approach to requiring "Build-It-Green" points for residential projects and LEED certification for non-residential projects, and identifying February 15, 2007 ARB Staff Report for Green Building Policies Discussion Page 3 incentives for developers who would like to achieve certain levels of certification. Staff and the GRTF recognized the need to have LEED trained staff or consultant(s) and incentives in place prior to requiring a certain level of points in projects. Analysis and reporting to Council on these items are anticipated in the coming months. Palo Alto may adopt green building standards applicable to new commercial and residential development, since such standards are reasonably related to the City’s published goal of protecting the natural environment and will not deprive landowners of all beneficial use of the affected property. The City is exploring the requirements necessary to revise building code requirements to mandate certain green building techniques, such as exceeding Title 24 requirements by 15%. There are legal constraints and the City is benchmarking other cities, such as the City of Rohnert Park, which has retained a consultant to prepare findings in support of similar changes in that city. The ARB may wish to recommend an appropriate transition time (two to three years, for example) and an interim solution of requiring the applicant to submit the same checklist provided to the ARB, or an updated version reflecting additional work on the green building components, to be included in the Building Permit application materials. The project planner, as a part of checking Building Permit plans for conformance with ARB approved plans, and perhaps working with a qualified consultant, could compare the lists for consistency. Incentives/Rebates for Green Building At its retreat, the ARB suggested several California cities offering incentives for green building, including San Jose, which requires LEED for major retrofits of greater than 10,000 square feet but provide incentives; Berkeley, which requires LEED for projects greater than 2:1 FAR/three stories, and use of BIG checklist; and Santa Monica, which requires LEED certification but has expedited plan checks as well as green building grants. Staff will update the Council as to the staff resources needed to benchmark other cities’ incentive programs. The ARB may wish to recommend which incentives to pursue, including but not limited to those being explored by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department, expedited permits, fee reductions, subsidizing LEED certification applications, awards, grants, and development bonuses. Palo Alto’s Utilities Department promotes energy efficiency and provides funding, and is looking into new construction incentive programs, modeled after similar programs already in the Bay Area. For residential projects, Utilities funding could be provided for each new green home meeting a specified number of BIG points, and/or for a "green-rater" to evaluate the finished product. Another idea is to use the funding to support an existing "ask-the-expert" program at BIG, which is now available only to PG&E customers. For non-residential projects, exceeding Title 24 (Building Code) by a certain percentage could lead to a bonus for developers, with additional incentives for LEED Certified or higher LEED rating. The website addresses for Utilities’ current programs and Santa Clara’s new commercial program is attached to this report (Attachment D). February 15, 2007 ARB Staff Report for Green Building Policies Discussion .Page 4 One ARB member recently noted that New Resource Bank and Valencia Green Bank (both in San Francisco) offer innovative financing for green projects, that this compresses the time for "pay-back" and makes the Return on Investment (ROI) for developers more attractive, and that it would be helpful to roll out the new certification requirements with a strong public relations campaign about money-saving opportunities, including rebate programs offered by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department and the State of California. Legal Authority_ to Impose Green Impact Fees/Taxes During the November retreat, the ARB asked about the City’s legal authority to impose a green building fee. The City is in the process of researching the legal and practical issues surrounding implementing green building ordinances, including a green building fee or a carbon tax. A green building fee is subject to "impact fee" requirements, and is thus subject to statutory "nexus" requirements. The fee and its specifics have not been developed, and how the funds would be used would require extensive analysis. ATTACtIMENTS: Attachment A: GRTF Building Committee Recommendations Attachment B: Earth Day Memo Item III Attachment C: PAMC Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 with draft changes Attachment D: Correspondence from Utilities Prepared by:Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Manager Review:Curtis Williams, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment February 15, 2007 ARB Staff Report for Green Building Policies Discussion Page 5 Attachment D PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Amy French, AICP Plarming Manager DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment April 19, 2007 Green Building Alternatives: Architectural Review Board (ARB) discussion of potential programs and final recommendation for amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020 Finding #15 for sustainability. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the ARB: 1.Review the following documents and forward a recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission: (A) The attached finding entitled "Sustainability and Green Building Design" (Attachment A) excerpted from PAMC Section 18.16.090(b)(8) for Commercial District Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings, (B)The wording for PAMC 18.76.020, ARB Finding #15 recommended by the ARB on February 15, 2007 (Attachment B), and (C) The proposed wording for PAMC 18.76.020, Finding #15 (Attachment C); 2. Discuss possible zoning approaches to green building including requirements for density, land use or parking; and 3. Review the thresholds for requiring and/or encouraging green building (Attachment D) presented by Chair Solnick at the April 2007 ARB/Council meeting and forward a recommendation or alternative approaches for a green building program to the City Council for their consideration. BACKGROUND: The ARB staff report prepared for the February 15, 2007 meeting provides background on ARB efforts prior to that meeting. At the February 15, 2007 meeting, the ARB reviewed the Green Ribbon Task Force recommendations and recommended modifications to Zoning Ordinance April 19, 2007 ARB Staff Report on Green Building Alternatives Page 1 Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review, subsection (d) Findings, and Chapter 18.77, Section 18.77.020, Applications. The recommended wording for Section 18.77.020, adding ’Council Adopted Sustainability Policies’ as criteria for reviewing applications, was presented at the ARB/Council joint meeting on April 3, 2007. It was noted that this code revision would allow the Director to re@re sustainability checklist(s) with ARB and the other discretionary applications included in Chapter 18.77, but would not allow the Director to require checklists for non-discretionary applications. The amended wording for Finding #15 (of Section 18.76.020) recommended by the ARB on February 15 was not forwardedto the City Council because it was determined the wording needed further development. At their joint meeting, the ARB and City Council discussed green building policies and potential programs. The agenda and attachments for the joint meeting are attached to this report (Attachment E). The Council reviewed the ARB Chair’s threshold proposal and matrix of other cities’ programs, and heard from the City Attorney, who noted that some of the cities on the list had growth control programs in place. Some Councilmembers pushed for an aggressive ordinance with requirements for green building. The Council expressed interest in knowing the statistics of floor area development in the city, and noted that the size of homes mattered, in that smaller homes equal greener homes. A suggestion was made that a checklist also be required for remodels and that, as a home’s size increases, a certain number of points on the BIG checklist should be required. The Council also questioned the efficiency of facilities owned by the City and Palo Alto Unified School District. The Council did not discuss whether or not to sign onto the 2030 Challenge that was included in the packet. At their April 5, 2007 meeting, the ARB noted a list of discussion points for today’s green building discussion. The ARB requested the City Attorney’s presence to provide parameters and thereby assist the ARB in moving forward with a recommendation. The City Attorney responded that the staff is working on a document for the Council’s April 23rd meeting, and intend to provide the document to the ARB if it is ready before the April 19th meeting. However, there will be no attorney present at the ARB meeting. DISCUSSION: 1. Modification to Chapter 18.76, ARB Finding #15 After staff discussion of the potential of modeling Finding #15 after the attached Finding entitled "Sustainability and Green Building Design" (Attachment A) excerpted from Section 18.16.090(b)(8) of the Commercial District Context-Based Design Considerations, staff recommends the ARB discuss the wording of the proposed ordinance (Attachment C), and forward their recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. 2.Zoning Approaches to Green ,Building April 19, 2007 ARB Staff Report on Green Building Alternatives Page 2 At the April 5, 2007 meeting, the ARB mentioned "unstated assumptions counter to the sustainability movement" and referred to a need for the City to "step up to the plate" with zoning. There are certain concepts of sustainability, including higher density housing and increased building height close to transit corridors, which many cities are implementing into zoning ordinances. The City has been reticent to embrace the ABAG-targeted housing numbers and has recently rezoned residentially zoned lands to commercial zoning despite a continuing j obs-housing imbalance that had informed the Comprehensive Plan Policies favoring some conversion of lands to housing. One example of progressive zoning that City has adopted is the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District, which can be requested by property owners as an overlay that provides incentives to increase housing density. After some discussion, the ARB may wish to suggest other possible zoning approaches to encourage sustainability and green building in the City of Palo Alto. One approach is to increase the minimum number of housing units and decrease the maximum unit size in certain zones. Another avenue to explore is reduced parking requirements. 3. Thresholds for Requiring and Encouraging Sustainable Development Attachment D is the document that ARB Chair Solnick presented to the Council and ARB at the April 3 meeting. The ARB may wish to discuss the elements of the proposal, alternatives as presented in the matrix of other cities’ green building programs, and a possible timeline for implementation of any requirements. As noted in the February 15, 2007 ARB report, the GRTF Building Committee recommended an incremental approach to requiring "Build-It-Green" points for residential projects and LEED certification for non-residential projects. Staff and the GRTF recognized the need to have LEED trained staff or consultant(s) and incentives in place prior to requiring a certain level of points in - projects. As noted previously, an interim solution in advance of a green building requirement could be for the city to require that checklists be included in the Building Permit application materials, and could seek ways of funding review of the checklists by qualified professionals that could be under contract with the City. Funding the "ask-the-expert" program at BIG, which is now available only to PG&E customers, is an avenue the City is now exploring. At the April 2007 joint meeting of the ARB and City Council, the lack of resources to immediately pursue green building requirements was mentioned by a board member and the Council noted that such resources could be requested. The City is still exploring the legal constraints and benchmarldng for other cities such as Rohnert Park. It should be noted that the City has an established Green Building Working Group, led by the Chief Building Official, comprised of City staff from multiple departments to develop a green building program including possible incentives to encourage green building. By the April 19th ARB meeting, this group will have held three meetings. The group agrees one of the key ingredients to developing a successful program is conducting outreach to stakeholders and incorporating a feedback loop. The group is assembling data regarding the number and type of construction permits, which will be invaluable in determining where the City may realize the greatest efficiencies and therefore, where to April 19, 2007 ARB Staff Report on Green Building Alternatives Page 3 focus any rebate or similar financial incentives. It is anticipated the data to be gathered during the coming week will also assist the ARB in developing a recommendation for agreen building program to the City Council. Staff suggests that the Board outline a program and timeline as follows: Date 7/1/07 out 7/1/07 7/1/08 7/1/09 Development Type City facilities Commercial and Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential (SFR) Commercial and MFR SFR Commercial and MFR SFR Threshold floor area 5,000 sq.ft, new or remodel 5,000 sq.ft, new or remodel 1,500 sq.ft, new or remodel 5,000 sq.ft, new or remodel 1,500 sq.ft, new or remodel 5,000 sq.ft, new or remodel 1,500 sq.ft, new or remodel Attainment LEED silver Specify min. LEED points Specify min. BIG points LEED certified BIG certified LEED certified BIG certified Mandatory/Voluntary(1) Compliance Mandatory Voluntary Voluntary Mandatory Voluntary Mandatory Mandatory (1) Voluntary compliance would require submittal of appropriate checklist to ARB for commercial and MFR and with building permit application for all applicable commercial, MFR and/or SFR The Board may want to specify that equivalent alternatives to LEED and BIG may be considered and approved as well as incentives for compliance above minimum requirements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Sustainability and Green Design Findings (Section 18.16.090(b)(8)) Attachment B: February 15, 2007 Board recommended ARB Finding #15 Attachment C: Proposed revision to ARB Finding #15 Attachment D: Threshold green building document by Chair Solnick Attachment E: April 3, 2007 joint ARB/CC meeting agenda and attachments (ARB only) Prepared by:Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Manager Review:Curtis Williams, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment April 19, 2007 ARB Staff Report on Green Building Altematives Page 4 ATTACHMENT C 18.76.020 Architectural Review April 19, 2007 ARB recommendation (d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified-design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (1 !) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient. water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quail _ty spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building desigo_2. ¯Optimize building orientation for heat Rain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; ¯Design landscaping to create to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; ¯Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; ¯Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement; ¯Use sustainable building materials; ¯Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; ¯Create healthy indoor environments; ¯Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). Attachment E MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVEON GOVERNMEN~ ACCESS CHANNEL 16 Thursday February 15, 2007 REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: David Solnick (Chair) Clare Malone Prichard (Vice Chair) Judith Wasserman Heather Trossman Grace Lee Staff Liaison: Beth Bourne, Senior Planner Staff: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Steven Turner, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Senior Planner Alicia Spotwood, Staff Secretary PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: Announce agenda item Open public hearing Staff recommendation Applicant presentation - Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff Public comment- Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes Close public hearing Motions/recommendations by the Board Final vote The Director’s decision will be posted at the Downtown Library Page 1 CONTINUANCES The Architectural Review Board will review the agenda at or around 10:00 A;M. to determine if the remaining items on the agenda can be completed by 12:00 Noon. In the event that the ARB determines that specific items will not be heard at today’s meeting, review of such items will be continued to a date certain. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. APPR 0 VAL OF MINUTES. The minutes of January 18, 2007 were approved, (5-0-0-0, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board member Lee). AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4249 El Camino Real [06PLN-00246]: Request by Juniper Homes on behalf of the Palo Alto Elk’s Lodge for a Major Architectural Review of three, single-family detached homes. A Parcel Map application has been approved to create the three single-family lots fronting Wilkie Way. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Zone Districts: R-1 and RM- 15. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project based upon the Architectural Review Findings (Attachment A) and the project’s conformance with the Individual Review Guidelines (Attachment B) and conditions of approval (Attachment C) attached to the staff report. Public Testimony: Becky Epstein, Palo Alto: Stated she was speaking on behalf of the Charleston Meadow Board of Directors in support of the project. Jean Olmstead, Palo Alto: Stated she would like the Board to work towards having the large buildings be compatible with the neighborhood. Deborah Ju, Palo Alto: Stated that she was in support of the project and looked forward to it’s completion. Page 2 Herb Borack, Palo Alto: Stated his opinion that CEQA did not allow the projects to be reviewed in separate pieces from the rest of the site. Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval of the project, (5-0-0-0, Board member Malone Pilchard moved, seconded by Board member Trossman) with the following items to remm on the consent calendar for further review: 1. Raise the window head and lower the plate height at the 1st floor 2. Continue the brick exterior material further down the sides of the homes 3. Study the chimney proportion on Lot 2 4.Revise the location of the transformer in the planter strip moving closer to the emergency vehicle access further back behind the sidewalk, possibly with a brick walled screen as one alternative to a landscape 5. Study a more appropriate location for the down spouts 6. Incorporate revisions that would address the mass of each home to better conform to the Individual Review Guidelines 7. Lower roof pitches. Roof pitches should be consistent 8. Revise material boards to incorporate changes to colors and materials 9. Study the porch and terrace configuration lots 2 and 3 to create more usable outdoor spaces and integrate these features with the landscaping. Include some type of specimen or ginko type trees at each lot. Discussion of Green Building policies: The ARB will discuss their potential purview with respect to reviewing the sustainability of designs in accordance with potential sustainability policies or ordinance(s) that may be directed and adopted by the City Council, and may recommend possible modifications to: Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review, subsection (d) Findings, and Chapter 18.77, Section 18.77.020, Applications, with respect to adding the criteria ’Council Adopted Sustainability Policies’ for reviewing applications and thereby allow the Director to require sustainability checklist(s) with ARB applications. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the ARB: (1) review the recommendations of the Green Ribbon Task Force (GRTF) presented to the Council in December 2006 and attached to this report (Attachment A, Building Committee Recommendations); (2) revisit the April 2006 Council Colleagues’ Memorandum on Environmental Initiatives (also known as Earth Day Memo) Item III (Attachment B to this report) that the ARB had discussed at their November 2006 retreat; (3) recommend Council modify Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 to ensure staff’s ability to require green-building checklists and include Council adopted sustainability policies within the list of criteria for reviewing applications (Attachment C); and (4) provide formal comments with respect to implementation of the GRTF recommendations, and any additional suggestions regarding potential green building policies for Council consideration. Page 3 Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended (5-0-0-0, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board member Trossman) the Council add item #5, as recommended by staff to PAMC 18.77.020(a) and add to finding #15 of the PAMC 18.76.020 (d) as recommended by staff with a substitution of the LEED categories instead of the 9 numbered items. STUDY SESSION: 3.2747 & 2785 Park Boulevard - Request by the Public Works Department for review and comment on the alternative design options for the proposed PuNic Safety Building. BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER REPRESENTATION AT CITY C 0 UNCIL MEE TINGS. SUBCOMMITTEE ITEM(S): 5. 1072 Tanland. STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Project Description: Request to allow the installation of new trees and undersWry plantings in eenter and frontage medians of San Antonio. Applicant: Public Works Department, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto Address: San Antonio Road & Medians (101 Alma) Approval Date: February 5, 2007 Project Description: Request to allow the installation of a fence for a school playground area. Applicant: Cornerstone Community Church Address: 1057 East Meadow Drive, 06PLN-O0368 Approval Date: February 6, 2007 The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956.Recordings. An audiotape of the proceedings may be 0btained/reviewed by contacting the Planning Division at (650) 329-2440. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329-2571. Page 4 Attachment F 18.77.020 Applications (a) Filing of application and application contents All applications pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the director in a form prescribed by the director. The application form shall contain a list of information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete. This may include, but is not limited to, information determined necessary by the director to conduct a review of the application pursuant to: (1) State law (including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with Section 21000), and city compliance with the Political Reform Act (Title 9 of the Government Code, commencing with Section 8 1000); (2) The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (3) The Palo Alto Municipal Code; a~ (4) This title (Zoning); and (5) Council Adopted Sustainabilitv Policies. Please note that the following discretionary processes would be affected: Standard Staff Review Process (Variances, CUPs, NPE’s) Architectural Review Process (Major and Minor ARBs, DEE’s, Site &Design, PC’s) Low-Density Residential Review Process (IR’s, HIE’s) April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment F Page I of I Attachment G Thresholds for Requiring and Encouraging Sustainable Development Palo Alto, April 2007 Based on the current status of sustainability programs inother progressive dries, the following is a first stab at establishing reasonable thresholds for requiring .and/or encouraging sustainability goals of development projects in Palo Alto. For projects over 5000 sf, Public Projects: LEED silver required Private Projects: Non-residential: LEED certified required, or in lieu fee. (Green Fee) LEED silver expedites entitlements and/or provides Utility rebates LEED gold or platinum is eligible for DEEs andprovides Utility rebates Residential (multi-family only): B.I.G. 50 points (and other B.I.G. minimum standards) is required B.I.G. 100 points expedites entitlements and/or Utility rebates B.I.G. 150 points is eligible for DEEs and Utility rebates . April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment G Page 1 of 1 Attachment H - April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting MUNICIPALITY SantaMonica, C A~buquerque, NN New construction Mar-05 Public Facilities Existing buildings 5,000 s.f. and above &/or using 5Commercial shells Commercial interiors Austin, TX Public Facilities over 5,~’b0 s.{’.LEED [equired LEED ce~ifiedJun-00 Private Development Austin Sma~ Gro~h Criteria Matrix ......encouraged STAFFING fee waivers, utility rebates LEED required LEED silver *Council is to consider LEED certification of each project prior to planning or design **formal USGBC certification encouraged but not required ., *** additional points required to earn incentive for projects over 350 square feet .... grant funds must be returned to the City if LEED certification is not achieved within 6 months of Certificate of Occupancy ..... the incentive program has been deemed unnecessary and has recently been cancelled; after 5 years of incentives, all large-scale projects are now being LEED.certified. ..... includes points for either LEED rating or City of Austin Green Building Standard rating SUMMARY Most of the sampled municipalities require public facilities to be LEED rated. Most of the sampled municipalities encourage, but do not require, sustainable private development. Minimum building.§ize of 5,000 to 10,000 s.f. normally triggers LEED requirement for public facilities. Three of the sampled municipalities require LEED for private development: Pleasanton and Pasadena apply the requirement only to large projects; Calabasas applies the requirement to projects of 500 s.f. or more. Most of the sampled municipalities offer incentives for sustainable private development. It shoutd be noted, however, that Seattle recently discontinued its incentive program because it no longer appears to be needed. 2,030 Challenge, Carbon Neutral Buildings, Edward Mazria - Architecture 2030 AttachmentI - April 23, 20t)7 City Council Meeting THE 2030 OCHALLENGE Page 1 of 2 Credible scientists give us 10 years to be well on our way toward global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in order to avoid catastrophic : ~;~<~:~;,. : climate change. Yet there are hundreds of coal-fired power plants currently -~<~:".:.. on the drawing boards in the Us. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the energy produced by these plants will go to operate buildings. As Architecture 2030 has shown, buildings are responsible for almost half (48%) of all energy - consumption and GHG emissions annually; globally the percentage is even greater. Immediate action in the Building Sector, and a concerted global effort, are essential if we are to avoid hazardous climate change. Stabilizing emissions, in this Building Sector, and then reversing them to acceptable levels over the next ten years, is key to keeping global warming to approXimately a degree centigrade (°C) above today’s level. To accomplish this Architecture 2030 has issued The 2030 °Challenge asking the global architecture and building community to adopt the fotlowit~g targlets: ¯That all new buildings, developments and major renovations be designed to meet a fossil fuel, greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting, energy consumption performance standard of 50% of the . ¯ regional (or country) average for that building type. That at a minimum, an equal amount of existing building area be renovated annually to meet a fossil-fuel, greenhouse gas (GHG)~ emitting, energy-cousumption performance standard of 50% Of the regional (or country) average for that building type (50% of the regional average through innovative design strategie), the application of renewable technologies and/or the purchase - 20% ¯ maximum - of renewable energy). ¯That the fossil fuel reduction standard for all new buildings be in~:reased to: 60% in 2010 ~0% in 2015 80% in 2020 90% in 2025 Carbon-neutral by .2030 (using no fossil-fuel GHG-emitting energy to operate) We know these targets are readily achievable and that most developments and buildings can be designed to use only a small amount of energy at little or no additional cost through proper planning, siting, building form, glass properties and location, material selection and by incorporating natural heating, cooling, ventilati.on, and day-li.ghting strategies. The additional energy a development or building would then need to maintain comfort and operate equipment can be supplied by renewable sources such as solar (photovoltaics, hot water heating, etc.), wind, biomass and other viable carbon-free soukces. To meet The 2030 °Chalienge, we must not only design high-performance and carbon-neutral buildings and de,velopments; but also advocate for incentives and actions that will ensure that all buildings and developments meet these targets as well. 2030 °Challenge Targets by Building Type Edward Mazria A:I:A, Architecture 2030 Founder Edward Mazria A]A, is a senior principal at Mazria ]:nc. an architecture and planning firm in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He is author of The Passive Solar Energy Book, senior analyst for the Southwest Climate Council and adjunct professor at the University of New Mexico. He speaks nationally and internationally or~ the sL~bject of climate change and architecture. Click here to learn more about architecture2030.org http://www, architecture203 O. org/open_letter/index.html 3/26/2007 Attachment J: Public Recycling in City of Palo Alto Business Districts Feasibility, Costs and Implementation February 2007 Prepared by: Annette Puskarich, Recycling Coordinator PW Refuse Department This report was prepared in response to the Council Colleague memo, dated April 17, 2006 entitled, Environmental Initiatives. The memo requested the study of installing more recycling in the business districts, the creation of a public outreach Campaign, the associated costs and implementation. The content of this report for the business districts of University Avenue, California Avenue and Midtown includes the benefits and challenges of providing recycling for pedestrian traffic on City sidewalks, of the three business districts, the current inventory of trash and recycling receptacles in business districts, results of a waste and recycling audit, recycling receptacle options and recommendations for the three business districts. BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC RECYCLING: Benefits: ¯Reinforcement of the recycling message by allowing people to recycle in business districts as they do at home or work. ¯Increased awareness of the importance of recycling in the community. ¯Public perception and satisfaction with the increased availability of recycling. ¯Leading by example to illustrate the City’s commitment to help reduce waste sent to landfills. Challenges: Public perception of the availability of recycling must be weighed against the effectiveness of recovering recyclables, and the cost and service of receptacles. ¯Public trash receptacles are frequently visited by people collecting beverage containers to receive the CA Refund Value (CRV). Those people remove the beverage containers from the trash receptacles and take them to recycling centers. This activity reduces the amount of recycling in business district trash receptacles. ¯There was very little recycling found in the receptacles located in the downtown business district as compared to trash, based on a waste sort conducted of University Avenue trash and recycling receptacles. ¯Human behavior. Pedestrians traveling along sidewalks do not stop and ponder in what receptacle they should place their waste. They toss their item in the receptacle as they pass by. If someone has something to get rid of, they will look to the nearest receptacle. For effectiveness, access to recycling should equal that of trash and be consistent throughout the business district. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J. Page 1 of 18 The population being served in shopping areas includes visitors who may not be familiar with Palo Alto’s Recycling Program. Educational efforts to reach visitors would likely have limited success due to the difficulty of reaching this audience. Universally, recycling programs differentiate recycling and trash receptacles by color. Trash receptacles are typically black and recycling, blue. Often business districts have a prescribed aesthetic or design guidelines which do not allow for color-coding receptacles, therefore side-by-side recycling and trash receptacles are hardly distinguishable from one another which can contribute to ineffectiveness. In areas where side-by-side, color-coded receptacles are considered, review and approval by the Planning Department is required. Side-by-side receptacles require a larger footprint in already limited spaces. Pedestrian access to and from curbside parked cars can become a safety issue if they must walk in a traffic lane to access the sidewalk, the American Disabilities Act requirements may limit placement of containers and there are a myriad of other amenities sharing sidewalk space such as, newspaper racks, bike racks and public seating. Increased costs of service would be incurred by PASCO and PW crews for maintenance and service of any additional receptacles. PW staffing required would be beyond existing staff levels. Increased costs of adding receptacles versus maximizing existing processing of recyclables at the SMART Station, Sunnyvale must be considered. Trash collected from business district sidewalk trash receptacles is transported to the SMART Station for sorting and does not go directly to landfill. Glass, plastics and fiber (e.g., cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper) are recovered from the SMART Station sorting line and are credited to Palo Alto at a rate of 18% (by weight). CURRENT PUBLIC TRASH AND RECYCLING IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS UniversiW Avenue Business District: This is the area is bound by Alma Street, Webster Avenue, Lytton Avenue, and Hamilton Avenue. Receptacle inventory: trash receptacles- 99, recycling receptacles- 4. This business district underwent improvement in 1999. As part of this improvement, the Planning Department developed a Downtown Urban Design Guideline document that was approved by City Council. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) #19608 included the replacement of stone-type trash receptacles with metal receptacles along University Avenue. The remainder of the business district retained the existing stone-type receptacles. Recycling was not included in the 1999 CIP. Implementation of that CIP project included Phase 1 only and there are no plans to further implement the remaining phases of the CIP. In 2004, four recycling receptacles were placed in high pedestrian traffic areas on University Avenue as a pilot. The locations are 200 University Avenue (Emerson Street), 201 University Avenue (Emerson Street), 278 University Avenue (Bryant Street), and 403 University Avenue (Waverley Street). The recycling receptacles, with custom signage, were placed directly adjacent to existing trash receptacles (see photo below). Cost of the purchase of the four receptacles and custom signage was $6,181.00 and the annual cost of service by Palo Alto Sanitation Company is $1,300. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 2 of 18 University Avenue recyciing pilot paired trash and recycling receptacles placed in four locations on University Avenue. The service history of the four University Avenue recycling receptacles is noteworthy. Initially PASCO serviced the receptacles as recycling; however, from the onset of the pilot the amount of trash in the recycling receptacle was of an unacceptable level (greater than five percent). Approximately three weeks after their placement PASCO began servicing the recycling receptacles as trash and that has continued due to the amount of trash in the recycling receptacles. Due to the chronic contamination of the recycling with trash, no further plans were made. to expand the pilot. The pilot recycling receptacles remain in place. California Avenue Business District This is the area bound by E1 Camino Real, Birch Avenue, Cambridge Avenue, and Sherman Avenue. Container inventory: trash receptacles- 36, recycling receptacles- none. This area is targeted for improvement by PW Engineering (PWE). PWE applied for two separate capital ~grants to fund the California Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project. Both grants were declined. The alternative plan is for California Avenue streetscape improvements to occur in the fiscal year 06/07 and 07/08 as a capital improvement project (CIP). The budget for that project has earmarked money for street furniture, which includes garbage and recycling receptacles. If City Council approves the project and it is adopted into the CIP then the project could be constructed in the summer of 2008. Midtown Business District This is the area of Middlefield Road between approximately Colorado Avenue and Loma Verde. Receptacle inventory: trash receptacles- 7, recycling receptacles- none. This business district has undergone renewal in recent years with new and varied businesses moving in to the neighborhood. Many of the businesses in this area are tenants in multi-tenant retail complexes operated by property management companies. Currently, there are no plans for a PW CIP of this business district. WASTE SORT- WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING THROWN AWAY A waste sort was conducted September 18, 2006. The material collected was the accumulation of. waste and recycling from Saturday through Sunday and was sorted to determine what was being thrown away and recycled along University Avenue. The contents of 61 trash and 4 recycling receptacles located along University Avenue were collected and transported to a staging area at the Palo Alto Landfill for a waste sort. A PW Recycling Coordinator sorted and photographed the trash and recycling collected. The findings were as follows: Trash receptacle contents: Total volume collected was approximately 960 gallons. Estimated 95% trash, 5% recycling. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 3 of 18 o 95% trash (912 gallons): The contents of the trash receptacle consisted of plastic bags, household garbage, food take-out packaging (e.g., paper/plastic cups, polystyrene, paper wrappers) and odd items such as, a pair of pants and rubber padding. o 5% recycling (48 gallons): Recycling pulled from the garbage: bottles, cans, newspaper and newspaper inserts, and business’-related waste that should have been placed in their business recycling carts, such as, cardboard, hardback book sellers reference books, cardboard produce box, and "freebie" magazines/publications that businesses provide for their customers. Recycling receptacle Contents: Total volume was approximately 64 gallons. Estimated 25% recyclables, 75% trash. o 25% recyclables (16 gallons). The contents consisted of bottles, cans, newspaper and newspaper inserts. o 75% trash (48 gallons). Trash contaminating the recycling receptacle included food take-out packaging (e.g., paper/plastic cups, polystyrene, paper wrappers) and plastic shrink wrap that could be tracked to a University Avenue business. The conclusion is that there is very little recycling deposited in receptacles along University Avenue. Out of the total 1,0241 gallons of trash and recycling collected, only 6%2 (64 gallons) were recyclable. The actual-amount of recycling that was placed in a recycling receptacle was only 2%3 (16 gallons) of the total amount of trash and recycling collected. Also, University Avenue tenants and patrons were using the garbage and recycling receptacles interchangeably, as illustrated by the amount of trash found in the recycling receptacles. Additionally, people interested in CRV beverage containers remove recyclables from the trash. This activity has been observed in all three business districts and ultimately reduces the amount of recycling in the trash. RECEPTACLE OPTIONS The following section provides visual examples of existing trash receptacles, potential retrofit options, and combination trash/recycling receptacles for future consideration. TABLE-I, TABLE-2, and TABLE-3 in this section provide information on existing and potential receptacle options for the three business districts. Receptacle costs are approximate and do not include freight or tax. An option that is not listed for any of the business districts was that of contracting with a private vendor that would place combination trash/recycling receptacles on sidewalks and provide maintenance in exchange for placing advertising on the receptacles. Advertising by private vendors in the public right-of-way was considered a few years ago when the automatic public toilets were installed downtown. As a result of that previous research, that option was not presented. The option was thought to be too controversial and control of advertising content 1 1,024 gallons = the total amount of trash and recycling collected from University Avenue receptacles. 2 64/1024 = 6%; 64 gallons = total amount of recycling pulled from trash and recycling combined (48 gallons from trash receptacle + 18 gallons from recycling receptacle).3 16/1024 =2%. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 4 of 18 would involve a significant amount of time from the City Attorney’s office and create challenges to the enforcement of the City sign ordinance. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 5 of 18 RECEPTACLES Existing Business District Receptacles Stone Can Victor Stanley Note: Stone cans are used in the areas of Downtown, Midtown, and California Avenue business districts. Victor Stanley receptacles are located along University Avenue only. Receptacle Retrofit Examples Custom Stone Can Retrofit (Eco-Pop) Note on Victor Stanley receptacle. No retrofit currently available for existing Victor Stanley receptacle. A custom retrofit would have to be side mount because receptacle in serviced from the top. Combination Trash/Recycling Receptacles Examples DuMor Forms & Surfaces Victor Stanley April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 6 of 18 o0 0o oo 0 O0 oh 0 ©< 1.Receptacle Selection In general, the recommendation is to move to combination trash/recycling receptacles in all business districts/public areas and can be achieved by retrofitting existing receptacles, replacing existing receptacles with new combination trash!recycling receptacles or purchasing this type of receptacle when new receptacles are located in public areas. Replacement of trash receptacles with combination trash!recycling receptacles is preferred over retrofits because they would have a better appearance. Neither the Victor Stanley trash receptacle nor stone can receptacle original manufacturers offer a standard retrofit, so they would have to be designed and fabricated custom. Other communities, such as San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley and Santa Barbara are just a few of the cities in California that utilize the combination trash/recycling receptacles and find them to be the most effective and practical method in business districts. However, there are budget impacts associated with the receptacle purchase or receptacle retrofits. For University Avenue and Midtown Business Districts, the cost of replacing existing trash receptacles that are in good condition outweigh the benefit of the small quantity of recyclables that can be expected to be recovered for recycling at the receptacle rather than at the SMART- Station, so the additional cost is not warranted. The California Avenue Business District has the opportunity to provide access to recycling as a result of the pending CIP and should provide funding for the purchase and installation of combination trash/recycling receptacles. There are also design issues that impact the ability to retrofit existing receptacles. Both the Victor Stanley and stone cans are serviced from the top. This creates a challenge because retrofits are usually located on top of the existing receptacle, which may interfere with the ability to service the receptacle. For either receptacle, a custom retrofit would need to be designed and fabricated as a side attachment or top-fitting. These challenges support the move to combination trash/recycle receptacles when replacing or purchasing new. Public Works Refuse will explore grant opportunities for the purchase of combination trash/recycling receptacles through the California Department of Conservation. The combination trash/recycling receptacle: Eliminates the costs to purchase additional recycle-only receptacles, the cost of PASCO collection services, and the increased PW maintenance services. When PASCO or PW services the trash portion of the receptacle and finds the recycling portion full, there is a spring loaded door that could be activated allowing the recycling to fall into the trash receptacle, which would then be transported to the SMART Station for sorting. Eliminates additional maintenance and service time by PW crews to maneuver sidewalk sweeping equipment and to provide additional service to receptacles on days not serviced by PASCO. Costs slightly more than trash-only receptacles and less than two receptacles placed side- by-side for trash and recycling. ¯Eliminates the large footprint needed for side-by-side receptacles. ¯Is serviced from the side of the receptacle eliminating the lifting motion needed to remove the trash can liner at time of service. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 12 of 18 Is slightly taller than the trash-only receptacle due to its dual function so receptacle placement should be made with business storefront visibility in mind. Is designed so that people collecting beverage containers for their CRV remove the beverage containers from the top (recycling portion) of the combination receptacle. Allows people that collect beverage containers for their CRV access to the material and reduces sorting through the trash, which creates litter and unsightly messes on sidewalks in the business district that require maintenance and clean-up. Information collected from various cities indicate that the combination trash/recycling receptacles are the best approach to recycling for pedestrians in business districts. The combination trash/recycle receptacles provide the visibility and awareness for recycling. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting -Attachment J Page 13 of 18 University Avenue Business District: Recommend Options D, F, G and I (TABLE-1) Option D Description: Apply for California Department of Conservation Beverage Container Recycling Grant. If grant monies awarded, place combination trash/recycling receptacle in every location (current qty. 99). Replacement to be completed in phases as grant monies allow. Cost of Receptacles: Covered by grant. Cost of Service: No additional cost of service beyond that of the trash service. Option F Description: Encourage businesses in the business districts, especially those that provide casual seating (e.g., coffee shops, casual dining), to provide recycling receptacles within their establishments for use by their customers for recyclables typically generated in that setting (e.g., bottles, cans, newspaper). This outreach effortis part of the existing budget and work load of a PW Recycling Coordinator. Cost of Receptacles: None. Cost, if any, is borne by private sector. The Department of Conservation offers internal receptacles at no charge to businesses at www.bottlesandcans.com Cost of Service: None. Business transfers internal recycling to city-provided single stream wheeled cart. Recycling is included in current Refuse Rate at no additional cost for the first five carts. Option G Description: Keep current receptacles and continue to use SMART Station to recover recyclables. Currently there is no budget to replace existing trash receptacles. Works Refuse will apply for a grant from the California Department of Conservation, beginning their grant cycle of 2007/2008. Cost of Receptacles: Not applicable. Cost of Service: No additional cost of service beyond that of the existing trash service Option I Description: Any future receptacle purchases, such as replacements or expansion of receptacle locations, should be the combination trash/recycling receptacle manufactured by Victor Stanley to match the style of the existing receptacles on University Avenue. This receptacle choice would be consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Cost of receptacle: $1,110 ea Cost of Service: No additional cost of service beyond that of the trash service. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 14 of 18 This business district was improved in a 1999 CIP. The 1999 improvements implemented Phase 1 which included University Avenue only, as funding to expand the design to Hamilton and Lytton Avenues was not available. There are no plans to implement the remaining phases of that CIP. If other phases of the CIP are implemented, they should include trash!recycling combination receptacles instead of the trash-only receptacles. California Avenue Business District: Recommend Options B, E, H (TABLE-2) Option B, H Description: Place combination trash/recycling receptacles in every current and future location (currently qty. 36). Cost of Receptacles: $39,600, $1,100 ea. respectively Cost of Service: No additional cost of service beyond that of the existing trash service currently provided by PASCO. Costs should be covered under the CIP budget for California Avenue Street Improvement Project if Council approves project. Option E Description: Encourage businesses in the business districts, especially those that provide casual seating (e.g., coffee shops, casual dining), to provide recycling receptacles within their establishments for use by their customers for recyclables typically generated in that setting (e.g., bottles, cans, newspaper). This outreach effort is part of the existing budget and work load of a PW Recycling Coordinator. Cost of Receptacles: None. Cost, if any, is borne by private sector. The Department of Conservation offers internal receptacles at no charge to businesses at www.bottlesandcans.com Cost of Service: None. Business transfers internal recycling to city-provided single stream wheeled cart. Recycling is included in current Refuse Rate at no additional cost for the first five carts. Midtown Business District - Recommend Options B, C, D and E (TABLE-3) Option B Description: Property management of shopping centers or businesses within the shopping center provides adjacent and equal access to public recycling in pedestrian areas just as they do for trash. Cost of Receptacles: None. Cost is borne by private sector Cost of Service: None. Cost is borne by private sector April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 15 of 18 The primary pedestrian traffic in the Midtown Business District occurs within the private shopping areas, not on public sidewalks, because the businesses are set back from the sidewalk. These pedestrian areas would be best served by receptacles in the private areas, similarly to how those private businesses provide trash receptacles to their patrons. While this option is recommended, there is no mandatory requirement for the shopping centers to provide recycling. A Recycling Coordinator will contact the shopping center management and tenants to request they provide recycling receptacles for their customers. Option C Description: Encourage businesses in the business districts, especially those that provide casual seating (e.g., coffee shops, casual dining), to provide recycling receptacles within their establishments for use by their customers for recyclables typically generated in that setting (e.g., bottles, cans, newspaper). This outreach effort is part of the existing budget and work load of a PW Recycling Coordinator. Cost of Receptacles: None. Cost, if any, is borne by private sector. The Department of Conservation offers internal receptacles at no charge to businesses at www.bottlesandcans.com Cost of Service: None. Business transfers internal recycling to city-provided single stream wheeled cart. Recycling is included in current Refuse Rate at no additional cost for the first five carts. Option D Description: Keep current receptacles and continue to use SMART Station to recover recyclables. Currently there is no budget to replace existing trash receptacles. Cost of Receptacles: Not Applicable. Cost of Service: Cost of Service: No additional cost of service beyond that of the existing trash service Option E Description: Apply for California Department of Conservation Beverage Container Recycling Grant. If grant monies awarded, place combination trash!recycling receptacle in every location (current qty. 7). Replacement to be completed in phases as grant monies allow. o Cost of Receptacles: Covered by grant. Cost of Service: No additional cost of service beyond that of the trash service. Outreach and Education Education and outreach for public recycling would be part of a broader communications plan for the City’s Zero Waste efforts. Recycling outreach is currently targeted for work, home April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 16 of 18 t and play, so a message targeting for "recycling where you shop" could be added. Targeting outreach to visitors would be difficult due to the limited methods of reaching this audience. Collaboration with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and local business associations would be the most effective way of reaching visitors to the business districts. The following efforts will be considered by the Recycling Program to promote recycling in businessdistricts. Applicability varies depending on the whether recycling receptacles are installed. Funding would be available under the existing Recycling Program budget and costs would be dependent on the type of education and outreach developed. It is likely that content of existing outreach created by the Recycling Program for residents could be modified or expanded at no additional Cost. Collaborate with the Palo Alto Chamber and business associations in the business districts on marketing and advertising materials that they currently produce that promote patronizing the business district. ¯Collaborate with the Palo Alto Chamber on their "Palo Alto Business Goes Green" Initiative, providing information to Palo Alto businesses on how they can improve access to recycling for their patrons. ¯Include a "recycle where you shop" message using existing planned outreach and education tools such as, utility bill inserts to residents, City web site, City newsletters, and Frank’s Weekly memo. Ordinance/Mandate Recommend, as part of the proposed Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZW Plan) implementation, that in the future Council consider a City ordinance or other measure that goes beyond addressing recycling in business districts alone and that recycling become mandatory in Palo Alto. This recommendation is consistent with those in the 2006 proposed ZW Plan. It is suggested that all residents and business have recycling services and that the public be effectively provided with equivalent access to trash and recycling. Public refers to people in shared areas on both public and private property, ranging from pathways on corporate business campuses, to indoor/outdoor food courts, parks and more. An ordinance/measure would ensure consistency of access throughout the community so that it becomes the standard, not the exception to have access to recycling. some jurisdictions have initiated mandatory recycling to various degrees, as stated in the ZW Plan. The Waste Characterization Study completed for the ZW Plan indicates that citywide, the following recyclable items are still being placed in the trash instead of utilizing existing curbside residential and commercial collection programs. 12,301 tons Paper (includes cardboard) 1,304 tons Plastic containers 1,079 tons Glass containers 512 tons Metal cans It is also recommended the mandate address all public and private development projects and that applications submitted to the Planning Department include, by notation on the plan set, information as to how the occupants or customers are able to avail themselves to all recycling April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment J Page 17 of 18 and solid waste services (e.g., shopping center lounge areas/food courts, pedestrian areas, common areas of corporate campuses). This is not currently required and this type of requirement at the planning stage should become a requirement prior to an entitlement to build or issuance of permit. This level of planning is needed at the design level to ensure the developments infrastructure needs for participating in solid waste and recycling services will be met and sustained. The City of Chula Vista requires a plan similar to the one described above. Currently, the ability of the community to. avail themselves to recycling services is not being provided on a voluntary basis. Since recycling is not being made equally accessible to trash, mandatory measures are needed. This mandatory measure is consistent with the City’s sustainability, zero waste, and greenhouse gas reduction goals An ordinance/measure would: Be a collaborative effort by the Planning and PW Departments, as well as, other applicable departments and Palo Alto business and residential stakeholder groups. Require trash receptacles be paired with recycling receptacles or combination trash/recycling receptacle be placed in all public/shared access areas (public and private) where a trash receptacle would be located whether on public or private property. The type of receptacle placement, paired or combination, would be dependent upon the need of that location. For example, a shopping center lounge area/food court generating a high volume of recyclables may have a have a different need than a receptacle placed adjacent to bench along a walking path connecting two buildings. Consider a phase-in approach, allowing for educational opportunities prior to enforcement. For development applications phase-in existing locations not currently providing equal access to recycling, and require any new or renovation project to fully comply. Consider the effect on other streetscape amenities such as public seating, bike racks, news racks, and pedestrian access to and from curbside parked cars. Consider implementation and budget implications and staffing requirements. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting -Attachment J Page 18 of 18 Attachment K: Composfing Plant Materials in Commercial and Business Districts This report has been prepared in response to the April 17, 2006, Council Colleagues Memo entitled Environmental Initiatives. It studies the feasibility of developing a more extensive and inviting yard trimmings collection program for businesses and commercial districts comparable to that in existence for residential areas. This report will review the current yard trimmings collection program for the commercial sector, the waste characterization data derived floom the May 2006 Waste Composition Final Report, options for program expansion and staff recommendations. Current Commercial Yard Trimmings Collection Program Yard trimmings collection is currently available to the commercial sector through either cmobside wheeled carts or debris boxes. Curbside cart collection is available on a case-by-case basis to the commercial sector. The determining factor is that the commercial customer has to be within an existing residential yard trimmings collection route. Yard trimmings collection carts have weekly collection. The carts must be set out at the curb by 6:00am on collection day. This service is offered at no additional charge to the business. There are currently 42 commercial customers that have yard trimmings cart collection service. Debris boxes are available for yard ta°immings collection from any business that would like to have one. There is a fee for the debris box service, but it is significantly less than comparable garbage debris box service. There are currently 6 commercial customers receiving this service. Waste Composition Study In 2005, the City of Palo Alto commissioned a waste composition study to understand the existing waste stream and to identify additional waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composfing opportunities. The Waste Composition Study found that 38% (13,1 O0 tons) of Palo Alto’s commercial sector waste is comprised of compostable waste. The majority of this material is food waste which represents 22.4% (7,758 tons) of the waste stream and compostable paper which represents 12.5% (4,326 tons), which are not allowed in the cmorent yard trimmings collection program. Approximately 2.6% (910 tons) of the Palo Alto waste stream can be attributed to currently accepted items - i.e., leaves, grass, prunings and trimmings. Program Expansion Options The following options were explored to determine the feasibility of creating a more extensive and inviting yard trimmings collection program for the commercial sector. Option 1 -Create a new commercial yard trimmings collection route A minimum of 75 to 100 stops per day (roughly 375 - 500 stops per week) are required to create an efficient yard trimmings collection route. The estimated cost of a new route is $290,000.00 for the first year and $90,000 per year thereafter (Truck = $200,000.00 Driver & Benefits = $90,000.00). Option 2 -Expand the existing routes to include [lorists and nurseries The thirteen Palo Alto florists and nurseries that are not located within a yard trimmings collection route would be given weekly yard trimmings collection April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting - Attachment K Page 1 of 2 service. The Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) would incorporate them into the yard trimmings collection route closest to their location. Therefore, the collection truck will detour off the set route to include the business. The businesses would be allowed up to 3 carts for no rental fee (subsequent carts would incur rental charges). This expansion option is for a limited number of businesses because the current yard trimmings collection routes would be negatively impacted by numerous detours and increased material collection if the option were opened up to all Palo Alto businesses. Florists and nurseries were chosen because by the nature of their business they create materials that are accepted in the yard trimmings collection program. This service will cost $62.37* per business per month. If all the businesses accept the service the total cost of this expansion would be approximately $9,700.00 annually. The $62.37 rate is the special labor charge in the adopted refuse rates. PASCO can only charge according to those approved rates. The program would absorb the cost and not charge these businesses because it would create an inequality of service between the businesses that happen to be located within a current route (who are not charged for cart service) and the ones located outside. * This charge would change with any Council approved refuse rate increases. Option 3 -Implement organics collection for the commercial sector v~th the new collection services agreement Organics collection (food waste, compostable paper and yard trimmings) for the commercial sector will be included in the scope of services for the new collection services agreement. Recommendations The creation of a new yard trimmings collection route would generate a minimal amount of additional diversion for the City since the Waste Composition Study found that only 2.6% of the commercial waste stream is material accepted by the current yard trimmings collection program. It is staff’s opinion that a new collection route would not be cost effective. Expanding the current yard trimmings collection routes to florists and nmoseries could be helpful to the chosen businesses. The diversion increase for the City, however, would be minimal. Staff recommends implementing Option 2 as a pilot program which would allow staff to evaluate the viability of this as a permanent program by comparing the actual costs to the actual material collected. Staff also recommends Option 3, implementing an organics collection program for the commercial sector with the new collection services agreement. An organics program would target the majority of the compostable waste stream, include all of the businesses within the City and be more efficient and cost effective than a yard trimmings only program. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting- Attachment K Page 2 of 2