HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 273-07TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
11
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 18, 2007 CMR: 273:07
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.76 AND
18.77 OF TITLE 18 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO
CONFORM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND VIDEO COMPETITION ACT OF 2006
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Plamaing and Transportation Commission recommend that the Council adopt an
ordinance amending Chapter 18.76 and 18.77 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
conform the Architectural Review Process to the requirements of the California Digital
Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 2987, the
Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA). The purpose of DIVCA
was to create a streamlined process for the granting of video service franchises in an effort to
foster the rollout of technology, encourage competition, and expand customer choice. This new
law permanently changes the franchising and regulatory structure for the provision of cable
television and other video services in California. Under DIVCA, video service franchises are
now- granted exclusively by the California Public Utilities Conmaission (Commission) rather than
by local franchising entities. Although the City will no longer be the franchising authority, it
will acquire certain rights and responsibilities under DIVCA with respect to any holder of a state
franchise.
DISCUSSION
Under DIVCA, a holder of a state franchise is subject to local encroactmaent permit requirements
and the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) when installing, constructing, and
maintaining facilities in the public rights-of-way. DIVCA requires the City to act on completed
encroachment permit applications within 60 days of filing. An application is complete when the
applicant has complied with all statutory requirements including CEQA. This requires the City
to approve or deny permit applications for both architectural review and street work permits
within this 60-day limit unless extended by mutual agreement. DIVCA also requires the City to
CMR: 273:07 Page 1 of 3
provide applicants with an appeal process to the Council for any adverse initial decisions on
permit applications. Staff has modified its development review and street work permit
application process to ensure it complies with this new 60-day rule.
On April 9, 2007 Council approved amendments and additions to several chapters of Title 2
(Administrative Code) and Title 12 (Public Works and Utilities Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to make it consistent with DIVCA (CMR: 171:07). The changes to Title 2 cover the City’s
ability to regulate the use of the public rights-of-way by video service providers that hold
franchises issued by the Commission. Among other things, the Title 2 changes include the
establishment of a franchise fee and Public, Educational, and Government Access fee
requirement for state franchise holders. The Title 12 changes conform the City’s permitting and
public rights-of-way provisions to the requirements of DIVCA. The Title 12 changes include the
requirement to approve or deny encroachment permits within 60-days and the right of appeal to
Council.
The proposed amendments to Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 conform the Architectural Review
Process to the requirements of DIVCA. The changes codify staff’s approach of requiring minor
architectural review for above ground facilities proposed by video service providers.
Within the past three months, staff has approved two applications for minor architectural review
filed by a state franchise holder (AT&T) for the installation of utility cabinets within the public
right-of-way. In processing these applications for minor architectural review, staff has required
review by a landscape architectural consultant and the Public Works Managing Arborist to
ensure that each proposed cabinet location is placed in a location with the least impact on street
trees and visual quality of a neighborhood. Staff has conditioned the approvals to require the
applicant to provide notice and more recently, staff has begun providing courtesy notices to
neighbors. Staff finds that the minor architectural review process has been an effective method of
reviewing such proposed facilities.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 3, 2007 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the proposed DIVCA
amendments to Title 18. With the understanding it had no purview to recommend alternatives to
the proposed ordinance, the ARB declined to recommend the ordinance but did unanimously
recommend that staff explore the idea of placing telecommunications cabinets underground
when possible and report back to the Board. On May 9, 2007, the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) reviewed the proposed DIVCA amendments along with two statements
adding sustainability items to the same zoning ordinance chapters. Staff decided to bring the
DIVCA and sustainability changes to the Council for approval as two separate items. The PTC
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the DIVCA ordinance. As part of its
recommendation, the PTC requested staff to provide an annual list of ARB-approved cabinets for
holders of state franchises. This would give the PTC an opportunity to modify the ARB process
and criteria for granting approval of the proposed facilities if needed. Staff agreed to provide
this information to the PTC on an annual basis.
CMR: 273:07 Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY:
MELISSA CAVALLO
Cable Coordinator
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CARL YEATS
Director,Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMIL HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Ordinance
Attactvnent B: PTC Staff Report
Attact~’nent C: Excerpt of PTC Minutes
CMR: 273:07 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
***NOT YET APPROVED***
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING SECTION18.76.020 OF CHAPTER 18.76
AND SECTIONS 18.77.020,18.77.060 AND 18.77.070 OF
CHAPTER 18.77 OF TITLE 18 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORMTHE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE TO THE CALIFORNIA DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND VIDEO COMPETITION ACT OF
2006
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.76.020 of Chapter 18.76 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read, as follows:
"18.76.020 Architectural Review
(a) Purpose.
The purpose of architectural review is to:
(1)Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
(2)Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city;
(3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and
improvements;
(4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in
adjacent areas; and
(5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and
variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of/ each other.
(b) Applicability
No permit required under Title 2, Title 12 or Title 16 (~:i~di~g Regu~afi~n~q-shall be
issued for a major or minor project, as set forth in this section, unless an application for
/’.:~e~=~eet~ra~~mrchitectural review is reviewed, acted upon, and approved or approved
with conditions as set forth in Section 18,77.070.
(1) Exempt Projects
Single-family and two-family residences do not require architectural review,
except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D).
(2) Major Projects
070611jb 0072850
***NOT YET APPROVED***
The following are "major projects" for the purposes of the Are>.5::ee’~’ e:.~
~<s-sarchitectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, and are subject to
review by the architectural review board:
(A)New construction, including private and public projects, that:
(i)Includes a new building or building addition of five thousand
square feet or more; or
(ii) Is not exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (di-,:isi,9:~ i-gSection 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources
Code, zv:’~:7..:eazic_g "::itS: ~90~); or
(iii) Requires one or more variances or use permits and, in the
judgment of the director, will have a significant effect upon the aesthetic character
of the city or the surrounding area;
(13) Any multiple-family residential construction project that contains
three or more units;
(c)
duplexes;
Construction of three or more adjacent single-family homes or
(D) In the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP),
properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified,
except when one of those units is a "second dwelling unit", as described in
Section 18.30.040(d);
(E) Any project using transferred development rights, as described in
Chapter 18.87;
(F)A master sign program, pursuant to Chapter !6.20;
(G)Signs that do not meet all applicable design guidelines adopted by
the city council or do not conform to a previously approved master sign program;
(H)Signs requiring a sign exception pursuant to Chapter. 16.20;
(I)Any minor project, as defined in subsection (3), that the director
determines will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site.
(3)Minor Projects.
The following are "minor projects" for the purposes of the
~architecturaI review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, except when
determined to be major pursuant to subsection (2)(I):
(A) New construction, including private and public projects, that
involves a new building or building addition of fewer than 5,000 square feet, and
which is exempt under the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA)
(division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 21000);
(B) Signs that meet all applicable guidelines and conform to any
previously approved master sign program;
070611jb 0072850
2
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(C) Landscape plans, fences, exterior remodeling, and design of
parking areas, when not part of a major project;
(D) Any project relating to the instaiIation of cabinets containing
communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to
Chapter 2.11.. Chapter l")_.0a,, Chapter 12.08.. Chapter 1"~..09, Chapter 12.10.~ or
Chapter ! 2.13.
(i)
(ii)
Minor changes to the following:
Plans that have previously received architectural review approval;
Previously approved plmmed community district development
plans;
(iii)Plans that have previously received site and design approval;
(iv)Previously approved plans for projects requiring
~...~:-2ilCouncil approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion,
action or uncodified ordinance;
(v) Existing structures requiring g~4: cca.:~ei!Council site and design
approval or approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion,
action, or uncodified ordinance.
As used in this subsection, the term "minor" means a change that is of little visual
significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved
improvements, is not proposed for the use of the land in question, and does not alter the
character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes
would result in a major change, a new application for Architectural Review approval of a
major project, Site and Design approval, Planned Community District approval, or other
applicable approval is required.
(E) Any changes to previously approved plans requiring architectural
review- as a minor project as part of the conditions of a permit or approval.
(c) Preliminary Review
For the purpose of securing the advice of the architectural review board prior to making
an application for the board’s recommendation on a project, an applicant, upon paying a
preliminary application fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule, may bring a design before
the board for preliminary review. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the project, he or she
must then file an application and pay a regular application fee. The comments of the architectural
review- board members during a preliminary review shall not be binding on their forma!
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
070611 jb 0072850
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(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;
(11)
project;
Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the
(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 design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design
elements including, but not limited to:
(A)Exterior energy design elements;
(B)Internal lighting service and climatic control systems; and
(C)Building siting and landscape elements;
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural
review as set forth in subsection (a).
(e)Conditions
07061lib 0072850
4
***NOT YET APPROVED***
In granting architectural review approval, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be
imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience, to secure the purposes of this title, and to:
(1)
(2)
surroundings;
(3)
Promote the internal integrity of the design of the project;
Assure compatibility of the proposed project’s design with its site and
Minimize the environmental effects of the proposed project; provided,
however, that the architectural review board’s sole responsibility with respect to the
storage of hazardous materials is to require compliance with Title 17 (Hazardous
Materials Storage);
(4) Sufficiently inform the public of the design and !ocation of the project.
(f) Application Review and Action
Applications for Architectural Review shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in
Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process)."
SECTION 2. Section 18.77.020 of Chapter 18.77 of Title 18 of the Pa!o Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read, as follows:
"18.77.020 Applications
(a)Filing of application and application contents
Al! 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)
(~A~ion 12-Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources
) and the Digital infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006,
Assembly bill 2987 (Ch. 700, Stats. 2006) (DIVCA), and city compliance with the
Political Reform Act (~Title 9 of the Govermnent Code, ~’i
z~c:~A~aSection 81000 et seq.);
(2)The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;
(3)The Palo Alto Municipal Code; and
(4)This title (Zoning).
(b) Signature of applications
A separate application shall be filed for each site, and each application shall be signed
by:
(1) Al! owners of the rea! property included in the site or sites; or
070611jb 0072850
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(2) A purchaser of the real property included in the site or sites, when acting
pursuant to a contract in writing duly executed and acknowledged by both the buyer and
the owner of record; or
(3) A lessee in possession of the real property included in the site or sites,
when acting with the written consent of the owner of record; or
(4) An agent of the owner of record of the real property included in the site or
sites, when duly authorized by the owner in writing.
(c) Receipt of application
No application shall be deemed received until the following have been provided:
(1) All fees for the application as set forth in the schedule of fees established
by resolution of the city council have been paid; and
(2) All documents specified as part of the application in this chapter or on the
application form have been filed.
(d) Resubmittal of applications
If an application is denied, the director or city council may specify" that a substantially
similar application may not be accepted within 12 months prior to the date of such denial,
unless it is shown that the circumstances surrounding the application have changed
substantially."
SECTION 3. Section 18.77.060 of Chapter 18.77 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read, as follows:
"18.77.060 Standard Staff Revie~v Process
(a) Applications Subject to Standard Staff Review Process
The following applications are subject to the review process set forth in this section:
(1) Variances, conditional use permits, neighborhood preservation exceptions;
and
(2) Other permits and approvals for which such review process is required by
the provisions of~Tit!e 2, Title 12 or Title 18.
(b) Notice of application completeness
Once an application is deemed complete, notice that the application has been filed and
deemed complete shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600
feet of the property, by publication, by e-mail, and by posting in a public place. The
notice shall include the address of the property and a brief description of the proposed
project.
(c) Decision by the director
Not less than twenty-one days following the date an application is deemed complete:
07061ljb 0072850
6
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(1) The director shall prepare a proposed written decision to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the application.
(2) Notice of the proposed director’s decision shall be given by mail to
owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by
e-mail, and by posting in a public place. The notice shall include the address of the
property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description of the proposed
director’s decision, the date the decision will be final if no hearing is requested, and a
description of how to request a hearing.
(3) The proposed director’s decision shall become final fourteen days after the
date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is
filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting
a hearing at the time he or she issued the proposed decisions.
(4) Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing of the planning
and transportation commission on the proposed director’s decision by filing a wTitten
request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a
hearing.
(d)Withdrawal of Hearing Request
(1) At any time prior to the hearing, the applicant and the person or persons
requesting a hearing may meet to discuss ways to address the concerns with the
application. The applicant may then modify the application to address such concerns.
With the consent of the applicant and the person or persons requesting a hearing, the
director may issue a revised proposed decision. The revised proposed decision shall
identify the modifications made to the previously issued decision. Upon the issuance of a
revised proposed decision by the director, the person or persons requesting a hearing
shall withdraw such request.
(2) Notice of the proposed director’s decision shall be given by mail to
owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by
e-mail, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property,
a brief description of the proposed project, the specific modifications made to the
application, the date the decision will be final, a description of how- to request a hearing,
and a statement that any request for a hearing on the revised decision is limited to those
modifications.
(3) The revised proposed director’s decision shall become final fourteen days
after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a
hearing is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for
requesting a hearing at the time he or she issues the proposed decision.
(e) Hearing and Recommendation (upon request) by the Planning and Transportation
Commission
(1) Within 45 days following the filing of a timely hearing request of a
proposed director’s decision or revised proposed director’s decision the planning and
transportation commission shall hold a hearing on the application, unless the request is
withdrawn as described above.
7
070611 jb 0072850
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(2) Notice of the revised director’s decision shall be given by mail to owners
and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e-mail, and
by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief
description of the proposed project, and the date, time and location of the hearing.
(3) Following the hearing, the planning and transportation commission shall
make a recommendation on the application, which shall be forwarded to the city council.
(f) Decision by the ~Counci!
The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the application
shall be placed on the consent calendar of the ~.D~ coundiCouncil within 30 days. The ~,;
,:outed ~_Council may:
(1) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the planning and transportation
commission; or
(2) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall
require three votes, and:
(A) Discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the
application based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the planning and
transportation commission; or
(B) Direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the city
council, fol!owing which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on
the application.
(g) Final Decision by the~-:-’-.~ ~- zoar:ci!_~ , Fiaa4Council
The decision of the ~~Counci! is final."
SECTION 4. Section 18.77.070 of Chapter 18.77 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read, as follows:
"18.77.070 Architectural Review Process
(a) Applications Subject to Architectural Review Process
The following applications are subject to the review processes set forth in this section:
(1) Any major or minor project requiring architectural review approval, as set
forth in Section t 8.76.020 (Architectural Review-);
(2)Any project requiring a design enhancement exception; and
(3)Other permits and approvals for which such review process is required by
the provisions of~Title 2, Tide 12 or Title 18.
(b) Tentative director’s Decision and Hearing Upon Request for Minor Projects
0706tljb 0072850
***NOT YET APPROVED***
For a minor project, as defined in Section 18.76.020(b)(3), once the application is
deemed complete:
(1) The director shall prepare a proposed written decision to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the application.
(2) Notice of the proposed director’s decision shall be given by publication.
The notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed
project, a brief description of the proposed director’s decision, the date the decision will
be final if no hearing is requested, and a description of how to request a hearing.
(3) The proposed director’s decision shall become final ~a~.~:14 days after
the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is
filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in ~ting a longer period for requesting
a hearing at the time he or she issues the proposed decision.
(4) Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
architectural review board on the proposed director’s decision by filing a written request
with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing.
(c)
Request
Hearing and Recommendation for Major Projects, and for Minor Projects Upon
(1) Upon receipt of a completed application for a major project (as defined in
Section 18.76.020(b)(2)), or upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing for a minor
project (as defined in Section 18.76.020(b)(3)), the architectural review board shall set a
hearing date to review the application.
(2) Notice of the hearing shall be given at least ! 0 days prior to the hearing by
publication in a local newspaper, by posting in a public place, and by mailing to the
applicant, the hearing requestor, if applicable, and all residents and owners of property
within 600 feet of the project. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief
description of the proposed project, and the date and time of the hearing.
(3) Following the hearing, the architectural review board shall make a
recommendation on the application, which shall be forwarded to the director.
(d) Decision by the director
Upon receipt of a recommendation of the architectural review-board:
(1) Within ~3 days, the director shall prepare a written decision to approve
the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it.
(2) Notice of the director’s decision shall be given by mailing to owners and
residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication once in a local
newspaper, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the
property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description of the action to be
taken, the date the decision will be final, and a description of how to request a hearing.
(3) The director’s decision shall become final ~~14 days after the date
notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless an appeal is filed. The director
07061tjb 0072850
9
***NOT YET APPROVED***
may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a hearing at the
time he or she issues the proposed decision.
(4) If the architectural review board continues a minor project more than once,
or a major project more than twice, the director may make a decision on the application
prior to receiving the final recommendation of the board.
(e) Appeal of the director’s Decision - Filing
Any party, including the applicant, may file an appeal of the director’s decision with the
planning division. The appeal shall be filed in written form in a manner prescribed by the
director.
(f)Decision by the city council
The appeal of the director’s decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city
council within 30 days. The city council may:
(1)Adopt the findings and decision of the director; or
(2)Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three
votes, and:
(A) Discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the
appeal based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the architectural
review board; or
(B) Direct that the appeal be set for a new- hearing before the city
council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on
the application.
(g) Final Decision by the Council
The decision of the .ci:;: couaciiCouncii on the appeal is final."
SECTION 5. If any section of this ordinance, or part hereo~ is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable or enforceable, such section,
or part hereof,, shall be deemed severable from the remaining sections of this ordinance and shall
in no way affect the validity of the remaining sections hereof.
SECTION 6. The Council hereby finds that this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there
is no possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption of this
ordinance.
//
//
0706tljb 0072850
10
***NOT YET APPROVED***
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Director of Planning and Community
Enviromnent
070611jb 0072850
11
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING & T NSPORTA TION
D V SION
STAFF ~EPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Amy French
Manager of Current Planning
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2007
SUBJECT:Review recommendation of amendments to PaiD Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Zoning Code, Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 as follows:
(1) Amend Section 18.76.020 (d) Findings, (15), to provide a
sustainability finding similar to that found in Section
18.16.090(b)(8) for Commercial District Context-Based Design
Considerations and Findings;
(2) Amend Section 18.77.020 Applications (a) Filing of
application and application contents, to add item (5) ’Counci!
adopted Sustainability Policies’
(3) Amend both chapters to update the architectural review process
to conform to the requirements of the California Digital
Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that
the City Council approve amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Zoning Code,
Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 set forth in Attachment A.
GREEN BUILDING SUMMARY AND ISSUES:
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has recommended the changes to Chapter 18.76, Section
18.76.020, Architectural Review, subsection (d) Findings, and Chapter 18.77, Section 18.77.020
(Applications) as reflected in the attached ordinance (Attachment A). The P&TC is requested to
recommend the proposed ordinance changes.
The anaended wording for Finding # 15 (of Section 18.76.020) was recommended by the ARB on
April 19, 2007. The Council received the modified Finding #15 along with a table indicating the
City of Palo Alto Page 1
ARB’s proposal for a Green Building program (Attachment B) prior to the Council’s April 23.
2007 consideration of the City’s sustainability programs and policies.
Also provided to Council was the proposed Section 18.77.020 addition of "Council Adopted
Sustainability Policies’ to the criteria for reviewing applications. The proposed amen&nent,
reviewed and recommended by the ARB on February 15, 2007, was presented at the
ARB/Council joint meeting April 3, 2007. At the joint meeting, it was noted that this code
revision would allow the Director to require sustainabitity 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.
At their April 23, 2007 meeting, the Council did not discuss the proposed changes to Chapters
18.76 and 18.77, since these changes would be forwarded to them after P&TC review. The
Com~cil also did not discuss or provide direction regarding the ARB-recommended Green
Building program. The Council approved staff s recommendation to direct staff to continue
exploring programs for incentives and requirements related to green building policies for the
construction of commercia! and residential private projects. The Council had been made aware
at their joint meeting with the ARB that construction of city buildings having 10,000 square feet
or more of floor area is currently required by the existing Green Building policy to meet
Leadership in Energy Efficiency Design (LEED) certified standards. An interdeparm~entat group
of staff members have been discussing the development of a Green Building program, including
incentives and requirements. This group is reviewing the list of current City- improvement
projects and other data, discussing outreach approaches and effective incentives, and will
continue their progress toward the establishment of an effective green building program
responding to policy directives.
The Council action on April 23 also referenced a staff-proposed phased Green Building program,
detailed in the table below. In summary, the first phase of staff’s proposal is to require green
building checklists (LEED, BIG or equivalent) to 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, with a minimum number of LEED or BIG points
suggested. Compliance during construction would be voluntary for the first year of the program.
The second phase would require mandatory compliance with LEED certification levels for non-
residential and multi-family residential development, beginning July 2008, after further staff
training and other implementation tools are in place. The third phase would also require
mandatory compliance for new single-family residences with BIG certified levels, begim~ing July
2009.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Date
-7/1/07 Out
7/1/07
7/1/08
Development
Type
City facilities
Commercial and
Multi-Family
Residential
.................. (MFR) ......
Single-Family
Residential
(SFR)
’commercial m~d
MFR
SFR
7/1/09
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
Attainment
LEED silver
Specify min.
LEED points
specify min.
BIG points
LEED certified
BIG certified
Commercial and ~1600 s~.ftl n~w LEED certified .....
MFR or remodel
SFR 1,500 sq.ft, new- BIG certified
or remodel
Mandatory/Voluntary°)
Compliance
Mandatory
Voluntary
Voluntary
Mandatory .........
Voluntary
Mandatory
Mandatory
(1) Volm~tary compliance would require submittal of appropriate checklist to ARB for commercial
and MFR and with bnilding permit.application for al! applicable cormnercial, MFR and!or SFR
Staff’s Green Building proposal indicated specific thresholds, while the ARB’s pro~am sets
forth !ower tlzresholds. For instance, the ARB:s proposal suggests a 1,000 square foot threshold
for public facilities, where staff’s proposal suggests a 5,000 square foot threshold. In the coming
month, Public Works staff will be exploring the resource impacts of the various thresholds, as it
impacts the various planned projects and overall budget tbr Capital Improvement Projects.
Staff is also plam~ing to provide a green building educational session for Counci! and City boards
and commissions on June 20, 2007, to be presented by a member of the US Green Building
Council. It is intended for the commissions, Council, and other public officials to obtain a more
informed level as they set Green Building policies that would likely accompany adoption of the
attached ordinance referencing "Council adopted sustainability policies." In addition, boards and
cormnissions responsible for recommending development proposals would have the opportunity
to gain an understanding of what is involved in implementing such policy.
The attached April 19, 2007 ARB staff report (Attachment C) provides a smnmary of the joint
meeting of the ARB and City- Council, where they reviewed a matrix of Green Building requirements
for other cities, heard from the City Attorney, and expressed their desires for a mandatory Green
Building program. The Council was also interested in knowing the amount of commercial and
residentia! floor area developed in the city and the efficiency of facilities owned by the City and Palo
Alto Unified School District.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
DIVCA SUMMARY AND ISSUES:
On September 29, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 2987, the Digital
Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA). The purpose of DIVCA was to create a
streamlined process for the granting of video services franchises in an eftbrt to foster the rollout of
technology, encourage competition, and expand customer choice. This new law permanently
changes the franchising and regulatory’ structure for the provision of cable television and other video
services in the State of California. Under DIVCA, franchises are now granted exclusively by the
California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) rather than by local entities. Although the
City will no longer be the franchising authority, it will acquire certain rights and responsibilities
under DIVCA.
With respect to rights-of-way permitting and other public rights-of-way management activities,
DIVCA requires the holder of a state franchise to be treated in the same rammer as telephone
corporations that are certificated by the Commission. This means that franchise holders should be
considered as "utilities" under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition, under DIVCA, a holder of
a state franchise is subject to local encroachment permit requirements and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when installing, constructing, and maintaining facilities in the
public rights-of-way. DIVCA also requires the City to act on completed encroachment permit
applications within 60 days of filing. An application is complete when the applicant has complied
with all statutory requirements including CEQA. This requires the City to approve or deny permit
applications, for both architectural review and street work permits, within this 60-day limit unless
extended by mutual agreement. DIVCA also requires the City to provide applicants with an appeal
process to the Council for any adverse initial decisions on permit applications. Staff has moditied its
development review mad street work permit application process to ensure it complies with this new
60-day rule.
On April 9, 2007 Council approved amendments and additions to several chapters of Title 2
(Administrative Code) and Title 12 (Public Works and Utilities Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to make it consistent with DIVCA (CMR:171:07). The changes to Title 2 cover the City’s
ability to regulate the occupancy and use of the public rights-of-way by video service providers that
hold franchises issued by the Commission. The changes to Title 12 revise the City’s permitting and
public rights-of-way provisions to conform with DIVCA.
The Planning and Transportation Commission is requested to recommend the proposed ordinance
changes. The proposed amendments to Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 will codify staff’s approach of
requiring minor architectural review for above ground facilities proposed by video sewice providers.
Within the past three months, staff has approved two applications for minor architectural review filed
by a state franchise holder for the installation of utility cabinets within the public right-of-way. In
processing these applications for minor architectural review, staff has required review by a landscape
architectural consultant and the Public Works Managing Arborist to ensure that each proposed
cabinet location is placed in a location with the least impacts on street trees and visual quality of a
neighborhood. Staff has conditioned the approvals to require the applicant to provide notice and
more recently, staff has begun providing courtesy notices to neighbors. Staff finds that the minor
architectural review process has been an effective method of reviewing such proposed facilities. The
May 3, 2007 Architectural Review Board comments on the DIVCA changes will be conveyed to the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
P&TC via email and at places.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The requested action is Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations, in that these are process changes designed to require consistency with other City
policies and to conform to State regulations.
ATTACHMENTS:
No
B.
C.
D.
E.
Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapters 18.76 and 18.77
ARB Green Building proposal
ARB Green Building staff report dated April 19, 2007
ARB DIVCA staff report dated May 3, 2007
DIVCA ordinance amending PAMC Chapters 2 and 12, adopted April 9, 2007.
COURTESY COPIES:
ARB
Grant Kolling
Melissa Cava!lo
Lata Vasudevan
PREPARED BY:Amy French, AICP, Mmaager of Current Plalming
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Curtis Williams, AICP, Assistant Director
Planning and Communit3’ Environment
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT C
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
,MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 6:03 PM
Commissioners:
Karen Holman - Chair
Lee I. Lippert- V-Chair
Patrick Burr
Paula Sandas
Arthur Keller
Daniel Garber
Samir Tuma - conflicted with Item 1
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
Cara Silver; Senior Assistant City Attorney
Julie Caporgno, Chief Plan. and Transp. Of~cial
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Steven Turner, Senior Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secreta~T
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
SPECIAL MEETING @ 6:00 PM
t. Stanford Projects Review and Comment on:
a. The update of the Stanford Medical Center Area Plan and conceptual plans for the
expansion and modernization of the Medical Center.
b.Conceptual plans and status for the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center.
REGULAR MEETING @ 7:00 PM
2.Study Session regarding City of Palo Alto Sustainability Programs and Policies.
3.Modifications to Chapters 18.76 and ! 8.77 of the Zoning Ordinance
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Meetings of March 28 and April 11, 2007
SPECIAL MEETING
Chair Holman: Good evening. I would like to call the Special Meeting of Wednesday, May 9,
2007 of the Planning and Transportation Conmfission to order. Would the Secretary call the roll,
please? Thank you.
City oj’Palo Alto May 9. 2007 Page ] of 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
related to it. One is the collection of this date, second is the analysis of this data, which will then
be utilized and actioned by the ad hoc committee that has been suggested, and that the
deliverable of that be a study session with this Commission. Then the third part would be a
series of recommendations that would be forwarded to the Commission for action and
recommendation to the Council.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, would you care to speak to your second? Commissioners,
do you have any other comments to make to the motion? No comment, no amendments.
I have the one comment that would be of no surprise is that I am looking forward to this coming
back with inclusion of those recommendations that would be Palo Alto specific most especially
regarding adaptive reuse and how that pertains to Palo Alto, and waste reduction, and true
sustainability that is not addressed dearly in either LEEDs or BIG checklists.
Would you accept that as a friendly amendment?
Commissioner Garber: Yes, not to the exclusion to any other potential criteria being developed
out of this period and study session.
Chair Holman: Of course. Commissioner Tuma?
Commissioner Tuma: Yes.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Seeing no other comments the motion to approve
recommendation from Staff one and two with the amendment having to do with adaptive reuse
that I proposed, all Commissioners in favor say aye. (ayes) Those opposed? That passes on a
seven to zero vote.
So we need a motion then to address number three. Commissioner Garber.
MOTION
Commissioner Garber: I would like to move that the Commission support the Staff’s
recommendation to amend both chapters and update the architectural review process to conform
to the requirements of California Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, otherwise
known as DIVCA.
SECOND
Commissioner Keller: Second.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber do you care to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Garber: No.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto May 9. 2007 Page 7] oj’78
]
2.
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
1,7
18
!9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2"7
28
29
30
31
DD
34
35
36
3,7
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller do care to speak to your second?
Commissioner Keller: I would like to make a request or a very friendly amendment that we
receive annually a list of these that are granted lust so that we can keep an eye on them and get
an idea if they are turning into a problem. Give Commissioners an opportunity to fine-tune what
the criteria are for granting them and the architectural review process.
Chair Holman: Do you accept this amendment?
Commissioner Garber: Yes I would and possibly that is something that is attached to our annual
proposed land use review.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Holman: Any comments by other Commissioners? Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion to accept Staff recommendation number three as amended by Commissioner Keller say
aye. (ayes) Opposed? None. So that passes on a seven to zero vote.
So this closes item number three. As it is eleven o’clock we have item number two that we held
open and continued to this time. Would Staff recommend that we continue this to another date
so we can complete our comments? What would be Staffs recommendation?
Mr. Williams: I guess I am wondering if you want to do that or if there is some way we can
maybe dovetail this with another study session where we get some more specific input about the
planning and transportation components maybe with the Transportation Study Session or
something like that. We can put the two together and get that if we can do it in a reasonable
timeframe meaning the next couple months or so. If you are anxious to do more comments we
can just put this over to another date. I think we are going to need some time to prepare the
Transportation Study Session. So it is just kind of where you are and how anxious you are to get
additional comments here.
Chair Holman: I think it makes perfect sense to do what you suggest. My question is will that
affect anything that goes to Council? They would not have benefit of those additional
comments. It is going to Council when?
Mr. Williams: This ordinance you just passed is going to Council, we don’t have a date, it might
be in July but I don’t think what you are doing on the rest of this is going to affect that ordinance.
It is only checklists.
Chair Holman: Not the ordinance I was evidently in error thinking that item number two was
going to go back to them also for their additional comments after it came here. Am I incorrect in
that?
Mr. Williams: No. They had their study session so I think what comes out of item number two
is where the Commission sees these things playing into your purview and what you would like to
CiO, of&do ,4tto tla), 9. 2007 P~ge 72 o./78