HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 333-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COL~CIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AUGUST 6, 2007 CMR: 333:07
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 18.76 AND 18.77 TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA ADDRESSING COUNCIL
SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND GREEN BL~LDING
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A), which will:
(1) Amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020 (d) Findings,
(15), to provide a sustainability finding for ARB approval similar to that found in
Section 18.16.090(b)(8) for Commercial District Context-Based Design
Considerations and Findings, and
(2) Amend the PAMC Section 18.77.020 Applications (a) Filing of application and
application contents, to add item (5) ’Council-adopted Sustainability Policies,’
allowing staff to require information regarding the proposed sustainable features
of the three categories of projects subject to Chapter 18.77 (namely, projects
subject to the standard staff review, architectural review and low-density
residential review processes.)
BACKGROUND
At the conclusion of the Earth Day staff report on April 23, 2007, Council directed staff to
continue exploring programs for incentives and requirements related to Green Building policies
for private development as outlined in the CMR. In the CMR, staff noted the following actions,
at a minimum, are needed before the City can require any private buildings to be certified Green
Buildings:
(1) benchmarking other cities’ successful green building policies;
(2) identifying and resolving any potential legal issues;
(3) conducting outreach to developers and architects; and
(4) training existing staff or contracting for expertise in LEED and Build It Green (BIG).
CMR: 333:07
Page 1 of 6
In addition to identifying the four actions noted above in the April CMR, staff and the ARB
provided possible Green Building programs in two tables that included thresholds and timelines,
and proposed to begin the first phase of the voluntary program following Council adoption of the
recommended ordinance (Attachment A). Phase 1 would require Green Building checklists to be
submitted with discretionary project applications and with building permit applications for those
planning entitlements, with a goal of encouraging more projects to incorporate sustainable design
components into the buildings and the site. The proposal may be expanded to encourage a
minimum number of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or Build It Green
(BIG) points, and to provide some incentives for voluntary compliance.
Phase 2 would require a future ordinance to require mandatory levels of Green Building rating
points, envisioned to be effective within two years, and to commence after the City Attorney had
resolved any legal issues that might be relevant to this implementation. Mandatory compliance
with LEED certification levels was proposed to be required by July of 2008, and compliance for
new single-family residences with BIG certified levels was proposed to become mandatory in
July of 2009.
DISCUSSION
Item (1) ARB Findin~ #15~ PAMC Chapter 18.76
The practice of the ARB for the past four years has been to request a Green Building checklist
for projects requiring ARB review, and query applicants about the sustainable features of
projects. The ARB application checklist summarizing the contents of a complete application
does not currently include a Green Building checklist as a requirement. Nevertheless, staff
strongly encourages the submittal of these checklists to satisfy the desire of the ARB to know
~vhether the building is proposed to be a high performance building. Staff generally requests the
submittal of a LEED or BIG or similar checklist as may be applicable, along with other required
application materials. Staff has prepared a revised checklist that would be used upon Council
adoption of the proposed ordinance.
The proposed ordinance (Attaclm~ent A) would modify Finding #15 of the ARB Findings, which
are used by staff and the ARB to determine project consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
and zoning policies. The existing Finding #15 reads as follows: "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."
The new Finding #15 would read: "The project exhibits green building and sustainable design
that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and
high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining
sustainable site and building design:
Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation;
Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island
effects;
CMR: 333:07 Page 2 of 6
¯Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
¯Maximize on-site storrnwater management through landscaping and permeable paving;
¯Use sustainable building materials;
¯Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;
¯Create healthy indoor environments; and
¯Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments."
Item (2) Sustainability Policy, PAMC Chapter 18.77
While adoption of Item (1) would allow staff to require a Green Building checklist for ARB
applications to ensure Finding #15 can be met, there are no Green Building approval findings
proposed for other application types subject to PAMC Chapter 18.77. Council adoption of Item
(2) would allow staff the discretion to request a Green Building checklist for certain project types
and application processes, given the Council-adopted sustainability policies.
The discretionary processes affected by Council adoption of Item (2) would be the standard staff
review processes (Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions),
the architectural review processes (Major and Minor Architectural Reviews, Design
Enhancement Exceptions,-Site & Design Reviews and Planned Communities), and the low-
density residential review processes (Single Family Individual Reviews and Home Improvement
Exceptions). As is always the case with application submittals, the Director may waive the
requirement for the checklist if it is not purposeful or relevant.
Staff plans to eventually require applicants to address sustainability in their application materials
(i.e. provide a Green Building checklist) and to consider sustainable features in discretionary
review of those projects. It is anticipated that this proposal will be developed by an
interdepartmental "Green Team" with input from customer "focus goups" and forwarded to the
Council in late 2007.
The proposed ordinance would modify Chapter 18.77, Section 18.77.020 Applications, by
adding the underlined text, noted below:
(a) Filing of application and application contents
All applications pursuant to this chapter shallbe 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; and
(4) This title (Zoning); and
(5) Council-Adopted Sustainability Policies.
CMR: 333:07
Page 3 of 6
Development of Green Building Policies and Programs
Staff is researching nexus requirements for establishing Green Building requirements and fees,
benchmarking other cities’ programs, working on developing and implementing meaningful
incentives, and beginning outreach efforts to determine possible paths for making Green
Buildings mandatory in Palo Alto. An interdepartmental "Green Team" that includes staff from
Planning, Public Works, Utilities Departments, and the City Attorney’s office, is dedicated to the
above efforts and has brought to the Council the two presentations regarding current Green
Building rating systems (USGBC/LEED and BIG). In addition, staff and the Mayor have joined
the Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s Green Building committee, which is exploring the
establishment of countywide Green Building policy recommendations and/or a model Green
Building ordinance. Also, local developers and business interests are exploring Green Building
requirements and staff will coordinate and gather input from this customer "focus group."
Finally, staff is planning for outreach to other customers including single family residential
homeowners and architects.
There is an existing policy for City buildings (Attachment B), with the level "LEED certified" as
the goal for new City facilities over 10,000 square feet, and other goals for retrofitting existing
buildings. Staff plans to revise this existing policy to address the City’s particular goals, needs
and resource issues. Staff plans to return in the fall with proposed amendments to this policy.
NEXT STEPS
Staff continues to recommend that Council consider the "roll-out" of a Green Building (GB)
program, and has prepared draft checklists that would be used for application submittals upon
Council adoption of the attached ordinance. To achieve these goals, as presented to the Council
in April, the following scheduled is proposed:
Item Date
1.August 2007
2.September 2007
3.Fall 2007
4.January 2008
5.March 2008
6.July 2008
7.March 2009
8.July 2009
9.Ongoing
Task
Ordinance amendments regarding ARB findings and checklists
Require checklists for all discretionary approvals
Revise Green Building Policy for City facilities
Develop/adopt incentives for voluntary compliance with GB
ratings
Ordinance for mandatory compliance, commercial & multifamily
development
Implementation of mandatory compliance for commercial/mf
development
Ordinance for mandatory compliance for single family residential
development
Implementation of mandatory compliance for single family
residential development
Staff GB training
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed ordinance went to the ARB on April 19, 2007 and to the P&TC on May 9, 2007.
Both bodies supported the ordinance unanimously, as reflected in meeting minutes (Attachments
CMR: 333:07
Page 4 of 6
C and D). Staff reports are provided for Councilmembers only (Attachments E and F) but are
available on the City’s website and in City offices.
In addition to recommending the ordinance as proposed by staff, the P&TC also suggested
having a study period of 12 to 18 months to allow collection and analysis of data for use by an ad
hoc committee of the P&TC, culminating in a study session by the P&TC. The ad hoc
colmnittee would study any proposed incentives for Green Building and consider a customized
Green Building checklist that would include adaptive reuse. One member of the public spoke
during the public testimony portion of the hearing, addressing possible issues with allowing
Desi~ Enhancement Exceptions as incentives to Green Building. In addition to recommending
the ordinance with minor modifications, the ARB provided the Green Building matrix of
timetines, thresholds and levels that was presented to the City Council during their April 23rd
meeting. During the two ARB meetings (February 15 and April 19, 2007) during which the
ordinance amendments were discussed, there were no public speakers.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as an action by a regulatory agency, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure
the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15308.-
RESOURCE IMPACT
Applicants are currently requested to provide a checklist to enable project evaluation with
respect to existing ARB approval finding #15, and such checklists are typically prepared by a
consultant. The revised ARB finding #15 adds other checklist items for a more comprehensive
analysis of proj ects’ sustainability. Therefore, additional consultant hours would be necessary to
prepare a more complete checklist for City projects. For instance, a consultant’s cost to the City
for the preparation of a LEED checklist for a new City building would be approximately $2,000,
including meeting with key staff prior to or in conjunction with the checklist preparation. Such a
checklist goes beyond addressing items analyzed under the current ARB approval finding #15.
Staff costs will be incurred in revising application checklists to require Green Building (GB)
checklists and developing related GB programs, incentives and ordinance(s). The items
mentioned in the Background (items 1 - 4) section of this report involve staff of several
departments including "Green Team" staff, consultant costs for educating staff and others,
attorney cost to resolve any legal issues, preparation of handouts and outreach costs. The staff
costs for items noted in the Next Steps Section, the GB program "roll-out" (items 1 - 9), will be
quantified and for~varded in a discussion of the resource impacts of any proposed incentives or
rega~latory measures.
PREPARED BY:
AMY FRENCIZU"
Manager of Current Planning
CMR: 333:07 Page 5 of 6
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
.... "STEVE E2(,IS LIE -
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Ordinance Adopting Amendments to PAMC Chapters 18.76 and 18.77
Green Building Policy for City Facilities
Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007
ARB Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2007
Commission Staff Report of May 9, 2007 (no attachments)
ARB Staff Report of April 19, 2007 (no attachments)
CMR: 333:07
Page 6 of 6
*** NOT YET APPROVED***Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDINTG SECTION 18.76.020 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
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA ADDRESSING
COUNCIL SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND GREEN BUILDING
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 ofhi~ 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 sha!l be issued for a major or minor
project, as set forth in this section, unless an application for architectural 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
The following are "major projects" for the purposes of the architectural 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:
070404synO120254
YET APPROVED
(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) (Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code); 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;
0B) Any multiple-family residential construction project that contains
three or more units;
(C) Construction of three or more adjacent single-family homes or
duplexes;
(D) In the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (Nrp),
properties on which ~7o 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 16.20;
(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 requiting a sign exception pursuant to Chapter 16.20;
(I)Any minor project, as defined in subsection (3), that the director
deten~nes 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 architectural 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 Environmental 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;
(C) Landscape plans, fences, exterior remodeling,
parking areas, when not part of a major project;
and design of
(D) Any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing
communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to
Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or
Chapter 12.13.
(E) Minor changes to the following:
070404 syn0120254
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Plans that have previously received architectural review approval;
Previously approved planned community district development
plans;
Plans that have previously received site and design approval;
Previously approved plans for projects requiring Council approval
pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion, action or uncodified
ordinance;
(v) Existing structures requiring 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 formal
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;
070404 syn0120254
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(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) 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 w{th 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-quality spaces and high
recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in
determining sustainable site and building design:
(A)Optimize buildin~ orientation for heat gain. shading, dayli_~ting.
and natural ventilation;
(B)Desiffn of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and
reduce heat island effects;
(C)Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
(D)Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and
permeable paving;
(E)Use sustainable buildin._, materials;
(F)Desi.~on lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and
water use;
(G) Create healthy indoor environments; and
(H)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).
(e)Conditions
070404 synO120254
***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)Promote the internal integrity of the design of the project;
(2) Assure compatibility of the proposed project’s design with its site and
surroundings;
(3) 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).
(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 Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read, as follows:
"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 Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code) and the DiNtal
Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, Assembly bil! 2987 (Ch. 700, Stats.
2006) (DIVCA), and city compliance with the Political Reform Act (Title 9 of the
Government Code, Section 81000 et seq.);
(2)The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;
(3)The Palo Alto Municipal Code;
(4)This title (Zoning); and
(5)Council adopted sustainability polices.
(b) Signature of applications
A separate application shall be filed for each site, and each application shall be signed
by:
(1)All owners of the real property included in the site or sites; or
(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
070404 syn0120254
"***NOT YET APPROVED
(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 untit 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 Review Process.
(a) Applications Subject to Standard Staff Review Process
The following applications are subject to the review process set forth in this section:
(1)
and
(2)
the provisions
(b) Notice
Variances, conditional use permits, neighborhood preservation exceptions;
Other permits and approvals for which such review process is required by
of Title 2, Title 12 or Title 18.
of application completeness
Once an application is deemed complete, notice that the application has been filed and
deemed complete shall be Nven 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:
(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 Nven 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
070404 syn0120254
***NOT YET APPROVED***
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 v, Mting 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 wMtten
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 Nven 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
(!) 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.
(2) Notice of the revised director’s decision shall be Nven 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.
070404 synO120254
***NOT YET APPROVED***
(f) Decision by the Council
The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the application
shall be placed on the consent calendar of the Council within 30 days. The 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, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on
the application.
(g) Decision by the Council final
The decision of the Council 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 18.76.020 (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, Title 12 or Title 18.
(b) Tentative director’s Decision and Hearing Upon Request for Minor Projects
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 ~ven 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 14 days after the date
notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is filed.
070404 synO120254
***NOT YET APPROVED***
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.
(4) Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
architectural review board on the proposed director’s decision by filing a v,a’itten request
with the plalming 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 ~ven at least 10 days prior to the heating 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 ~ven 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 may, for
good cause, specify in wa-iting 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 Council
070404 syn0120254
***NOT YET APPROVED***
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) Decision by the Council final
The decision of the Council on the appeal is final."
SECTION 5. If apy section of this ordinance, or part hereof, 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.
//
//
//
//
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
070404 synO120254
10
***NOT YET APPROVED***
AYES:
NOES:
AB S TENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
070404 synO120254
11
-GREEN BUILDING POLICY
The City of Palo Alto intends to incorporate sustainabitity into the City’s
building and construction practices, as part .of the .Council’s overall
Sustainability Policy. Specifically:
New Construction- All new City buildings over 10,000 square feet
shall be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certification.
Renovation- Renovation of existing City facilities shall be done
using environmentally sound, green building techniques and
materials.
Site Improvement Projects - Careful planning and. consideration shall
be given to site improvements to City buildings, parks, and open.
spaces.. Aspedts such as the preservation of native plant and animal
species, drainage and runoff, potential watershed contamination and
the use of drought-resistant landscaping wi!l be given thorough
reviewi
Maintenance of Existing City Buildings and Facilities -Life cycle
cost analysis shall be undertaken for building system or component
replacement projects where appropriate in the judgment of the Public
Works Director or his designee in an effort to specify the most
energy, water and maintenance efficient systems in relation to initial
cost.
Demolition - On projects where demolition is required, in order to
maximize the amount of waste materials diverted from landfills,.
deconstruction techniques will be employed whenever practical; all
salvageable items will be recovered and sent to appropriate facilities.
Attachment C
Excerpt of May 9, 2007 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
3.Modifications to Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Review and recommendation of amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Zoning Code, Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 as follows:
a. 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 Cormnercial
District Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings;
b. Amend Section 18.77.020 Applications (a) Filing of application and
application contents, to add ’Council adopted Sustainability Policies’
c. Amend both chapters to conform the architectural review process to the
requirements of the California Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition
Act of 2006 (DIVCA).
Ms. French: I am giving what I would have given for the last item on green building,
kind of dovetailing that into item three, which includes both green building and the
DIVCA Ordinance. So I will push the DIVCA stuff toward the end.
Basically, I just wanted-to briefly say that the report pretty much sets out what I would
say ifI had a lot of time. I am going to cut to the chase, do a few things here, tell you
what we are doing now, how you can help us tonight with item three, kind of briefly
touch on the Council direction of April 23, briefly touch on the green building program
development that we are working on, and who is working on it and what the next steps
are on that count.
So in addition to the sustainability sections of the ordinances that were already adopted as
part of the Zoning Ordinance effort, which you know very wel! because you participated
in al! of that, we have several green building encouragements that are currently our
practice. We have our website which has information. We have a kiosk at the
Development Center. Our City policy requires green buildings, LEED Certified
buildings for City or public buildings over 10,000 square feet. Then we have our
deconstruction, or otherwise known as the C&D Program Ordinance, successes that we
are continuing to improve and we are looking at some salvage efforts in the coming year
to enhance those. In the past four years the Architectural Review Board has been
requesting checklists, LEED or similar, LEED being Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design, and Build It Green checklists for multi-family residential projects
that come to them. The checklist is not a requirement anywhere in our codes. Of course,
item three coming up tonight, you will have the oppommity to forward your
recommendation on just that, allowing the City to require checklists, for ARB and other
discretionary applications coming to us.
So earlier on April 23, the Council recommended, in addition to exploring this
environmental coordinator position, that Staff is also taking up and doing some study that
would coordinate some of these cross departmental efforts that are happening. The ARB
and Staff recommended the submittal of checklists for all projects above certain size
thresholds and a green building phasing program that would begin with a voluntary and
then move into a mandatory green building requirement. The requirements would begin
with nonresidential, commercial, multi-family, public buildings actually starting first with
the public buildings and then later move into residential. So there is a table in the Staff
Report that goes over that.
So initially with this voluntary program we don’t need an ordinance to implement that we
can just kind of start at a certain point because it is again voluntary. We would ask that
they submit the checklists both at the entitlement phase and at the building permit phase.
Again, submit the checklist, we are not verifying that they are actually building a green
building because it is a voluntary program and we are not all trained in the Building
Inspection Division, etc. to ensure that that’s happening. Down the road Staff training,
down the road mandatory, but to kick it off voluntary and then looking at incentives.
There is a group we are calling the Green Team, it is a green building staff working group
that is comprised of Building, Planning, Utilities, Public Works, etc. We are looking at
rebates. We are looking at educational outreach that is one of our first tacts that we are
going to take. We have someone from the US Green Building Council that will be
coming to present on June 20, that is in your report, here in the Council Chambers at four
o’clock for the Council and elected and appointed officials. So we can start that dialogue
on LEED, basically 7chat it means, the direction to go, those kinds of things. It will be an
hour-long session. It will be followed a month later by a Built It Green presentation on
residential. So we will get that date firmed up and get that to you.
One of the things that the ARB had and I should also remember to point out Claire
Malone-Pritchard who is LEED accredited on our ARB as well as Grace Lee who is
LEED accredited worked hard to come up with a matrix showing some other cities’
thresholds for requiring LEED and the like as well as coming up with a table that
indicates a phasing program and possible thresholds. There are thresholds that the ARB
recommended which are lower for public buildings at 1,000 square feet rather than the
5,000 the Staff had suggested. I think the intent of the ARB was let’s show that we can
do it in our City buildings first and set an example there. One of the things the ARB’s
charts had mentioned was possibly considering zoning incentives such as design
enhancement exceptions to encourage green and sustainability related design features and
have some incentives there. So that needs more exploration. I would like to create an ad
hoc group that would be comprised of Planning Commissioners, Architectural Review
Board members, and Historic Resources Board members to study possible incentives and
how we might look towards incentivizing green building for residential as well as
commercial. On that score too beyond the educational sessions that we are proposing to
have for Council and the Boards we would go beyond that to the Chamber development
community and then finally working with the Green Ribbon Task Force and other
volunteer groups to kind of get the grassroots out there as far as green building
neighborhood-to-neighborhood and hope to have some real efforts out there. As
mentioned, we can do so much for the City and people that are coming in that are coming
in anyway but we want to have people out there interested in retrofitting their houses, etc.
I wanted to mention as one of the things that we can our pat our backs on, and that is
going to be one of the efforts too of this, is to get the word out there about what we are
doing. I think a lot of people don’t know a lot of the things we are doing as Samir
mentioned. We got accepted as a session at the CCAPA Conference in San Jose in
September-October. So that will be a joint Staff effort with Utilities, Planning, and I
think an ARB member volunteered as well. So we will keep you up to date on that.
The Green Ribbon Task Force is still meeting. We convened last week and talked about
some of this neighborhood outreach stuff that came up. Then there is some interest in
this green coordinator or Staff person that the Council will be considering. Again, this
ESSC, the Environmental Stewardship/Sustainability Stewardship Committee, is !ooking
at possible roles that that Staff person could take on and projects.
So then item three on tonight’s agenda is the process modifications for Chapters 18.76
and 18.77. The roots of this kind of go back to years ago when we, and I think Lee was
even on the ARB at the time, when we said let’s get an ARB finding in to ask for
sustainable buildings. It has taken awhile but we are here. What we did finally after
discussions and several ARB meetings is went ahead and selected the sustainability
criteria from the recently adopted form code that already had been adopted. We thought
that was a nice model we just lifted it and put it in there. The other one is the Council
adopted sustainability policies as a criteria that allow us to review everything from ARB
and other discretionary projects that are subject to Chapter 18.77 with Council-adopted
sustainability policies in mind. So basically that allows us to ask for a checklist for all of
those types of projects.
Then finally the DIVCA aspect of this item three is to basically codify what we are
already doing and cross-reference the other sections of the Municipal Code that were
recently adopted. The other codes were Title 2 about administrative and Title 12 about
Public Works and Utilities that talk about permitting and how we are doing this
permitting. So 18.76 and 18.77 just have some tweaks in there regarding how we do
Staff level review of these boxes. They are basically like the SAI boxes that had been in
place for several years. We have currently a review process and we are going to continue
on but it would be codified in this section.
DIVCA, let’s go ahead and see what that is. That is Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed
into law DiNtal Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006. There it is on page
four of your report if you want more detail.
Chair Holman: Are there any clarifying questions for Staff7. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I am wondering what you are envisioning for the DEE for green
how that relates to the discussions that we have had on this Commission about looking at
DEEs in general or whether those will be two separate discussions.
Mr. Williams: I think we were going to have a committee of the Commission that we
would be working with to try to define some parameters for DEEs the way we have for
Home Improvement Exceptions, HIEs. I don’t think they will be tied together. I guess it
depends on timing but his has other components to it as well. So I think it will feed into
it. We should be aware of it when we look at it that one of the things we want to ask is
how far would we go with a DEE or variances or something in terms of accommodating
sustainability. Then that will be a piece of that other part of how much of a deviation
would we allow in a DEE or a variance if we set those kinds of limits. I guess it would
just be the DEEs the variance is different. If we are setting those kinds of parameters
then this would ultimately feed into that but I think this might precede that full discussion
of the DEE process.
Commissioner Keller: The reason for my question is that if you basically say here is the
limit you can go on a DEE for a green thing and then you subsequently provide rules for
DEEs in general I am wondering if you have thoughts about how the timing of separating
those would deal with whether you are encouraging green or discouraging green by
delineating those first and delineating the general kinds of DEEs later. Does that make
sense or do you understand what I am getting at?
Mr. Williams: I think I do to a large degree. It is probably hard to tell right now until we
sit down and start looking at it and how far we are looking at taking it.
Chair Holman: Commi-ssioner Lippert do you have a clarifying question of Staff?.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I think I raised this in the pre-Staffmeeting, which is about the
degree. DEE is really for minor sort of deviation. There are sites that lend themselves to
a much more extensive deviation depending on the degree in which the sustainable
features or the LEEDs features are applied. There is an opportunity I think here to look at
application of maybe looking at variances for much larger applications of green and
sustainable features in a building. What I am specifically talking about is site orientation
and geography. We all know most of Palo Alto is on a 45-degree grid, which is
antithetical to appropriate solar orientation. So you might have a larger amount of
encroachment into front, rear, and side yards in order to be able to get greater features.
The one example that I can think of just off the top of my head is Stanford Medical
Center right now is asking for an increase in height. It is perfect orientation with regard
to north-south for instance. If the came up with a fully sustainable building is that
grounds for looking at variances as opposed to a DEE?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber do you have a clarifying questions? We can have
substantive questions and comments later but if this is a clarifying question about Staff’s
presentation it is welcome at this time.
Commissioner Garber: I will try it out. I can take it back if I need to. I think LEED and
BIG are the two appropriate criteria to be using here. I was just curious if the committee
or the Green Team that ended up developing this is forwarding those particular criteria if
there was discussion about other ones. I am thinking specifically about the equivalent of
LEED in Britain which has now been adopted by Canada is the Green Globes Code. I
don’t know if there are learnings to be had from that. Also coming out of New Orleans,
the University of Texas is developing the SEED Code, which is the Social, Ecological,
Economic, and Design Code. I don’t know of there are learnings that are appropriate
there. Their focus obviously is more community than specific buildings but I am just
curious if any of those things have been considered or made part of the process.
Ms. French: Actually no, those are new codes to my knowledge. I have rather limited
knowledge as to the range out there. We kind of landed on LEED because it is kind of
the most well known and were kind of on a time crunch to get something to the Council
to say we are thinking about it and here is our first crack at it. There is more
development to be done. We are certainly learning from other communities. We have a
consultant coming in next week to talk to us. They had worked with Seattle. So we kind
of have a game plan or work plan or progam that we are looking at. Certainly in the past
the ARB has been asking for LEED or similar checklist and we have entertained other
checklists that have come. So when we say requiring a checklist we are not saying you
have to give us LEED we are saying that is the well known one, the popular one, but we
will take a similar checklist. In fact Stanford I know they have their own version, they
are creating LEED Platinum buildings over there but they are not going for LEED
Certification or anything like that. So we would for instance if they come through and
they have a checklist that is not LEED we wouldn’t say no, I’m sorry that is not the
appropriate checklist. We will entertain all checklists that would be appropriate.
Mr. Williams: One of the things that we have talked about some and I am sure we will
get into it in more detail is whether there are components of these checklists whichever
checklists they are that are particularly important to Palo Alto more so than other
components. My understanding is there are some things you can get quite a few points
for on some of these checklists that maybe aren’t real high priority issues for Palo Alto.
Whereas we might give a higher rating to something else or you need to get a minimum
in such and such an area and not in another area. So tailoring it a little more for the Palo
Alto environment and the City’s priorities as opposed to just one size fits all kind of
approach.
Ms. French: I think certainly, dovetailing on that, when we move toward a compulsory
or mandatory that would certainly come into play, making sure that we have the
categories that are meaningful for Palo Alto. In the interim when we are just asking for
the checklist again we are not examining it with the kind of detail that we would for a
requirement.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma did you have a clarifying question?
Commissioner Tuma: I do. It is probably for the City Attorney and it has to do with
teeth. There is a section in here that discusses this sort of evolution from voluntary to
incentivized and then onto mandatory. This talks about several different ways that we
could get to mandatory. Can you clarify for us a little bit, are we talking about that we
would need to modify all of these or choose one of them, and what would the
Commission’s role or purview be in that process? This is on page six of the memo to
Council from the other night.
Ms. French: There is a section in there that talks about looking at the California Energy
Code kind of first. Is that what you are referring to, the legal?
Commissioner Tuma: The section is kind of the legal parameters of green building
regulation but it talks about first looking at California Building Code, Energy Code or
local zoning. Are we going to have to visit al! of these things in order to make this
mandatory or do we pick a path and what is the Commission’s role?
Mr. Donald Larkin. Senior Assistant City Attorney: It would be an incremental process.
So the easy thing to do in the short-term is the Energy Code. It is basically picking a path
that is legally viable but also is attainable in the short-term to the long-term. It does
require visiting all these things because we would start with the Energy Code because
that is something that is going to be coming up in the near future ultimately leading to the
use of the City’s police powers to make requirements for green building standards. I am
not finding the exact think in this Staff Report but when I do I might be able to elaborate.
Ms. French: I should say too other cities such as ones we have been studying like
Rohnert Park, they actually hired a consultant to do a study and to do a nexus to make the
findings that their climate is a particular way that they should exceed Title 24 by
whatever percentage. So that kind of work, nexus work, that gives us a solid base I think
is what legal staff is studying right now and looking to cities like Rohnert Park that have
done that work.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay, because my question wasn’t so much - the legal analysis is
going to bear our what it is going to bear out. It sounds like this thing is going to roll or
be incremental and it may be unavoidable but I am wondering by doing it that way is that
going to create confusion and therefore delay in the development community actually
being able to do these things.
Mr. Larkin: I think that is the reason that we are starting with the voluntary program,
with the checklist, and get the development community up to speed in doing the analysis
before we start to rollout requirements. So the answer to your question is yes, it is going
to be incremental changes that the development community is going to have to adapt to
but we are doing it in a way that I think they will be ready for it when the time comes.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay. Maybe you can just clarify this for me, when we get to the
mandatory stage we are not at that point introducing new requirements we are just simply
making some of the ones that have been voluntary or incentivized into mandatory?
Mr. Larkin: We are not there yet but that is what I think we are envisioning.
Mr. Williams: I could just add that I think there maybe changes certainly from the
voluntary to the mandatory phase but I think those changes are likely to be developed in
conjunction with the development community as we move through the voluntary phase.
We realize that there will be some things that work and some things that don’t or are
preferred or not and that is another reason for having an initial voluntary thing is to try to
work some of these out, to get out to the development community and make it an
educational process for a year. We learn something from that as well them learning
something so hopefully we are kind of on the same page once we get to a mandatory
phase. That is the intent.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert you had a clarifying follow up?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I guess this is more for the attorney. Is it leNtimate to tie
specific zones to performance standards? An example of that might be that in order for a
project to be considered for PC that we look at LEED Certification of a certain level as
being a requirement of that zone.
Mr. Larkin: Well, certainly for PC zones it is a different analysis because that is a Nve
and take with the developer. The developer gets certain rights that they wouldn’t
necessarily be entitled to in exchange for certain benefits to the City. If the City chose to
have green standards as a public benefit then that is something that could be tied to that
development.
I think there are incentives that can be Nven to other types of development. I know that
some of those have been talked about incentivizing green building particularly if those
incentives are tied directly to the green features.
Vice-Chair Lippert: As sort of an adjunct to that is that we are a city that has our own
utility. There is a saying that a kilowatt saved is equal to a kilowatt generated. So by
looking at say new development, and I am thinking specifically maybe commercial
development in a commercial zone, and saying that we look at incentivizing your
reduction of energy usage so we make that a requirement of that specific zone. We have
to produce that power somewhere else in order to sell it to them so why not just say we
want you to provide that savings on the front end?
Mr. Williams: I just want to say I appreciate that and some of these other ideas about
incentives and that but we have a long ways to go for sort of getting there in terms of
having it. What we would like to do establish this group and come back to you and ask
you for one or two representatives on this sort of ad hoc group in which case we will be
able to talk more about incentives, and then whether DEEs or variances or whatever are
appropriate, and other things that are on the table like utility issues that are certainly in
play there as well. But for this item tonight I think we should sort of stick to the overall
framework of we are going to move forward on a program like this. For the ordinance
that is before you tonight you need to open a public hearing because it is a public hearing
and what we are really asking for are these process changes that do two things. They
allow us to require rather than just request checklists to be submitted so that we do have
some benchmarks to start looking at these projects in terms of sustainability and secondly
it adds criteria that the ARB can use to kind of measure against what is being submitted
and have something at least to say here are some general sustainability criteria and you
do or you don’t meet those. Those again come directly out of the context-based design
sections of the codes that you previously adopted. Then the third piece as Amy
mentioned was DIVCA that is basically responding to state limitations on our authority to
review some of these facilities. We need to do as a companion piece to what the Council
already adopted. So I would like to focus on that if we could and then we could come
back and have additional comments on the sustainability program in general and some of
these ideas that we ought to take into consideration.
Chair Holman: Given that we do have one member of the public who would like to
speak. So we will open the public hearing and welcome Mr. Bob Moss. You will have
five minutes.
Mr. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Holman. First I completely agree with
the concept of sustainability and changing the ordinance to encourage it and to try to
make something work. I think you have heard a number of comments from the Staff
already saying this is a work in progress and I want to reemphasize that. When this is
adopted and people start working with it it is not going to take long before you are going
to find there are some glitches. For example, I don’t know if the requirement for
commercial developments should be 26 points or 20 points or 30 points to be required
and I don’t think anybody else knows that right now either. So we will worry about that
when people come in and give us reasons why they can’t do 26 points or why 26 points is
ridiculously easy and why are we giving them that benefit when I can do 40.
The other thing is I am positive that about six months to a year after you have done this
some developer is going to come in with a project that you would never have thought of
before. He is going to ask for a DEE in order to make it feasible which will allow him to
do something that nobody in their right mind would ever have thought would be
necessary. As an example, he is building apartments in an area where the height limit is
35 feet and he puts the building in an area so close to an existing forest that he can’t see
the sun and use solar panel. So he wants a DEE to go 75 feet. It is going to happen I
guarantee it. I won’t tell you who the developer is but his initials are JB.
When you are allowing DEEs I would limit it. One DEE and be very explicit as to what
you are going to allow when you talk about sustainable design elements. Have things in
there, which you explicitly exclude. We will not allow increasing FAR as a DEE for
example for a design element. We will not allow exceeding the height by more than two
feet or whatever. Put that in up front so everybody knows what you are doing and how
you are doing it and you don’t have to sit there during a Planning Commission meeting
and scratch your head and say is this reasonable or is he gotten away with something
again?
I know these things are going to happen so be flexible. Don’t be afraid when somebody
comes in with something that makes you think how did he ever get away with something
like that, to say we are going to continue this for a week and then immediately change the
law.
Getting onto another topic that is close to my heart, which is the law that was passed by
the state for the benefit of all these poor starving communications companies. If you
didn’t pass this law they wouldn’t be able to pay the CEO $75 million for bonuses this
year they would have to make do with $10 million. Oh the pain. I would suggest when
you talk about this, any project relating to installation of cabinets containing
communication services don’t make this minor make this major, keep it major and make
it go through ARB review. There are several reasons for that. One of them is even
though we only had a couple of them come through so far and they have been supposedly
not terribly controversial although I have seen a couple of letters and emails that
screamed about them, there are going to be a number of instances where you are going to
be putting them in public right-of-ways which are going to be significant impacts. For
example, I can’t imagine putting one of these huge cabinets on any street in Barron Park
without putting it in a traffic lane. That means you are going to have a problem with
traffic and safety because there are no areas where it is not going to be in the public right-
of-way. There are no areas where you have planters, for example, that these things can
go. The only three streets I can think of which have dividers are E1 Camino, San
Antonio, and Oregon. Those are all either state or county highways. So where are they
going to put them except in a right-of-way divider?
The other thing is my experience when we installed the television system, cable system,
is there is a North Hampton and South Hampton and people screamed because we had
these boxes. We had to be able to have the ability to put in planters, to put in bushes,
flowers. You have to have that flexibility. So have the ARB review this otherwise you
are going to have a lot people screaming.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much Mr. Moss. With at we will close the public
hearing and come back to Commissioners for questions then to be followed by
comments. So if you have any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Section 18.77.020 on filing applications, and actually this entire
Staff Report, this doesn’t address single family home green building standards does it?
Ms. French: It does, 18.77.020 the whole of Chapter 18.7 applies to ARB and other
processes in that chapter including HIEs, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Individual
Review, not single story because those are not discretionary applications.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, but Individual Review was what I was actually getting at.
Ms. French: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. So as we now have our IR Guidelines and we are going to
have green building standards, which might include solar orientation and things like that.
Is it going to be clear, are we going to update the IR Guidelines to indicate how we would
weigh green building standards against if there were competing interests that might exist
in the current IR Guidelines that run against green building standards to some degree?
Ms. French: Well, you are ahead of us there. Of course we will in the next year or two,
actually I think it is two years before it is required or mandatory for residential. We are
two years away from that. As far as voluntary and yes we want to have your checklist
and if someone comes in with a build it green checklist and it says to achieve a green
building here we are not going to be able to whatever, I think when it comes down to
privacy we are going to say there must be another way to do it. We don’t want to impact
the privacy of your neighbors so that you can have a green building. When it comes to
mass and streetscape there is room for discussion there, it is more subjective.
Commissioner Burt: Well, the Planning Commission as I understand it has an annual
responsibility to review the IR Guidelines. Aren’t we supposed to review them?
Ms. French: That was part of the. sun-setting, the five year let’s examine it annually for
the first five years of the program and decide if we are going to keep the program around.
That is why we were doing those annual reviews. It is over. It is now part of our Chapter
18.12 and it is part of our processes. We are not examining that year-to-year.
Commissioner Burt: Well, in that case I would suggest that since this is a significant
prospective change to the guidelines, this is something that is going to need both public
debate and Planning Commission debate on how we do weigh those. You just gave a
Staff position on how Staff would judge tradeoffs between privacy and green building
standards as if the privacy would always trump the green building standard. I don’t know
if that is the right public policy we haven’t gone through that process. So I would suggest
that we include that update on a future Planning Commission agenda and that we review
that and say how should we integrate this. I don’t know the answers to this. I think this
is something that we will have to struggle with and we will be weighing competing
values, as we should.
Ms. French: Sure, and I did not mean to imply that if we were going to change the IR
Guidelines that we wouldn’t show it to you and give you the opportunity to weigh in on
that. I am just saying if you were to ask me today that question, you have this privacy
issue here and you have this green building, let’s find a way to still do a green building
that doesn’t affect the privacy. I would say that would be my inclination. Certainly, to
update the IR Guidelines you would get a chance at looking at those.
Mr. Williams: What we are talking about now is when somebody comes in for IR we are
going to be able to require them to fill out a checklist and show us what they are doing
from a green building standpoint. We are not requiring them to meet any certain number
of points, etc., etc. I think your point is well taken that part of our process of
implementing this and coming up with the mandatory should be during the voluntary
phase to come up with some guidelines. First of all, I think there are some things out
there already as far as what you can do on a single family home. Then to integrate that
with our IR requirements and say these are some of the areas we see some tradeoffs in
and then bring that you as part of that whole implementation process.
Commissioner Burt: Right, because as I see it fight now what we are doing is adopting
an overriding set of principles and the Council has adopted those, and the explicit policies
and guidelines that we have under IR review in that they don’t acknowledge green
building standards. If there were a competing objective or two competing objectives as it
is written right now the old guidelines would necessarily tromp the overriding policy. I
don’t think that is what Council meant. I think we have to reconcile them.
Mr. Williams: I think we would need to come up with that as part of this initial
implementation program. We would need to do it not only with IR Guidelines but also in
terms of commercial and multi-family too and how does that relate to the other ARB
findings or Site & Design findings or whatever. Some of those things may conflict and
we need to provide some guidance as to which takes precedence.
Commissioner Burt: Right, in that circumstance we are adding a finding. So they are
being required to weight and judge different findings. In the case of IR we are not adding
a finding we are adding an overriding principle in the absence of a finding.
Ms. French: I would say that is true with CI~s, Variance, and the other discretionary
permits that are in Chapter 18.77. We don’t have variance findings and then there is a
sustainabitity finding is the fourth one that I am supposed to consider as I make an
approval. So again it is-a method to get us to start getting the checklists in here. That is
part of the battle just having applicants go through that exercise, think about it early on,
and get it to us as a requirement so that they are doing that kind of thinking.
Chair Hotman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I would appreciate it if you would send me a soft copy in Word of
this. I have a number of editorial kind of comments I would like to make that I don’t
want to bore the Commission with and that mi~t be the best way.
Ms. French: The ordinance itself?.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, the ordinance itself. The second thing is I am wondering
whether it makes sense to think about other cleanups. For example, if you look on page
five where it say e) Conditions and then under number three it talks about compliance
with Title 17, Hazardous Materials. Is Hazardous Materials Title 17 and Title 19? And
beside it doesn’t say Title 17 of what code.
Mr. Williams: It is Title 17 in our code.
this is referring to.
Commissioner Keller: Okay.
Title 19 is that state thing and that isn’t what
Mr. Williams: We can clarify it.
Commissioner Keller: It would be worthwhile clarifying that. It would be helpful
indicating Title !7 of what and things like that. Thank you.
Chair Holman: I had a question about CEQA in the ordinance. In a few locations, for
instance on page five at the bottom, number one, state law including CEQA, Division 13
was the previous language and now it has been changed to Section 21000. I had asked
Staff previously about looking at why and what that change is.
Mr. Larkin: It is just more consistent with how we define it elsewhere. It is the same
thing.
Chair Holman: It is the same thing with two names?
Mr. Larkin: Yes, Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code is also Division 13 in the
Public Resources Code.
Chair Holman: Thank you for that clarification. It appears several times. Commissioner
Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I am sorry, I am not exactly clear. Should the Commission
recommend the Staff’s suggestions here to Council and Council enact them when would
an applicant for a single-family residence have to start using a checklist? Is that this year
or is that some other year?
Ms. French: If you were to forward this to the Council as soon as they were to adopt this
ordinance we would be asking for these checklists as a part of the submittals.
Commissioner Garber: Does that then start the timer for your one-year, two year, three
year?
Ms. French: No. There would be a separate ordinance that would come to them that
would have to again like Don said, we would be looking at the Energy Code first, there
are some steps ahead of that that include public outreach and collection of information to
determine what the thresholds are going to be, which of the 26 points say in LEED are
most important to us.
Commissioner Garber: So what you are asking us to focus on is just this initial effort,
which is really creating this checklist, collecting the data, determining where the issues
are to establish what the next steps will be. It may not be a three-year program it may be
a one-year then a three-year or who knows what it is, there may be any number of sorts of
things. So timeframe here is really just sort of a year’s time, perhaps, in terms of
collection of this data and the analysis of it for further recommendations? Is that what we
are talking about in terms of a timeline?
Ms. French: Yes, we are talking about once this gets to Council we would start
immediately requesting those checklists. Then that would yes, provide us with some
good data that we could collect and examine and determine how things are going like you
were saying. It is not definite that it would be a year and then right at that end of the year
it would be mandatory. We have to go through all the steps to get there.
Cormnissioner Garber: You are thinking that is approximately a year from that start
point, might be.
Ms. French: I think that is what the Council would like and that is what we are
suggesting might be doable if Wen concerted effort.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Just one other clarification following up exactly on the point that
Commissioner Garber was talking about. The first instance here would be strictly
voluntary. When would the incentive component come in here?
Ms. French: Well, it could happen at any time I suppose. We have existing incentives
through the Utilities Department say rebates and those kinds of things. Those could
happen at any time. Inc.entives that involve zoning, let’s say this DEE concept, that again
would take work, outreach, consideration, all of that.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay, so that is not what we would be authorizing tonight.
Tonight we would be authorizing strictly the voluntary component of this.
Mr. Williams: Right. It might be for example six months before you get through a
process of reviewing those things and get to a point where you have some incentives you
are comfortable with and recommend, the Council approves it, it goes into effect at that
point, and those would operable.
Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Garber to be followed by Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Garber: I know this is a comment as opposed to a question. The way I
am imaNning it it wouldn’t happen any time but it could happen within that first year of
analysis, granted it may not be a year of analysis, data collection, etc. You would
compile the recommendations, which may include incentives that would then be actioned
at the end of that period as opposed to any time during this analysis period. Maybe I
should hold that as a comment for how I would see this going forward and we can discuss
that later. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am particularly interested in the single family residential
particularly in a remodel. How would we make a delineation with regard to a remodel if
somebody added say 150 square feet to their house but they remodeled say the balance of
1,500 in their house? Would that trigger it or would it be 1,500 square feet say added to
that house and the existing house would be exempt, or would it be the wholesale
remodeling of the house?
Ms. French: I think those are issues to explore. Again, for right now or for as soon as the
Council if they were to adopt this ordinance if it didn’t involve an HIE or a
Neighborhood Preservation Exception we wouldn’t require them to submit the checklist.
Again, that is off in the future and there is time to analyze the thresholds, and what are the
wrinkles in that, existing, net new, all of that. It hasn’t been worked out.
Mr. Williams: Again, there are two things happening. One is requiring a checklist,
which only is with a discretionary permit regardless of square footage. The second thing
is this table that outlines sort of a starting point for discussions of what kind of a program
we might institute over the next year to three years or whatever the timeframe is. That
has the 1,500 square foot threshold for single family. Those are all ideas to be explored
over the next several months with the Commission and the ARB and the community and
the developers and other folks. At which point we will be coming back to you with an
ordinance that presents-that program. Then that would need to be adopted before it
would actually go into effect.
So all we are doing with this one is getting checklists submitted. Our feeling is that is a
very valuable process. It has been valuable even though we haven’t on the ARB front
even though we haven’t had it in an ordinance just because most people are willing to do
it, and a lot of people are already into this. We have heard stories from other cities where
they have implemented programs sort of voluntary planning to go to mandatory and by
the time they get through a year of voluntary everybody is doing it and it isn’t even
necessary to make it a mandatory program. So the educational process itself of just
filling out the checklist they get familiar with what works and what doesn’t and how to
create more sustainable green buildings. We get a better understanding and training as to
what that means, what the point system means over that period of time, and we are all
close to on the same page hopefully if and when we get to the mandatory.
Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to again we are talking about single family residential
here, how would detached garages be figured into that? Garages are generally not ....
Mr. Williams: They don’t require - it is not a discretionary permit. So at this point these
remodels or detached garages none of those would have to submit checklists at this point.
Ms. French: With the exception of if they were multi-family and they would be going
through the ARB process.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right.
Ms. French: Our ARB process would have a finding that we are proposing that we would
be looking at.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: To follow up on what Vice-Chair Lippert referred to one of the
things to consider is suppose you have a process that requires a discretionary permit of
some sort for which say there is a 500 square foot addition, a 500 square foot remodel on
an existing house that is over 1,500 square feet. So 1,000 square feet are untouched, 500
is changed, 500 is added. Does that comet as a 1,500 square foot project or not? I think
that needs to be precisely understood. So with examples of numbers like that that
delineate whether that is 2,000 or whether that is a 1,000 square foot project.
Mr. Williams: Maybe I am missing something I here. If you pass this ordinance 1,500
square feet has nothing to do with anything.
Commissioner Keller: I understand that.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So if you pass this ordinance and a discretionary permit is
associated with that project so it would have to submit a checklist whether it is 1,500
square feet, whether it is remodeling or addition, if it has a discretionary permit it submits
a checklist and indicates what they are doing from a sustainability standpoint. They
aren’t required to do 26 points or 30 points or anything else. It is just voluntary and we
get information from that.
The 1,500 square feet is not going into effect now. That is not part of this ordinance.
That is down the road, it is for discussion. So if your suggestion is that we need to in the
next six months or whatever it takes while we are deliberating about that consider those
combinations of how we get to 1,500 or if the number is 1,200 or 2,000 or whatever that
is a good point and we will do that. That is what we want to discuss when we get there
and when we sit down with this sort of ad hoc committee is what are those numbers, what
are the appropriate incentives, and what are the appropriate requirements..
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think I understand where the confusion is. If you go to page three
there is a table and under the date 7-1-07, if you go down to the single family residential I
think as Commissioner Keller had said the threshold floor area is 1,500 new or remodel.
If you had a 1,000 square foot house and somebody decided that they wanted to put a
second story on that, a 500 square foot master bedroom, which is not unreasonable you
have to remode! the downstairs in order to be able to support a second story. It goes
through the discretionary review process therefore even though you are making minor
structural changes to the downstairs does it trigger that 1,500 square foot remodel?
Ultimately I think where the confusion is is does that carry forward to 2009 when it
becomes mandatory? That’s all.
Ms. French: I think we understand the confusion and the request. Definitely more to
come on that but what you are doing tonight has nothing to do with 1,500 although there
is a table here that is by way of reference it is not ’the program’ at the moment. It says
July 1 but the Council won’t have adopted, we don’t think, this ordinance saying require
checklists for all IR, and it is saying for all IR it is not saying for 1,500 square feet of IR.
Even if they added 150 square foot we would ask for a checklist.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right, right but that is where I think the confusion lies.
Ms. French: I understand.
Vice-Chair Lippert: The idea is that when we recommend this we are not really not
mindful of when this goes forward to Council unless you say you are going to vote on
this tonight and it is going to go to Council next week.
Mr. Williams: You will never see the 1,500 issue come to play until you see an
ordinance in the future that says 1,500. This is on here because it was created as a draft
of sort of a concept of timeline. What is here today is just the checklist and connected to
the discretionary and no square footage thresholds.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Keller: Right now we have Home Improvement Exceptions to encourage
additions. It is to allow 100 extra square feet over the ordinarily allowed FAR. What I
am wondering is if it makes sense to think of a further allowance above the 100 square
feet, some specified amount, in order to allow for green remodels particularly to
encourage adaptive reuse as opposed to scrapes.
Ms. French: I think this would be one of the items for the ad hoc committee I have talked
about. We are looking at DEEs. We could look at HIEs, which are the residential
equivalent of DEEs.
Commissioner Keller: The last thing, and I am not sure whether it makes sense or not,
but from my point of view being that I am not a building expert and I don’t know the
differences between existing building energy use and what Title 24 requirements are but
it seems to me that one way perhaps of encouraging people to do adaptive reuse rather
than scraps of a small building and replacing it with a much larger building is say that
your energy footprint for the much larger building in terms of electricity, water, all that
kind of stuff that we know about having our own utilities should be not greater than the
old building. I am wondering whether that principle makes sense or whether it is not
necessary because of Title 24. I am not sure but it is something that might be worth
considering.
Mr. Larkin: I want to interrupt because I know that some of the confusion has been
caused because items two and three are interrelated. Because the Commission tabled
item two to move to item three it is probably a good idea to finish the ordinance
recommendations first and then go back to sort of the broader sustainability concepts.
Chair Holman: I think they are quite interrelated though so depending on what our
comments are about sustainability they might very well affect what our recommendation
is on item number three.
Mr. Larkin: Some to the suggestions are getting a little beyond what the Commission has
the ability to do tonight. I am not trying to lessen the value of those comments because
they are very important but it is actually extremely important that we get the
recommendation on the ordinance particularly on the DIVCA section of that ordinance
tonight. So I want to make sure the Commission gets to it.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber did you have another question?
Commissioner Garber: Yes, just procedurally. In order to create the tool that allows the
City to make these collections of checklists we have to create this ordinance? And, it is
not clear to me that the text here provide a sustainable finding similar to that found in the
section, etc., is that the sort of language that we should be using versus using language
that is more plain and asking for these checklists to be included in the submittals?
Ms. French: The section that we are using for the checklist is again the Council adopted
Sustainability Policies. So technically they haven’t adopted a Sustainability Policy
saying we want checklists. But it allows us to say Council wants us to be green and is
sending us in that direction. So in our requesting of application materials - so are you
suggesting then we put in there a checklist rather than saying .....
Commissioner Garber: Not necessarily. I am just trying to understand the difference
between item number one and two on item number three here. Your two sub-parts of
item three. The first one is amend subsections 18.76.020 b) Findings.
Ms. French: That is for ARB only.
Commissioner Garber: The issue of the checklist is sub-item number two here which is
amend section applications, filing of applications, and application contents, right? So
that is the only thing that deals with the checklist.
Ms. French: That is correct.
Commissioner Garber: I apologize again. For sub-item number one what is the critical
task you would like us to focus on with that one?
Ms. French: Our hope is that this language is already adopted in the form codes and the
ARB is satisfied with that as a finding to allow them to review a project for its
sustainability, and we have a representative here. So that is for the ARB purpose.
Then part two of this is just by adding those little words Council adopted Sustainability
Policies, allows us to on a range of discretionary applications to ask for, you know, and
there could be a rollout of that as well. It doesn’t require that we start on July 1, again,
asking for all of those.
Commissioner Garber: Right, thank you.
Mr. Williams: To get.there you need to go back to sort of the page before. The section
this is under is under Filing of Application and Application Contents. So what we are
saying here is not you must comply with this list of the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. What we are saying is you must submit application materials
sufficient for us to evaluate and right now we can say that for the Comprehensive Plan.
We can say you have to submit application. For the zoning code we have to say your
plan has to show this, this, and this so we can see what the height is, etc., etc. We don’t
have something right now that says we can request checklists for sustainability issues.
Commissioner Garber: Got it.
Mr. Williams: So adding this gives us that tool.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Mr. Larkin: The checklist itself and the form of the checklist like everything else is
within the discretion of the Director.
Commissioner Garber: Right. We are not taking action on that just creating the
opportunity to do that.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Chair Holman: Okay, let’s try to wrap up questions. Commissioner Keller you had one
and Commissioner Lippert has one.
Commissioner Keller: With respect to the wording on pages four and five of the draft
ordinance in Section 15 it states that there is design of landscaping to create comfortable
microclimates and reduce heat island effects. Then a couple of lines down it says, design
lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy and water use. What I am
wondering is why it doesn’t mention landscaping as one of the things that should be
designed for efficient energy and water use and whether that is something that should be
added?
Ms. French: If you look at existing finding 14 which says something about drought
resistant and reduce consumption of water. Actually we have several findings that are
existing findings with respect to landscaping but that is one that includes water use. We
require for all ARB applications that they submit a water use sheet that gets evaluated by
Utilities.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Board Member Pritchard. You have been here all n~ght and you
haven’t had a question. Since you are a LEED Certified person.
Board Member Malone-Pritchard~ ARB: Accredited, thank you.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Accredited, I am sorry. I have never seen one of these checklists
believe it or not. Can you just go through and describe for us what one of these
checklists might be like in terms of an applicant and whether this can be included on a
coversheet of a set of plans easily?
Board Member Malone-Pritchard: It would be several pages long so it would be difficult
to include the entire thing on a set of plans in a legible way. Essentially there are several
different sections that LEED deals with. It deals with energy and atmosphere. It deals
with sustainable site design, indoor environmental quality, and topics like that. In each of
those topics there are many different points that you can get. For instance having
operable windows will provide you with a good indoor air quality point. An applicant
can go through the checklist and pick and choose the things that will work for their
project and are feasible for their project.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Is it easy enough to take a several page document and only publish
those elements that are being used on a project thereby providing an abridged version of
the list that is able to be displayed on a front page of a drawing set?
Board Member Malone-Pritchard: Certainly that would be possible.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Holman: I think Commissioner Keller has a question for you as well.
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think that one of the things people talk about in terms of
geen buildings is there is a claim that they add to the cost of geen buildings. I am
wondering if you have any thoughts on whether they do add to the cost of a typical
building and being LEED Certified, say LEED Silver for example and if you have an idea
on how much it might reduce the operating costs of such a building? One of the concerns
that was brought up earlier by somebody was the idea that the building cost was paid for
by the owner of the building and the operating cost is often paid for by the renters of a
building when you have an office building that is rented based on triple net.
Board Member Matone-Pritchard: That is correct and that is one of the things that is a
challenge for those of us who are trying to get LEED Certified buildings out there. We
do much better when a building is going to owned and operated by the same person. The
person who is seeing the energy savings over the course of several years is the same
person who put the initial investment into the building.
Commissioner Keller: Can you help quantify? Is it five percent more expensive? Is it
two percent more expensive? Is it 10 percent for the typical range of buildings that you
are seeing? Do you save 10 percent on energy costs?
I am not asking you to quantify everything but what is the range of those?
Board Member Malone-Pritchard: The range is huge depending on the scale of the
building and the individual LEED items that a building owner chooses to use. It can be
anything from no additional cost to 20 percent additional cost initially. The payback
period generally on these things is at least five years and sometimes more.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber you had a follow up?
Commissioner Garber: Actually I think it was answered better than I was going to
suggest it being answered. So I do not have a follow up question.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: One quick questions focusing specifically on what we would be
recommending for authorization tonight. Have you had any negative feedback or
pushback from the development community on doing this?
Ms. French: No, in fact we have had positive feedback so far.
Chair Holman: Okay, finally my turn to ask a few questions. We heard earlier from
Russ Reiserer about our Waste Composition Study and I know that there are a lot of
things that are controversial if you will if not subject to debate about LEED and BIG as
well. One of the big ones especially since this is for me in this community because this
community is a built-out community is that when you reuse a building you get one to
three points depending on how much of a building you reuse. If you look at the Waste
Composition Studies the impact is enormous in terms of trips generated, in terms of
materials used, and the payback period starts with and I hope you would agree with this,
the payback period starts when you start with a clean site. You are nodding your head in
acknowledgment of that. So it does not take into account that there has been a building
removed and all the materials that have been transported in some fashion or another,
energy consumed, and recycling those materials that have been recycled, all the new
materials that are generated and the energy that is taken to manufacture the materials, and
all the energy that is consumed in transporting those new materials.
As an example there is a study and I didn’t bring with me who did the study but for every
can that is at the curb being recycled there are 71 cans upstream. That is pretty
significant. What it means is that for every can that is being recycled there is the same
amount of energy in 71 cans to create that one can to be manufactured, delivered, picked
up, and that sort of thing. So I am absolutely in support of sustainable development and
green building practices but I am very troubled by adapting even on a trial basis and a
volunteer basis the standard we are setting is LEED and BIG which in a built out
con~nunity we are not giving credit that really is highly appropriate for adaptive reuse.
So that is a serious concern for me. Curtis, you want to make a comment?
Mr. Williams: Yes. I completely understand that concern. I think it is very valid and I
think it is something to look at during this period. First of all we are not giving anybody
- nobody is getting certain points to comply with - we are not requiring that they comply
with a certain number of points during this period anyway. So if you gave 100 points for
adaptive reuse and one for everything else, they fill out the checklist and they put that
down and you get a total at the end. So it is not in and of itself creating incentive or
disincentive as far as that goes.
What I think we need to do is as we develop this timeframe for implementation we are
also looking at the checklists and determining from Palo Alto’s standpoint what would
we like to revise about that and to focus more on or do we want to change anything? But
if we do that is the time to do it and that is part of that process, identifying what is most
important to Palo Alto in terms of that point system. If we want to develop something
that is more customized for Palo Alto we can do that.
I certainly think getting started with having people get used to filling out checklists and
that is a good initial step. We can then develop the more customized approach as we
develop this timeframe-and the overall program. So I don’t see them as being exclusive
features.
Ms. French: I would add to that that certainly incentives as we talk to utilities and those
kinds of rebates, fee-bates, whatever we come up with certainly adaptive reuse would be
one of those categories that I would think we could incentivize with those types of
rebates.
Chair Holman: I appreciate all that and my disappointment I guess is that we haven’t
addressed this already in some fashion of consideration given that it is a built out
community. We are sending a message by adopting even on a temporary or interim basis
and trial basis. We are sending a message that here is what we are looking at so I do have
a concern about that.
Just a couple of quick comments and then I think we will probably be looking at a
motion. A couple of comments about incentives and DEEs and IR and Variances as well.
For Variances the findings for Variances the core Variance findings are codified by state
are they not? Then we can make some modification but the core findings are state law
are they not?
Mr. Larkin: There is state law on variance findings. Our Variance findings deviate from
state law and as a Charter City we have the ability to apply different standards under the
home rule authority. I am certain there are limits to how far we would be allowed to go
but I don’t know exactly what those limits are. We haven’t tested those limits to this
point.
Chair Holman: And DEE findings I know we have had some latitude and we actually
clarified those. I’m sorry. HIEs we changed to some extent. DEEs have not the same
but similar findings. So how we are balancing this and again looking at is it an incentive
to allow a DEE when a DEEs, and I am speaking generally here, DEEs are typically
granted for larger development and is that really a green policy or action? There are
usually at least one if not numerous ways to solve the same problem or achieve the same
goal. So I would just ask folks to look at that.
Mr. Williams: I think it is important to note that it is a policy goal. If the City decides it
is a policy goal then the DEE or Variance or something like that is an avenue to consider.
It may not work, it may not be the right one but we did that with the historic structures.
We basically have blown off the first finding on Variances and HIEs now and
automatically kick them into the other findings for structures that are Category I or
Category II or in an historic district. That was a policy decision the City has made that
just the nature of that was important enough to the City that it didn’t have to show that it
was a unique site and all that, that was the uniqueness in and of itself.
Chair Holman:
Mr. Williams:
I know that is true for HIEs I do not recall that it is true for Variances.
Well, we can check. Maybe it is just HIEs.
Chair Holman: HIEs I know we did.
Mr. Williams: So maybe it is more equivalent for the DEE situation.
Chair Holman: Also about incentives, I am not always a big fan of incentives. I think is
a place for them, I think there are kinds of incentives that are quite good. I think
expedited process is quite good. I know the group is going to be looking at this. Energy
rebates I think are quite good. There is also a built in incentive to having a green project
and that is that it is more energy efficient. It is a built in incentive. Then there is also as
was pointed out in the report that Palo Altoans are pretty much on board with this. So
there is also an incentive to do the right thing and community pride and support
community values, and be one of the leaders in the country about having green projects.
So just be aware of those kinds of incentives as well when you are looking at this.
Then the other thing about adaptive reuse again as it has to do with LEED is that akin to
that is promoting adaptive reuse could be extended to, if we are talking about
sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions and such, to look at doing a zoning change
whether we require that you not lose living units. That absolutely affects greenhouse
gases, it affects trips, and it affects housing units in the community, and that is certainly a
sustainability goal. So I think I will stop there. Commissioner Keller you had a
question?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think I am going to change the subject a little bit to
DIVCA. There was a comment in the public about the potential for communication
cabinets being located in a public right-of-way with respect to either a sidewalk or
something that is akin to a sidewalk or where cars might park or drive and it was
mentioned specifically for Barron Park. I am wondering what the process would be for
approving that and whether there is sufficient language in here to make sure that there
aren’t harmful impacts from the siting of these.
Ms. French: Again, our ARB process that we are suggesting is calling these minor. The
ARB process allows for somebody, anybody, within 14 days after a tentative approval is
issued to request a hearing before the ARB. Subsequent to that is the Director’s
Decision. That decision can be appealed to the City Council. So we have built in, even
though it is considered a minor process, that whole extended process is implicated if
somebody should choose to go that direction.
Again, what we have done with these is to have a landscape architectural consultant
weigh in, go and look at each location, decide where the best location is within that area
with respect to existing street trees, and these are in the public right-of-way, with respect
to providing screening meaning new plantings to screen, with respect to the color of the
box if there is an existing box there using the same color so we don’t have a multiple
color scheme happening-in the same location. There are a number of items that are
looked at and Staff is using a consultant to help us with the various locations.
Commissioner Keller: Is there anything about that street right-of-way that is just not
wide enough that it doesn’t make sense to put that there at all?
Mr. Larkin: We have to be careful about how we use ~right-of-way’ because it would be
in public property but it couldn’t be in the street, it couldn’t be in the middle of the
sidewalk blocking access. These are fairly large boxes and that just wouldn’t be able to
be done. But what we are talking about is in the plant strips, or in planted areas. So
when we say ~right-of-way’ we don’t mean the street or the sidewalk they can’t be put
there.
Commissioner Keller: Okay. And are there considerations about requiring the placement
of such structures underground in order to reduce the visual impact or other impacts that
might be envisioned by these?
Ms. French: Basically, we took this to the ARB and the ARB has given us strong
recommendation request that Staff consider that wherever possible, to underground. To
underground these things requires very large vaults and subjects the equipment to hazards
such as water and this kind of thing. We are in each case looking at the possibility of an
underground vault. It is just that it can be quite an issue with existing underground
utilities, tree roots, etc.
Mr. Larkin: I would just say that we are also looking at legal implications and I know
that the utilities that are proposing to place these boxes will fight that requirement
whether or not they have any legal basis to do so. So we are looking at it.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: One last question about that is if they are proposed for someplace that
really there is not way to mitigate its appearance, I understand they are as long as five
feet, if they are proposed for some location that you really can’t mitigate that there is not
enough room to landscape or whatever around them, can the City deny that location?
Mr. Larkin: Because this is relatively new legislation none of this has been tested but my
understanding is as with all things we have our normal architectural review function but
the issue is similar to other utilities if that is the place it needs to be in order for their
process to function it is more likely we will be stuck with it.
Ms. French: I can say on the ones that we have looked at there has been a preferred
location and an alternate location. So there have been alternatives looked at.
Chair Holman: Okay, great, thank you. Are we ready for a motion? Commissioner
Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think what Commissioner Keller is really saying in following up to
Bob Moss’ comment in a neighborhood like Barron Park we don’t have sidewalks so it is
not going to be located in a planting strip between the sidewalk and the street. It could be
virtually anywhere that-is not a paved street. Even in Barton Park it is quite questionable
what is paved and what is not paved. Then again in terms of the pattern of utilities in this
community normally we have utility poles. The telephone lines follow the pattern of the
utility poles. They are not going to put in their own poles specifically for telephone lines.
With these boxes they are not really following those patterns at all. In some ways they
have to work around our utilities in order to make their system work. So I think that is
really where the rub is so to speak. How do we regulate something or constrain to our
liking something that doesn’t follow the normal patterns that we are used to?
Chair Holman: Commissioners, are we ready for a motion? Who would like to make the
motion? Commissioner Garber.
MOTION
Commissioner Garber: I would like to make a motion that we accept the Staff’s
recommendation to one, amend Section 18.76.020 (d) Finding, (15) to provide a
sustainable finding similar to that found in Section 18.16.090(b)(8) for Commercial
District Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings; and I would also like to
include in this motion that we also support the Staff’s finding that amends Section
18.77.020 Applications (a) Filing of Application and Application Contents to add item
(5) ’Council adopted Sustainability Policies.’
I will only include those two. My thinking is we will do the DIVCA separately.
Chair Holman: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Convnissioner Tuma: Second.
Chair Hohnan: Motion by Conwnissioner Garber, seconded by Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Garber would you care to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Garber: Yes. I would like to make a couple of recommendations that
aren’t part of the ordinance but might be taken as recommendations. That would be that
the
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber are you adding to your motion?
Commissioner Garber: No, I thought I do these simply as comments unless someone
would like to take them otherwise.
Chair Holman: Okay.
Commissioner Garber: Relative to the work of amendment Section 18.77.020 this is the
ordinance that would then add potentially checklists to submittals I would suggest or
recommend that the study period for this exist over a 12 to 18 month period and then
there are three tasks related to it. One is the collection of this data, 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 clearly 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 ~ro with the mnendment 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 StafFs
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.
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 ganted just 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-rune what the criteria are for ganting 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 Staff’s
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 ofthose
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 most follow up with to be sure that these things are incorporated
in zoning, or in the Comprehensive Plan Update, or what are the avenues here that we
want to go in terms of implementation of some of these things throu~h the Commission
avenues?
Chair Holman: So the recommendation from Staff would be to close this item and then
have it included with our next study session having to do with transportation and other
issues. Commissioner Keller, Commissioner Garber do you have questions?
Commissioner Keller: I notice on our Tentative Agenda listing for future Planning and
Transportation Commission meetings that there is a Green Building Criteria item on
Wednesday, June 27. What I am wondering is how that relates to the issues for item two
that seem to be held over and whether feedback is useful prior to that meeting or whether
we can simply continue this discussion as part of that meeting.
Ms. French: Again, I am looking at the June 20 training or educational forum that we are
going to be having on LEED and I was thinking of that next meeting as an opportunity to
kind of debrief in a little study session on what we learned at that educational forum.
Maybe at that point we are going to be starting to convene that ad hoc committee, staring
to look at some zoning incentives or whatever. We might be starting those dialogues and
discussions.
Mr. Williams: Didn’t we talk today about the 29th, the 27th is probably not going to
work? It is probably going to be July because the Stanford projects will be back to you in
late June. So I think it is going to be July before that comes back. But that would be to
some extent a loNcal follow up as well to tag on. You will have had this sort of
workshop on the 20th for those of you who are interested and then having some follow up
to that, appointment of member or members to this ad hoc goup, and sort of a game plan
of where do we go from there as well as discussion of other sustainability items out of
this report.
Commissioner Keller: So I think it does make sense to incorporate the follow on
discussions of this as part of that discussion whether it is on June 27 or rescheduled to
another date. I think that that’s different from the discussion about transportation for
which I would welcome a scheduling of that.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber do you have a question?
Commissioner Garber: It is not a question it is a comment. May I make it? I just want to
just touch on one thing that you had asked for comment for and that is I think it is
important that particularly how we go about propagating sustainable objectives here that
we don’t segegate them into a separate chapter for instance in the Comprehensive Plan,
or that we create a separate zoning ordinance that is about sustainability. It isn’t a
functional area in the way that you have specific review of buildings or you have specific
uses that have to be reviewed. It is an umbrella objective in the same way that good
design is, or creating good practice, and things of that sort. The work should be
integrated as opposed to segegated into each of those functional areas as appropriate.
The use of a person that is tasked with that, I know that has been a conversation with both
the Council and on Staff if they can create a roll that can help do that, I would see that as
that person’s role, which is finding ways to create the continuity between each of these
areas so that the goal is uniformly rolled out across the entire City’s set of tools and
policies. That is my only comment.
Chair Holman: Okay, so with that I think we will close item number two. We will
continue the discussion though at a date in the future that Staff deems most appropriate
Nven our comments. Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: I just had a request. The session on June 20, is that going to be
video taped?
Ms. French: It will be in the Chambers so I think it would be a good one to tape. It is for
Council and appointed folks but there may be people that want to tune in to that.
Commissioner Tuma: A couple of things. One is just personally I won’t be able to be
here I will be out of the state. I also think that it may be something depending on what
comes out of it that would be helpful for educating the public going forward, making it
available more than we do with the regular things. It would be nice especially if we are
going to have what amounts to a debriefing the following week. I get back on the 22nd
and ifI could get my hands on that tape it would be helpful.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioners, we have Approval of Minutes from March 28
and April 11.
Attachment D
Excerpt of Architectural Review Board Minutes for Meeting of April 19, 2007
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearing
o Green Buildin~ Alternatives: ARB discussion of potential pro~ams and final
recommendation for amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020
Finding 15 for sustainability.
Architectural Review Board Action:
The board recommended (Board member Malone Prichard moved, seconded Board
member
Trossman, Board member Wasserman and Lee absent) to the City Council the amended
Finding 15 with 2 changes, delete the extra "to create" and add an "and".
The Board also reconmaended (Board member Malone Prichard moved, seconded by
Board member Solnick, Board member Wasserman and Lee absent) to the City Council
the Green Building Matrix (prepared by Vice Chair Malone Prichard) with modifications
and clarifications as discussed.
Attachment E
PLANNING & TRANSPOR TA TION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Amy French
Manager of Current Planning
DEPARTMENT: Planning arid
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2007
SUBJECT:Review recommendation of amendments to Palo 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 Conteit-Based Design
Considerations and Findings;
(2) Amend Section 18.77.020 Applications (a) Filing of
application and application contents, to add item (5) ’Council
adopted Sustainability Policies’
(3) Amend both chapters to update the architectural review process
to conform to the requirements of the California Digital
Infrastructure andVideo 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 Reyiew, 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 amended 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.
Als0 provided to Council was the proposed Section 18.77.020 addition of ’Council Adopted
Sustainability Policies’ to the criteria for reviewing applications. The proposed amendment,
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 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.
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
Council also did not discuss or provide direction regarding the ARB-recommended Green
Building program. The Council approved staff’s recommendation to direct staffto 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 interdepartmental group
of staffmembers 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, beginning July
2009.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
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
SFR
Commercial and
MFR
SFR
Threshold
floor area
5,000 sq.ff, new
or remodel
5,000 sq.ff, new
or remodel
1,500 sq.fl, new
or remodel
5,000 sq.ff, 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 rain.
LEED points
Specify min.
BIG points
LEED certified
BIG certified
LEED certified
BIG certified
Mandatory/VoluntaryO)
Compliance
Mandatory
Voluntary
Voluntary
Mandatory
Voluntary
Mandatory
Mandatory
(1) Voluntary compliance w.ould require submittal of appropriate checklist to .M~ for commercial
and MFR and with building permit application for all applicable commercial, MFR and/or SFR
Staff’ s Green Building proposal indicated specific thresholds, while the ARB’s program sets
forth lower thresholds. 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 staffwill be exploring the resource impacts of the various thresholds, as it
impacts the various planned projects and overall budget for Capital Improvement Projects.
Staffis also planning to provide a green building educational session for Council 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 sustaJnability policies." In addition, boards and
commissions 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 summary 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
residential 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 Digita!
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 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 ofcabie 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 wi!l 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 fights-of-way management activities,
DIVCA requires the holder of a state franchise to be treated in the same manner 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. Staffhas 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 Municipa!
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 corfform 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 service providers.
Within the past three months, staffhas 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 mending PAMC Chapters 2 and 12, adopted April 9, 2007.
COURTESY COPIES:
ARB
Grant Kolling
Melissa Cavallo
Lata Vasudevan
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
Curtis Williams, AICP, Assistant Director
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment F
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FROM:Amy French, AICP
Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
AGENDA DATE: April 19, 2007
SUBJECT: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 fora,ard 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 Februa~y 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 require
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 forwarded to 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 hom~’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 23~a 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
At the April 5, 2007 meeting, the ARB mentioned "unstated assumptions counter to the
April 19, 2007 ARB Staff Report on Green Building Altema6ves Page 2
sustainability movement" and referred to a need for the City to "step up to the plate" with zoning.
There are certain concepts ofsustainability, 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 leve! 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 benchmarking
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 19tu 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
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 a green building program
April 19, 2007 ARB Staff Report on Green Building Altematives Page 3
to the City Council.
Staff suggests that the Board outline a progam and timeline as follows:
Date
7/1/07 out
7/1/07
7/1/08
711109
Development
Type
City facilities
Commercial and
Multi-Family
Residential
(Mt~R)
Single-Family
Residential (SFR)
Commercial and
MFR
SFR
C~mmercialand
MFR
SFR
Threshold
floor area
5,000 sq.ft, new
or remodel
5,000 sq.ft, new
or remodel
i,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 commercia!, MFR and/or SFR
The Board may want to specify that equivalent alternatives to LEED and BIG maybe 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 geen 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 Plarming and Community
Environment
April 19, 2007 ARB Staff Report on Green Building Alternatives Page 4