Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 141-06City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT FEBRUARY 13, 2006 CMR: 141:06 3201 E. BAYSHORE RD [05PLN-00255]: RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FOR A PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CONSISTING OF 10 SOLAR TRACKERS AND 2 PHOTOVOLTAIC CARPORTS TO BE LOCATED AT THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER (MSC). ZONE DISTRICT: PF (D) PUBLIC FACILITY WITH SITE & DESIGN COMBINING DISTRICT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15303. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review" Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the site and design review- and design enhancement exception for 10 photovoltaic (PV) tracking arrays located at the front of the City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC) as part of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic Demonstration project based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A); and recommend approval of Design Option #2, the ~pinwheel" option, as presented in project plans (Attacl~nent H). The ARB also recommended staff meet with the Public Arts Commission to determine if funds might be available to add a public art component. BACKGROUND The project background and description can be found in Attachment C. as well as in the ARB February 2, 2006 staff report (Attachment D). On December 5, 2005, the City Council reviewed the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation for denial, specifically for the 10 photovoltaic (PV) tracking arrays portion of the MSC photovoltaic demonstration project. At the Council meeting, staff also presented a reduced (5 photovoltaic tracking arrays) scale alternative of the project. The City Council, by a 6-3 vote, directed staff to return to the Architectural Review Board with the PV tracking array portion of the Photovoltaic Demonstration Project for ARB review and recommendation. The central issue for this project is the visual impact of the photovoltaic CMR: 141:06 Page 1 of 3 facilities, specifically the PV tracking arrays, being located in front of the MSC site and near the more sensitive surrounding Baylands area. Therefore, the Council directed staff to return to the ARB to deal specifically with the issue design compatibility of the PV tracking arrays in this area and with the Baylands Master Plan. (CMR & summary minutes included in Attachment F and G respectively). BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On February 2, 2006, the ARB heard the application tbr the MSC Photovoltaic Demonstration Project with the full and reduced scale alternative, as well as several design options as presented in the plans (Attachment H). The ARB recommended approval (3-1-0-1) of ten photovoltaic tracking arrays to be located in front of the City’s Municipal Service Center. Within the motion, was the recommendation for Design Option #2 (the "pinwheel" design) and direction for staff to approach the Public Arts Cormnission to determine if any public art money could be set aside for this project. The next Public Arts Commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 16, 2006. One Boardmember opposed the motion, noting overall support for the PV project in this location, but preferring Design Option #3 (the single axis multi-pole design). There were 2 public speakers at the ARB public meeting, who expressed support of the full 10 PV tracking array alternatives (See Verbatim Minutes, Attachment E). Comment letters submitted to the ARB included one in opposition and one in support of the proposed project (See ARB staff report with letters attached, Attachment D). Boardmembers expressed support of the visibility of this photovoltaic demonstration project, of all ten tracking arrays, and did not feel the location and design detracted from the Baylands. One Boardmember indicated that the MSC location does not fall within the purview of the Draft Baylands Guidelines. The opposing Boardmember preferred Design Option #3 as a perhaps less distracting to passing motorists, higher in energy yield, and with supporting structures more in scale with the existing context of the MSC buildings. RESOURCE IMPACT: The proposed project will be part of the Palo Alto Green Energy program, reducing costs to the City and participating residents and businesses in the program by increasing the availability of photovoltaic energy in the City. The City received a Department of Energy grant for $1.4 million dollars in the FY 2003 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill to install a variety of PV systems on City facilities. The City Utilities Department is providing $1.4 million dollars in matching funds, for a total project of $2.8 million dollars. Energy produced by all three- demonstration projects (312 kW for all three projects or approximately 604,500 kWh/year) will be utilized by the adjacent facilities as well as be available for use with the Utilities’ Green Energy Program. As a comparison, a typical single family home would install a 3 kW PV system to cover most, if not all of its typical energy use. The proposed project at the MSC would produce approximately 110 kW or 231,000 kWh/year. The visibility of the facilities at the MSC could be promotional when applying for additional photovoltaic ~ants in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Enviromnental Quality Act per Section 15303. The Department of Energy is the Lead Agency for the filing of an exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act. CMR: 141:06 Page 2 of 3 PREPARED BY: SU~ ~IIC-KELSEN Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Director of Plannino_ and Community Environment EM!Iqv@H~As sista.nt City MS2aNger \ ATTACHMENTS: No B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Record of Land Use Action Baylands Design Guidelines & Comprehensive Plan Compliance Background!Project Description/Zoning Compliance Table Architectural Review’ Board Report, February 2, 2006 Architectural Review Board excerpt verbatim minutes, February 2, 2006 December 5, 2005 City. Manager’s Report 438:05 City Council excerpt minutes, December 5, 2005 Project Plans (City Council Members only) - (Available for Public Review at the Cio, Development Center) COURTESY COPIES: Planning & Transportation Commission Architectural Review Board Mike Sartor, Public Works Karen Bengard, Public Works Holly Boyd, Public Works David Arkin, Arkin Tilt Architects Emily Renzel Michael Closson, Acterra CMR: 141:06 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A ACTION NO. 2006-01 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD PALO ALTO UTILITIES MSC PHOTOVOLTAIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT APPLICATION: 05PLN-00255 (CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, APPLICANT) SECTION i. Background. The City Counci! of the City of Pa!o Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. City of Palo Alto Public Works Department on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, property owner, has requested the City’s approval of a Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception application for the installation of a photovoltaic demonstration project at the City’s Municipal Service Center in the PF(D)zone district (The Project). B. The project would include the construction of two photovoltaic integrated carports of approximately 9,000 square feet within the existing northeast parking lot and ten photovoltaic tracking arrays to be located a!ong the front of the MSC site. C. The project includes a Design Enhancement Exception from the PF Zone development standards. This exception includes al!owing the !ocation of the photovoltaic tracking arrays within the front yard setback. D. Following Staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project and recommended denial of the photovoltaic tracking array portion on September 28, 2005. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 438:05 and the attacb_ments to it. E. Following Commission review, the City Counci! on December 5, 2005 recommended the project, particularly the photovoltaic tracking array component of the PV demonstration project be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for their recommendation to City Counci!. F. Following Council review, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approva! of the ten photovoltaic tracking arrays and for the arrays Design Option #2 ("pinwhee!" design)on February 2, 2006. The ARB’s recommendations are contained in CMR: [Number] and the attachments to it. SECTION 2. Environ_mental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is exempt Page 1 from enviro_n_menta! review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15303. SECTION 3.Architectural Review Findings !. The design is consistent and com_matible with applicable elements of the Pa!o Alto Com_mrehensive Plan. The proposed project satisfies specific programs, policies and goals, including: Policy N-48 of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan v<hich directs the City of Palo Alto to encourage alternative energy techno!ogies including photovo!taics by ensuring existing regulations to not impede them and using City facilities as demonstration projects. Energy POLICY N-48: Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies; and Infrastructure POLICY L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. 2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The project is located along a busy highway and arterial corridor and on the same site as the City’s Municipa! Service Center. The project is not taller than the existing buildings at the MSC facility nor nearby vertical elements along East Bayshore Road (iightpoles, utility lines, communications antennas). Therefore, the project does not conflict with the existing HSC use, or conflict more than the existing MSC use with the surrounding Bay!ands area. 3. T.he design is appropriate to the function of the project. The project is the installation of photovoltaic facilities at a City Municipal Service Center facility promoting green energy at one of the City’s more industria! land uses. 5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different land uses; The project would be located at the front of the Municipal Service Center between existing lightpoles a!ong East Bayshore Road and the MSC parking !ot!Building B. The proposed height of the tracking arrays are consistent with both these heights and does not intensify the existing MSC use near the Baylands area. Page 2 6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; Initia! review of the project by the City’s Building, Fire and Utilities department has occurred and conditions are provided in Section 7. Limited improvements at the MSC site have been approved with the City}s Capital Improvements Plan, and the proposed project is compatible and would not conflict with any of these approved projects. !0. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The project, fol!owing construction wil! return existing circulation to preconstruction levels. During construction, some parking lot access wil! be restricted, but parking levels wil! not be reduced with the project. 12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. The proposed photovoltaic project will create interest and improve upon the front of the more industria! use at the Municipa! Service Center. The photovoltaic tracking arrays are consistent with the adjacent arterial (East Bayshore), highway (!0!), and industrial (MSC) use and !ocated toward the center and front of the MSC site away from the Bay!ands to the sides and rear of the MSC site. 15. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy elements including but not limited to: The proposed project is an alternative energy, specifically solar energy project. It installs two varieties of photovoltaic systems at the city’s municipa! service center using Department of Energy grant money. The interest and visibility of these projects could foster further !ocal, federal, and private investment in similar photovoltaic installations. ~_RB standards #’s 4,7-9,11,13 & 14 would not apply to this project. SECTION 4.Design Enhancement Exception Findings. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary" circumstances or conditions applicable to the site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. Page 3 The project includes a re_quest for a DEE for location of the photovo!taic tracking arrays within the front setback. The site is unique as the City’s Municipal Service Center that is located along U.S. Highway !01 and East Bayshore Road and contains a more industrial use than other PF zoned facilities. This creates a unique opportunity to !ocate a City/DOE photovoltaic project at the facility that would be visible from this corridor without intensifying the existing MSC use. For the photovoltaic tracking arrays the front setback area of the MSC is the area closest to the corridor and existing utility (lightpo!e) structures, away from the Baylands at the rear and south of the MSC, and best solar orientation for these facilities on-site. 2. The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner, z<hich would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirement of PAMC Chapter 18 and the ARB findings. The proposed project will place key photovoltaic structures on a city facility between existing utility facilities (light .poles) along East Bayshore Road and in front of a more industrial use. As an alternative energy project and with the planned marketing strategy, it would call attention to the City’s Green Energy program at a visible location near Highway !01. The proposed placement aligns these structures a!ong the East Bayshore corridor without disrupting existing utilities within the East Bayshore right-of-way and without disrupting the existing bicycle path along East Bayshore. These facilities will be not be higher than the existing lightpoles and the existing MSC buildings on site. These structures could not be located outside of the front setback area without reducing the level of parking, which is already constrained, on-site. The project is subject to the AR_B findings. The Design Enhancement Exceptions will enhance the existing condition of the Municipal Service Center by adding this key photovo!taic design (tracking arrays) in front of a City facility. 3. The exception is related to minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or im_mrovemen ts in the vi cini ty and wi 11 no t be detrimental to the public health, safety general welfare or conveni ence. The proposal will meet all zoning requirements other then the requested Design Enhancement Exception. The proposed photovoltaic tracker arrays will not be taller than surrounding MSC buildings and nearby utility (lightpo!e) facilities. Therefore, the project P~e4 will not detract further from the Baylands area beyond the MSC. It wil! allow an accessory use and photovoltaic demonstration project to be located at the City’s Municipa! Service Center without the loss of parking on-site. The proposed project is consistent with the existing MSC use of the facility, and wil! actually create more interest at the front of this more industrial use. Initial review of the project by the City’s Building, Fire and Utilities department has occurred and conditions are provided in Section 7. SECTION 5. Site and Design Review Findings. i. The use will be constructed and operated in a ma.nner that wi!l be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed project is consistent with the industrial use of the Municipa! Service Center, the adjacent East Bayshore Road and U.S. Highway !01. The proposed project !ocation is not directly adjacent to the Bay!ands, but !ocated between existing !ightpoles along East Bayshore Road and in front of the Municipal Service Center parking !or/Building B. The photovoltaic carports will be consistent with the parking !or design and surrounding colors. For the photovoltaic tracking arrays the front setback area of the MSC is the area closest to the corridor and existing utility (!ightpole) structures, away from the Baylands at the rear and south of the MSC, add best solar orientation for these facilities on-site. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activi ties, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project will maintain the desirability of investment into the MSC facility and increase educational opportunities for photovoltaic facilities. All improvements wil! be governed by the regulation of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and high _quality of deve!opment. Solar energy facility investment, because of the project’s visibility, could potentially increase through additiona! grant money as wel! as potentially foster private photovoltaic projects.The demonstration projects include educationa! components that wil! add to the City’s existing Green Energy Program. 3. Sound principles of enviroNMental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The project is a demonstration solar energy power project that will add to the Palo Alto Utilities Green Energy program. The project Page 5 is consistent with the adjacent industrial MSC facility use, and does not detract, more than the existing MSC, from the nearby, more natural, Baylands area. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Policy N-48 of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan directs the City to encourage alternative energy technologies including photovoltaics by ensuring existing regulations do not impede them and through using City facilities as demonstration projects. SECTION 6. SITE ~D DESIGN APPROVALS GKhNTED. Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 05PLN-00255, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of the Record. SECTION 7.Conditions of Approva!. Planning: The applicant shall explore more creative options for the photovoltaic tracking arrays including potentially coloring the supporting poles, redesign the layout of PV panels, or stagger vertically or horizontally their placement. Planning: Maintenance and cleaning of the new PV facilities shall occur on a regular basis to ensure proper operation. Planning: Applicant shal! submit the parking reconfiguration related to the carport installation for the approval by the City’s Transportation Division. Planning: The applicant shall explore potential funding through the Palo Alto Arts Commission for a public art component of this city project. Planning: The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division shal! be in substantia! conformance with the plans, project details and materials dated on February 2, 2006, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval or those added through the Site and Design review process. Building: permit. The project is re~dired to submit for an electrical Utilities: All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards. Applicant shall show the model of inverter, a single line diagram, and load sheet for the proposed project. Page 6 Fire: Applicant shall provide shutoff instructions and warning signs at main electrical connection and!or panel. SECTION 8.Term of Approva!. Site andDesign ~:Dproval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipa! Code Section 18.82.080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FO~: Director of Planning and Community Environment Asst. City Attorney PLANS kiND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: i. Development Plans prepared by Arkin Tilt Architects entitled Photovoltaic Design for the City of Palo Alto Municipa! Service Center; 3201 East Bayshore Road dated February 2, 2006. Page 7 ATTACHMENT B BAYLANDS DESIGN GUIDELINES & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 3210 East Bayshore Road - Photovoltaic Project at City Municipal Service Center See attached "Using the Baylands Design Guidelines". Guidelines are primarily applicable to dedicated par-kland within the Baylands, but are also to be used as part of the compatibility review for adjacent uses. The below discussion therefore discusses compatibility with the existing MSC use as well as the nearby Baylands use. The Guidelines characterizes the Municipal Service use and a "Commercial and Service use". Use only muted, natural colors. Choose materials attd finishes that will weather without degrading. The proposed project location is not directly adjacent to the Baylands, but within and in front of the Municipal Service Center parking lot. The photovoltaic carports will be consistent with the parking lot design and surrounding colors. The proposed photovoltaic tracking arrays, as a more artistic element, will contain more color, but will not detract more than the existing Municipal Service Center use and nearby utilities from the Baylands area beyond the MSC site. Preserve the horizon line with low and horizontal elements. Although the photovoltaic trackers will be a new vertical element, they will not be any higher than the existing Municipal Service Center buildings and other utility and light poles along East Bayshore Road, and will therefore not disturb the horizon line more than the existing use. In addition to the MSC buildings, other nearby vertical elements in the area include high voltage power lines along East Bayshore, communication antennas near the Emily Renzel Marsh, the artificial ’hill" created by the solid waste transfer station and streetlight poles in front of the MSC. Additional tree plantings (screening elements) around the MSC did occur with the construction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District project and they will be mature in 5-10 years. When a person driving or walking at-grade nears the MSC, the MSC buildings, not the Baylands are the predominant visual element. The project is designed with the Baylands in mind by located the facilities at the front of the MSC, away from the Baylands natural area, and limiting their height to the existing building heights at the MSC to not be visible from the Baylands area. Mount fences, enclosures, and identity signs low to the ground. The proposed project does not include new fences or enclosures. A small sign, consistent with nearby Baylands Park signs, will be located near the project to identify it as a Palo Alto Green project and identify where more information can be found (on the Utilities website or at nearby Baylands Interpretive Center). Reduce the size and mounting heights of regulatory signs. The project does not include regulatory signs. The photovoltaic pole height of the tracking arrays has been designed to the lowest height possible for security and operation of the facilities. Design for practicality. Public Works staff is considering a separate long term on-call maintenance agreement for the tracking facilities. Other new photovoltaic facilities will be incorporated into ongoing city utility City of Palo Alto 1 facilities maintenance, including regular analysis of photovoltaic systems’ efficiency and maintenance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 3201 East Bayshore Road - Photovoltaic Project at City Municipal Service Center 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plalz Policy N-48 of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City of Palo Alto to encourage alternative energy technologies including photovoltaic facilities by ensuring existing regulations to not impede them and using City facilities as demonstration projects. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Major Institutional/Special Facilities intended for city and related facilities. Comprehensive Plan Policies N-48, & L-79 are applicable to this project. Policies N-l, N-6, N-8 relate in general to open space areas, including the adjacent Baylands area. Energy POLICY N-48: Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies. Infrastructure POLICY L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Open Space Policy N-l: Manage existing public open space areas and encourage the management of private open space meas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreational needs. Open Space Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Open Space Policy N-8: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks and other natural water or wetland areas of open space. City of Palo Alto 2 ATTACHMENT C CITY OF PALO ALTO PHOTOVOLTAIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto received a matching grant from the Department of Energy to install solar electric demonstration projects at city facilities. Key objectives of the grant are to install a variety of PV systems and to include an educational component in one or more of the sites. City- owned, non-park property was explored for location of such facilities based on structural, solar orientation, location near utility facilities, planned development, and space requirements. The Architectural Review Board reviewed preliminary photovoltaic concepts related to this project on May 20, 2004 & August 4, 2005 study sessions. The following are brief descriptions of the photovoltaic systems at all three city owned locations, including the proposed MSC location. The first two projects were approved by the Planning Director in August 2005. Details for each project are also provided in Attachment B (Arkin-Tilt Architects Overall Summary of Projects). 1) Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center - rooftop PV system on existing Baylands interpretive center. The project includes the installation of a ’periscope’ for public viewing of the panels providing a fun, interactive way to view the panels and the Bay around. Staff at the Center and individual ARB members gave input to help design this system and it is designed to have minimal impact on the overall appearance of the existing building. This project was approved on August~._,’~’) 2005. 2) Cubberley Community Center - Installation of rooftop panels on existing structures and the installation of a window canopy structure on one building that will also contain PV facilities, as well as provide shading to the windows and interior space along this fa~cade. This project was approved on August 22, 2005. 3) City Municipal Service Center - Installation of 10 PV tracking an’ays along the front of this city property that is visible from US Highway 101. Project also includes the installation of PV integrated carports that will also provide shading for 4 rows of parking at the facility. No parking wil! be lost with the planned reconfiguration. This project is currently under review through the Site and Design review process. The objective of the Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic Demonstration Projects is to demonstrate the benefits and versatility of photovoltaic systems while generating energy for City utilities. A variety of photovoltaic system types are proposed at three different City owned properties to educate the public, City staff and other City governments about solar electric technology. Energy produced by the projects (312 kW1 for all three projects or approximately 604,500 kWh/year) will be utilized by the immediate facilities as well as be available for use with the CPA Utilities’ Green Energy Program. ’- Just as a comparison, a typical single family home would install a 3 kW PV system to cover most, if not all of its typical energy use. City of Palo Alto 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD (CITY MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER) PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXISTING SITE CONI)ITIONS The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Major Institutional/Special Facilities and is located within PuNic Facilities (PF) zoning and Site and Design (D) Combining district. The PF zoning district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. The existing use on the site is the City’s Municipal Service Center. The areas proposed for installation of photovoltaic facilities include the northwest parking lot and a portion of the front setback. The existing front landscaped area is primarily grass with a few trees adjacent to the fence area (that wilt remain), as well as a current art installation (also to remain). Adjoining properties are zoned Public Facilities District and designated parkland (Baylands). The MSC site and surrounding Santa Clara Valley Water District easement is excluded from this parkland designation area. Areas opposite U.S. Highway 101 from the project are zones Limited Industrial/Research Park (LM) District. PROJECT DESCRIPTION City Utilities and Public Works Departments proposes to install ten photovoltaic tracker arrays along the front of the Municipal Service Center (behind existing row of light poles) and PV integrated carports in the existing parking lot. The PV tracker alTays are proposed to extend to a maximum height with panel tilt of approximately 21’-26’, depending on design and supporting pole height. City staff has committed the structures be no higher than the adjacent MSC buildings (at 25’). The photovoltaic pole height of the tracking arrays has been designed to the lowest height possible for security and operation of the facilities. Supported PV panels will be approximately 10’x15’, depending on design. The height will be less than the existing structures at the MSC. The PV integated open carports will provide shading for 4 rows of parking, or approximately 9,000 square feet, at the facility. With parking lot reconfiguration, no parking will be lost with the proposed project. Energy, provided by the new systems will be utilized on-site as well as feed into the nearest Palo Alto Utilities substation, to be utilized by participants in the Cities’ Green Energy Program. Potential on-site marketing of the project is limited to a small sign near the new facilities, consistent with the small nearby Baylands Park signs which will identify the Palo Alto Green program and point the reader toward the Utilities website or nearby Baylands Interpretive Center for more information. No signage will be visible from Highway 101. The project also includes a broader external educational component including publicity of the Palo Alto Green Energy program and on- line availability of solar energy production at the site. City of Palo Alto ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 3201 East Bayshore Road - Photovoltaic Project at City Municipal Service Center. Public Facilities (PF)Standard ProjectZoning Regulations Conformance Accessory us of Use Govemmentalrelated existing MSC YesQsesfacility Maximum site coverage 35% (approximately 228,200 square feet) 50 feet Carports add 9,000 square feet to lot coverage (existing approx 82,000 sf) Maximum height Trackers at highest point of rotation at approx 23 feet Photovoltaic Trackers located within front setback Setbacks Front - 20 foot Side - 10 feet Yes Yes Design Enhancement Exception* ParMng Levels dependant on No loss of parking Yesusewith project *A Design Enhancement Exception is sought for this exception, see findings in Attachment A. City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT D Architectural Rexdew Board Staff Report Date:February 2, 2006 To:Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Susan Mickelsen Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 3201 E. Bayshore Rd [05PLN-00255]: Application by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception for a photovoltaic (PV) demonstration project including 10 solar tracking arrays to be located in front of the City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC). Zone District: PF(D) Public Facility with Site & Design Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommend approval to the City Council the installation of the reduced scale version of 5 photovoltaic tracking arrays to be located at the front of the City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC). Recommended Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception, and Site and Design findings and Conditions of approval are contained in the Record of Land Use Approval attached to this staff report (Attachment A, Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7, respectively). The original proposal of 10 PV tracking arrays may also be considered as an alternative by the ARB. BACKGROUND: The Architectural Review Board reviewed the 10-tracking array and carport MSC project in a August 4, 2005 study session of three (this project being one of three) photovoltaic demonstration projects funded in part through a Department of Energy photovoltaic grant to install a variety of PV systems on or near City facilities. The other two PV demonstration projects, located at the Baylands Interpretive Center and Cubberley Community Center were approved on August 22, 2005. The August 4th ARB discussion included the proposed location of 10 tracking arrays in front of the MSC. Discussion by individual ARB members that day included suggestions on increasing the creativity of the panel designs, layout, and supporting poles. On September 28, 2005, the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) heard the site and design with a design enhancement exception application for the !0-tracking array MSC Page 1 Photovoltaic Demonstration Project. The PTC recommended denial of the photovoltaic tracking an’ay portion of the project (3-2-1-1). At issue was the number and design of the photovoltaic tracking arrays being located in front of the MSC so near to the Palo Alto Baylands. The Commission expressed support for the carport component of the application and for photovoltaic facilities in general in the city as an alternative energy source, but could not support the proposed location and number of photovoltaic arrays proposed in front of the MSC. Staff, in the PTC question period, presented the potential for reducing the number of tracking arrays, but Commission did not further discuss this alternative. Individual Commissioners voted against the project for the following reasons. They felt the tracking arrays were inconsistent with the Baylands Master Plan and draft Bayland guidelines regarding the use of natura! materials and the use of vertical elements; inconsistent with the ARB findings regarding consistency with adjacent land uses including the Baylands and Highway 101’ could not make the DEE findings in that they increased the incompatibility of the City’ s MSC facility; and overall felt the arrays detracted from the view of the Baylands. (PTC Staff Report & Minutes included in Attachment C). On December 5, 2005, the City Council reviewed the Planning and Transportation Commissions’ (PTC) recommendation for denial, specifically for the 10 photovoltaic (PV) tracking arrays portion of the MSC photovoltaic demonstration project. Staff at that time also presented the reduced (5 photovoltaic tracking an’ays) scale alternative of the project. The City Council, with a 6-3 vote, directed staff to return to the Architectural Review Board with the PV tracking array portion of the Photovoltaic Demonstration Project for ARB review and recommendation. The carport component was not included in the motion, and overall Council discussion was that the photovoltaic carports were an appropriate proposal in this location. However, regarding the PV tracking arrays, individual Councilmembers indicated they would like to hear specifically from the ARB on their compatibility in this area and with the Baylands Master Plan. (CMR & summary minutes included in Attachment C and D respectively). DISCUSSION: Proposed Project Location The photovoltaic tracking arrays are proposed to be located in front of the City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC). The MSC site is zoned PF with a Site & Design (D) combining district and is used by the City’s Utilities’, Public Works, and Police departments for such uses as offices, city vehicle maintenance, washing & refueling facilities, equipment storage and the City Animal Shelter. The MSC site is located along East Bayshore Road near Highway 101 and is adjacent to the Palo Alto Baylands. The PV tracking arrays, as shown in the site plans (Attachment F) are proposed along the front of the MSC, in front of the employee parking lot and within the front landscaped area. The applicant is requesting a Design Enhancement Exception for this encroachment into the front setback area. Project Description A complete project description is included in Attachment B. In summary, staff is recommending a reduced scale version that reduces the proposed photovoltaic tracking arrays from 10 to 5 structures and locates the 5 PV tracking arrays more centered along the front landscaped area of the City’s MSC site. The photovoltaic carports are still part of the recommended project, to be located within the employee parking lot area. Several design options for the PV tracking arrays are also included with the project plans (Attachment F). In general, the panels are 10’x15’, and are located at least 7’ above ground with the overall height (height will vary as these facilities Page 2 actively track the sun), ranging from 21’ - 26’ tall. No matter which design is selected the City has committed that these facilities be no taller than the adjacent MSC building which is 25’ tall. The ARB may want to consider the original proposal of 10 photovoltaic tracking arrays as an alternative to the staff recommendation. The original placement of all the photovoltaic tracking arrays can be seen (5 in shadow) in the Project Plans. NEXT STEPS: Staff will take the Architectural Review Board’s recommendation to the City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 13, 2006. ATTACHMENT: --Attachment A: Record of Land Use Approval with Architectural~Review, Site.& Design=and- ---Design Enhancement: Exception Findings-and~ Condi-tions -of- Approv-al= Aq.t.ac-hme-nt-B :~ --Pr~je~. t--Desc~ption- ~--~t-aet,m~ent--G->-.~December- g-~:-200--5-C-MR-~¥i.~h4ottowi-n g-at~achmen t s :- --" Photovoltaic Demonstration Project Background- -~--Bay-lands--D esign Guidelin~ s &-C ompre, hensi-ve.-NanaE-omplianc-e-- ~ ~----Z~ing C omplia~-e-T-alate- ~nin g-&-TranspoKation Commis sion 9/28/05-S ~af-f-l~e-pog ~ P4a-nnin~-r4mspo~t-at, io n-Corn mi-s-sion-9/-28¢05-e~ ~~~ ~ut e s - -,~--Ac4~.~--T4k-A-r~h i tee-ts z-P-r-opos ed--P-V-P~oj ec ~-S u mm ar-y. ---~P-hot~r.ap~a-s-of Project A-~-a~ --~aehm en-t-D ~-- Gi t y .Council.t-2/OS/OS-Summary-Min, utes-for-this-p~;oje¢t- Attachment E: Comment Letter(s) Received "-A-ttachment F: ~ Pr~ject~P~an~.Set-.~A.KB-Members-~rr~y-)~(-A~vail~b~e.f~r~Pub[icRevie~-a~-~- Prepared By: Manager Review: Susan Mickelsen, Planner John Lusardi, Planning Manager, ZOU/Special Projects~ COURTESY COPIES: Karen Bengard, City of Palo Alto Public Works Holly Boyd, City of Palo Alto Public Works Lindsey Joye, City of Palo Alto Utilities Emily Renzel Page 3 january 19, 2006 Dear Architectural Review Board: i’m sort3, that I wLll be unable to attend your meeting regarding the photovoltaic tracking panels proposed in the front setback of the Municipal Services Center. Chapter 18.82.010 of the Municipal Code regarding Site and Design Review says: "Specific purposes, the site and design review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically , sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessJ:ve no~se~ incTeased ~affice or other disP~ptions, "m order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinit37, and will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives and x,~dll be in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan." (emphasis mine) Chapter 18.82.060 says: The ARB "...shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: (a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites." (emphasis mine) The adjoining and nearby sites are Open Space with a veI3T horizonta! profile. The Baytands design- ~det~:nes call- for Hori~- onta!; no~- Vertical elements in the Bay~ands, Please review the photosimulations at htt-p://www.TheyCantBeSerious.org to see how this w~ appear to bicyclists on our recreational trail and how billboard-like these are. There has been lots of talk about how educational and interesting it will be for motorists to see these panels track the sun. Traffic would have to be at a standstill for hours in order for any given motorist to note any movement. More likely motorists, not to mention pedestrians and bicyclists, wiii simply note yet another blight upon the landscape. I urge you to deny the tracking panels and enco ~urage the Utilities Staff to relocate this minor part of the overall photovoltaic project to a much less sensitive location. Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel 1056 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 102050 Palo Alto. CA 94303 January; o ~~.o. 2006 Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board, As both a leading envirorm~ental organization with strong concerns about the energy future of our city and our society - and as a neighbor very familiar with the location of the proposed project - Acterra is writing to recommend approval of the original staff proposal for ten photovoltaic (PV) tracker arrays to be placed along East Bayshore Road in front of the Municipal Services Center. We recommend approval for several reasons: 1) There is an urgent need to adopt new technologies for renewable energy,. The proposed PV panels would produce approximately 231,000 kWh/year, which would become part of Palo Afro’s Green Energy program. Having this installation as part of our own city’s generating capacity, will enhance the reliability of our electrical system and reduce our dependence on outside energy generators. 2) Since Palo Alto runs our own electrical utility system, we have the opportunity to demonstrate both to our own citizens and to the wider world that such technologies are important and economically viable. The highly visible location along East Bayshore Road will offer residents tt~roughout the Peninsula a significant demonstration of Palo Alto’s commitment to solar energy - and it will enhance our standing as a leader among cities striving for sustainability. 3) The proposed location for the panels should not be considered a "natural" site. It is visually quite distinct from the Baylands and physically: separate. Indeed, the panels would be placed along a strip next to the freeway frontage road and adjacent to the paved area in front of the Municipal Service Center (MSC) buildings. Since we drive by the MSC regularly to get to the Acterra office further down the road, we believe that the panels would actually enhance the attractiveness of the MSC site by adding a value-based and aesthetically interesting feature to the otherwise industrial-looking MSC. 4) The height of the proposed trackers seems compatible with that of the adjacent MSC buildings. The alternatives under consideration suggest that a tracker design can be selected which is no taller than the existing MSC buildings. 5) The staff report (CMR 438:05) notes that the panels will not be visible from the Baylands side of the MSC. Furthermore, when trees recently planted by, the Santa Clara Valley Water District grow to maturity in 5 to I0 ?,ears, the tracker panels will also not be visible from the wetland areas located on the northwest side of the MSC. For these reasons, we ask that the Commission recommend approval of the project as originally proposed. This is the kind of forward thinking project that will enhance our community’s position as a leader in renewable energy. Sincerely, [signed] Michael Closson Executive Director On behalf of the Acterra Board of Directors CC:Palo Alto City Councihnembers Donna Roger, City Clerk Chris Riordan, Palo Alto Planning Department ATTACHMENT E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES BOARD HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes Thursday, February 02, 2006 Board Members:Staff Liaison:Project Reps.: Kenneth Komberg (Chair) David Solnick (Vice Chair)- absent Judith Wassermann Clare Malone Prichard Grace Lee Chris Riordan, Planner Staff: Diana Tamale Amy French, Current Planning mgr. Clare Campbell, Assoc. Planner Susan Ondik, Planner John Lusardi Mike Sarda, Palo Alto Public Works Dept. David Arkin, Arkin & Tilt Architects Public Speakers: Mr. David Cole Mr. Walter Hays 3201 E. Bayshore Road [05PLN-00255]: Request by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception for a Photovoltaic (PHOTOVOLTAIC) Demonstration Project including 10 solar tracking arrays to be located in front of the City’s Municipal Service Center. Zoning District: PF(D) Public Facility with the Site & Design Combining District. Environmental . Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303. Board Member Kenneth Kornberq: Staff, would you like to make a presentation. Mr. John Lusardi (Planninq Dept): We are very excited to be able to bring this project back to the Board that you saw last summer in a study session. At that time, the Board reviewed the study session on this and gave us some individual comments. You did not make a recommendation because it was a study session. For the benefit of two new board members, we’ll be making a full project presentation today, so you’ll be seeing the full project today. Subsequent to that study session, the Planning Commission reviewed this as a Site and Design, Design Enhancement Exception. As a site and design, when the Planning Commission makes a recommendation for denial, which they did on this project, it diverts directly to the City Council and goes around the ARB. At the City Council meeting in December City Council reviewed the project and a reduced scale alternative and directed staff to bring it back to the Architectural Resources Board for your recommendation back to the Council, so that’s why we’re here today with you. At the study session, you all saw two other photovoltaic projects. They have subsequently been approved, one at Coverly and one at the Baylands Interpretive Center. So what you will be looking at today is the photovoltaic project at the MSC site. What we will be showing you today is the proposed project of ten photovoltaic trackers and carport photovoltaic cells. Staff is recommending that the Board consider the full ten trackers. We will be showing you that full projects with some design alternatives and a reduced scale of five tracker. So the Board has options - if you want to reduce Cio, of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 the project you can, but at this point staff is recommending that you review the full ten trackers as the proposed project for recommendation to the City Council. 3 This project is being done in conjunction with Public Works and Utilities. Before we 4 have the consultant presentation, I’d like to introduce Mike Sarda from Public Works, just to say a few words about the project and where it’s coming from and the DOE 6 applications. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Mike Sarda (Public Works): Thank you, John. Good morning Chair Kornberg and members of the Architectural Resources Board. I’m Mike Sarda; I’m the Assistant Public Works Director here in Palo Alto. Since September 2003 staff has been working with the Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, to implement a photovoltaic solar energy grant program to install photovoltaic panels on City buildings and facilities. The Department of Energy grant is for $1.4 million and is being matched by the Utilities Department’s photovoltaic partners program for a total funding of $2.8 million for this demonstration of photovoltaic panels. The selected photovoltaic installations as John Mentioned, will provide a variety of technologies and will be in the most effective locations, taking advantage of optimum sun exposure. The program will install panels at Coverly Community Center, out at the Baylands Interpretive Center. We’ve got some carport plans for the employee parking lot at the MSC, and then the trackers which we’ll be presenting today. Again, we’re proposing to install trackers in front of the MSC. This is an innovative technology for photovoltaics that allows the panels to actually track the sun as it moves in the sky. And with that, I’d like to introduce Mr. David Arkin of Arkin Tilt Architects, and he’ll give a presentation of how this would work. 24 Architect David Arkin: Good morning Chair Kornberg and members of the Board. It’s 25 nice to be back before you. I know some of you were with us in our study session back 26 on August 4 of 2004 and others are new. So for your total benefit we’ll review the whole 27 project. 28 At the MSC site, which was one of the three that was given to us, the buildings were 29 deemed structurally questionable in terms of taking rooftop arrays, so we were really 30 directed to look at the parking lot at the northwest corner of the site and the area 31 adjacent Bayshore Road as possible locations. I will spare you the soapbox this 32 morning, but I do want to mention the importance of this. I think Council Member 33 Mosser summed it well when she said that if we don’t get serious about curbing global 34 warming we won’t have a Baylands to protect. So that sets the context of this whole 35 project. 36 37 38 39 40 The Baylands Center represents one of the three sites where the total 312 kilowatts are being integrated. Here you can see in a before and after photomontage the panels are not really visible at all. In fact, we have procured a military surplus periscope that will be used to allow the public to actually see those panels from the rooftop. They’ll also be able to see birds along the Baylands. City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 The second site is the Coverly Community Center. We have 90 kilowatts roughly in ballasted rooftop arrays and then 35 kilowatts in the form of a canopy that not only provides electricity but will shade the southwest side of Building N. 4 And finally, what we’re here to talk about today is the Municipal Service Center site 5 where 90 kilowatts are arrayed over the parking lot area as carports, providing shade for 6 the parked cars as well as producing electri..city. Three different options that we’ve 7 prepared to present to you today as possibilities for the tracking arrays that are arrayed 8 along Bayshore Road, These are three separate views, one from Highway 101, one 9 from Bayshore Road, and then one near the pathway that parallels the MSC. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Again, tracking arrays are a technology that we’re interested in demonstrating among the variety of different installations, and that was really one of the purposes of the Department of Energy grant - to showcase different technologies. Dual access trackers will produce about 35% more electricity than a fixed array at our latitude. At our last meeting with the Architectural Resources Board you directed us to come up with some alternative designs that were less rectangular in character. I think many people have taken this image from the Watson brochure as what these have to look like, and we’ve prepared two other designs for your consideration here, one which we call the sunflower. This one, at its highest point, which would be on the winter solstice at noon, is 21 feet tall. At the summer solstice that highest point would be at about 18 feet. This takes a standard eight panel Watson tracking array and adds on some additional points that give it the profile that it has. A second option that we bring to you today is what we’ve come to call the pinwheel, and this actually takes a standard 12-panel solar tracks array and makes some modifications to it to give it a little more character and presence. This option sits 26’6" tall on the winter solstice and roughly 21’9" on the summer solstice. This is a photomontage. It’s the same one we showed you back in August that demonstrates the action of a tracking array, again pointed at the sun and following it throughout the course of a day. 29 A third option which we bring before you today is somewhat in reaction to many of the 30 comments we heard both at Planning and Transportation as well as City Council, and 31 that is an emphasis that the Baylands have a more horizontal character. And granted, 32 this site being located between the MSC and Highway 101, is technically perhaps not 33 part of the Baylands but still, in order to bring you a third option to consider... [power 34 outage].., So this is a technology which operates along a single horizontal axis and 35 rotates from an aspect facing the morning sun to near dead flat at noon, and then 36 rotates to point toward the afternoon sun. We propose arraying these parallel to 37 Highway 101 and Bayshore Road in a way that they would change their aspect 38 throughout the course of the day. This is a little video clip of the model that shows them 39 rotating, from the morning where in the wintertime they would be close to horizontal, 40 given the southeast to northwest orientation of them, but through the course of a day 41 would rotate to flat at noon and then pointing the Highway in the afternoon. Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 In meeting with staff they asked that we look at an alternative location of these a little further from the bike path and pedestrian path in a way that provides more respect to the piece of artwork that’s out there, and we wanted to work around the existing trees and not have them obviously shading the panels but also be able to preserve as many of those as possible - in fact, we’re preserving all of them. A last slide that shows the elevation footprint of each of these relative to three different size billboards. This graphic is also in your packet and will give you a better sense of the comparison between them. We have brought a sample today of a SunPower panel. This is a Sunnyvale company, and they are unique in that they lay claim to the highest productivity of any photovoltaic panel that’s available today. Actually, their SPR-210 is slightly better than this panel, but we chose this one, the SPR-200 because it has an all black cell with an all black backing, which makes it more abstract and we thought more attractive in this highly visible location. With that, I’m happy to answer any questions tl~at the Board might have. Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, if I could just take a couple moments to review what we’re asking the Board to do - again, we’re asking the Board to review the project that is the ten photovoltaic trackers or a reduced size and a design alternative that you would " recommend to the City Council. Just to remind the Board also is that the concerns that have been raised to the Planning and Transportation Commission and some of the community members are the compatibility of these photovoltaic trackers with the Baylands. Staff has prepared a record of land use action which makes findings with respect to the Architectural Resources Board standards of review, the design enhancement exception, and the Baylands design guidelines. So you need to consider that in your deliberations and in your recommendations, the compatibility of the photovoltaic trackers with the Baylands and the Baylands guidelines. Board Member Kornber.q: Grace, would you like to start. Do you have any questions? Board Member Grace Lee: I do have a couple of questions. Just being new to the Board and not having hard your initial presentation, I do understand the PTC had concern and that you did come up with a third option then, just the third. But the first two options in our packet, those are options that you presented at the study session or the preliminary review, is that correct? Architect Arkin: That is not correct. We came to the study session with just the square and rectangular options and they directed us to look at something that had more of an art component to it. Board Member Lee: Maybe you could address, between the two options, just in terms of the height differential, 1 assume that since there’s greater area, option #2 - I believe that’s what you call the pinwheel - in terms of the intake of the energy, or perhaps you’d know the technical language - option #1 versus #2, in terms of its effectiveness, in City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 terms of its educational - if you could just talk between those two options I would like to understand the difference in terms of your thinking and their design. Architect Arkin: Sure. The difference in productivity is that the smaller option features eight of the panels, and the larger one features twelve, so we’re obviously able to get 50% more production with the pinwheel option, and that represents greater economies of scale in terms of the fixed costs of wiring to each of the poles and things like that. In terms of the actual productivity, the eight panel trackers are about t .37 kilowatts each versus the twelve panels, which are just over two kilowatts each. And the difference in production for ten trackers over the course of a year would be 37,900 kilowatt hours per year with the sunflower design, and 56,900 for the pinwheel design - again, 50% more. And with the linear trackers, we showed an eight array option in both of the photo montages you saw. Those are slightly less efficient because they’re only tracking on a single axis. They represent roughly three kilowatts per array or a total of 24 kilowatts, and they will produce in the order of 61,100 kilowatt hours per year, so roughly, the same amount as the ten arrays of the twelve panel, so we tried to bring things before you that were somewhat apples to apples in their productivity. Board Member Lee: That’s helpful. 1 assume then the shape is an aesthetic proposition on your part. Aside from the size, the shapes were just something that was different, option #1 versus option #2. Architect Arkin: We brought roughly eight-ten options to staff, and we collectively looked at them and decided that these were the two best choices to bring before you today. Board Member Lee: And if you could address the educational aspect of this demonstration project. I’m assuming that it’s simply the public viewership of this from 101, as a pedestrian along the road there, is there any literature? I’m just trying to understand the demonstration project a little bit better. Mr. Sarda: Let me try to address that. We have, as we talked, four different installations proposed. Out at the Baylands Interpretive Center we will have panel boards and brochures that demonstrate or talk about, educate the public, about solar photovoltaics. We’ll also be putting in the periscope, which is pretty cool; it’s a great idea. We may even have the ability to show the electric meter at that facility running backwards when they’re at full effectiveness. The carport application is to demonstrate how photovoltaic systems can be used for dual purposes, one to provide shade and protection for cars as well as generating energy. The Coverly Center will be an installation that is more focused on generating as much power as possible and putting it back into the grid at that site. And then the tracker systems - two opportunities here. One is because they’re in such a great location for sun exposure and also exposure to the freeway, when people are driving down the freeway they’ll see them, and they will be getting maximum exposure to the sun. The second value of those particular installations, they are more efficient Cio, of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 than a stationary installation. They actually will track the sun as it moves along in the daytime. But getting back to your primary question, Grace, on the educational component of that particular location, it’ll be the exposure to people as they drive down the freeway. There’s also a plan to have a Web site that’ll talk about the total program, part of the Palo Alto Web site, so that’s another educational tool. Board Member Lee: Thank you; that’s helpful. Board Member Kornberq: Clare, do you have any questions? Board Member Clare Prichard: I’m seeing very different electricity yields in these three different proposals. If we were to select one of the proposals that had a lower total yield of electricity, is there room in the budget and the approval process to make up that wattage elsewhere on some of the other locations? Architect Arkin: Yes; we’ve held off the final development of the Coverly site so that if a lower kilowatt installation were selected for this site we would be able to transfer some of that to the rooftops there; so yes, that provision is included. Board Member Prichard: And is there any difference in maintenance between these three different proposals? Architect Arkin: I would say for the purposes of your deliberations that they’re about equal. There is maintenance that needs to be given to various tracking systems because they have moving parts, but I wouldn’t select one over the other for that purpose. Board Member Kornber.q: Judith. Board Member Judith Wassermann: I’d like to make a correction to my remarks that were quoted in the report from - I guess it was the City Council meeting where it said at the end, it says I was in favor of the smaller array to help lessen the impact of unsightly panels. That isn’t what I said, nor was what I meant. I said that it would lessen the perceived impact of panels that other people might have perceived as unsightly - not me - and I would like to call you attention to this poem by Richard Browdigan in which he talks about machinery in a natural setting, which I think can be very exciting and actually make the natural setting even more punchy in contrast to the machinery. If we did five instead of ten trackers, what would be the percentage decrease in the overall project - obviously it would be half of these - but the overall project is much bigger than the trackers, so what would that do to the project? Architect Arkin: This installation represents about 1-1/2% - I’m sorry, I was off by a decimal point - closer to ten percent. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Board Member Wassermann: So we would be losing five percent of the energy of the project if we did half of them. And then you might be able to make that up somewhere else. Architect Arkin: That is correct, as I mentioned to Board Member Prichard, there are other options. Board Member Wassermann: I have a question for the staff about one of the conditions, the draft findings of Section 3. It says the design is consistent with the applicable elements of the comp plan and at the bottom it says one of the policies is to look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Could you explain how this project does that? Mr. Lusardi: Let me preface this by - we have budget limitations on this project because it is a DOE grant and the DOE grant does not provide for expenditures of over and above the photovoltaic systems themselves. So that’s a preface there. But we feel that the two creative or artistic elements of this that you might consider is the design of the trackers themselves. Instead of just the square trackers that were originally presented was either the flower trackers or the pinwheel trackers provide some creativity in that respect. And secondly, just the identity that these trackers would provide in the City’s commitment to the environment and to solar energy, we feel that provides some level of creativity as well for the City. Board Member Wassermann: So when tt~e plan says art and artists, you’re taking that very loosely. Male Speaker: Yes. I think in this context, it’s more of a budget constraint. Board Member Wassermann: Did you look at Art Commission funding for the art component? We do have a Public Art Commission that has a budget for public art. Mr. Lusardi: Mike maybe wants to clarify this, but this doesn’t qualify because of the cost of the project. It’s not a capital facility. Mr. Sarda: We can explore that if you want, but it would have to be outside the funding from the DOE. Board Member Wassermann: Exactly, that was the point, that you go to the Public Art Commission and say - what have you done for us lately? Here’s an opportunity. I have a question about the part of the report that said if we ended up with a car dealership that these would have to be moved. Why would they have to be moved? Male Speaker: The biggest attraction to a car dealership on that site is its visibility to the freeway, and the carport photovoltaic cells would probably not have to be moved. They could fit in with an auto dealership and vehicle storage. But we have to provide for the ability for the auto dealership to have visibility along there, and we need to think about Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 that the auto dealership, if those are going to block their visibility for the freeway, we have to provide for that. They may not, they may be able to work that into the design... Board Member Wassermann: In between the poles, Male Speaker: And that may be, but the biggest issue for the auto dealership on that site is the visibility of the buildings and the showrooms and everything, so we need to account for that potential. Board Member Wassermann: I guess is really a Public Works question. What is the long term plan for the MSC? Those buildings are not going to last much longer. Not only are they questionable for putting things on the roof, they’re just questionable. Male Speaker: Currently we have a master plan to renovate the MSC. There’s no funding identified for that at this time. There is also some discussion about how the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department would share that site in the future, so there is a master plan for the site, although as I indicated, it’s not a funded project at this point in time. Board Member Wassermann: If a car dealership were to go there, where would the facility go? Male Speaker: As part of our direction from the City Council, we are to look at the potential for car dealers there. We’re looking at alternative sites for the MSC operations. Board Member Wassermann: Somebody in the public mentioned the idea of putting these trackers on the other side of the freeway on the edge of Greer Park where there is also a piece of public art. How is that viewed? Mr. Sarda: Public Works did look at other sites, they didn’t just focus on this site, and the consultants looked at other sites. The problem with the Greer Park site is number one, it has less sun exposure so you’ll get less efficiency out of it; and secondly, when you put facilities like that in or around a play field, you’re also creating obstructions for sports and those kinds of activities, so we really wanted to be cognizant of a park being used as a park. Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much, that’s all my questions. Board Member Kornberq: I just have a couple. Is there any chance of glare from these panels? I’m worried about at certain angles, whether the sun could hit them and then blind somebody driving down Bayshore. Architect Arkin: You can see from the sample panel that we brought, that they do have some anti glare finish on them. Certainly the dual access trackers, which would always be pointed directly back at the sun, would only cast reflections in that direction. The single access trackers, we would want to assure that they would either stop at a point Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 7 8 where that couldn’t be an issue, but it would definitely be something we would want to pay attention to. Board Member Kornberq: Is the utility connection for these panels along East Bayshore? Architect Arkin: There is a utility interconnection at the MSC site, and we would locate inverters there where it would directly feed electricity into the utility grid at that location. Board Member Kornberq: I’m just curious the amount of work required to get from the panels back to this point. Is it back in the buildings themselves? 9 Architect Arkin: It is in the central building of the three, and one of the things that led us 10 to explore this option was the fact that we would need to make a utility connection along 11 the front of the site anyway. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Board Member Kornberq: On the model you have six independent panels as well as the eight that you’re showing for the single axis one. Is that still an option, or are you just considering... Architect Arkin: We’ve obviously used the model to generate some of the images that you saw. The model in its current configuration is a hybrid that we weren’t really bringing to you as a proposal. It more just shows the two extremes of the ten panel option as well as the original location proposed for the linear. So I would look at it is either/or, but not both. Board Member Kornberq: Is there a footing that connects the supports on the single axis one? Is it a continuous footing or is it a separate footing for each one of the standards or the supports? Architect Arkin: Similar to the pole trackers, there would be individual footings most likely in the form of a pier. Board Member Kornberq: And then there’s just a conduit that connects them all at some point and then goes over there. Architect Arkin: Correct. And we are in a floodway so those junction boxes would be three feet above the ground in all those locations. And the piers where the poles are bolted, similar to the piece of artwork that’s out there, would be connected at that three- foot height. Board Member Kornber.q: That’s all the question I have. Board Member Wassermann: I was looking at these aerial views. On the left-hand side of the MSC between tracker #1 and #2 there’s some brown stuff. Is that just erosion, or is that some kind of an installation? Is that paving? What am 1 looking at? It’s on I guess the north end of the landscaped part.Is that a turnaround? I don’t think it’s a driveway thing, is it? Cio, of Palo Alto Page 9 1 Architect Arkin: The trackers next to the entry to the parking lot? 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Board Member Wassermann: Yes. The two trackers to the right of the entry to the parking lot, is that just... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Architect Arkin: I don’t know if that’s the lawn that’s not doing as well as the rest of the lawn... Board Member Wassermann: That’s basically in the landscape. Architect Arkin: Yes. Board Member Kornberq: I’m not sure if there’s anybody from the public who wants to speak to this particular item. Do we have some cards? We do. I have two cards. The first one is David Cole. Mr. David Cole: My name is David Cole. I’m a member of the Acterra Board and will speaking to a letter that we sent in for this proposal. As a leading environmental organization with strong concerns about energy future of our city and our society, and as neighbors very familiar with the location of the proposed project, Acterra is recommending approval of the original staff proposal for ten PHQTOV©LTAIC trackers to be located in front of the MSC. We recommend approval for several reasons. There’s an urgent need to adopt new technologies for renewable energy. This energy would be dual purpose in terms of serving Palo Alto and Palo Alto Greens program, which is one of the highest renewable energy programs subscribed to across the country. Number 2, the highly visible location along East Bayshore Road will offer residents throughout the peninsula a significant demonstration of Palo Alto’s commitment to solar energy, and it will enhance our standing as a leader among cities striving for sustainability. At this point Palo Alto has lots of sustainability written into various projects, but this would be the first one that the public would be able to see directly, and we believe that’s a great plus. The proposed location for the panel should not be considered a natural site as it is quite distinct from the Baylands and physically separate. Indeed, the panels would be placed along the strip next to the freeway as you’ve seen, and not out in the Baylands. Since we drive by the MSC regularly to get to the Acterra office further down the road, we believe the panels would actually enhance the attractiveness of the MSC site, adding a value-based, aesthetically interesting feature to the otherwise industrial looking MSC. The staff report notes that the panels will not be visible from the Baylands side of the MSC. Furthermore, when the trees recently planted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District grow to maturity in five to ten years, the tracker panels will not be visible from the wetlands areas located to the northeast side of the MSC. 36 For these reasons we ask that the Commission recommend approval of the project as 37 originally proposed - that is, for the ten trackers. This is the kind of forward thinking 38 project that will enhance our community’s position as a leader in renewable energy and 39 sustainability. Thank you. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 10 1 Board Member Kornberq..: I have one more speaker, Walter Hays. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O Mr. Walter Hays: I’m the chair of an informal committee in the City that deals with sustainability, and I’m here to speak in favor of having the ten trackers and with the dual axis, because it seems to me that as David pointed out, this is actually an item that would be a big attraction for the City, it’s not really something that’s ugly, it’s something that people could be really proud of. I know David Arkin decided not to get on the soap box, but I think we do need to mention that there’s more and more recognition that global warming is probably the most serious environmental problem that we face, that renewable energy is one of the major solutions. Palo Alto, thanks to this grant and the fact that its reputation has a chance to really become a leader, this project would be a demonstration of that and would inspire people to do even more. So I guess the question is, it’s a beautiful idea, but where would you put it? I frankly can’t think of a better location, as was pointed out before - it really has no impact on the part of the Baylands that people use as a park. The Municipal Service Center is not a think of beauty itself, so it’s not going to detract.from the appearance of the MSC. Actually, I think some of the designs that were shown like the pinwheel or the sunflower would actually be something that people would be proud of. You certainly couldn’t put something like this in a residential area, so the areas where you can put it are very limited, and this seems like an ideal location, So I think that more and more people in Palo Alto, as indicated by the number of people who’ve signed up for green power, are recognizing the need to exert leadership. There was a lot of discussion of that in the last Council election, and this is an opportunity to really do that. So I hope you don’t cut it down based on some concept of aesthetics, because I think aesthetically it’s going to be the bigger it is the better it’s going to look. Thank you. Board Member Kornberq: I don’t know if there are any more questions or if the applicant would like to make some final remarks. Anything else you’d like to add? Architect Arkin: Certainly. I’d like to again, advocate if I would, for the maximum exposure and energy generation possible with the tracking systems. 1 think it would fit within the framework and the intent of the Department of Energy demonstration grant program. Thank you. Mr. Sarda: May I just point out, too, that we are scheduled for the City Council for February 13, so to stay on that schedule we would need an Architectural Resources Board recommendation this morning. Board Member Kornberq: I’d like to return to the Board. Grace, would you like to make a motion or just comments? Board Member Lee: I can make my comments first and perhaps a motion. I wanted to thank you for the presentation. I’m very encouraged by this demonstration project. I believe that it’s a tremendous opportunity for the City of Palo Alto, and I do hope that this is recognized by other city governments as a potential way to educate the public. City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 I believe that I’m in support of option #2. When I look at the different options, aside from aesthetics and all this, I believe that its location at the site along 101 is a very good opportunity along the very public corridor for educational purposes. I hope that if this were to occur that there would be something in the community papers directing the community to look at the Web site so that educational aspect is not missed. At the same time, I would also like to address the comments that were made regarding the Baylands design guidelines. As an aside, I should divulge that a few years ago I was part of the team drafting those design guidelines with Tom Richmond, Matt Tucker. I do not believe that this project falls within the realm of the design guidelines. I believe the site is separate physically. So in that vein I did want to make that comment. I think I’ll wait for all the comments before I make a motion. Thank you. Board Member Kornberq: Clare, do you have any comments? Board Member Prichard: Yes. I’m in complete agreement with Grace. I would like to see ten trackers and I would like to see them a~ Option #2 because I feel those are the most visible. People will drive along the freeway, they’ll see them, they’ll question what they are - that’s how you’re going to generate a great educational opportunity as people start asking - What’s going on here. So I’m very much in support of Option #2, and ten of them. I also agree that while the Baylands are a wonderful place and I very much enjoy going there, I don’t think that this project will be detrimental to the Baylands, and I do not believe that the Baylands guidelines were ever intended to have anything to do with solar energy trackers in front of the MSC. Board Member Kornberq: Judith. Board Member Wassermann: It sounds like we’re all in concurrence here. I would like to move approval of a ten tracker array in the pinwheel conformance. I like the idea that you can look through the pinwheel. I think that’s really kind of neat. I would like to recommend that the project approach the Public Art Commission. Maybe some work on the poles or something could be done that would make it more in conformance with the comprehensive plans looking at art and artists in conjunction with public works projects. We haven’t mentioned landscaping here, and I understand that landscaping is not in the budget. I think that it is somehow unfortunate that city departments manage to get away with not landscaping things that any private developer would have to landscape, but that’s not part of my motion. It’s just my editorializing over here. So that’s my motion, to approve ten trackers in style #2. Board Member Kornberq: I want something approved today, and I’m very much in favor of this project, but I have to differ with the other three members of the Board in that 1 prefer Option #3. The reason I prefer #3 is that 1) it had the 61,000 and I wanted to get Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 as many panels as we could that I thought worked well. And also I’m a little concerned that the distraction of #2, and I want this to be a safe and well-received project, and I felt that Option #3, it sort of fits with the other two-panel systems and also with the architecture of that area, and I felt that people will see all three of these, but #3 would be more compatible in the sense that the supports seem in scale and architecturally to suit this particular array. And the other two options #1 and #2, they really seem sort of flimsy and the supports just don’t seem suitable for that. It’s just the sense of proportion and design that I have as far as those other two concern. I also felt that if we did #1 or #2 I would rather see them supported in a way that is more architectural, but that was just my own particular aesthetic impression. Board Member Wassermann: We still don’t have a second. Board Member Lee: I’ll second the motion. Board Member Kornber.q: Any more discussion? If not, I’ll call for a vote. All in favor of the motion [Aye-3 Nay-l] Board Member Kornberg.:. That would be three in support, and 3-1-0-1. Thank you very much. CiO, of Palo Alto Page 13 TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 5, 2005 CMR: 438:05 3201 E. BAYSHORE RD [05PLN-00255]: APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FOR A PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CONSISTING OF 10 SOLAR TRACKERS AND 2 PHOTOVOLTAIC CARPORTS TO BE LOCATED AT THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER (MSC). ZONE DISTRICT: PF (D) PUBLIC FACILITY WITH SITE & DESIGN COMBINING DISTRICT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15303. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends that 1) the City Council deny the site and design review and design enhancement exception for 10 photovoltaic (pv) tracker arrays located at the City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC) as part of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic Demonstration project and 2) approve the site and design review for the 2 photovoltaic carports at the MSC, based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Staff recommends that the City Council consider approving the originally proposed project or a reduced PV tracking array alternative that consists of 5 arrays relocated to the most central front portion of the MSC. BACKGROUND The project background and description can be found in Attachment C, as well as in the PTC September 28, 2005 staff report (Attachment D). The site and design review process requires initial review and recommendation by the PTC. When the PTC recommends denial of the application, instead of proceeding to the Architectural Review- Board (ARB) for review, the application proceeds directly to City Council who may approve, modify or disapprove the submitted plans. The City Council may also refer the project to the ARB for its review and recommendation. C/vLR: 438:05 Page 1 of 4 COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On September 28, 2005, the PTC heard the application for the MSC Photovoltaic Demonstration Project and recommended denial of the photovoltaic tracking array portion of the project (3-2-1- 1) (see Attactmaent D for staff report). At issue were the number and design of the photovoltaic tracking arrays being located in front of the MSC so near to the Palo Alto Baylands. The Commission recommended approval for the carport component of the application, for photovoltaic facilities in general in the city as an alternative energy source, but did not support the proposed location and number of photovoltaic arrays proposed in front of the MSC. The primary issue raised by Commissioners recommending denial of the portion of the project in the front of the MSC was compatibility with the surrounding enviromnent, in particular the Palo Alto Baylands area adjacent to the Municipal Service Center. Two Commissioners stated that they did not find the tracking arrays, as a vertical element, were consistent with the Baylands Guidelines. One Commissioner expressed concern over the number of trackers proposed. The PTC recommended that the tracking arrays be considered in alternative locations. There was one public speaker at the meeting, who also recommended denial of the project for incompatibility of the photovoltaic tracking arrays with the surrounding environment. Commissioners in support of the arrays indicated such alternative energy facilities did not conflict with the Baylands or Baylands use and that the location at the edge of the Baylands along this utility corridor at a height consistent with the MSC buildings was appropriate. (See Verbatim Minutes, Attachment E). Utilities, Public Works and representatives from the National Center for Photovoltaics, National Renewable Energy Laboratory did investigate many other City-owned locations for these facilities and the MSC was the final recommendation based on structural considerations, nearby utility facilities, solar orientation, and type of City land use (avoiding parks). City staff is recommending the MSC location due to the fact that it meets the facilities’ basic requirements and is in a visible location that further promotes the City’s commitment to Green Energy and the environment. As directed by City Council, the Municipal Service Center location is currently being analyzed by the Public Works Department for the potential relocation of all City services and location of an auto dealership at this site. Part of the study will include the relocation costs of these photovoltaic facilities. The photovottaic facilities are funded in part with federal Department of Energy grant money, therefore would need to be relocated or replaced in kind if they cannot be accommodated on-site. In particular, the PV tracking arrays, as the proposed carports would be more easily integrated into the design of an auto dealership on this site. The analysis of the PV tracking arrays could include looking at the potential of locating them along the perimeter of the MSC site with new development. Additional tree plantings around the MSC were added with the construction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District project last summer and these tree plantings will mature in 5-10 years, providing additional screening of the MSC facilities from the Baylands. The tracking arrays originally proposed, with a height less than the MSC buildings, would not be visible from the Baylands. Therefore, Staff would like City Council to consider approving the originally proposed project or a reduced PV tracking array alternative outlined below. CMR: 438:05 Page 2 of 4 Reduced Project Alternative To address concerns expressed during the Commission meeting, Public Works and Utilities has submitted the following alternatives to the originally proposed project for Council consideration. Reducing the number of tracking arrays from ten to five. The grant money for the removed tracker would likely be transferred to purchase more rooftop panels at the Cubberley Center PV project. Locating the 5 trackers directly in front of the MSC. The area in front of the MSC is not a natural area and this location would be the furthest away from Baylands. Limiting designs to those that wouId be no taller than existing MSC buildings. The preferred pattern is therefore the square panels or the more flower-like design. Replace the proposed temporary promotional signage and consider lettering on photovoltaic panels with a small sign consistent with nearby Baylands Park signs. The sign will describe the Palo Alto Utilities Green Energy project and point to the educational component of the project, still under development, that will be located on the City’s Utility website. RESOURCE IMPACT: The proposed project will be part of the Palo Alto Green Energy program, reducing costs to the City and participating residents and businesses in the program by increasing the availability of photovoltaic energy in the City. The City received a Department of Energy $1.4 million dollar grant in the FY 2003 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill to install a variety of PV systems on City facilities. The City Utility Department is providing $1.4 million dollars in matching funds, for a total project of $2.8 million dollars. Energy produced by all three-demonstration projects (312 kW for all three projects or approximately 604,500 kWh!year) will be utilized by the immediate facilities as welt as be available for use with the CPA Utilities’ Green Energy Program. As a comparison, a typical single family home would install a 3 kW PV system to cover most, if not all of its typical energy use. The proposed project at the MSC would produce approximately 110 kW or 231,000 kWt’dyear. The visibility: of the facilities at the MSC could be promotional when applying for additional photovoltaic grants in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303. The Department of Energy is the Lead Agency for the filing of an exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act. PREPARED BY: SUSAN MICKELSEN Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director of Planning and Community Envirorkment CMR: 438:05 Page 3 of 4 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY~FAR~R, I~O’N"~ Assista~ City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A~:~ord of La-n4~*se-A-e44o~ -B=-----Ba34ands-Des~- -Guidetines-&C-omprehen sive-P-tan-Gomptianee-- .~v-~B ackgro-rmdT’-Proj eet-D es eripti ort/-Z- o rlin g-C-o mptiat~ee-T-aJote-- D. Planning & Transportation Commission Report, September 28, 2005 - http://www.citv~fpa~a~t~.~r~!citva~enda/pub~ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetin~s/d~cuments/32~ 1 EBavshore.pd f E. Planning & Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes, September 28, 2005 - http:/!www.citv~fpa~a~t~.~r~/citva~enda/pub~ish!p~armin~-transp~rtati~n-meetin~s/d~cuments/Sept28Mins 001.pdf F.Arkin-Tilt Architects’ Proposed PV Project Summary G.Photographs of Project area (Color copies to.Council only) H.-~--Project Plans (C-ounei-tmembers-o~t~--- COURTESY COPIES: Planning & Transportation Commission Architectural Review" Board Karen Bengard, Public Works Holly Boyd, Public Works David Arkin, Arkin Tilt Architects Emily Renzel CMR: 438:05 Page 4 of 4 November 30, 2005 Ciff Coundl Ciff of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Butch & Members of the City Council: I am v,~ting in opposition to part of the Photovoltaic project that is before you for Site and Design Review and a Design Ei~hancement Exception. Your Planning Commission also recommended denial. As you know, from my testimony at the Planning Commission, I have no objection to the carport roofs over the existing parking area. I do object, however, to the 10 billboard sized "trackers" (approximately double the size of the Amber Alert signs on the Freeway) in the front setback along East Bayshore Frontage Road. These introduce increased clutter to the appearance of the Municipal Services Center (iXISC) as well as vertical elements in an area where the general design thrust is to be horizontal. The trackers are only a small part of the PV demonstration project which includes elements on top of the Baylands Interpretive Center, Rooftop elements at Cubberley, and new Carport rooftop panels at the MSC. However, their visual impact is very disruptive and much worse than the automotive billboard proposal that the Council considered and rejected earlier this year. The City has for at least 30 years had a Site and Design overlay on everything in the Baylands in order to ensure that new development is compatible. The Site and Design Review Combining District "is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecolo~cally sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development wi!l be harmonious with other uses in the general vidnity, will be compatible with environmental and ecolo~cal objectives, and wd!1 be in accord v~dth the Palo .Alto comprehensive plan." (emphasis added.) Unfortunately, there was no such review when the MSC was built and as a result, our own dty facility has only minimal landscaping and a sort of wild west use of the open areas. In short, it is pretty close to being an eyesore. That does not, however, justify making it more of an eyesore by installing 10 billboard sized photovoltaic panels in the front setback. The City Council spoke eloquently about how different it feels to drive through Pa!o Alto on 101 because we do not have billboards. Visually, there is little distinction between billboards and these PV trackers. Staff is also proposing a message on some of the panels as well as a "temporary banner" which will add more visual disruption. Staff maintains that these panels will be no higher than the MSC itself and therefore they’re okay. The MSC buildings are about 100’ back from East Bayshore Frontage Road. Anyone who has had rudimentary geometry knows that the closer things are, the taller they appear. Panels 26’ tall and 10 feet from our segment of the "A_round the Bay Trail" will definitely appear much t~,dler than the 25’ high MSC buildings appear set back 100" from the trail. The PV Trackers are not in conformance with the Comprehensfve Plan. Policy N-48 says "Encourage appropriate use of alternative enerooy technologies." It doesn’t say "use of appropriate energy technologies" from which one might conclude that this is an appropriate technologT-. It says "appropriate use" which I believe means in the right location and properly installed in compliance with city laws, including Site and Design Review. Policy L-79 uses the language "high quality urban design standards" and goes on to say "Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive." Clearly these PV panels wi!l be both unsightly and visually disruptive. The Baylands Master Plan Summary, our Pohcy document for lands east of 101, calls for "extensive design review" for new private development (to whose standards the MSC has been compared) and then it also calls for addftional "s~een landscaping between the MSC and the future landfill park area." It also calls for improving "the public easement between the industrial and research area on the north side of East Bayshore Frontage Road with landscaping, pavement, and signs. The signs should be part of a total system. Create a ’gateway’ feeling for Byxbee Park at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and the airport." The photovoltaic panels do not meet the Architectural Review Findings. I’ve already discussed Finding ¢."1 (Comprehensive Plan) above. Staff Finding #2 essentially says that the PV panels don’t conflict with the existing MSC use or conflict more than the existing _~SC use with the surrounding Baylands area" As mentioned above, the MSC was built before Site and Design Review applied to the area and it should not be the standard against which compliance should be measured. Finding #3 doesn’t really address whether the design is appropriate to the function of the project. Rather it simply states what the project is. Finding #5 stretches to say that these billboard-like PV panels are "promoting harmonious transitions in scale because they are no taller than the light poles and the MSC buildings. I already discussed the relationship of the panel heights to the building height, and there is a HUGE difference between long narrow light poles and 10" x 15’ panels at billboard height. Finding #6 also is not a finding, but says that our Ul:ility and Public Works department will "ensure compatibility with improvements". That’s what you, as a Commission, are supposed to do, not the very departments who have brought this project to you. Finding #10 might actually be met. Finding #12 requires that the ..... details of construction...are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements, at-td functions." It is again a stretch saying that the PV project "wi!1 create interest and improve upon the front of the more industrial use at the Municipal Services Center". ~4rhile it would not be difficult to "improve upon...the MSC", that is not justification for installing these large panels in the already deficient landscaping, and no indication is made on just how these panels would hnprove upon the MSC. The Desigwt Enhancement Exception Findings are not met by these panels. Finding #1 says, "There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstm’tces or conditions applicable to the site improvements involved that do not apply genera!Iy to property in the same district." There is nothing staff’s finding that distinguishes the MSC property from other property in the same district. Would the Council want to see panels like this in the front setbacks of al! the properties on the North side of East Bayshore Frontage Road ? Finding #2 says, "The gTanting of the application ~,fll enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character of the project...in a manner, which would not othemvise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirement of PAMC Chapter 18 and the ’ARB findings." The PV panels on the carports would probably be able to meet this standard, but the panels in the front setback surely could not. There is no way that these panels will enhance the appearance of the site or improve the neighborhood. Finding #3 is that the "exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and vdll not be detrimenta! to the public health, safety, genera! welfare, or convenience." Staff provides a very narrowly focussed comparison to the MSC property and not the general vicinity and strains ~o justify it because it "creates interest". So would a giant inflated gorilla, but what you are supposed to do is make sure that everything that happens in the Baylands is compatible and harmonious. These PV panels are neither. The Site and Design Review Findings are not met by this project. Finding # 1 says the use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible x~4th existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby s~tes." Adjoining sites are Open Space, not the site upon which this is being constructed. Staff’s response to this finding ignores the entire genera! thrust of moving toward harmony with the natural baylands, which these panels are not. Finding #2 regarding ensuring desirability of investment really doesn’t apply to the MSC and the MSC is not uniquely able to provide "educational opportunities". Those are being done at the Interpretive Center and at Cubberley. That is enough. Finding #3 regarding sound principles of environmental design is not met, simply because this is a dean energy source. Staff concludes that the panels will not detract from nearby natural Baylands and clearly they will. I’ve already addressed Finding #4 re consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. To stun up, it is a major stretch to make nearly all of the Findings required to approve the PV trackers portion of this project and I urge you to reject them. Sincerely, Emily- M. Renzel 1056 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-321-4165 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Susan Mickelsen, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community; Environment AGENDA DATE: September 28, 2005 SUBJECT:3201 East Bayshore Road: (05PLN-00255) Application by City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for the Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception for a Palo Alto Utilities/Department of Energy (DOE) Photovoltaic Demonstration Project consisting of 10 solar trackers and 2 photovoltaic carports to be located at the City’s Municipal Service Center. Environmental Review: DOE lead agency for NEPA exclusion; CEQA Categorically Exemption Section 15303. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend review by the Architectural Review Board and approval by the City, Council of the Site and Design Review application and Design Enhancement Exception for the City of Palo Alto/Department of Energy photovottaic (PV) demonstration project located at the City Municipal Service Center consisting of 10 photovoltaic trackers and 2 photovoltaic carports in the PF(D) (Public Facilities with Site and Design Review Combining District), based upon the findings in the Record of Land Use Action (Attae1sment A). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: Planning staff has heard a concern regarding locating such utility facilities near the Baylands, and objecting to an3." additional vertical element, particularly an "urban" feature being added on adjacent industrial uses to the Baylands. The City Baylands planner indicated that vertical elements in the Baylands are not consistent with the guidelines to keep facilities low and horizontal; that visually these facilities would stand out because City of Palo Alto they are more artistic than the MSC buildings and closer to East Bayshore Road; and that perhaps a less visually prominent approach should be considered. The City of Palo Alt~ Utilities department has received a Department of Energy gant to install a variety of photovoltaic systems on city facilities, with the inclusion of a strong educational component. The installation at the Municipal Service Center adds photovoltaic carport and tracking panelarrays to the MSC site. The MSC buildings are not structurally sound to install rooftop panels or window canopies that were located at other facilities (Baylands Interpretive Center and Cubberley Community Center). The project is located on the City’s Municipal Service Center which, as more of an industrial use could itself be considered as at odds with the surrounding Baylands area. The proposed project is requesting a Design Enhancement Exception to locate some of these facilities within the front setback. These would be located between the existing light pole fixtures (approximately 28’ tall) and MSC parking lot/MSC Building B (25’ in height) (see Attachment G for photo~aphs). The maximum allowable height of the PF district is 50 feet. Incorporating alternative energy, specifically limited height solar energy facilities into the MSC site and along East Bayshore Road where existing light poles are located, does not intensify the existing Service Center or utility use in this location. It would not affect the views of the Baylands beyond the MSC site (see Attachment G for photo~aphs). The photovoltaic tracking arrays are 21’-27’ in height at the highest panel tilt, depending on design and supporting pole height (Attachment I). PV panels on the tracker arrays will be approximately 10’x15’, depending on design. The photovoltaic inte~ated carport system wilt cover 4 rows of existing parking spaces, approximately 9.000 square feet and will be designed at the lowest height possible while still maintaining sufficient vehicle clearance. A discussion of the draf~ Baylands Design Guidelines and the project is provided in Attachment C. The Municipal Service Center character, as described in the Guidelines, is a "Commercial and Service Use" and the proposed solar energy facilities installation is consistent with this use. The City Public Works Department is seeking a Design Enhancement Exception for location within the front setback. For the photovoltaic tracking arrays, the front setback area of the MSC is the area closest to the corridor and existing utility (light pole) structures, further away from the Baylands toward the rear and south of the MSC site, and has the best solar orientation for these facilities on-site (away from Baylands). The proposed project will be visible from Highway 101 (primarily northbound) and East Bayshore Road. The ARB reviewed this project as one of three photovoltaic demonstration projects funded through this DOE gant in a televised study session on August 4, 2005. Noticing for the study session included a mass emailing to known Baylands interest ~oups and individuals. The other two PV demonstration projects, City of Palo Alto located at the Baylands Interpretive Center and Cubberley Community Center were approved on August 22, 2005. For the August 4~ ARB study session discussion of the MSC PV project, individual ARB members supported the project. Two public speakers, in support of the photovoltaic projects spoke at the ARB study session and added suggestions on increasing the tracking array creative design. One email opposing the project (lack of existing landscaping, vertical elements near the Baylands) is included in Attachment H. Individual ARB member suggestions included making the tracking array panels, layout, and supporting poles more creative. Individual board members indicated this location and the MSC is not a natural area. The lack of landscaping toward the front of the MSC was also discussed, but it was noted that this project should not be required to fund additional landscaping. Public Works staff noted that landscaping would not be covered under the DOE ~ant. Potential on-site marketing of the project includes a temporary banner to be located on the existing MSC fence in front of the parking lot, and Public Works staff upon ARB suggestion is exploring the possibility for lettering along the bottom of select PV panels (using the Green Energy website address). The project also includes a broader educational component including publicity of the Palo Alto Green Energy progam and on-line availability of solar energy production at the site. Please refer to "Project Description" section of Attachment F and Project Plans for more details. The proposed project complies with all but one of the PF zoning district development standards (Attachment E). Public Works staff is seeking a Design Enhancement Exception for location of the photovoltaic tracker arrays within the front setback area of the MSC site. and related findings are contained in Attachment A. The proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies (Attachment D). TIMELINE: Action: Application Received: Application Deemed Complete: ARB Study Session: P&TC Meeting: ARB Meeting (tentative): Council Meeting: Date: July 14, 2005 August 1~., ~ 2005 August 4, 1005 September 28, 2005 November 3, 2005 Zo be determined RESOURCE IMPACT: The proposed project will be part of the Palo Alto Green Energy pro~am, reducing costs City of Palo Alto to the City and participating residents and businesses in the progam by increasing the availability of photovoltaic ener~ in the City. Energy produced by all three (o 1_ kW1 for all three projects or approximately 604.500demonstration projects kWh!year) will be utilized by the immediate facilities as well as be available for use with the CPA Utilities’ Green Energy Program. The proposed project at the MSC would produce approximately 110 kW or 23 !,000 kWh!year1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Department of Energy is the lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review and has determined the project qualifies for NEPA exclusion. Similarly, the City as the lead agency for the project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review has determined that the project is exempt under CEQA Guideline section 15303. ATTACHMENTS: A. Record of Land Use Action with Site & Design, and Design Enhancement Exception Findings B.Arkin-Tilt Architects’ Proposed PV Project Summaries C.Draft Baylands Design Principles Compliance D.Comprehensive Plan Compliance Zoning Table F.Backgound & Project Description G.Photo~aphs of project location (Color copies to Commissioners only) H.Correspondence received to date I.Project Plans (Commissioners only) COURTESY COPIES: Karen Bengard, Public Works Department Holly Boyd, Public Works Department Emily Renzel City Council Prepared by:Susan Mickelsen, Planner Reviewed by:John Lusardi, Planning Manager Department?Division Head Approval: 1 Just as a comparison, a typical single family home would install a 3 kW PV system to cover most, if not all of its ty,~ical energy, use. City of Palo Alto September 26, 2005 Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Chairman Burt & Members of the Commission: I am writing in opposition to part of the Photovoltaic project that is before you for Site and Design Review and a Design Enhancement Exception. As you know, from the letter included in your packet, I have no objection to the carport roofs over the existing parking area. I do object, however, to the 10 billboard sized "trackers" in the front setback along East Bayshore Frontage Road. These introduce increased clutter to the appearance of the Municipal Services Center (MSC) as well as vertical elements in an area where the general design thrust is to be horizontal. For starters, I think staff should not have been applying for a grant to build something as egregious as this in a sensitive area. This is just one.more case of staff action preceding policy direction, and shows a lack of sensitivity to our baylands area. The City has for at least 30 years had a Site and Design overlay on everything in the Baylands in order to ensure that new development is compatible. The Site and Design Review Combining District "is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive~ including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious ..with other USeS in the general vi~ty, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan." (emphasis added.) Unfortunately, there was no such review when the MSC was built and as a result, our own city facility has only minimal landscaping and a sort of wild west use of the open areas. In short, it is pretty dose to being an eyesore. That does not, however, justify making it more of an eyesore by installing 10 billboard sized photovoltaic panels in the front setback. The. City Council spoke eloquently about how different it feels to drive through Palo Alto on 101 because we do not have billboards. Visually, there is little distinction between billboards and these PV trackers. Staff is also proposing a message on some of the panels as well as a "temporary banner" which will add more visual disruption. Staff maintains that these panels will be no higher than the MSC itself and therefore they’re okay. The MSC buildings are about 100" back from East Bayshore Frontage Road. Anyone who has had rudimentary geometry knows that the doser things are, the taller they appear. Panels 26" tall and 10 feet from our segment of the "Around the Bay Trail" will definitely appear much taller than the 25’ high MSC buildings appear set back 100" from the trail. Staff rites a number of Comprehensive Plan policies and concludes that these PV panels are in conformance with these policies. I disagree. Policy N-48 says "Encourage appropriate use of alternative energy technologies." It doesn’t say "use of appropriate energy technologies" from which one might conclude that this is an appropriate technology. It says "appropriate use" which I believe means in the right location and properly installed in compliance with dty laws, induding Site and Design Review. Policy L-79 uses the language "high quality urban design standards" and goes on to say "Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive." Clearly these PV panels will be both unsightly and visually disruptive. The Baylands Master Plan Summary, our Policy document for lands east of 101, calls for "extensive desig-n review" for new private development (to whose standards the MSC has been compared) and then it also calls for additional "screen landscaping between the MSC and the future landfill park area." It also calls for improving "the public easement between the industrial and research area on the north side of East Bayshore Frontage Road with landscaping, pavement, and signs. The signs should be part of a total system. Create a ’gateway’ feeling for Byxbee Park at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and the airport." The photovoltaic panels do not meet the Architectural Review Findings. I’ve already discussed Finding #1 (Comprehensive Plan) above. Staff Finding #2 essentially says that the PV panels don’t conflict with the existing MSC use or conflict more than the existing MSC use with the surrounding Baylands area" As mentioned above, the MSC was built before Site and Design Rewiew applied to the area and it should not be the standard against which compliance should be measured. Finding #3 doesn’t really address whether the design is appropriate to the function of the project. Rather it simply states what the project is. Finding #5 stretches to say that these billboard-like PV panels are "promoting harmonious transitions in scale because they are no taller than the light poles and the MSC buildings. I already discussed the relationship of the panel heights to the building height, and there is a HUGE difference between long narrow light poles and 10" x 15’ panels at billboard height. Finding #6 also is not a finding, but says that our Utility and Public Works department will "ensure compatibility with improvements". That’s what you, as a Commission, are supposed to do, not the very departments who have brought this project to you. Finding #10 might actually be met. Finding #12 requires that the ..... details of construction...are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements, and functions." It is again a stretch saying that the PV project "will create interest and improve upon the front of the more industrial use at the Municipal Services Center". While it would not be difficult to "improve upon...the MSC’, that is not justification for installing these large panels in the already deficient landscaping, and no indication is made on just how these panels would improve upon the MSC. The Design Enhancement Exception Findings are not met by these panels. Finding #1 says, "There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property, in the same district," There is nothing staff’s finding that distinguishes the MSC property from other property in the same district. Would the Planning Commission want to see panels like this in the front setbacks of all the properties on the North side of East Bayshore Frontage Road? Finding #2 says, "q?he granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character of the project...in a manner, which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirement of PAMC Chapter 18 and the ARB findings." The PV panels on the carports would probably be able to meet this standard, but the panels in the front setback surely could not. There is no way that these panels ~dll enhance the appearance of the site or improve the neighborhood. Finding #3 is that the "exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience." Staff provides a very narrowly focussed comparison to the MSC property and not the general vicinity and strains to justify it because it "creates interest". So would a giant inflated gorilla, but what you are supposed to do is make sure that everyflxing that happens in the Baylands is compatible and harmonious. These PV panels are neither. The Site and Design Review Findings are not met by this project. Finding # 1 says the use will be constructed and operated in a manner that ~ll be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites."... Adjoining sites are Open Space, not the site upon which this is being constructed. Staff’s response to this finding ignores the entire general thrust of moving toward harmony with the natural baylands, which these panels are not. Finding #2 regarding ensuring desirability of investment really doesn’t apply to the MSC and the MSC is not uniquely able to provide "educational opportunities". Those are being done at the Interpretive Center and at Cubberley. That is enough. Finding #3 regarding sound principles of environmental design is not met, simply because this is a dean energy source. Staff condudes that the panels will not detract from nearby natural Baylands and clearly they will. I’ve already addressed Finding #4 re consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. To sum up, it is a major stretch to make nearly all of the Findings required to approve the PV panels portion, of this project and I urge you to reject them. Sincerely, Emily M~’Renzel 1056 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-321-4165 ! 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1! 1,~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3I 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .... MEETINGS .&RE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVEtLNMENT ACCESS CELA2N.rNEL 26: We&,esday, September 28, 2005 REGULAR 3IEETING at 7:00 P!ll Council Chambers Civic Center, lst Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:01 PM Commissioners: Pafrick Burr - Chair Karen Hohnan - U-Chair Lee Z Lipperr- co~!flict w#h Pazda ~andas Phyllis Cassel Da~Tie/ Garber Staff: " Steve Emslie, Planning Director Don Larkin, Senior Deputy Cio~’ A~torney John Lusardi, Planning Manager Joseph KotL Chief Transporm~io,z O~Tcia] &even Turne~; Senior Planner Susan Mickelsen, Planner Zariah Betren, Executive SecretaW A GENDIZED ITE~IS: 1.Downtown North Second Traffic Calming Trial: 2.320i East BaySh0re Road 3.4219 E1 Camino Real We will now be reconvening the meeting beginning discussion of item number two, 3201 East Bavshore Road. It is an application by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for the Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception for a Department of Energy and Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic Demonstration Project consisting of ten solar trackers and two photovoltaic carpqrts to be located at the City’s Municipal Service Center. The Department of Energ) lead agency for NEPA exclusion is part of our enviromnental review as welI a CEQA categorical exemption. Would the Staff like to make a presentation? 3201 East Bavshore Road-+: Application by Cib; of Palo Alto Public Works Department for the Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception for a Department of Energy (DOE)/Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic Demonstration Project consisting of 10 solar trackers and 2 photovoltaic carports to be located at the City’s Municipal Service Center. Environmental Review: DOE lead agency for NEPA exclusion; CEQA Categorically Exemption Section 15303. Ci0 of PaSo A!to September 28, 2005 Page ] qf27 1 6 Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission this is a Site and Design Review because the site is located within the Baylands Master Plan and has a D combining district overlay. Site and Design Review requires Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation, Architectura! Review Board review and recorm~endation and City Council action. 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2F 26 28 29 30 31 D~ 33 34 3~ 36 37 38 39 40 4I 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The lead on the project tonight is the Public \\ orks Department and Karen Bengard from Public Works is here. \Vhat we w6uld like to do is make a brief presentation between Staff and the consultant and Board Member Drew Maran is here to speak to a study session that we held with the Architectural Review Board and hear al! those comments before Commission questions and then go to the speakers. Thank Fou. Chair Burr: Thank you So Susan Mickelsen from Planning will give the first introduction. Ms. Susan Mickelsen. Planning: Good evening. Because there are several speakers I will try and keep it short. This is a Site and Design Review of the MSC photovottaic project. Just a quick overview to give you a sense of where it is located the MSC site is located along Highway 101 and East Bayshore Road. You can see here there is Baylands towards the rear and on the side. The error on this page is that the nex~ Matadero Creek bypass flood control project is not shown and then the Baylands are also located towards the north here. Zooming in a little bit, we are talking about the existing parking lot at the MSC in this area and you can’t see the fence along here but there is a fence along the entire MSC and then this front setback area as we!l. We did include in the packet a couple of picture views of the front, this parking lot and the front setback area from the north on East Bayshore and again from the south this front setback area and the parking lot. Just to point out the art project in front of.the MSC would remain. Then on the plans themselves there are views the consultant took from Highway 101 as well as showing this area north and southbound. I just want to briefly go over the pros and cons of the project, the cons being the issues that have been raised so far that we have heard. The prime one being that it does introduce new vertical elements in front of the MSC near the Baylands and therefore that is not consistent with the Baylands guideline regarding vertical elements. The guidelines were included in your packet for Four review. The project does not address existing problems of lack of landscaping at the front of the MSC and it does require a Design Enhancement Exception for location of the tracking arrays in the front setback. The pros of the project that we have also heard are that it is placed as much as possible away from the BaF lands again on the area it was primarily to the back and the rear and then across the flood control channel to the north. So it is focused toward the front of the MSC and then the northern side of MSC given that that’s the best place for solar orientation on the site. Then the solar arrays add an artistic element to photovoltaic panels that you wouldn’t see like on a rooftop or a carport. The trackers themselves have been reduced in height to the minimum required typically they are higher than what it is proposed. That the facilities themselves wil! add approximately 100-kilowatt photovoltaic system to the MSC and this will be used toward the MSC energy use as well as towards the cib,wide utility use as well. The tracking arrays themselves create a solar energy statement for the city and the city’s green energy prouam particularly along Highway ! 01 where it is visible to more than Palo Alto citizens. That is about it so I will introduce Karen Bengard from the Public \Vorks Department. CfO’ q[Pa/o Ai~,o September 28, 2005 Page 2 of 27 1 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4I 42 43 44 45 47 48 Ms. Karen Benaard. Public Works Department: Hello everyone I am the project manager for the photovoltaic demonstration project. By the way since that is quite a mouthful ’photovoltaic’ t am probably just going to say PV or solar power. The history of this project is that the City applied for a grant from the Department of Energy in July of 2003. They were awarded a grant for $1.4 million from the Department of Energy in September of 2003. So with the $1.4 million from the Department of Energy plus $1.4 million matching funds from the Utilities Department we have a total ofS2,8 million that we can spend for photovoltaic panels and systems at City facilities. There are actually two main goals of this project one of which is of course obviously to produce power. Number two is to educate the public about the benefits of solar power and to show them some of the applications that they might not otherwise see. You wi!l notice at our sites each application is a little bit different. We might have thin film or we might have a rack mount at one site. We mighi have carports and trackers. We just have a mix of systems that people can see. The energy generated by these s) stems wilI be sold as part of the Palo Alto Green Program. Currently we don’t produce m~y of that power here in Palo Alto it is all imported from other cities. This project would provide about half of wha~t is currently being sold to people so it quite a significant project in that regard. We picked the sites by, we kept our goals in mind, we wanted to produce power, and we wanted to educate the public. So we looked at many, many of the buildings and sites in the city for their accessibility to the public, can the public get up to them? Would it be visible to the public? For their security, would they be hit by trucks? Would they be so isolated that vandals could wreak havoc with them? Would the locations be distributed? We want to have some here and some there so they would be in different parts of town for people to see. And then landscaping would there be trees in the way? We looked for example at the animal shelter and the animal shelter had some trees that were in the way, they had rooftop air conditioning units, heating units that just made that site unfeasible. The sites that we looked at I will just go very quickly down the list. We looked at the police department roof. We looked at fire stations one and two, the Cox~er-Webster garage, the golf course snack shop, the Cambridge garage which is near California Avenue, the High-Alma garage and the Bryant-L?tton garages which are both off University Avenue, the ,4~rastradero Preserve parking lot area, the animal services center, the Cubberly Community Center, the Baytands Interpretive Center and the MSC which we will be talking about tonight. So with that fairly short list of sites we had a representative from the Department of Energy, actually a sub-consultant to the Department of Energy, come out here in March of 2004 and helped us narrow down the sites to the three that we are working on now. Like I said, the site that is being presented tonight is called the MSC North Employee Parking Lot. The general concept of photovoltaic on the City buildings was first presented to the ARB in May of 2004 and this particular site was not included but it was more just the general concept. We are going to put solar on City buildings, are there things you hate, are there things you like and we just got general guidelines from them back in May 2004. I guess what I am leading into with a lot of these dates is that this prqject was out there long before the auto row concept came along. I know a lot of you are concerned about that as we are. CiO’ qf Pa~.o A!~o September 28, 2005 Page 3 of 27 3 4 5 ~7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 32 34 _35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4.4 45 46 48 The funding for this grant expires next summer in June of 2005. Because of the auto row issue that ae have the Cit) Manager and others are looking into, I have asked for a one-year extension from the Department of Energy to give us more time to figure out if that really is going to be a viable site for car dealers. Department of Energy has told me verbally that they thought they uould extend it but I don’t have an?thing in writing yet so never say never but that would buy us some time. At this point I would like to turn the microphone over to David Arkin of Arkin Tilt :~chitects and he can get into some of the details on the pr@ ect particulars. Mr. David Arkin. Arkin Tilt Architects: Good evening Commissioners it is a pleasure to be here before you. I ana a principle at ,Qkin Tilt Architects. We are collaborating with Timmons’ design engineers and with me is Shaun Timmons, principal and Eric Hyman our project manager for this effort. Karen thanks for the introduction, also Susan. I want to make note that these are not the first buildings that we will have phoiovoltaics on and for the City of Palo Alto actua!ly the ,Q’astradero Preserve facility also features a couple of kilowatts and is a self-po~,~ered standalone site for the City. I am just going to be on the soapbox for a second here. It is clear that we as a society are facing some major shifts in the ~ay we operate. We have };een living in somewhat of an energy bubble and it is about to burst and we have to be ready as a society to take on these challenges. For many years people have been digging for coal and uranium and framing our electric blankets in a rather inefficient mariner. Just this week our President said he is a fan of alternative energy such as nuclear. I want to go on record as saying I too am a fan of nuclear energy so long as it is 92 mi!lion miles away. As other creatures have discovered it is a great source of warmth and energy. California in particular happens to be a good site and I think it makes eminent sense and that is why this project has been funded by the Department of Energy and Palo Alto Utilities are pursuing it. As Karen mentioned one of our goals is to demonstrate a large variety of types of systems and types of installations and be able to educate the public, Palo Altoans and beyond to the possibility of integrating photovoltaic energy onto their businesses and homes. Municipal Service Center site was selected in part for its good solar exposure but also I believe for the opport~mity to make the panels visible from Highway 101 and actually reach a broader audience. The buildings themselves aere deemed unsafe for rooftop installations, which is why the parking lot area and the grassy strip between the buildings and the highway are being considered. As mentioned our strategy here was to take two types of panels and install them one on the carport arrays which are !ocated over the parking area and serve the dual function of shading the cars as well as generating electricity and then a row of ten trackers. This site wi!l produce about the equivalent of what 27 homes.would need in electricity, roughly 20 of that in the carports and seen in the arrays. So the carport structures are a prefabricated, pre-manufactured type of item that has been installed successfully in a number of locations. These are a couple of examples. The one at the top is significantly larger than what we are proposing here but it would be more along those lines. As you see it provides wonderful shade for those MSC employees’ cars. The other installation here is ten pole-mounted arrays, which actually track the sun. They startup in the morning by facing the sun and they move through the day to a nearly horizontal angle and then foIlow the sun into the afternoon and evening. Then come night~ime they will move back to a horizonta! position where they park until the sun rises the next morning. One of the great benefits of tracking versus fixed photovoltaic arrays is the ability to achieve about 35 percent Ci,.’y o.[Pa{o A~.ro September 2& 2005 P.age 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 26 2?" 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 4"7 48 greater output at our latitude. We actually installed trackers on a project in Alaska and in the summer we get 56 percent more power by following the sun. The trackers as shown here are roughly a 16-foot square. When we proposed them to the ARB they were a ten-foot high by 15-foot wide dimension in order to get below the height of the buildings. We are now looking at a couple of options one of which is a ten-foot by ten-foot square format for the arrays. Then per the direction of the Architectural Review Board whom we met with a couple of months ago and they spoke very favorably of the idea but asked us to look at what are some ways of making these less rectilinear and more artful. So these are just a couple of the possibilities, which we are exploring. The one on the left based on the ten foot by ten ibot and the one on the right would be closer to what you see in scale to the model bet%re you. I should also note that the panels here are Sunpower SPR200,, which is an all black panel somewhat unique for photovoltaic panels. It is one of the most efficient panels available today and gives us a chance to do a more abstract type of array with them. This is just a little time laps, which shows the action of the panels as they track the sun throughout the day. So they move to horizomal near the noontime hours and then face the sun. So corrm~uters who are moving by in the morning might see them in this position and then as they return at different times during the day would see them facing and following the sun. The all black surface of the trackers is a non-reflective surface that actually improves the efficiency. These panels in particular because they are always facing the sun would actually never have a gIare issue except fiom the perspective of the sun. Again, our hope is that we can reach a great audience by making these visible from Highway !01. This particular stretch of the highway,, as I think any one of us would agree, is less attractive and we feel that the trackers could be a positive benefit along this stretch. A couple of the signage proposals, the top is to have trail signage on the Baylands trail which actually does a little split and you can either take the trail around the MSC or come ira_mediately in front of the trackers. Then on the fence, which separates the parking lot from the roadway, we ~ ould propose to ha~e a sign, which am~ounces that Palo Alto is going solar and where one can learn more about the project. Shaun would you like to add some technical details? Mr. Shaun Timmons, Tirrnnons Design Ensineerin~: I am Managing Principal of Timmons Design Engineers and I am here with Eric Hyman our project manager and photovoltaic engineer. We are extremely supportive and eager to move this project along primarily because it speaks to the mission statement that we were given at the concept stage of the design. We are to give the people of Palo Alto and the neighboring communities and opportunity to become educated in future power systems. One way to do it is to utilize photovoltaic systems in the way that we are proposing and that is using a tracker system. They- are artistic in form. The), speak to the goal of educating the people passing by both from the trail and from the highway. Basically, it lends itself to the overall goa! of green Palo Alto. It wilt put Palo Alto to the forefront of green power within the Bay Area. -We are an ultra green engineering firm and we are constantly pushing cities like San Francisco and Berkeley and various other communities to think green and think outside the box. This project would put Palo Alto at the leading edge of that. Photovoltaics are here to stay along with fuel cells and wind turbines. So it is a case of making City qf Pafo Afro September 28, 2005 Page 5 of 21 t 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 2"3D 24 26 28 29 30 3] 32 "3"3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 4~ 48 them attractive and blending them in with the Baylands. We are one of the first along with David to admit that the Bavlands is a sensitive area but where the trackers are located in the MSC area it is in need of a faceliff and t think the trackers aill help provide that. Thank you. Chair Butt: Thafl,: you. I think we have Drew Maran here from the ARB. Drew would you provide your and the ARB’s comments? Mr. Drew Maran. Architectural Review Board: The ARB was very much in support of this project and still is. We feel that the aesthetics have been well addressed in terms of the location. We are mostly talking about the trackers. The carport drew very little discussion because it seems like such a no-brainer. The trackers stand in front of buildings that we consider to be not terribly attractive. I think ugly was one of the descriptions. The support sort of brought on some discussion of what other kinds of creative approaches could be applied to the trackers and David spoke to some of those. He presented a couple of options. We also talked about other features of this project that could be highlighted again emphasizing the educational value, the promotion of solar power. The ARB has been a promoter of solar power so this works really wel!. \\e also see it as a very good tie-in to the Baylands itself in that the Baylands are there to promote people’s understafiding of nature and our appreciation of nature and solar power is very much in synch with that message. We also asked the architect and the team to consider other messages, I think they presented a barmer that was one of those messages and we asked them to consider other messages, either on the poles or in the form of banners. That is our support in summary. Chair Bun: Thank you. Cormnissioners, do you have questions of Staff before hearing from the public? We only have speaker from the public. Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Thanks, Pat actually I have several questions. Karen, you mentioned the notion of the auto dealership. That was the first thought that came into my mind when I read about this, having two days before seeing this read the guest opinion by Council Member Beecham in the Palo ;qlto I-Veekl). So say we plug in these trackers and two or ttv’ee years later auto dealerships are going to be put in the space where the MSC is what are our contingencies, if any? Ms. Ben_oar& We!l, first of all I guess I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the auto dealers wouldn’t want those in front of the site. They certainly are attention getters and I imagine they could also park cars under the carports. So I guess first off I wouldn’t say that they wouldn’t be unwelcome. They could be relocated, that would be difficult I think for the trackers but at this point I don’t ~know much more than you. That is why I asked for the one-year extension in hopes we wil! know a little more. Chair Burr: Go ahead. Corn_missioner Sandas: Thanks, that answered that question. We are still kind of in limbo with that I guess. One of the other questions I had is I realize that this pr~ect is a demonstration project however I was looking at the term ~unsightIy’ and I am not sure being that it is such a su~ective word what constitutes ’sightly’ and what is ~unsightly.’ I suspect that not everybody Cio’ q(Palo Ai~o September 28, 2005 Page d of 27 1 6 10 1t !3 14 1? 18 !9 20 22 2~ 24 26 2,’7 28 ~0 31 DD 34 40 41 42 44 4f 4’7 views these trackers as attractive. So in an effort to sort of mitigate the distinction between something that might be unattractive and having a demonstration project for solar energy I have two questions. One, can the trackers be placed at the back of the MSC? The second question is could we have more carports and possibly fewer trackers? Ms. Ben~ard: To answer your first question I would say that putting the trackers at the back of the MSC defeats the purpose of having public education. No one wil! see them. To answer your second question, yes, we could certainly reduce the number of trackers to have them maybe just in front of the parking lot area. Commissioner Sandas: What about more carports to shade the car? Ms. Ben~ard: Yes, we could add more carports. It is a!! a matter of money of course. We have our $2.8 million and we would have to play with an exact amount to have a balance there. Chair Butt: Okay, if it is all right with the Commission since we only have one speaker I would like to open the pubiic hearing and then we can return to questions from the Commission. Emily Renzel. Ms. Renzeh I am trying to keep my blood pressure under control here. As you know I submitted a three page set of comments to you indicating that very few of the findings can actually be made that are required for this Site and Design Review, for architectural review or/:’or the Design Enhancement Exception that is required here. I am just to’ing to think of how for )ou to visualize this. All the pictures you are shown are from aerials looking down. I think-" it is important to try to visualize from a person being down looking up. I am thinking that maybe that screen is I2 feet wide by 12 feet high so if you make it two feet shorter and three feet wider that is the size we are looking at if we are talking ten by 15. This room is probably 24 feet high so you are talking about being at least as high as this room. These are going to be big and they are going to be very visible. I don’t think being visible is necessarily being educational. Being moving isn’t necessarily educational because the person who passes them in about three seconds in the morning is not going to do more than maybe wonder what this new ugliness is. They are not going to come back to inquire about i~. If they are on the other side of the free~ ay coming back they are not likely to even know that it changed position. They are certainly not going to kunow it as they pass it. The other projects that are being done have educational components. The carports can be an educational component. I just am kind of appa!led that anyone is considering that these might be considered artistic. They are industrial thing. They are being put in a place that is already under- landscaped, poorly landscaped and they are not adding to improve that they are detracting from it. They will appear much bigger than the buildings themselves because they are so much closer to the particularly pedestrians who will be using the around-the-bay trail. So I urge you to reread, I hope you have read my commentary before. I don’t disagree with using solar but I think it needs to be in the right place and I think Sight and Design Review is your purview and also the ARB’s to make sure these things are done in the right place and in the right way. I don’t think this is the right place. It is a sensitive area. It is not just one building by one building that you are looking at but the overal! emphasis of the whole area was intended to give a park-like feeling and we have been really ruthless with a lot of developers to get massive landscaping, City of Palo Alto September 28, 2005 Page 7 qf 21 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~8 29 30 31 DD 34 35 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 choice of building maerials, everything. Unfortunately, the MSC preceded Site and Design Review so all we got is 1960’s tilt-ups but ae ca~ do better and we shouldn’t be justi~:ing doing this based on the fact ttaat we already have a poor set of situations at the MSC now. So I would urge you to perhaps direct them toward doing another carport I did take note that they said that of the 27 homes or whatever they are generating here 20 of it is coming from the carports and seven from these little panels. So maybe one more carport and no panels wiI! give you the same electrica! generation and the educational component can be done in other ways tttrough utility mailings, certainly not so-called temporary banners which ha~e a way of staying up for way past their temporariness. The golf course had one up for months that was announcing the opening of the restaurant there. These kinds of things happen and they stick around for a long time and I don’t think that’s the way we want to educate the public in Palo Alto. I urge you to deny the tracking panels. Thank you. Chair Bun: Thank you. Contrnissioners, do we have some additional questions for Staff?’ Lee. Commissioner Lipped1: This is putting the cart before the horse, maFbe. The MSC is currently located in a flood zone, is that not correct? Mr. Lusardi: That is correct, yes. Commissioner Lippert: So redevelopment of that site is going to be potentially problematic in terms of auto dealers being able to move onto that site. They would have to move k above base flood elevation. Mr. Lusardi: Any new development would probabl} have to be elevated approxhnately three feet maybe up to five feet. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have a question regarding the photovoltaic systems themselves. I think probably one of the most impressive demonstrations of,. how should we say, renewable energy is the Akamont Pass where they have wind turbines. As you know the wind turbines are quite controversial because of the wildlife that flies into the turbines and gets ;~Cuisenarted." Would this have any potential hazards when it comes to wildlife getting say fried or anything? Ms. Ben~_ard: t will try and answer that and then I x~ill probably turn it over to David for correction, maybe. We are putting some panels at the Baylands Interpretive Center and that was my question. What about al! the birds out there? Surface of the panels are going to be very hot so no bird is going to want to sit on that panel. I suppose a bird could fly into it but I guess that would be natural selection. So aside from that I don’t know, David do you? Mr. Arkin: Having designed an aviary for a Golden Eagle that was injured at Altamont I am sensitive to this issue. The motion itself is obviously so slow that it is not going to present that type of hazard. To my knowledge I have not heard of any wildlife being injured by these. They are silent. The?," sit there like a tree and the?‘" turn sunlight into energy. Chair Burr: Phyllis. Commissioner Casse!: A technical question. When the power goes offwi!l this be comnected in such a aay that we will be able to use this power or as in most situations around the city you will Cio; qf Pa~,o Ako September- 28, 2005 Page 8 of 21 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 also have to turn the power off on this because the}; don’t x~ant to regenerate the pox~er into the line? Mr. Eric Hvman. Timmons Design Engineering: These will be grid tied systems. The inveners that will be convening the energy from DC power which is what the PV models produce built into these inverters automatically disconnects from the grid system when the power goes down. It is a full protection type thing to keep electricians going to the site from getting shocked because there is stilI live power going in. So that when the grid goes down this system goes down. Commissioner Cassel: So there is an alternative to that system which involves some batteries. This will not use that so we x~ilI not gain anything if our power system goes down we will not then have the MSC system operating which is an area we need to have operating. Mr. Hvman: Right. It wilt not contribute to the emergency power of the site. There is an existing generator that I saw at the site that I presume should be taking care of that. This solar project isn’t intended to provide backup power for the MSC site. Ms. Bensard: IfI could I might add that we are !ooidng into a system that will send a signal if any of our trackers or arra) s go down. So we would know then that we would have to send out a maintenance crew to fix it. We are also going to have a maintenance contract to wash the panels and whatnot to come by monthly or quarterly whatever is recomznended to check them. So hopefully we wouldn’t have any real problems with the systems. Chair Butt: Dan. Corm-nissioner Oarber: What is the size of a normal, normal if’there is such a thing, sign along 101 like when you go th’ough Re&wood City or something? How big are those signs? Is it 60 by 1 O0 or something like that? Mr. Lusardi: Are you talking about advertising signs? Commissioner Gather: Yes, a&ertising signs. Mr. Lusardi: Welt some of the auto dealership signs can be as much as 600 square feet or they can be 80 square feet. So as far as the height and the x~hole size of the sign the advertising part is approximately 300 square feet. Cormv~issioner Oarber: And these would be on a square foot basis, how big? Mr. Arkin: The smaller array that you looked at was 100 square feet and then the larger one would be about 150. Commissioner Oarber: So about a half to a third the size? : .(it. Arkin: Yes. ~oCommissioner Garber: How high are they offthe ~round: Cio; q/Palo A:.to September 28, 2005 Page 9 o/’2"1 ! 2 3 4 8 9 10 1! 12 13 !4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 97 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Mr. Arkin: \Ve want to have them set so the bottom most portion at early morning or early afternoon would be at least se~en feet off the ground. That puts the top when it is in that straight up position, if we use the shorter arraF, at about 1"7 or ] 8 feet. If we did the taller configuration it might be closer to 23. Commissioner Oarber: \Vhich is less than the advertising signs by some amount. Mr. Arkin: I am sure the) vary quite a bit but that may be true for most. Commissioner Gather: John. Mr. Lusardi: These panels would be significantly less than what the large advertising signs such as IKEA, significantly less than that plus they are not changeable message signs and there is no lettering on them that you would see. Commissioner Gather: One other question. \Vhat is the life of the arrays? How long are they supposed to stay there ph} sically? Mr. Arkin: Go ahead Eric, you know this better than I. Mr. Hvman: Tvpicallv~ , the PV module manufacturers supply; a _~9 ;-year.. warranty, with the modules stating pretty much that in 25 }.’ears fiom this date they wi!! be providing about 85 percent of the po~ er they, are now. So it is not _~avinc~,. ~ the~, will ~o bad in ~o’~ years. Commissioner Garber: Understood. What is their useful life? Mr. Hvman: Honestly nobody knows because as very old solar systems from the 1960s and 1970 are still in operation. So the estimate people go by is 35 to 40 years. Commissioner Oarber: Finally, one other question a!ong the same line. The technology for photovoltaics is accelerating and is changing quickly. So I am just wondering in five };ears with the technology will it be outmoded? Mr. Hvman I highly doubt that. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Mr. Hvman: The technology isn’t changing as quick]y as some may think. The same concepts have been going on for decades and we are just building on efficiency now. The fact that these arrays aren’t seen or very rarely no~ a days I don’t think it is going to pick up that quickly that it ~ ould be out-dated that fast. Commissioner Oarber: Finally, for the demonstration/education of the public you are relying on them seeing this stuff’but isn’t there also data that is being shared in some way? What is that about? CzO, ofPalo A~ro Sep,’.ember 28, 2005 Page ]0 qf2"[ ! 9 t0 !1 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. H~man: My understanding is at each of the sites there will be a message as to ~here you can find more information at the Pa!o Alto Utilities I belie~ e. Commissioner Garber: Is it available on the web or something of that sort? Mr. Hvman: Right. It x~ill be web coimected, the monitoring of each of the systems Commissioner Garber: Is there a public place where that is sort of like the exhibit or something of that sort whether it is at the MSC or someplace else? Mr. Hyman: There are some of the educational components being considered right now x~ill haze some type of" onsite display. It hasn’t been i~ully developed as of yet where that is going to gO. Commissioner Oarber: Thank you. Chair Bun: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Eric, don’t go away I have aquesfion for you. Karen was mentioning somebody coming regularly to do maintenance. I am just picturing this very impressive array of these trackers and I am picturing one broken. How reliable are these? You are going down the street and you are seeing them a!l going in the same direction but one is swimming north when the rest are swimming south, Do you have any idea of how reliable these are or what kind of maintenance they require? Mr. Hvman: My understanding of the maintenance is typically once a year somebody should go and grease the gears and make sure all the nuts and bolts are good to go for the next year. As far as washing the panels in the Bay Area it rains during the winter and it is dry during the summer so typically once or twice during the dry season someone can just hose them off. Otherwise the rain usually just takes care of cleaning them. Ms. Bengard: I would add that we would have as part of the maintenance agreement something similar to what we have with the elevators where if something is broken we call them and they come out within 24 hours to fix it. Mr. ~aakin: If I may add, solar thermal technology or hot water collectors went through a curve in the Iate 1970s and early 1980s when a lot of companies were making them. Some of them were really good and some of them were not. The ones that are still in operation today are reliable. I would say with trackers we are at a point where the ones that are available are the ones that do work and the ones that aren’t working are no longer available on the market. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I would like to ,know a little bit more about the other locations. You listed a number of locations very quickly and I tried to jot those down. You briefly mentioned Cubberly Could you speak to some of these areas why they weren’t acceptable? I am interested in Cubberly, the police department, the Downtown parking garages. City of Paio A~.to September 28, 2005 Page i i of 21 1 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Benaard: I irJ~erited this project so t wasn’t in on the police department roof itself. I was in on some of the other sites. My understanding of the police department roof was that there were two reasons, they were looking at possibly remodeling the police department or expanding it as part of the new police department and number two that there is a lot of equipment on the roof. I was not on the roof myself so I can’t speak to what exactly was up there. I imagine it was air conditioning equipment. Cubberly, I x~as on the roof there. At Cubberly we are actuall? going to be putting photovoltaics on Cubberly. Vice-Chair Holman: The Downtown parking garages? Ms. Ben~ard: Oh. the garages, the two new garages are already at their height limit to so we couldn’t put any more height on those. The Cambridge garage is having some maintenance work done that would interfere with the PV panels. They are having new lights put in and whatnot. So the carports would be difficult there. Vice-Chair Holman: So the carports would be difficult there? Ms. Ben~ard: Yes. Vice-Chair Holman: :amother question is there was up on the screen earlier some different configurations of these trackers. There was also an illustration of some signage. What can the Staff say about what that configuration would be. what the sizes might be, and what the size of the signage might be? I am just interested in knowing what we are looking at tonight and if it is even going to be what would be the final configuration? Mr. Lusardi: Well, when we went to the Architectural Review Board with the study session they asked us to look at a little more creative approach to this. a little more artistic approach to this and signage. That is sti!l being defined. So if the Plarming and Transportation Commission votes favorably to move this along it would go to the Architectural Review Board for their review and further design refinement. The Planning and Transportation Commission if you so desire can ask it to come back to this Commission after it goes to ARB so you could see the refinements of that design but it is something we are continuing to de~ elop. Vice-Chair Holman: I guess my question more specifically would also go to since we are looking at impacts here is the one configuration in particular looked like it would have a much greater height to it for instance. Do you want to speak to that or is it just like we don’t know so we don’t know? Mr. Lusardi: It would not ha~’e any greater height than what we are showing here. We were very careful in determining the height. One of the key elements of this project is that it creates a vertical element in the Baylands, which is really contrary to the Baylands Master Plan guidelines. So we were very careful. You can’t put these types of trackers in a horizontal element you have to accept some kind of verticality with them. So some of the things we did were to try to reduce that visual impact, number one is we reduced the number of trackers from 16 down to ten. We tried to reduce the size of them. We are trying to add an artistic element to them and we are reducing the height of them be!ow the roofline of the MSC buildings. The speaker tonight made Ci~,; ofPn[o _~z.~.o September 28 2005 Paoe z ~ of 2f 1 2 9 10 11 12 t.3 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 36 37 .39 41 42 43 4S 46 47 a good point, the MSC buildings are set way back almost 100 feet back, so visually they look smaller from the street; from the freeway and for a bicyclist. When a bicyclist is going by those tracker panels are going to look their height. From a vertical and a horizontal perspective you will never see the trackers beyond the horizontal height of the MSC building from anywhere. That is the); will never intrude into the horizontal nature of the Baylands. So they wil! always be framed by that building whether you are standing up against them or whether you are driving to them from a distance. We were very careful to try and use the existing MSC site to frame those trackers so we don’f add to the vertical elements there. Vice-Chair Holman: If I might? There is a point that was made, which I appreciate, that these are going to be closer than the MSC site. So wouldn;t the impact be different? Let me ask two at once. That would be one. Then the other is how would Staff respond to a question that I had as well, which is it seems like we are trying to maybe pretti~ a building that is unattractive with thin~s that might or might not be compatible with the Baylands. Is that a typical approach? Mr. Lusardi: I think everybody accepts the visual nature of the MSC site. I don’t know many that like it or appreciate it. ][ think we also accept the i~act that the MSC site is an industria!/commercia! site. It is either going to remain as the MSC site or it is going to be a co~rLmercia! site. It is not going to change. It is not ~oin~ to become Baylands. The industrial areas to the north are going to remain as industrial areas. The industrial areas to the south are going to remain that x~ay. So what we were trying to do was design these solar panels and trackers in a way that it wouldn’t further intrude into the Baylands and still remain within the confines of the MSC site as I said framing it. We also wanted to do something that had a visual element because it is an element that we want to promote. It is solar energy. I think we need to convey a positive environmental policy that we have with this just as much as we preserve the Bavlands. I think those are positive environmental policies that we are trying to convey. So there is a little conflict there. We want to show these panels so people see that Palo Alto is strong on solar power but we don’t want to intrude too much on the Baylands. So it is that conflict that we are trying to mediate here in that respect. Chair Burr: I haze a question for Don on the findings; which really get down to the basis for our approval. In the DEE findings as well as the other consistency with Comp Plan findings and such are these findings that we have to find the project to be in general compliance or in compliance with each finding? Mr. Larkin: In the case of the Comprehensive Plan it would be general compliance. In the case of the DEE it would be the same but I would give Steve the opportunity to weigh in on the specifics of the DEE findings if he wants to. Mr. Lusardi: We!l, in the case of the DEE findings they would be more specific than the Comprehensive Plan but there is some latitude there in how you would apply the DEE findings with site-specific projects. Chair Burr: So my question is more specific. There are several different findings, three different ones, must we find the project compliant with each of those three? Mr. Lusardi: Yes. CiO, of Pafo Alto September 28, 2005 Page 2_~ of 27 1 _3 4 5 9 t0 tl 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 2~ 2S 26 27 29 30 31 32 .34 3S .36 37 .38 40 41 ~2 43 44 4S 46 47 Chair Bun: So if it is not compliam with any one of the three then we carmot meet the findings. Okay. Second, back to this location issue, I heard you state that one of the reasons we ruled out the police headquarters is because x~e had a ½~own possibility of a reconstruction and now we have the MSC site a similar circumstance. So I wanted to explore the alternatives a bit more. One of the sites that I didn’t hear mentioned was really across the highway either integrated within Greet Park adjacent to 101 or integrated within the power substation that is there. Has that sffe been considered? Ms. Ben~ard: No, we didn’t look at that site, actually. I arn trying to picture Greer Park but I am guessing that trees might be a problem at least for this sort of array Maybe somewhere in the center of the park something might work. Chair Burt: It is a pretty un-shaded park. In fact one of the thoughts that occurred to me and I don’t ~tow whether creative architects would be able to make good use of this but these arrays potentially provide shading. So that is one consideration. I will leave it for the moment for other Commissioners to follow up on their questions. Paula. did you have others? Okay. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have two questions for B0~d Member Maran. The Architectural Review Design Guidelines specifically talk about attention-getting devices and that projects really are not supposed to be attention getting. That is in some ways contrary to the purpose of having this photovoltaic demonstration at 55 miles an hour. How would you reconcile that? Mr. Maran: I am not really prepared to speak on the attention-getting clause. I would reconcile it b) saying that it is of interest, it is innovative, it is relatively attractive in that it is better than looking at the MSC. Con~missioner Lippert: Okay. My second question is with regard to temporary signage as well as permanent signage. Right now. Palo Alto guidelines dictate the size of signage to the size of the face of buildings, am I correct? The area of buildings. Based on the size of the MSC facing the street frontage the signage is going to be relatively small. It is not going to be very readable and temporary signs are only allowed by permit over a very limited time period. So how does the signage get reconciled? Mr. Lusardi: The si~naze we are talking about is signage that a pedestrian or bicyclist would generally read not a motorist going at 65 miles an hour in that capacit?. So it is going to be small. I am not sure about the temporary signage. Temporary signs can be used with a temporary use permit for 45 days. I think we are looking at something that is more conducive to the whole program and is going to be a permanent sign. We use the word ’banner’ but I think that is more of a way of kind of introducing this concept. I think we are looking at something that is going to be more permanent that is part of the marketing aspect of it. Commissioner Lippert: I have one last question if I might. With regard to silage, signage right now is limited to the name of a company or a building. It is not allowed to advertise so to speak. How do you reconcile that this is demonstration talking about Pa!o Alto green power and not just labeling City of Palo Alto utilities? 28. 2005 Page 14 of 2~ ! 9 10 I1 12 13 14 !6 17 t9 2O 21 22 2.3 24 26 29 3O 3] 32 34 3S 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 "47 48 Mr. Lusardi This is the signage that will promote a policy of the City of Palo Alto, the Green Energy Program. So it is a sign that is attached to this particular facility, this particular utility. So it being a utility as a pm~ of the MSC site I think there is a connection between solar panels; solar utilities and the Municipal Services Center. Commissioner Lippen: Okay Chair Butt: Karen. ’ MOTION Vice-Chair Holman: Where to start? I am actually ready to make a motion, I flink. I go through the findings as Commissioner Butt mentioned and as a member of the public mentioned. I wil! just rel%rence one for the moment but this is exemplary I think of the findings that have been made. I mean no disrespect but it is my feeling about these. Under Architectural Review findings the first one is the design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Cornprehensive Plan. We have the Baylands Master Plan and we have compatibility requirements and yet the MSC is adjacent to the Baylands and the finding says that this meets high quality urban design standards. This says while the MSC is an industrial use it is not an urban setting. So I wi!! just pull that one out as one example. I absolutely support the use of photovottaic. As one of the consultant mentioned nuclear power is certainly not an answer. I absolutely support this but I think we ought to also be considering more considerately, if you will, where we are locating these. \Vh~t are we advertising? If we are locating these adjacent to the Baylands are we not detracting from the Baylands? These are attention-getting as Commissioner Lippert mentioned. So I would like to see the Staff go back and look at akernate locations that do not have impacts on the Baytands. We have competing enviromnental goals here. One is to be consistent with our Badlands Master Plan and our Comprehensive PIan and the other is to promote renewable energy sources. I don’t think we have to do this in a way that sacrifices one for the sake of the other. So I would make a motion to deny the recommendation. Chair Butt: Do we have a second’? SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I will second it. Chair Butt: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Holman, seconded by Commissioner Cassel. Commissioner Holman, do you have an)<hing more to say to your motion? Vice-Chair Holman: No, I really don’t except that I think it is unfortunate that we have come this far with a project of this caliber and yet with this many conflicts embedded in it. Chair Butt: Commissioner Cassel. Commissioner Cassel: I suspect my disagreement isn’t as strong as Karen’s. I don’t object to the carports but I do object to the number often of these. I think if we had three interesting ones CiO, of Pa!o Alto Seyte~nber 28, 2005 Page I5 of 2"[ 1 ! 3 6 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 t6 17 t8 19 2O 21 22 24 26 28 29 30 3t 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 ~0 4! ~2 43 44 ~6 in front of the buildings then we could do a demonstration project and in fact it ~ouldnk sho~ and then you could tuck the other ten somewhere onsite where they wouldnk be as obvious. There are just so many of them. I guess part of my problem is I hate billboards and I have probably hated them e~er since I saw them when I was a little kid. So you were climbing over a big bridge here for me to try to approve them. For me. I think if there were just tMee of them that were attractive, that were a demonstration project at the front of the building and theF were tucked into the site, you wouldnk see them in the site, I am sure there are places they could be a little taller so you would be able to park underneath them and not run into that safety issue, and )ou wouldn’t see them offsite from anywhere. But ten of them running along the road like that for me violates the Master Plant Mr. Larkin: If I could just interject-because I want to make sure a!! the Commissioners understand procedurally if the motion carries. If the motion carries instead of getting referred to the ARB this will go directly to Council. So that is something the Commissioners should keep in mind when discussing the motion. Chair Burt: Could I get a clarification on the timeline? If Staff does not get an extension to the grant does Staff have ample time to evaluate alternative sites? Ms. Ben_~ard: We may but we would likely...we have already gone out and looked. Cubberly has room. There are plenty of buildings at Cubberh, we might just add more panels at Cubberly if we ran out of time. Chair Burr: Okay, so there is ample time to take advantage of the ~rant at alternative sites. Ms. Bensard: Yes, we wouldnk lose the money. Chair Burr: Okay, zrem. Commissioner Cassel: I think if we do that we have to be sure that we make a finding that demonstrates ~hy you x~ould turn it down. I think we did this once before and we have to be - we can’t just turn it down. Chair Burr: Correct. So I thimk that we will want to have a listing of the findings that are the basis for denial as a part of the motion. I had one clari~4ng question that may not be so germane to the approval of the project as a whole but I just was shocked by the math. I was told that this represents 50 percent of the power generation to meet the Palo Alto green demands. Ms. Ben~ard: That is what I am told but let me turn to Kar!. Chair Burr: From 27 homes that would mean we only ha~e 54 homes signed up for Palo Alto green? Mr. Karl Knapp, Utilities Department: I am a Senior Research Planner in the Utilities Department. This project would produce half of the solar element of Palo Alto Green, which is 2.5 percent solar. 97.5 percent wind. Ci9’ qflPa[o Ako September 28, 2005 Page ]d qfi2"! 1 2 3 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 16 1"7 19 20 21 22 2.~D 24 26 27 29 30 31 32 DD 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42. 43 44 4~ 46 4"7 48 Chair Bun: Okay, that’s much better: thank you. Then I think what would be important at this time is for the makers of the motion to specify the findings that are the basis for denial. I also might recommend that we include an aspect of the motion that supports, if the Commissioners agree, has a support for the project as a photovoltaic project within the City to be cited at a more appropriate location so there is no ambiguity as to our support for the project but only for the citing and the design and the ability to meet the findings. Would the maker of the motion perhaps like to restate the motion with the basis for denial and if she sees fit to include my request f,or an endorsement of the project in principle? Vice-CMir Holman: I would be glad to. I am open to help on the findings if anyone wants to weigh in those. In moving to deny the project I would like to include that the motion does support location of,photovoltaic project within the bounds of’the city limits and do support photovoltaic as an alternative energy source. Also though in denying the project we find that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Baylands Master Plan, is inconsistent with the Architectural Re~ few Board findings that it needs to be compatible with the adjacent environment and the Design Enhancement Exception findings cannot be made in that the enhancement as it is characterized increased the quality of, an existing project which is in itself‘ incompatible with the em ironment. Chair Burr: Can you clarif,y f,or the record the way in which it is inconsistent with the Baylands Master Plan? Vice-Chair Holman: Yes; the characterization of pr@ects in the Baylands are supposed to be of, natural material, horizontal in nature. These are vertical in nature and not of’natural colors. They are blue based on everything that we have been shown and that is not a natural color. They do detract f‘rom the view of’the Baylands. These wilt be the first things that you see as you are coming along 10!, the), ~il! detract f,rom that visibility. Chair Burr: Does the seconder of the motion accept those clarifications to the motion? Vice-Chair Holman: Let me say I am open to amending those or adding to those. Commissioner Casse]: I was just doing just one; the use will be constructed and operate in a manner that wil! be orderly, hannonious and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites and the extensiveness of the billboards for me do not meet that requirement. They will be seen from a distance. Now I absolutely agree with you.. Pat, in my case I don’t have a problem with these being done onsite. I just think ten of them along the road are not going to work. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Oarber: Well, I am actually very excited about this project having seen it for the first time this evening. I believe there actually is a nexus, an environmental nexus, between the Baylands and the environment that this project represents that I find very exciting for Pato Alto in general. As a way of tying in the technology, the forward thinking, the opportunities of the environment I do not see inconsistency with having it located near the Baylands with respect to Ms. RenzeFs comments who has contributed so much to this community. I also believe that it CiS.’ qf Pa!o i fro Sep~e, be," 28, 2005 Page 17 of 2l 1 9 10 I1 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 ~4 28 29 30 31 .32 .34 37 39 40 41 42 4.3 44 46 ~7 represents a certain precedent for how development along the Baylands should be done, which is sensitively; which is environmentally supportive and gives us a way to begin to think about how to imagine other uses of the _MSC here for autos or whatever else. I find the animation of these little objects, okay granted not so little, but littler than the billboards that one might otherwise see along 1 O1 enjoyable. I think it is a lovely way of demonstrating that. I have a slew of suggestions about how else the educational component could be utilized especially within the community, with the children. ~ith schooling, etc., which I don’t think ~ ould cost any mone~ and x~ould take very little time to implement. \Ve can talk about that later. I do believe that if they \~ere installed that their impact relative to a bicyclist or someone walking beside the MSC that they would have very little effect relative to my enjoyment of the Baylands or the seeing of the wildlife there or recognizing how important it is that we find ways of working with the natural environment. I thi~k tha~ is a ~reat mes~aae for Palo Alto and for us to find ~avs to emphasize that. I would be much more interested in a motion, which looks to possibly, as Commissioner Cassel suggested, reduce the number of them. but supports the project. I recognize that there are significant conflicts between the project and the intents of the Comprehensive Plan and the intents of the Baylands but I do see this as an exception and one that is acceptable. Chair Buru Lee. Corn_missioner Lippert: I would like to make a substitute motion in support of the conditions of approval on findings attached. Chair Burr: Is there a second to the motion? Commissioner Gather: Just so I understand what exactly does that mean as a newcomer to the Commission? Chair Burr: That means that if there ~ere a second to the motion then the substitute motion would be debated and voted upon prior to consideration of the primary motion. Don. Mr. Larkin: It is not a subsidiary motion. It is the alternative to the motion. So the Chair can decide which motion...vou have a motion to deny and a motion to appro~ e. The Chair can decide which one gets voted on first. Chair Burt: In that case then I think that we should continue with the initial motion and if it fails then consider the substitute motion. Mr. Larkin: Assuming that there is a second. Commissioner Lippert: I would like to speak against the motion ~ithont withdrawing my substitute motion. I believe that with regard to the Baylands Master plan that this is right on the edge of the Baylands and in fact because of the MSC facility being located between this photovoltaic project and the Baylands that there is no detrimental effect to the Baytands per se. tn fact beyond the MSC is in fact not the Baylands but the dump right now, which is being groomed and eventually will become an extension of the Baylands park. So my thought about it is that these photovoltaics do not detract from the Baylands, number one. Number two, height- wise they are not any taller really than the buildings or any of the other structures around there. Cio; qYPalo Airo September 28, 2005 Page i8 of 27 3 4 6 9 !0 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 ~.1 22 ,..) ,~ 24 25 26 27 29 ~0 .31 35 ~4 36 37 39 4O 41 42 44 45 46 47 In fact we have ~e have transmission towers which are vertical which are far more visible and vertical in nature as wel! as power lines. The third aspect that I think is that when it comes to attention-getting devices these photovoltaics aren’t any more attention-getting than a good building. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Actually I am having a lot of difficulty with this situation this evening. I consider myself to be an environmentalist. The notion of photovoltaics is quite exciting on the one hand. On the other hand I have been involved with the Baylands for a number of years and I respect greatly the foresight and thought that went into preserving the Baylands and the rules that govern the Baylands. However, having said that, I don’t really know what the rules are precisely so I feel very torn and somewhat ambivalent. I don’t know if I am allowed to say this, you can cut me off if I can or can’t, but I will be abstaining. Chair Burr: Actually as I recall our guidelines for abstention the?’ really donh allow us to abstain on that basis. I might refer you to the back of the packet which does have a section of the appropriate Baytands Master Plan guidelines if that will help you while we are continuing to discuss. \Vhat I would like to do Mr. Larkin: 3ust to clari~, an?; Commissioner can abstain. We don’t have a sergeant at anr~s that is going to require somebody to cast an affirmative or negative vote. So any Commissioner can either abstain which means the) are consenting to the majority or they can choose not to vote which means they are actua!lF voting in the affirmative. Chair Burr: I thought in our recent review. Commissioner Cassel: \Ve can discourage it. We cannot forbid it. Chair Burr: So was it ~ithin our protocols, Phyllis, that the basis/’or abstention was clarified? Commissioner Cassel: There was no basis. You are encouraged to vote but it is not forbidden. Chair Burt: Let me try to add some elements that maybe will help our Commission move toward perhaps a majorib~ vote if not a consensus. I would like to offer a friendly amendment that our recommendation to deny only apply to the trackers. That was not part of the main motion, correct? Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, and it should ha~e been. Chair Burr: SO is that an acceptable substitute motion? Vice-Chair Holman: It absolutely is. Chair Bun: The seconder also consents. So now we have hartowed down the issue to how many trackers to do we have and where do we put them. We could have more carports and achieve the same amount of photovoltaics with fewer trackers. We could locate the trackers at an alternative location. Under the Design Enhancement Exceptions number three requires that it be a minor CiO, qfiPa~,o Ai.to September 28, 2005 Page 19 of 27 architectural feature. I ~ou]d just like to emphasize for the Commissioners that when we re~ie~ findings these are mandatory that we review them on the basis of compliance and not whether ~e like a concept on or not. We have to meet findings. So t~is is on page number four of Attact~ent A. So I just wanted to add that as somettfing that I simply can’t find that these trackers are minor architectural features. There are other aspects that are maybe more subjective and debatable whether it does e~ance appearance and some of the other aspects. ~or me this just simply isn’t a minor architectural feature. 8 9 10 tl 12 !3 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 I think these trackers do have an opportunity to demonstrate photo~ oltaic in our community in the way that the Staff and the consultants have recommended. I think that we should pursue them whether it is ten trackers or some other number. I thirLk they are a feature that does in fact promote the consciousness ofphotovohaic po~er. I think that is a good thing and it should be done. I just don’t think right in this location is appropriate and I don:t think that we objectively can meet the findings,, which is what is our legal mandate. I would strongly suggest that we look at this area near Greer Park. If we are looking at compatibility with parkland we have a natural parkland and we have a manmade parkland. It certainly seems to me that both of them being adjacent to the freeway, that clever landscape design architects could find either a desirable ~ay tO integrate them within Greet Park or to place them right in the midst of the power substation which creates to me quite a favorable contrast between traditional power and ahemative power and you place it right there and it makes a pretty bold statement about what we value and the direction we are moving. So I think it is important that we as a Con’nnission not get caught up in two things. One is whether we think phot0voltaics and a demonstration ofphotovoltaics and the trackers are a good concept and whether this is the best location for them and whether they meet the findings that we are legally bound to review them against at this particular !ocation. So I am enthusiastic about finding a place to put them. I think it can be done and I look forward to Staff coming back with some creative alternatives that would allow us to have a location that meets the findings that we are to review under. Do we haze any other comments be%re taking a vote? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make one comment with regard to photovoltaics. I donh believe that all the alternatives for the placement ofphotovohaics have been explored or thoroughly flushed out. I just want to give a couple of examples that I think are particularly appropriate. In Dox~town Los Angels,, [Pew & Scarpa] a LA firm had done an SRO or single room occupancy hotel and they used them vertically on a building. I don’t think the idea of putting photovoltaics vertically on a building such as a parking structure or our own SRO is something that should be overlooked. They are just as efficient used ventically as they are horizontally. So I don’t think all the alternatives have necessarily been flushed out. Furthermore, alternatives like this have the potential of having more people see them and then being far more relevant in terms of the day to day use ofphotovoltaics than say out on Bayshore where people drive past them at 65 miles an hour. Chair Bunt: If I might be forgiven to make one more comment. I would just like to say whether the Commission supports this location or not I would like to commend the Staff and the Public Utilities Department for aggressively pursuing this opportunity for a grant. I think it is just the sort of thing that we would like to see done and it fulfills many of our objectives in the community. I commend them on this and look forward to future project of a similar nature. ] 3 6 7 9 !0 11 12 13 14 16 17 19 20 Ol 23 24 26 27 28 29 .30 .32 DD 36 39 40 41 42 If we don’t have any more comments? Okay Dan has brought up the correct point that we need to restate the motion. Karen, do you think you have a grasp on it enough to restate it unless Staff can help. Mr. Larkin: It is not necessary to make findings so if you don’t feel the need to restate all of the flndinfis they are in your verbatim minutes so you can just restate the basis motion which I believe was your motion. Chair Bun: Then ifI might attempt to summarize it as it now stands it is to recommend denial of the movable arrays, the trackers, from the MSC site. Is that the essence of what remains of the motion? Vice-Chair Holman: While also encouraging exploration of other sites within Pa]o Alto and other applications whether they be ~ ertical or horizontal. Chair Bur~: Okay, I think it has boiled down to be that straightforward. Does that sound correct, Phyllis? Commissioner Cassel Yes. MOTION PASSED (B-2~1-1, Commissioner Lippert and Garber opposed, Commissioner Sandas abstained with Commissioner Bialson absent) Chair Burr: Okay. All those in favor say aye, (ayes) Opposed? (nays) Okay, we have Corrmfissioners Holman, Cassel and Burr in favor of the motion. Commissioners Lippert and Garber opposed and Commissioner Sandas abstaining. So the Commission has recommended denial of the portable trackers and approval of the carport, the photovokaic components, is the essence. Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: I just want to take a moment to congratulate and thank Board Member Maran for his service on the Architectura! Review Board. He will be retiring from the Board and will hax’e his last meeting hopefully next week. t just want to thank you again. It was a pleasure serving with you on the Architectura! Review Board and I want to thank )ou for coming forward this e~’ening. It has been a real pleasure to know you. Chair Butt: Dan. Commissioner Gather: If I may I will submit in a separate email some of my suggestions or thoughts regarding the educational component. Chair Burr: Great. So that completes item number two. Cio~ of Palo Ako Se~)tember 28, 2005 Page 2] of 2 f MSC Site Summary Municipal Service Center Landscape Strip and Parking Lot Tl~e MSC Site offers the greatest opportunity for both harvesting of solar power and for public viewing from US Highway 101, the East Shore Blvd., m-td bicycle path. At this site one of a varie~, of off-the-shelf carport systems is proposed, along with ten fully tracking pole-mounted arrays. The carport option illustrated is PowerLight’s PowerShade system, which creates shaded parking over four rows of cars. These are sloped 10° toward the freeway, for good viewing and self-cleaning when it rains. There is actually a slight increase in the number of parking spaces due to the relocation of one row of parking. The tracker proposal takes into account the location of the electrical equipment room, where the PV arrays must ’home run’. Fully-tracking WattSun pole-mounted trackers are proposed along the northern leng-th of the MSC site frontage, providing a freeway- speed scale experience of the PV in action. This option could further feature large letters on each pole spe!ling out Palo Alto’s commitment to solar energy. MSC PV Sunm~ary Trackers: Carports: 10 - Wattsun w/12 - SunPower SPR-200 each = 10 x 12 x 180W x .95 = 20.52kW 56,922kWh/year (full tracking @ 7.6 sun-hours/day) 9,000 sf x 10W/sf = 90kW 174,105kWh/year (10° slope to WSW @ 5.3 sun-hours/day) Total:110.5 kw and 231,027 kWh/year Grand Total (all three sites): 312.1 kW and 604,595 kWh/year ARKIN TI LT ARC.H ITECTS Ecologica’, Planning & Design PALO ALTO SOLAR Photovoltaic Integration Overall Summary This project integrates three grid-intertied photovoltaic (PV) demonstration projects at three sites owned by the City of Palo Alto. The installations are desig-ned to provide feedback on a number of different PV systems, be aesthetically appealing and educate visitors about the PV systems. The project is being funded in part with U.S. Department of Energy g-rants, and is being coordinated by the Department of Public Works and Palo ~to Utilities. Timmons Design Engineers is the prime consultant and Arkin Tilt Architects has assisted with the design and the preparation of the Design Review submittals. PV Grand Total Output (all three sites): 312.1 kW and 604,595 kWh/year BAYLANDS Site Summary Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center The ]Bayland Interpretive Center PV system has been designed to generate a substantial portion of the Center’s annual electric consumption. The system is designed to have minimal impact on the overall appearance of the existing building. This site has a number of issues worthy of consideration. These include the visual presence of the current facility, the impact of birds on the arrays, glare, and public viewing of the system. Glare is, perhaps, not so much of an issue. Planes fly over the waters of the Bay daily, which can be as Smooth (and reflective) as glass at times. Similarly, planes land in the thickest of fog. Bird droppings can reduce the performance of the panels if excessive. SIightly sloped, accessible panels are easier to clean, and walking space is provided for occasional cleaning. Panels in direct sun ~vill most likely be too warm for birds’ feet, but there are times of day when this is not the case. Finall}5 for educational purposes we propose a ’periscope’ for public viewing of the panels, providing views of both the arrays and the Bay beyond. The periscope is to be built in the same style and materials as the existing center, and udll blend in nicely, while providing a fun, interactive means of vie~sdng the panels that are otherwise barely visible. Baytands PV Summary 150- Sharp 140W modules: 123W x .93 x 150 mods = 17.2kW Yearly output = 17.2kW x 5.1 hours/day x 365 days = 32,018kWh/year 20 - Sharp 70W (triangular) modules = 61.1W x .93 x 20 mods = 1.1kW Yearly output = 1.1kW x 5.1 hours/day x 365 days = 2,048kWh/year Total = 18.3kW and 34,066kWh / year www arl(in~i!~ corn " Info~arkin’cit~.com ¯115~O,528,98BO ~son 8~h _<xreer..<uit.e ~8o, Berkeley CA 947~o " fSiO.S28 0206 CUBBERLY Site Summary Buildings ’G’ and "N’ at the Cubberly Corrm~unity Center This site is oriented to Middlefield Road, which runs SE to NW at 40° from due north/south. Building "L" was considered initially, but was ruled out due to its less- than-optimal 130° ESE orientation. Building ’G’, the Gymnasium, has roofs which orient 220° SSW. Building ’N’-- immediately in front of’G’--has essentially flat roofs. The roof of Building ’G’ has a pitch of 0.75:12. Here we propose a ballasted system, of which two are known, by PowerLight and by SunLink. We’ve chosen to illustrate the PowerGuard system, but they are nearly identical in appearance and either should be acceptable. On the NNE facing roof a sloped ballasted system is proposed, ~,,dth space allowed between rows to prevent shacling of the low ~dnter sun. The proposed Canopy to the SSW of Building ’N" vvdll serve the dual duty of generating electricity and shading the windows along this fagade, which currently create an overheating issue. Additionally, the canopy provides cover from rain, and it adds depth and visual interest from the parking lot and hal! fields beyond. These are sloped at a 15° angle and feature Schott A~4rE-300 panels with a clear backing, letting directs sun shine bet~veen the individual cells for a dappled light effect not unlike that beneath deciduous trees. Supports are perpendicular to the supporting beams, and attached to the building above the ~dndows at 16’ centers. The panels mounted on the canopy wdll be the only ones readily visible from the parking area. Parking lot lighting wdll be re-installed on the front edge of the canopy (though this does present an opportunity for demonstrating high-efficiency LED or some other b:pe of lighting, it is not currently in the scope of this project). Cubberly PV Summa_ry Bldg. G: Bldg. G: Bldg. N: 96 - Schott ASE300 modules = 282W x 96 x .95 = 25.7kW 50,655kWh/year (15° slope to SW @ 5.4 sun-hours! day) 5,390 sf x 10<4r/sf = 53.9kW (4° slope to SW) 100,335kWh/year 4,170 sf x 10W/sf = 41.7kW (10° tilt - 4° = 6° slope to SW) 77,625kWh / year 6,200 sf x 10W/sf = 62.0kW (flat) 110,887k~4rh / year (4.9 hours / day) Total:183.3kW and 339,502 kWh/year View from south across East Bayshore Road View from north across East Bayshore Road ATTACHMENT G pedestrian and bicycle pathway through the project with a connection from the multi-family area at the corner of Wilkie Way and West Charleston Road. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11.Public Hearinq: Consideration of an Application by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for the Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception for a Palo Alto Utilities/Department of Energy (DOE) Photovoltaic Demonstration Project Consisting of 10 Solar Trackers and Two Photovoltaic Carports to be Located Next to the City’s Municipal Service Center at 3201 East Bayshore Road (05PLN-00255). Zone District: PF(D). Environmental Assessment: DOE Lead Agency for NEPA Exclusion; CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15303. Planning Manager John Lusardi presented the staff report (CMR: 438:05) and noted two changes to Attachment A: 1) Page 1, paragraph E, to reflect the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (P&TC) recommendation to approve the carport panels and deny the trackers; and 2) To delete the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review in Paragraph F because ARBdid not have a formal review of the project. Council Member Mossar said she was aware of the ARB not having a formal review but asked whether ARB reviewed the project and made comments. Mr. Lusardi said the ARB reviewed the project and contents of a Study Session and made recommendations before the P&TC review. A formal review would need to happen after the P&TC’s review and recommendations. Council Member Mossar asked whether the Council was entitled to a summary of the Study Session. Mr. Lusardi said Judith Wasserman from ARB was present and could provide the summary information. Assistant Public Works Director Mike Sartor gave an overview of the project. He said staff had been working with Department of Energy (DOE) since September 2003 to implement the Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Project. The City received a $1.4 million dollars DOE grant and was matched by another $1.4 million from the Cities Utilities Department for a total of a $2.8 million dollar project. The selected photovoltaic installation would provide a variety of PV technology in locations and taking advantage of optimum sun exposure. The City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC) was selected as one of the project sites. PV panels would be installed at the Cubbertey Community Center and 12/05/05 17 at the Bayland’s Interpretive Center with education displays for public interest. PV panels would be installed at the MSC employee parking area to demonstrate PV use along with shade and energy generation. PV trackers would be installed in front of the MSC to demonstrate a more effective form of photovoltaic to track the sun for maximum energy generation. Based on the P&TC’s concerns about the tracker proposal, an alternate tracker installation was proposed to install five panels instead of the recommended ten. It addressed most of the Baylands’ concerns while employing the innovative PV technology presence along the freeway to enhance the public’s awareness of the project. David Arkin, Arkin Tilt Architects, gave an overview and presentation of the proposed PV trackers for the IvlSC site. He said the MSC site presented a visible location in meeting the goal of increasing PV awareness. The project included two other sites. The Baylands Center would produce about 25,000 kWh/year and Cubberley Community.. Center would generate 48,000 kWh/year, enough for more than six homes and the rooftop panels would power at least 21 homes. There were two proposals for the MSC, which included a carport that doubled as a support structure and would generate 153 kWh/year, enough to power over 20 homes and the five tracking arrays, initially 10 in the first proposal. Depending on the selected design, it could power between 2.5 to 8 different homes. The trackers were approximately the size of a call box or speed limit sign and smaller than a tree. The carport structures would provide shade and would hold tracking arrays. Sixteen panels would be placed on the site. Each panel size was initially 15 square feet in size and reduced to 10 feet by 15 feet. Council Member Mossar questioned the size of the trackers since they did not look similar to a traffic sign in the graphics. Mr. Arkin said from the perspective of a car on the freeway, visually they would be similar to a traffic sign. Commissioner Daniel Garber said the project generated a tremendous amount of discussion with the P&TC. It covered the project’s potential impact on the MSC site and future uses including the proposed auto mall, whether alternative locations for the trackers had been significantly researched, the impact on wildlife, how trackers would be maintained and used including in power outages, size and useful life of the panels, signage components being viewed along the two highways, appropriate placement of the panels in relation to Baylands and the Ivlsc. The P&TC supported having the PV system in Palo Alto but did not recommend the project for the following primary reasons: 1) The trackers did not support the Baylands design principles and the key issue was that the vertical elements of the trackers were not consistent with low and horizontal elements in the Baylands; and 2) The P&TC was not convinced that more appropriate locations had been fully explored. The Commission did recommend the PV arrays over the carports. council Member Morton asked whether other locations had been considered. Mr. Garber said the locations discussed were Cubberleyerley, the Police Station, IvlSC and Greet Park. .Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, said she could not represent the ARB on this matter because they did not vote. She read an excerpt from a previous board member, Drew Maran, stating he was in support of the MSC trackers and the project was a non-intrusive addition along an unattractive stretch of freeway. The location promoted renewable energy with an innovative display to define the City’s position on solar power and it deserved support of the Council. She agreed with Mr. IVlaran’s comments in principle but was in favor of the smaller size tracking arrays to help lessen the impact of unsightly panels. David Coale, 766 .]osina Avenue, was in favor of installing the 10 PV trackers in front of the MSC site. :It was good advertising and sent a message that Palo Alto was serious about renewable energy and sustainability. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, felt the Site and Design Review should not have been placed before the Council and instead forwarded to the ARB for review. The process before the Planning Commission was also incorrect because an attempt was made to make a substitute motion and incorrect advice was given to the Commission. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest, suggested installing the unsightly trackers behind the buildings at the MSC. She said the trackers would generate 56,922 kW/yr, which was only 9 percent or approximately 1.1 percent of solar element of renewable power of the entire PV proposal. The same amount of energy could be generated either at the Cubberleyerely site or by placing additional carports at the MSC. She urged Council to deny installation of the trackers. Mayor Burch said the issue before Council tonight was to approve the trackers and carport design located at the MSC site and not the portions of the project located at Cubberley and the Baylands. Mr. Lusardi said that was correct. 12/05/05 19 Council Member Kishimoto asked whether installation on school property was permissible if it were to be used jointly with the City. Mr. Sartor said the Department of Energy (DOE) specifically stated the grant was to be used at City of Palo Alto facilities but did not include school sites. Council Member Kishimoto asked what the requirements were for the visibility, Mr, Sartor said the grant encouraged educational opportunities. PlOT:ION= Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to approve the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to (1) deny the site and design review and design enhancement exception for 10 photovoltaic (pv) tracker arrays located at the City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC), as part of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic Demonstration project, and (2) approve the site and design review for the two photovoltaic carports at the MSC, based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action. Council Member Kishimoto agreed with Ms. Renzel’s comment regarding the unsightliness of the trackers at the MSC and suggested finding creative ways to achieve a more attractive design. Council Member Freeman asked whether all the findings were made. Mr. Lusardi said the P&TC found one was not compatible with the guidelines and denied the MSC site. Staff felt the Record of Land Use Actions reflected findings appropriate for the Council’s approval. Council Member Freeman asked whether the DOE excluded partnerships where jurisdictions overlapped. Specifically, could the City partner with a school district that was paying the City for its utilities. Mr. Sartor did not feel the grant was that specific. Council Member Freeman said she was not satisfied a partnership with the school had been thoroughly vetted through the DOE and asked whether it had been discussed with the City/School Liaison Committee. Mr. Sartor said one of the concerns regarding partnership was the maintenance aspects of the grant program. The City would be responsible for maintaining the trackers for 30 years. A maintenance agreement with 12/05/05 20 the School District could be problematic. Council Member Freeman felt further investigation in a joint partnership with the School District could be beneficial. City Manager Benest said the grant did not exclude partnerships but specified the PV system had to be on City’s facilities. He was conforming to grant guidelines but did not oppose investigating the possibility of partnerships in the future. Council Member Morton asked how much of the grant would be lost if trackers were denied. Mr. Sartor said there would be no loss in the grant. Additional panels would be installed at either the Cubberleyerely site or on the carports. Council Member Morton said the public relations effect would be lost if panels were placed elsewhere. be l The sun Sartor said application of another technology or variety of PV uses would ost. All other systems were static systems at a fixed angle to the sun. trackers would generate 35 percent more energy since they tracked the to maximize the PV output. Council Member Morton said the main loss was the demonstration effect of the project. Mr. Sartor said that was correct. Council Member Morton asked what would happen to the PV system should the MSC site become an auto dealership. Mr. Sartor said the carport installation and trackers could be relocated but it was unknown if the auto dealership would want to keep the PV system. Council Member Morton said he supported the main motion but wanted to look into funding the trackers. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to send the proposals for the tracker arrays located at the City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC), as part of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic Demonstration project, to the ARB for review and recommendations to the Council, and to approve the site and design review for the two photovoltaic carports at the IvlSC, based upon the findings and 2/o5/o5 conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Vice Mayor Kleinberg supported the substitute motion because it was important in terms of sustainability and promoting clean energy sources. She was interested in seeing the outcome of the ARB’s review on how trackers would match the Baylands Master Plan. She was not in favor of forwarding the item to the City/School Liaison Committee and was concerned about trackers on school property interfering with the playgrounds. She suggested the rooftop applications on school properties. Council Member Cordell said the pictures of the panels looked interesting and she did not find them to be unsightly. She was interested in seeing the ARB’s formal review. Visibility of the trackers sent a message Palo Alto was a community concerned about solar energy, She supported the substitute motion. Council Member Beecham echoed Council Member Cordell’s comments and looked forward to having the ARB find a good solution. He supported the substitute motion. Mayor Burch supported the substitute motion and suggested the possibility of placing the trackers at locations where they could be observed in motion. He suggested three panels at the MSC site and three at a park or near the Duck Pond. Council Member Kishimoto said the amount of money being invested for the system would be the same amount of electricity being produced without having to intrude in the Baylands. There was no trade off in energy and she felt it was not the place to make an aesthetic change. She was in favor of solar energy and open to hearing creative solutions from the ARB or the Public Art Commission (PAC). She did not support the substitute motion. Council Member Freeman said she was not against alternative energy sources and echoed Council Member Kishimoto’s comments, She clarified use of trackers at schools was not the issue but the use of photovoltaic on rooftops of the schools. She did not support the substitute motion. Council Mossar clarified her motion was not to look at alternative sites and for the ARB to evaluate the proposal placed before the Council. Council Member Morton had concerns of sending the tracker component to the ARB and jeopardizing the educational opportunity requirement of the grant and not meeting the grant timeline. 12/05/05 22 Mr. Sartor said the educational component would not be affected. A meter would be displayed outside the Baylands :Interpretive Center to run backwards to indicate how power was being generated instead of being used. The plan was to proceed with the design and anticipate the installation at Cubberley, Baylands :Interpretive Center and the carports. DOE granted an extension on completing the program through 3une 30, 2007, and there would be time to look at trackers. Council Member Beecham said there were comments regarding the high cost of the project. He clarified the project was experimental and the purpose of the DOE grant was for monies dedicated for unusual projects for the general public’s benefit. The electricity would be generated during the peak hours in the summer when energy cost would be at the highest and he wanted the public to know the project cost was not out of line. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-3 Ereeman, Kishimoto, Ojakian voting no, 12.Public Hearinq: Consideration of a Request byTrumark Companies on Behalf of Barton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a Vesting Tentative Map for a Proposed Residential ]:nfill Development Located at 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN- 00289]. (Staff requests item to be continued, by Council Motion, to 01/30/2005) MOTION: Vice Mayor Kleinberg moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the staff recommendation to continue the above item to .January 30, 2006. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTSOF COMM]:TTEES AND COMMISS:[ONS 13.Recommendation from Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee to Approve Request for Contract Amendment by Baum, Behest, Erickson, Rogers MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the request for a contract amendment by Baum, Benest, Erickson and Rogers, which would prevent without-cause termination of any CAO during the 90-day period after new Council Members take office. Council Member Mossar said Consultant 3ohn Shannon assured the CAO Committee the provision was common in the StaLe of California and considered reasonable. The CAO Committee concurred. 12/05/05 23