December 11, 2007 SUBJECT: 2007-0800 Citywide Solar Plan

Issued by the City Manager

REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

NO: 07-409

Template rev. 03/07

December 11, 2007

SUBJECT: 2007-0800 Citywide Solar Plan (Study Issue) REPORT IN BRIEF This study issue focuses on opportunities to promote the use of solar energy on private property. The City Council has responded by providing direction to staff to study opportunities to install solar PV panels on city facilities (May 8, 2007), measure and establish reduction standards for CO2 emissions from city facilities (September 11, 2007), and explore opportunities to incorporate sustainable green building practices into the built environment (anticipated Spring 2008). The City Council ranked the Citywide Solar Plan idea 5th among the 2007 Community Development study issues (see Attachment A). The issues include:

1) Require new buildings to have 5-10% solar coverage,

2) Monitor trees that may affect solar panels, and

3) Offer rebate to offset cost of solar installation. Solar is just one of several clean energy options, and clean energy is just one aspect of environmental sustainability. This study issue does not address the larger context of sustainability, which will be included in the Sustainable Green Building study issue. Nor does it discuss the acknowledged benefit of energy conservation and energy efficiency as preliminary steps in seeking to achieve environmental sustainability. This report advocates for the use of solar energy as one of the mostly widely recognized, effective and desirable forms of renewable energy. References in this report to solar energy may generally be considered to include other forms of alternative, renewable or “clean” energy. Staff has identified three near-term actions and provided a framework for a long-term citywide plan to facilitate the use of solar energy in the City of Sunnyvale:

1) Reduce information barriers. Participate in joint efforts with partner agencies and businesses to provide community education and promote existing opportunities to utilize alternative energy, including solar.

Citywide Solar Plan (Study Issue) November 20, 2007

Page 2 of 25

2) Reduce institutional barriers. Clarify review process with regard to City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, create a specialized solar (alternative energy) planning permit, and modify the permitting process to provide flexibility on parking lot shading requirements.

3) Reduce financial barriers and provide incentives. Reduce the fees

for the planning and building permits for single-family homes. Allow for minor setback and height deviations, and allow minor lot coverage and FAR incentives for the installation of solar equipment.

4) Adopt a conceptual outline of a Citywide Solar Plan. Increase the use of solar by public, industrial, commercial and residential buildings by adopting an overall framework and referring it to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue (anticipated Spring 2008) for development in greater detail. The Plan may include efforts to:

a. Participate in regional efforts to promote the development of the

solar industry, including research & development and workforce development.

b. Explore funding mechanisms to promote the use of solar and other

alternative energies by home owners and businesses. c. Explore opportunities to develop the growth of alternative energy

businesses in Sunnyvale. d. Create a budget issue to evaluate establishing a full-time

Sustainability Manager as part of the FY2008-09 budget to coordinate and manage the City’s environmental sustainability efforts, including solar.

BACKGROUND The City responded to the energy crisis of the 1970s by developing an Energy Sub-Element of the General Plan, adopted in 1981. In the 1980s, the City adopted Municipal Code requirements to protect solar access and to require solar water heating, if it was deemed to be cost effective. The Energy Sub-Element, which focused on dealing with diminishing energy resources, was retired in December 1999. Adequate energy and cost conserving practices have since been established in the other General Plan Sub-Elements and in the Administrative Policy Manual. A new energy policy was also developed that focused on more current energy issues (such as utility deregulation). This policy allows for a more flexible document that can be easily updated as energy issues changed.


Page 3 of 25

In the 1990s, changes were made to promote “cool parking lots” by requiring trees for parking lot shading and use of drought-tolerant species for landscaping plans was implemented as a best practice. In 1991, Sunnyvale’s commitment to environmental stewardship resulted in the adoption of a tree preservation ordinance for trees on private property. The City Council adopted a “Sustainable Development and Green Buildings” policy in 2004 to encourage including Green Building features in new public and private buildings. The Moffett Park Specific Plan, also adopted in 2004, included Green Building incentives and requirements that will become mandatory in January 2009. The requirement is for all new construction over 10,000 square feet to meet the design intent for LEED. Additionally, the Municipal Code provides for a 5% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) incentive for Green Building features in Industrial zones. In September 2007, city staff developed a Framework for Sustainability which provides the “big picture” perspective on what the City is (or could be) doing to promote environmental sustainability (online at www.sunnyvale.ca.gov). Solar is a subset of the Energy Reduction and Alternative Fuels section of that Framework. EXISTING POLICY The following City policies are relevant to a discussion of use of solar technology: City Visioning Process The City of Sunnyvale conducted a community feedback process in October 2006 as part of a visioning phase of the General Plan update. The process resulted in the City establishing the following Community Values Statement:

Sunnyvale is an attractive, safe, environmentally sensitive community which takes pride in the diversity of its people, the innovation of its businesses and the responsiveness of its government.

The visioning process also resulted in a sustainability policy:

“A regional leader in environmental sustainability …advocating to reduce dependence on non-renewable resources by providing greater transportation options, reducing waste, protecting our natural resources, and promoting alternative energy usage and research. We take environmental preservation and protection seriously and consider how each action will affect Sunnyvale for future generations.”


Page 4 of 25

Sustainable Development and Green Buildings Policy Adopted in 2004, this policy includes the requirement that all new City facilities over 10,000 square feet shall include consideration of LEED certification by Council prior to the planning or design of the project. This policy also encourages developers to incorporate green practices. Council Policy – 3.5.1 Energy Adopted in 2000, the City of Sunnyvale’s Energy Policy purpose states that the “preservation of natural resources through the use of energy efficient activities is of great importance to the citizens and businesses of Sunnyvale.” The policy statement includes:

• Minimize energy consumption in City operations,

• Promote the development of alternative energy resources and support the enhancement of existing technologies,

• Utilize alternative energy sources at the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant,

• Support installation of cost-effective energy efficiency measures in municipally owned buildings and facilities,

• Support efforts to provide affordable, reliable, diverse, safe, and environmentally acceptable power to the citizens and businesses of Sunnyvale.

Legislative Advocacy Positions 3.7 Air Quality #10: “Support efforts to improve regulation of greenhouse gases” (adopted 2003). 3.7 Air Quality #12: “Support the development of implementation regulations for the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Encourage the Secretary for Environmental Protection and the California Air Resources Board to work in partnership with all sectors of the community to ensure that the implementation regulations do not have a negative, long-term impact on the resources and services provided by the City of Sunnyvale or the California economy” (adopted 2007) Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) Requirements Detailed in Attachment B, the SMC contains multiple references to solar, including:

• Provision for the use of solar energy systems and active and passive solar collectors for the purpose of providing energy (SMC 19.56).

• Require preservation of large trees through Tree Protection Ordinance (SMC 19.98, adopted 1991).


Page 5 of 25

• Require installation of solar water heaters for new residential buildings, when deemed cost effective (adopted 1986).

• Require landscaping and shading for parking lots (SMC 19.38.070.d). Environmental Procurement Policy Adopted in 1991, this policy finds that “the preservation of natural resources, reduction of energy use and pollution, reduction of solid waste, and minimization of impact on the environment from City activities benefits all occupants of the City.” The policy purpose states the City will “meet its current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same.” This policy promotes the green building and supplies industry by targeting City resources to encourage environmentally sustainable business. DISCUSSION Terminology Solar energy includes photovoltaic systems, solar hot water, and passive solar heating and day-lighting (using solar to heat and light buildings). Passive solar design refers to orienting the home east to west, which creates more surface area facing the sun on the south side of the home, and south-facing windows. The effectiveness of solar systems are affected by roof orientation (true south is optimal), shading (which can be determined using a “solar pathfinder”), and tilt angle of the panels. Active solar systems use electrical and mechanical components such as tracking mechanisms, pumps and fans to process sunlight into usable outputs such as heating, lighting or electricity. Passive solar systems use non-mechanical techniques of capturing, converting and distributing sunlight into usable outputs such as heating, lighting or ventilation. These techniques include selecting materials with favorable thermal properties, designing spaces that naturally circulate air and referencing the position of a building to the sun. Direct solar generally refers to technologies or effects that involve a single conversion of sunlight which results in a usable form of energy. Indirect solar generally refers to technologies or effects that involve multiple transformations of sunlight which result in a usable form of energy. Solar Systems Photovoltaic (PV) systems Solar cells are the building block of a PV system. As individual PV cells only produce 1 to 2 watts of power, multiple cells are strung together into groupings


Page 6 of 25

called arrays. The arrays are connected to an inverter, which converts the direct current (DC) to the alternating current (AC) that is compatible with the electric grid and can be used to power electrical appliances. Some of the system’s efficiency is lost through this conversion process. PV systems are typically installed on roofs with a south-facing orientation to maximize sun exposure. The size of the PV system installed depends on the energy demand. While they are operating, PV systems produce no air pollution, hazardous waste, or noise and they require no transportable fuels. The modular building blocks of a PV system enable it to be custom designed based on the energy needs of the user. While individual experience with PV systems may vary, they are generally considered to require little maintenance because they have no moving parts and a visual check and battery servicing are generally enough to keep the system functional. The primary maintenance may be as simple as cleaning the PV systems to remove dust and debris. Maintenance may be included as part of the original installation contract. Current PV systems have a life expectancy of 30 to 35 years. Concerns with PV systems include the hazardous materials (cadmium and selenium) which are used to develop the panels and complicate their disposal process. Given their reliance on the sun, solar heat and electricity are not available at night and may be unavailable due to weather conditions. Solar PV panels are sensitive to shading and, if connected in series, the shading of just one panel may dramatically reduce the ability of the entire system to generate electricity or break down the energy generation process completely. Most solar installers are sensitive to the impacts of shading given that most rebates are based on system effectiveness. PV panels located on roofs may create challenges for fire protection as they restrict access to the roof when trying to douse a fire and toxic smoke is released when PV panels burn, and the panels pose an electrical hazard to fire fighters as they can continually produce energy. Concerns have also been raised that the high value of the PV panels may make them a target for thieves. Solar systems can be built on new homes or be retro-fit on existing homes. The cost of a system will depend on the size of the home and the available rebates or incentives. A typically retail cost (prior to rebates) for a single-family home ranges from $22,000 (for a 2 kW system) to $66,000 (for a 7.5 kW system). According to the EPA, a typical 6 kW solar system saves 32 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 44 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 17,199 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. As an example, a recently approved solar system for a single-family home in Sunnyvale (approximate 1,500 square feet of living space and 500 square foot garage) cost just over $28,000. The anticipated rebate was just over $8,000. (The rebate was based on the current rate of $2.50 per watt).


Page 7 of 25

The financial payback or return on investment (ROI) for solar systems depends on many factors, such as utility rates, rate increases over time, optimal solar access, electricity usage on-peak, tax rates, system price, and rebates. Local installers claim a typical return on investment (ROI) of five to ten years for standard homes that have optimal solar access. The cost of installation and energy savings for non-residential systems is based on the size of the system. Not all existing homes are situated to allow for optimal solar use. Few examples are available for non-residential situations due to the high degree of variability in facility size and electricity usage. Solar Hot Water There are two types of solar water systems: passive and active. The passive system uses water pressure or natural convection to move water from the collector to the storage tank. The active system uses one or more pumps operated by an electric controller to circulate fluid between the collector and storage tank. The passive system is less expensive and is the more reliable of the two. It relies on the simple concept that dark colors absorb heat. Typically located on roofs, they run water through a series of black tubes which heat the water by absorbing heat from the sun. Beyond the benefit of reducing energy costs, these systems are relatively inexpensive (compared to systems requiring installation of equipment) and the typical payback time is one to three years. Concerns associated with solar hot water systems are the level of maintenance required (although newer systems require less maintenance) and the aesthetic impact of systems on rooftops. If operated in isolation, passive systems are most appropriate for warm climates and for households that use less than 60 gallons of hot water per day. The average person in Sunnyvale uses 153 gallons per day (the national average is 164 gallons per day). This suggests that for Sunnyvale, solar hot water systems may best to operate in conjunction with a conventional hot water system. To effectively operate a residential solar water heating system, 40 to 80 square feet of roof area is typically needed for the collectors. And most systems require indoor space for an 80 gallon storage tank near a conventional water heater. Solar heated swimming pools are another type of solar system. In these systems, the pool’s filtration system pumps the water through the collectors, and a pool cover is used to keep in the heat.


Page 8 of 25

Solar in Perspective Achieving long-term environmental sustainability requires an understanding of the “big picture” and what actions will result in a meaningful change to current practices. The larger context of environmental sustainability is important. Focusing exclusively on promoting the use of solar energy may result in unintended consequences, such as not focusing on conservation, or not developing other alternative energy sources (e.g. fuel cells), or undervaluing trees (trading off air quality, sound quality, shading and aesthetic values), or exposure to hazardous materials (cadmium and selenium). Solar is just one of many types of alternative or “clean” energies which provide reliable and renewable sources of energy. The modest role of solar in the larger context of sustainability is illustrated by the weight it receives in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System1. Non-polluting and renewable energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact hydro, biomass and bio-gas) comprise only three of the possible 69 points on a LEED Checklist. While just one component of environmental sustainability, the ability of solar technology to provide on-site energy generation plays an important role in the reduction of greenhouse gases by reducing the demand on carbon-based energy sources and eliminating the long-distance transmission energy loses. Current Solar Energy Usage The last time alternative energy sources, including solar, received such public attention was during the energy crisis of the 1970s. At that time, the issue was the supply and cost of fuel. Today, the concern is also related to the irreversible impact our primary energy sources are having on the environment. A key measure of that impact is the CO2 emissions generated from the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. Promoting solar energy can build on the City’s locational, climate and business environment advantages to deliver a reliable, renewable and independent source of energy for public facilities and private buildings. Sunnyvale’s days of sunshine are higher than the national average. California’s average of 5.4 peak sun hours per day provides substantial opportunity to harvest solar energy. The only state with more average sunlight is Arizona. Given California’s projected population growth of 51% between 2000 and 2040 (42% for the Bay Area), new energy sources will be needed to fuel our energy-intense economy.

1 The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System is the nationally recognized benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings.


Page 9 of 25

Sunnyvale’s peak energy usage in 2006 was 196.8 Megawatts (MW), as reported by energy supplier Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E has approximated an average annual increase of 1.5% in usage, with a projected usage of 238 MW by 2012 (PG&E provided a maximum projection of only five years). Over the next 8 years, Sunnyvale’s population is expected to grow by 6.2% to 141,400. The City used 6.47 MW for public facilities in FY2005-2006. While the City’s climate provides ample opportunity to tap solar energy, the current usage is minimal. Sunnyvale experiences approximately 300 days of sun per year and yet just 128 permits have been issued for installation of solar photovoltaic equipment since 1988. Interest in solar has recently peaked, and 46 permits have been issued to date in 2007. Sunnyvale has existing solar capacity on only 5% of City facilities (only the Sunnyvale Senior Center), approximately 0.5% of homes and 0.5% of businesses. Barriers to Greater Use of Solar Identified barriers to a higher rate of solar energy use include:

a) Informational Barriers:

• Lack of public awareness of benefits of using alternative energy;

• Perception of solar as a small-scale, expensive, long term investment with limited re-sale value for a home;

• Lack of understanding on the range of products available, their relative costs and potential long term savings;

• Concerns about access to reliable sources of information;

• Concerns regarding the aesthetics, life-span and long-term maintenance of solar equipment;

• Concerns with the manufacturing and/or disposal process for solar panels, and fire safety issues;

• Limited cooperative efforts between cities, solar businesses and resident groups; and

• Limitation on renters and individual condo owners being able to engage landlords and homeowner associations to install solar.

b) Institutional Barriers:

• City not implementing a fully articulated citywide solar plan;

• Confusion regarding the permitting process; and


Page 10 of 25

• Limited staff knowledge on solar technology and different types of equipment used to measure shading from large trees.

• No existing targets for solar installation, and no staff resources dedicated to tracking solar use in the City.

• Process and time barriers added by PG&E's procedures to certify the safety devices that disconnect the PV systems from the distribution network. Investor owned utilities, such as PG&E, have traditionally been opposed to distributed generation for safety and financial reasons. Options such as "net metering" may increase the demand for solar.

c) Financial Barriers:

• Lack of knowledge or understanding of State and Federal rebates, incentives and tax credits;

• Concern over the duration of rebate programs and confusion over eligible equipment;

• Lack of local incentives;

• Lack of upfront funds for capital investment and limited financing options for solar; and

• Lack of awareness by lenders of economic benefits of solar. Action Plan for Solar To address these barriers, three near-term strategies and a framework for a long-term citywide plan to facilitate the use of alt-solar energy in the City of Sunnyvale are provided below. The three near-term strategies include:

1) Reduce informational barriers,

2) Reduce institutional barriers, and

3) Reduce financial barriers and increase access to incentives. The three strategies and the framework for a long-term citywide plan are discussed in greater detail below. 1) Reduce Informational Barriers Promote existing opportunities to use alternative energy, including solar, by participating in joint efforts with partner agencies and businesses. The City could co-sponsor community education workshops and reach out to businesses, contractors, resident homeowners, renters, and property owners that rent their homes.


Page 11 of 25

Activities to promote solar within the City may include:

• Establishing a “Help Center” to guide residents through city requirements identify existing opportunities.

• Conducting or participate in public awareness campaigns to homeowners, businesses, and the Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Unified and Fremont Union High School Districts.

• Promoting existing programs such as PG&E programs to help consumers invest in renewable sources of energy, the Volunteer Center’s Green Challenge, or local solar businesses.

• Using existing communication tools, such as the city’s web site, quarterly report, utility bill stuffers, employee newsletter, and the One-Stop Permitting Center.

• Providing incentive programs for participation that may include development bonuses, reducing or waiving of fees (permitting or business licenses).

• Participating in role modeling the installation of solar technology in City facilities.

Trainings can also be provided for city staff to facilitate the review process. The training may include new equipment used to anticipate shading from protected trees and proposed developments. 2) Reduce Institutional Barriers This includes clarifying the City’s review process and modifying the process to facilitate installation of solar equipment. Clarification has been requested regarding the solar equipment installation with regard to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. A new permit process may facilitate review, allow for a modified timeline for this specific type of review, and facilitate permit tracking. And there may be opportunities to modify the Municipal Code to provide flexibility requirements such parking lot shading.

a) Clarify Solar Review Process with Regard to Tree Preservation The City’s 1991 Tree Preservation Ordinance codified the benefits that trees provide in protecting the health, safety and welfare of Sunnyvale residents and businesses by improving air quality, reducing flooding and erosion, reducing noise, and a more aesthetically pleasing environment. Shading from trees can reduce the need to use energy for climate control, which is the greatest source of energy demand in homes. Unfortunately, the same shading that provides the benefit of cooling to a home in the summer months may restrict the home’s solar access.


Page 12 of 25

Current Process. City ordinances recognize that installation of an active or passive solar device is reviewed through a non-discretionary (or “ministerial”) permit process (MPP). Ministerial permits, such as building permits, are not subject to the imposition of conditions of approval. (The other type of permit, a “discretionary” permit, is based on the judgment of a decision maker whether or not certain findings can be made, and it may be subject to conditions of approval.) The MPP process requires an applicant to submit a site plan indicating the location of the proposed solar equipment and a graphic survey of shading patterns on the subject parcel (but in less detail than for new construction which may impact the solar access of a neighboring roof). If sufficient information is provided, an MPP can then be approved over the counter. Vegetation may be removed without a permit and protected trees may be trimmed as long as the tree is not damaged. If a shading conflict exists, staff works with the applicant to suggest other viable locations for the solar equipment away from the shading of existing vegetation, but staff is not authorized to deny the permit. Most conflicts are resolved in this manner. The applicant may need to apply for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) if a “significant sized tree” (defined as 38 inches in circumference measured 4 ½ feet above ground) casts shadows that impairs the functioning of a proposed solar collector device. The Code allows for a protected tree to be removed based on the finding that: “The tree is in basically sound condition, but restricts the owner’s ability to enjoy the reasonable use and economic potential of the property, or unreasonably restricts an adjoining property owner’s use of economic potential of the adjoining property” (SMC 19.94.060.c). The TRP process involves a site visit to verify that no other options are available than to remove the tree (approximately two weeks). An approved TRP requires either a replacement tree or in-lieu fee to be paid. The issuance of an MPP for the solar device is ministerial and is not dependent on the issuance of a TRP, if one is required. The finding to approve a TRP for installation of solar equipment would only be made after an application for installation of solar equipment has been received, and not based on the suggestion that solar equipment may be installed at some future date. The review process for an MPP is the same for all zoning districts. After it has been issued, complications can occur if a neighbor’s vegetation or trees grow over time and cast shadows affecting the functioning of the solar device. The Municipal Code states that a property owner may not allow vegetation to grow that will obstruct their neighbor’s solar access for an existing solar system, but has identified two exceptions: 1) if the vegetation is determined by the city council to have cultural, horticultural or heritage significance; and 2) if the tree is a significant sized tree or was required to be preserved as a condition of approval of a land use permit. There is no requirement under either State law or City ordinances to remove a tree when the solar collector was subsequently placed, that is, when the tree shade existed before the solar device was installed.


Page 13 of 25

Option: Council may either re-affirm the existing process, modify it to allow greater flexibility to remove a protected tree, or modify it to create greater protections for existing large trees. If Council chooses to modify the current process, this may require amendments to existing city ordinances and further review to ensure compliance with State law due to the complexity of the legal issues. Council may provide further direction on whether or not staff should encourage owners of neighboring properties to submit a TRP if their existing tree shades a proposed location of solar equipment on adjacent property. The State’s Solar Shade Control Act reduces restrictions on solar access, but also allows cities the option of exempting themselves from the Act (see Attachment D for more detailed information on State requirements for solar access). The City ordinances are consistent with State Solar Shade law to the extent they require vegetation on the neighboring property to be trimmed to provide solar access to solar collectors subsequently placed, but City ordinances have exempted the City from its requirements with the two exemptions for significant vegetation and significant trees (discussed immediately above).

b) Develop a Specialized Planning Permit The review and issuance of permits is an important city function as it allows for review of the proposed project to ensure compliance with minimum Code standards, including safety and engineering standards. This is especially important for electrical equipment located on the roof, to verify that the installation does not compromise the structural or weatherproofing requirements of the roof. Current Process. Installation of solar equipment requires a planning permit and a building permit. The planning permit is a $96 Miscellaneous Plan Permit (MPP) used to verify the solar access does not conflict with an existing protected tree2, and the Building Permit (approximately $406) verifies compliance with the building code. Sunnyvale’s One-Stop Center already provides over-the-counter permitting, although applications that involve TRPs require additional time for a site inspection. The MPP is used for many different types of minor projects and has a standard review timeline of approximately two weeks. The building permit is approved over-the-counter, and the planning permit may be approved over-the-counter if there is not a conflict with a protected tree. Option. While the building permit is required to ensure compliance with the building code, creating a new planning permit (e.g. a Sustainable Energy Permit) would enable a separate review timeline (e.g. one week instead of two), permit fee (e.g. $50 instead of $96), provide for a more specific review process

2 A “protected” tree is defined as a tree greater than 38 inches in circumference when measured at four and one-half feet from the ground.


Page 14 of 25

which clarifies that no discretion is exercised in the review, and assist with permit data tracking for solar installations.

c) Provide Flexibility in Development Standards to Promote Solar Additional discretion may be provided to staff to explore options on a case-by-case basis to promote installation of solar (or other alternative energy) equipment as a substitute for other Municipal Code requirements if they meet the intent of the requirement. For example:

i. Allow a portion of the parking lot shading requirement to be met by the installation of solar panels rather than trees. A “solar cell parking area” was one of the items proposed in the letter that initiated the study issue. Reducing the number of trees reduces the other potential benefits provided by trees (e.g. improved air quality), but it may provide an alternative environmental benefit.

ii. Waive requirements for screening electrical equipment from view of the neighboring property when installing a solar system.

d) Advocate for Reduced Legislative Barriers to Net Metering

Large solar systems have the potential to produce more electricity than is consumed by the system owner. In such case, owners of solar systems can be credited for the “net” eletricity they generate (i.e. the remaining amount after deduction for the on-site use). The extra energy generated flows back into the electrical power grid. All public electric utilities are reqruied to offer net metering on request to their customers (Energy Policy Act of 2005, section 1251). PG&E sells electricity at a retail rate and charges a metering fee. PG&E allows for net metering for residential, commercial, agricultural, or industrial solar, wind or hybrid systems that are 1 megawatt or less (and do not qualify for Standard NEM or Wind Energy Co-Metering). Interconnecting with PG&E’s system must be pre-approved, which takes up to 53 business days (11 weeks). Net metering generators cannot be over 1 megawatt in size per State law (California Public Utilities Code 2827). 3) Reduce Financial Barriers In addition to providing information on the existing resources that can offset the cost of installing solar or alternative energy equipment, the City can provide a modest incentive by subsidizing part of the cost of the permit fees for single-family homes.

a) Modify Permit Fees Regionally, a common complaint of applicants seeking to install solar equipment has been a slow and costly municipal permitting process. According to a recent study by the Sierra Club of Bay Area cities, Sunnyvale ranks 31st out of 131 cities as the most expensive solar permit cost. Municipal fees for solar permits range from $0 (14 cities) to a high of $1,298. The average


Page 15 of 25

fee is $282. Fifty cities charge over $300. Sunnyvale’s fee, reported as $393 when the survey was conducted, is now approximately $406. Current Process. Sunnyvale’s fee for installation of photovoltaic solar panels for single family homes is $96 for the planning permit and approximately $406 for the building permit for single family homes. Multi-family and non-residential fees are based on the size of the system. Fees vary for other types of solar collectors, such as hot water or pool hot water. City permit fees are about 1.5% of the total cost of the average single family home installation cost of $28,000. The fees cover or offset the staff costs associated with reviewing plans and inspecting construction. Several cities have recently decided to waive solar permit fees to encourage the installation of solar equipment. Option 1: For single family homes, the City could subsidize the permit fees by reducing the planning permit fee (e.g. $50), and establish a maximum building permit fee (e.g. $250). This could reduce the overall cost for single family homes to a maximum of $300, which provides for some incentive for installing solar equipment due to cost reduction. Alternatively, the fee could be waived all-together for a period of time to serve a promotional purpose. The permit fees would be reviewed on an annual basis as part of the City’s Fee Schedule process. Option 2: Temporarily waive planning and building permit fees (e.g. 2 years) to provide an incentive to install solar equipment.

b) Provide Incentives

Allow for minor setback and height deviations, and allow minor lot coverage and FAR incentives for installation of solar equipment:

i. Allow minor deviations for building height and/or setback when solar equipment is installed.

ii. Allow for a density bonus if solar equipment is used for commercial or industrial buildings.

Other financial barriers may be addressed through developing more comprehensive financing mechanisms, such as power purchase agreements and the new Berkeley model of using municipal financing tools. These tools may be explored as part of the general sustainable development review. Conceptual Citywide Solar Plan An overall solar plan will be needed to establish a citywide approach to promoting the use of solar and other alternative energy. The following plan suggests a framework that may be adopted or adapted and referred to the Sustainability Green Building study issue, anticipated Spring 2008.


Page 16 of 25

A citywide solar plan would need to establish clear goals, develop an implementation plan, implement the plan, monitor and verify results. Establish Clear Goals Establishing a clear vision for the future use of sustainable energy in the City helps staff present and residents implement the plan. The Federal Department of Energy (DOE) has established goals for use of solar energy through its Solar Initiative. The desired outcomes are for Solar America Cities to serve as role-models by providing the following:

• Develop comprehensive city approach to solar implementation, involving key stakeholders, utilities, and private partners;

• Widespread increase in solar power use;

• Large-scale solar installations;

• Reduction in market barriers, such as streamlined permitting and zoning;

• Creation of city-level solar incentives, such as solar rebates, financial assistance, tax incentives to solar manufacturers who locate in the city;

• Increase public awareness through promotions and citywide education;

• Inclusion of renewable energy curriculum material in public schools; and

• Integration of solar energy into city planning and emergency preparedness plans.

Setting simple and regionally comparable metrics is helpful in benchmarking the City’s progress in accomplishing long term goals. For example, the regional NorCal Solar Energy Association promotes the use of solar energy by giving out annual City Solar Awards in three categories:

1) Number of solar installations,

2) Total number of watts installed, and

3) Watts per capita. Develop an Implementation Plan Developing a strategy to increase the use of solar involves:

a) Obtain community feedback from key stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding of barriers and identify methods to overcome barriers to market penetration;

b) Review regional, national and international best practices;

c) Prioritize key strategies to remove barriers;

d) Develop long-term plan for removing barriers;


Page 17 of 25

e) Identify staff and/ or partners who will act as champions including government agencies, non-profits, and for-profit companies who are already working or can work on individual solutions to barriers; and

f) Develop adequate staff resources and expertise to implement plan. Promoting the use of alternative energy citywide may involve strategies that range from passive encouragement (e.g. information on City web site), to actively promoting use (e.g. partnering with solar businesses), to providing incentives for use (e.g. financial benefits or power purchasing agreements), to establishing minimum requirements for installation of solar (or other alternative energy sources). The citywide solar plan may include installation of solar on multi-level parking garages, as proposed in the letter that initiated the solar study, rather than the removal of barriers, which was the focus of this report. Installation of PV equipment should be included in the original design of the parking structure, rather than retrofit onto existing structures, to ensure appropriate design for additional weight, shear forces, and the appropriate pathways for conduit lines). Establishing a Timeline for Implementation Passive encouragement and actively promoting solar are easier steps for a city to implement, though they still require staff resources to manage. Incentives typically require a financial commitment through subsidizing fees or committing resources. The most controversial strategy is to establish requirements for use of solar. The following table provides a conceptual timeline to establish progressively increasing requirements for alternative energy. (The “X” may be defined in terms of percent of energy used, kilowatt generated, or some other measure.)

Type of Structure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Public Facilities X XX XXX XXXX XXXXX Industrial, >10K s.f. X XX XXX XXXX Industrial, <10K s.f. X XX XXX Commercial, >10K s.f. X XX XXX XXXX Commercial, <10K s.f. X XX XXX Residential, multi d.u. X XX XXX XXXX Residential, single d.u X XX XXX

The intent of the plan is to provide a gradually increasing commitment on the part of the City. This commitment may alternatively involve a commitment to or use of green building practices or measures. While the plan is focused on private property, the public facilities structures are added as a means of comparison.


Page 18 of 25

Partnerships with Key Stakeholders Once the final Sustainable Sunnyvale policies and goals are established by the City Council, strategies could be established for city staff and for external partner relationships. Targets could be established for all divisions who have direct external customer interface, including Community Development (Planning, Building Safety, Economic Development, Housing, and Neighborhood Preservation), Parks and Recreation (Facilities Management), and Public Works (Engineering and Project Administration). Regional partners may serve as advisors to the City in these activities. Planning and Building staff could receive in-depth training on working with customers to maximize the use of solar in their facilities. Education of staff could include solar technologies, financing, legal and other aspects of installation of solar. Of the approximately 53,750 residential units in the City of Sunnyvale, approximately 26,600 units are ownership-opportunity homes (as opposed to rentals). As part of a long-term plan, the City may target both homeowners and owners of rental housing to encourage the installation and use of solar facilities. Key external stakeholders include: policy makers, city staff, residents, business owners, property owners, PG&E, Chamber of Commerce, NOVA Workforce Board, School Districts, Water District, and regional partners such as the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Sustainable Silicon Valley. Several national, regional and local efforts are underway to promote the investment in and the use of solar energy technology. Initially spearheaded by environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the list of proponents has expanded to include business-focused organizations. SolarTech is a regional collaborative whose mission it to create a Solar Center of Excellence in Silicon Valley and to ultimately achieve cost parity of solar with conventional electricity. The organization is in the process of identifying barriers to alternative energy use and identifying technical solutions to issues such as performance, processes, standards, and workforce readiness. Other community partners include the NOVA Workforce Board. The City could consider working with the Board to explore training options to improve the pipeline of workers for solar technology installation, such as:

1) Developing community colleges instructional opportunities that would result in certification program for new workers;


Page 19 of 25

2) Creating internship opportunities and work experience-based learning for students to work at work sites and understand how the applications take place in the field; and

3) Developing an apprenticeship program for people in the field to upgrade their skills develop a level of certification beyond their current work with an individual company.

Some of the implementation strategies may need to be developed regionally. For example, options to streamline the inspection process may include exploring regional permitting or building inspections (like “mutual assistance” between cities). Implement the plan, monitor and verify results While implementation of the citywide solar plan will involve multiple departments, the responsibility for managing and monitoring the plan should be given to one individual. That program manager or program officer would need to be able to coordinate with all department and division staff that plays a role in the solar plan implementation. They would also need to coordinate with regional partners to integrate new information and best management practices into city practices and into community trainings. The sustainability program manager or officer would monitor the citywide solar plan and could report results to the council on an annual basis, providing an opportunity to adjust the requirements or incentives as needed to achieve long-term environmental sustainability goals. As benchmarks on the citywide solar program are achieved, they could be communicated to residents and businesses within the City, which may help to promote civic pride. Environmental Review Council adoption of the proposed action is considered exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Class 7 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities are not included in this exemption. Environmental review may be required for future installation of solar equipment, if deemed necessary, on a project-by-project review. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the Citywide Solar Plan will depend on which options the City Council chooses to pursue. A major commitment to promoting and using alternative energies such as solar will require a substantial investment from


Page 20 of 25

the City. Participation in regional partnerships can help the City leverage other resources, resulting in a larger cost-benefit investment. Specific costs may be related to:

• Staffing – Additional staffing may be considered as a budget issue for the FY2008-09 budget. The cost for a sustainability program manager or officer to manage a citywide approach could range from $120,000 to $200,000 per year. Committing staff to implement program components would draw from other budgeted responsibilities;

• Training – Funding for classes and consultants to provide training may be considered as a budget issue for the FY2008-09 budget. An approximate cost of $50,000 for classes and consultants to implement new processes and public information sessions does not include staff time;

• Reduced Fees or Fee Waivers – the cost would be based on the number of permits processed (56 to date in 2007) and the established rates. For the residential example of a new $50 planning permits and a new building permit rate up to a maximum of $250, the city would receive $106 less than the current amount of $406, which would have resulted in a loss of almost $6,000 for 2007 (year to date) or almost $22,700 if the fees are waived completely.

• Rebates and Financial Incentives – were not reviewed as part of this report.

PUBLIC CONTACT Community Meetings and Community Input. Two meetings were held on October 3rd, 2007 to solicit community feedback. The 14 participants (eight in the afternoon session and six in the evening session) included homeowners, an industry representative, a regional solar consultant, and Sunnyvale members of the Sierra Club’s “Cool Cities” Program. Participants shared several creative ideas, which have been incorporated into the previously listed options. Staff notes from the community meetings are in Attachment E. Letters received from the public regarding the solar study issue are included in Attachment F. Planning Commission Study Session. The Planning Commission reviewed the general issues and approach to the citywide solar plan on October 8th, 2007. The Planning Commissioners raised questions about the cost and maintenance of solar systems for both new and retrofit buildings. Commissioners expressed an interest in protecting mature trees, especially in residential areas. A concern was raised regarding the aesthetics of some of the older solar water


Page 22 of 25

clarification on the City’s review process and provided some clarification on the type of net metering systems. The Planning Commissioners made a few minor revisions to the staff recommendation and voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that the City Council approved the proposed reduction to informational, institutional, and financial barriers, provide the proposed incentives, and refer the outline of a citywide solar plan to incorporate into the Sustainable Green Building study issue. During the public comment period, a business representative suggested that city staff had denied an application for a solar permit. Subsequent to the public hearing, staff reviewed the permit history and verified that no solar permits have been denied (with the exception of a 1977 application which was reviewed prior to the current solar access laws). A Tree Removal Permit (TRP) was recently denied because the property owner stated they wanted to remove the tree to install solar at some future date, but had not submitted a solar application. In the absence of a solar application, staff could not make the findings to approve the TRP. The applicant appealed the TRP denial to the Planning Commission, who upheld staff’s denial based on the same rationale. Once the applicant applied for a solar permit, the TRP was approved. Noticing. This report was noticed through a display ad in the Sunnyvale Sun, included in the publication and posting of the Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board and the City’s web page. This report is also available at the Sunnyvale Public Library, the Sunnyvale Senior Center, the Sunnyvale Community Center, and the City Clerk’s Office. ALTERNATIVES

1) Reduce information barriers. Participate in joint efforts with partner agencies, volunteers, developers and solar-focused businesses to provide community education and promote existing opportunities to utilize alternative energy, including solar. Incorporate into existing staff duties, as work load permits, and refer the cost of a full-time staff coordinator and the cost for workshops to the FY2008-09 budget review process.

2) Reduce institutional barriers. Direct staff to return with a proposed

ordinance, subject to further review and analysis by the office of the City Attorney (to address the number of complex legal issues and ensure compliance with State law), that provides the following zoning code provisions to accommodate and encourage installation of solar equipment:


Page 21 of 25

systems; staff clarified that State law does not allow for solar applications to be restricted based on aesthetic concerns. Planning Commissioners noted that while solar systems provide opportunity to tap renewable resources, it may be more beneficial to focus on the larger goal of sustainability through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System; staff noted that the sustainability perspective will be addressed by a study issues in the Spring of 2008. The Planning Commissioners were aware of the Sierra Club study and concerned that the City be responsive to the study’s proposal for a reduced flat fee. There appeared to be a greater interest in exploring opportunities, and possibly requirements, to install solar systems on larger developments, including commercial and industrial projects. Commissioners expressed concerns with the city committing to costly financial incentives or rebates and expressed a greater interest in providing education and outreach to the community regarding existing opportunities through PG&E. Three members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission study session, including two members of the Sierra Club Cool Cities program. They encouraged the City to take a leadership role in combating global warming through promoting the use of solar energy in Sunnyvale. The City was encouraged to consider lower fees and to adopt performance based incentives for the citywide solar program. A speaker encouraged the City to explore opportunities for economic development as part of the effort to promote use of solar energy in Sunnyvale, noting that the industry is currently growing very rapidly. It was noted that California Assembly Bill 1470 provides incentives for solar water heaters, and that the City may play a role in promoting such opportunities to Sunnyvale residents. Personal examples were given of cost and benefit of installing a solar water and electric system on a single family home. It was noted that having to replace an older tree with a younger tree would be helpful in that younger trees absorb more Carbon-Dioxide when in a growth stage. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission reviewed the Citywide Solar Plan at a public hearing on November 26th, 2007. Planning Commissioners asked questions about the costs, maintenance, and benefits (financial and environmental) of installing solar systems. There was discussion of the larger context of sustainability to provide a perspective on the relative benefit of solar systems with regard to other community resources, such as the energy and health benefits provided by mature trees. Staff noted that the larger issue of sustainability will be addressed in the Sustainable Green Building study issues (scheduled for Spring of 2008). Six members of the public spoke in support of the City moving forward with a plan and tangible steps to promote the use of solar energy in Sunnyvale. A representative of Sunnyvale Cool Cities encouraged the reduction, or even temporary waiving, of the cost of solar permits. Two representatives of a solar business requested


Page 23 of 25

a. Clarify process of reviewing solar permits with regard to tree preservation:

i. Confirm the solar permit decision matrix process provided in Attachment C (e.g. if a protected tree restricts solar access, relocate solar system to another viable location);

ii. If a protected tree located on the applicant’s property restricts solar access, require the applicant to apply for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) for any tree(s) that conflict with the desired solar access (note: the TRP may be denied if other viable solar access options exist, and may be approved if no other viable options existing for solar equipment, and the typical replacement tree requirement applies); and

iii. If a protected tree located on a neighboring property restricts solar access, refer the applicant to discuss the issue with their neighbor and ask their neighbor to apply for a TRP, and staff will review the application if submitted. (The City is not required to compel the neighbor to remove their tree if the tree’s shading pre-dated the solar equipment.)

b. Modify the permitting process to develop a specialized planning permit for solar equipment;

c. Allow staff flexibility to consider allowing a portion of the parking lot shading requirement, such as 25%, to be met by the installation of solar panels rather than trees;

d. Clarify Sunnyvale Municipal Code to waive any screening of electrical equipment requirement for solar PV panels;

e. Develop a Legislative Advocacy Position that supports making investor owned utilities (IOU) certification of solar installations a higher priority than at present.

f. Develop a Legislative Advocacy Position that supports expanding net metering to larger alternative/distributed energy projects and more types of such projects.

3) Reduce financial barriers and provide incentives. Provide the

following incentives for installation of solar equipment.

a. Adopt a resolution to modify the current fee schedule for a revised planning permit fee of $50 and a related building permit fee of not more than $250 for installation of solar equipment (for a total of not more than $300). The approximate subsidy is anticipated to be at least $25,000 per year, depending on demand.


Page 24 of 25

b. Allow staff discretion to consider minor Municipal Code deviations to specifically accommodate solar installation applications including, on top of parking structures:

i. Allow a deviation of up to one (1) foot for setbacks, and/or

ii. Allow a deviation of up to two (2) feet in height.

c. Allow staff discretion to consider minor Municipal Code deviations to provide an incentive to install solar equipment:

iii. Allow up to 1% in additional lot coverage, and/or

iv. Allow up to 1% in additional Floor Area Ratio.

For single-family residential, the incentive allowance shall be based on providing a minimum system size of 1.5 kW for PV systems or a minimum of 50 gallons for a hot water system. For all other uses, the incentive shall be based on a minimum system size of 10% of the anticipated or average electrical energy use.

4) Adopt a conceptual outline of a Citywide Solar Plan. Increase the

use of solar by public, industrial, commercial and residential buildings by adopting an overall framework and referring it to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue (anticipated Spring 2008) for development. The Plan may include efforts to (or creating a budget issue to):

a. Participate in regional efforts to promote the development of the solar industry, including research & development and workforce development.

b. Explore funding mechanisms to promote the use of solar and other alternative energies by home owners and businesses (including power purchase agreements and the “Berkeley model”).

c. Explore opportunities to develop the growth of alternative energy businesses in Sunnyvale.

d. Establish a full-time Sustainability Manager or Officer as part of the FY2008-09 budget to coordinate and manage the City’s environmental sustainability efforts, including solar (also referenced in Alternative 1).

5) Make no changes.

6) Refer study issue back to staff for more information.


Page 25 of 25

RECOMMENDATION The City of Sunnyvale has a track record of seeking and incorporating opportunities to practice environmental stewardship. Many of the City’s current practices and policies – from smart growth development to the equipment and supplies used – target environmental responsibility. Staff recommends:

a) Adopt items 1, 2 and 3;

b) Refer item 4 to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue and the FY 2008-2009 budget process for further consideration.

Reviewed by: Hanson Hom, Director, Community Development Department Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer Prepared by: Jamie McLeod, Senior Planner Approved by: Amy Chan, City Manager Attachments

A. Solar Study Issue Paper B. Sunnyvale Municipal Code References to Solar C. Solar Permit Decision Matrix D. California State Laws Related to Solar E. Notes from the Community Outreach Meetings F. Letters from the Public on the Solar Study Issue G. Planning Commission Minutes

Attachment B Solar in the SMC

Page 1 of 13

Existing Reference to Solar in the Sunnyvale Municipal Code

CHAPTER 3: REVENUE AND FINANCE

Chapter 3.36. CONSTRUCTION TAX 3.36.090. Exemptions. The tax imposed under this chapter shall not apply to the following:

(f) Alterations or additions to an existing structure to conserve energy, including but not limited to, insulation and solar energy utilization, provided that, if the number of square feet of gross building floor area in the structure is increased, then the tax imposed under this chapter shall apply to the value of such increase. Each such exempt alteration or addition shall be specifically described on separate plans. Determination as to exempt status shall be made by the chief building official subject to appeal as set forth in Section 3.36.060. (Ord. 1882-78 § 1, 1978: Ord. 1775-75 § 1 (part), 1975)

CHAPTER 16: BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION Chapter 16.08. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 16.08.070. Permit required. Uniform Administrative Code Section 301 is hereby amended to read:

Sec. 301. Permits Required. (a) No person shall perform any grading or erect, construct, relocate, enlarge, alter, repair, move or improve, remove, convert, or demolish any building or structure in the city, including any plumbing and drainage system, solar energy collection system, mechanical system or electrical wiring in connection therewith, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a separate permit for each such building or structure, including any plumbing and drainage system, solar energy collection system, or mechanical or electrical wiring.

Chapter 16.46. SOLAR HEATING 16.46.010. Findings. The city council finds that due to present and anticipated costs and uncertain availability of conventionally-produced energy supplies, the public health, safety and welfare will be served by requiring installation of solar water heating

PAMS Study Page 1 of4

A~C; ;'·if'tlA !EI If:\~T. fa ... ..

Proposed New Council Study Issue

Number CDD-37

Status Above the line

Calendar 2007 Year

Newor New Previous

Title Citywide solar energy plan including solar cell parking areas

Lead Community Development Department

Element or Energy Management Element SubE!ement

1. What are the key elements of the issue? What precipitated it?

This issue was initiated by a letter from a citizen expressing concern not only with the reliance on power companies for electrical power, but also addressing the benefits of the utilization of renewable power sources. The letter suggested that the City:

1) Require all new buildings being constructed to have 5-10 percent of the building covered in solar panels. This would improve air quality in our community as well as lessen the dependence on power companies around the world, which would in turn benefit air quality worldwide.

2) Monitor trees that could affect the ability of sunlight to reach the solar panels.

3) Offer a rebate to offset the initial financial strain of the installation of solar panels.

In 2004 the Cou neil adopted Policy 1.1 . Sustainable Development and Green Buildings to encoL1rage sustainable development in the community. This policy relates the sustainable practices that include, but are not limited to energy conservation. The policy addresses Public Facilities, requiring consideration of LEED certification for design and development of new buildings over 10,000 sf.

Private industrial/office development is provided incentives to design buildings with green practices. However, there is no policy or regulation requiring sustainable green development.

This study would explore the feasibility of adopting a new and comprehensive solar energy plan and regulations that could also include policies for solar cells on parking area roofs. Research would be conducted by looking at models that other communities have adopted, working with business groups to ascertain their interest level, and assessing the costs and determining the options for management of this program.

2. How does this relate to the General Plan or existing City Policy?

ENERGY SUB-ELEMENT

Policy 3.5A.1b Promote the development of alternative energy resources and support the enhancement of existing technologies.

http://hope/P AMS/sinp.aspx?ID=273 11119/2007

P AMS Study Issue Page 2 of4

A1~AC;~l\(~lVlEI'!T...__/l_

Policy 3.5A.lf RediJce energy consiJmption through Land Use and Community

Design Policies.

Policy 3.5A.li Support Federal, State and other Local agency energy-related · legislation when consistent with this policy.

Policy 3.5A.lj Support efforts to provide affordable, reliable, diverse, safe and environmentally acceptable power to the citizens and businesses of Sunnyvale.

3. Origin of issue

Council Member(s) Moylan & Lee

General Plan

City Staff

Public

Board or Commission none

4. Multiple Year Project? No Planned Completion Year

5. Expected participation involved in the study issue process?

Does Council need to approve a work plan? No

Does this issue rE!quire review by a Board/Commission? Yes

If sQ, which? Planning Commission

Is a Council Study Session anticipated?

What is the public participation process?

6. Cost of Study

Operating Budget Program covering costs 242 Land Use Planning

Project Budget covering costs

Budget modification $ amount needed for study

No

Explain below what the additional funding will be used for

7. Potential fiscal impact to implement recommendations in the Study approved by Council

Capital expenditure range None

Operating expenditure range None

New revenues/savings range None

Explain impactbriefly

8. Staff Recommendation

Staff Recommendation None

If 'For Study' or 'Against Study', explain

9. Estimated consultant hours for completion of the study issue

http://hope/P AMS/sinp.aspx?ID=273 11/14/2007

P AMS Study Issue

Managers Role Manager Hours

Lead Ryan, Trudi Mgr CY1: 40 Mgr CY2: 0

Staff CY1: 300 Staff CY2: 0

Support Berry, Kathryn MgrCY1: 20 Mgr CY2: 0

Staff CY1: . 0 Staff CY2: 0

Support Bowers, Mark Mgr CY1: 10 Mgr CY2: 0


lnterdep Iaquinto, Larry Mgr CY1: 8 Mgr CY2: 0


Total Hours CY1: 408

Total Hours CY2: 0

Note: If staff's recommendation is 'For Study' or 'Against Study', the Director should note the relative importance of this Study to other major projects that the Department is currently working on or that are soon ~o begin, and the impact on existing services/priorities.

Reviewed by

Department Director Date

Approved by

City Manager Date

http:/ /hope/P AMS/sinp.aspx?ID=273

Page 3 of4

ATI"AC~"iil\1E:NT~

11114/2007

P AMS Study Issue

Addendum

A. Board I Commission Recommendation

Issue Created Too Late for B/C Ranking

Board or Commission

Arts Commission

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Board of Building Code Appeals

Board of Library Trustees

Child Care Advisory Board

Heritage Preservation Commission

Housing and Human Services Commission

Parks and Recreation Commission

Personnel Board

Planning Commission

Board orCommission ranking comments

B. Council

Council Rank 5 WorkPian Review Date (blank) Study Session Date (blank) RTC Date 12/4/2007

Actual Complete Date (blank) Staff Contact

http:/ /hope/P AMS/sinp.aspx?ID=273

Rank Rank Rank · 1 year ago 2 years ago

Page 4 of4

ATTACHMENT _Jj_

11114/2007


Page 1 of 13

Existing Reference to Solar in the Sunnyvale Municipal Code

CHAPTER 3: REVENUE AND FINANCE

Chapter 3.36. CONSTRUCTION TAX 3.36.090. Exemptions. The tax imposed under this chapter shall not apply to the following:

(f) Alterations or additions to an existing structure to conserve energy, including but not limited to, insulation and solar energy utilization, provided that, if the number of square feet of gross building floor area in the structure is increased, then the tax imposed under this chapter shall apply to the value of such increase. Each such exempt alteration or addition shall be specifically described on separate plans. Determination as to exempt status shall be made by the chief building official subject to appeal as set forth in Section 3.36.060. (Ord. 1882-78 § 1, 1978: Ord. 1775-75 § 1 (part), 1975)

CHAPTER 16: BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION Chapter 16.08. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 16.08.070. Permit required. Uniform Administrative Code Section 301 is hereby amended to read:

Sec. 301. Permits Required. (a) No person shall perform any grading or erect, construct, relocate, enlarge, alter, repair, move or improve, remove, convert, or demolish any building or structure in the city, including any plumbing and drainage system, solar energy collection system, mechanical system or electrical wiring in connection therewith, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a separate permit for each such building or structure, including any plumbing and drainage system, solar energy collection system, or mechanical or electrical wiring.

Chapter 16.46. SOLAR HEATING 16.46.010. Findings. The city council finds that due to present and anticipated costs and uncertain availability of conventionally-produced energy supplies, the public health, safety and welfare will be served by requiring installation of solar water heating


Page 2 of 13

systems as defined herein. Affected properties will benefit during the useful life of such systems through reduced consumption of energy for domestic purposes. The city council further finds that installation and operation of solar heating systems as defined herein will be cost-effective, within the meaning of California Public Resources Code Section 25402.11. (Ord. 2020-81 § 1 (part)). 16.46.020. Definitions. (1) “Solar water heating system” shall mean any solar collector or other solar energy device or arrangement of devices, the primary function of which is to collect, store and distribute solar energy for heating water used for domestic purposes. (2) “Residential buildings” shall mean buildings designed for occupancy by one or more families, whether in detached or multiple-family attached configurations. No distinction shall be made between rental, ownership or other forms of tenancy, for purposes of this chapter. (3) “Primary means of heating” shall mean designed to heat to at least one hundred twenty degrees (Fahrenheit) a minimum of fifty-one percent of that average amount of domestic hot water predicted for residential structures of similar size and type, as specified in those “Energy Conservation Standards for New Residential Buildings,” as amended, promulgated by the California Energy Commission pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Public Resources Code. The chief building official is authorized and directed to provide current copies of such formulae and standards as may be required by affected applicants for permits. (Ord. 2020-81 § 1 (part)).

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 25405.5. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (3) "Solar energy system" means a solar energy device that has the primary purpose of providing for the collection and distribution of solar energy for the generation of electricity, that produces at least one kW, and not more than five megawatts, alternating current rated peak electricity, and that meets or exceeds the eligibility criteria established pursuant to Section 25782.

1 in order to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The commission shall conduct an ongoing assessment of the opportunities and constraints presented by all forms of energy. The commission shall encourage the balanced use of all sources of energy to meet the state's needs and shall seek to avoid possible undesirable consequences of reliance on a single source of energy.


Page 3 of 13

16.46.030. Solar water heater requirement for new residential construction.

(a) Any other provision of this title to the contrary notwithstanding, no building permit shall be issued by the department of community development for a new residential building as specified in paragraph (b) hereof unless said building’s design includes a solar energy system as the primary means of heating domestic potable water. Such system designs shall conform to the technical requirements of Chapter 16.42 of this title. (b) The terms of subdivision (a) shall become operative for permits for construction of residential buildings applied for on or after January 1, 1982, provided, however, that if the California Energy Commission has not made those findings required by California Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(f)(2) prior to said date, then the terms of subdivision (a) shall become operative upon receipt by the director of community development of such findings. (c) All design features required pursuant to this section shall be indicated in the proposed building plans as part of a complete design for a solar energy system as the primary means of heating all domestic potable water to be consumed in the proposed structure. (Ord. 2020-81 § 1 (part)).

16.46.040. Exemptions. The director of community development may grant an exemption from the requirements contained in this chapter when any of the following conditions exist:

(a) Lack of solar access: When topographic conditions, adjacent structures (or probable adjacent development allowed by existing zoning), existing trees on or surrounding the residential site, or location of the solar collection system preclude effective use of a solar energy system due to shading; or (b) Not cost-effective: Solar water heating is not cost-effective for the owner if the present value lifecycle cost, as established annually by the city, over twenty years for solar water heating is greater than that for any other commercially available water heating technology which is or shall be used at the site. (Ord. 2242-88 § 1; Ord. 2020-81 § 1 (part)).

16.46.050. Administration.

(a) The provisions of this chapter shall be administered pursuant to the terms of Chapters 16.04, 16.08 and 16.12 of this code. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as a revision or amendment to the provisions set forth therein. (b) Appeals of decisions of the director of community development or authorized officials acting on his behalf shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in Chapter 16.08 of this code.


Page 4 of 13

CHAPTER 19: ZONING

Chapter 19.12. DEFINITIONS 19.12.020. “A”

(5) “Active solar collector” means a fixed device, structure or part of a device or structure which is used primarily to transform solar radiation into thermal, chemical or electrical energy, as part of a system which makes use of such energy for the purposes of water heating, space heating or cooling, or electrical power generation, by means of moving fluids, photo electric devices, chemical reactions, including chemical thermal storage solutions, or external power sources. (8) “Adverse conditions, covenants and restrictions” for solar access means any agreement or provision thereof, which effectively prohibits or penalizes the installation or use of solar collectors, including, but not limited to, those conditions, covenants and restrictions which do so by:

(a) Prohibiting the installation or use of ancillary structures upon buildings; (b) Restricting the permissible height of roof-mounted structures; or (c) Delegating building design review authority, capable of being exercised in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this title, to an architectural review committee or similar private entity.

19.12.170. “P”

(1) “Passive solar collector” means any building feature or design, including shading elements, materials, mass, structural components, and solar orientation, which enhances a building’s inherent solar heating or cooling characteristics. (5) “Positive conditions, covenants and restrictions for solar access” means any agreement or provision thereof which expressly allows, requires, or encourages the installation or use of solar collectors upon buildings, including protection of solar access to such collectors.

19.12.200. “S”

(12) “Solar access” means the absence of shadows blocking or reducing exposure to the sun, to an extent greater than ten percent daily during the hours between nine a.m. to three p.m., Pacific Standard Time, throughout any solar cycle.


Page 5 of 13

(13) “Solar cycle” means a year-long interval, beginning at twelve noon, Pacific Standard Time, December 21st, in any calendar year, and ending at twelve noon, Pacific Standard Time, December 21st of the subsequent calendar year. (14) “Solar easement” means a property right to receive sunlight across the real property of another, upon any active or passive solar collector as defined herein.

19.38.070. Landscaping, irrigation and usable open space

(d) Minimum parking lot landscaping requirements. (1) At least twenty percent of the parking lot area shall be landscaped. (2) Trees shall be planted and maintained throughout the lot to ensure that at least fifty percent of the parking area will be shaded within fifteen years after the establishment of the lot. Shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at fifteen years. All surfacing on which a vehicle can drive is subject to shade calculation, including all parking stalls; all drives within the property, regardless of length, and including drive-through lanes; and all maneuvering area, regardless of depth. The following surfaced areas are exempt from shade requirements:

(A) Truck loading area in front of overhead doors; (B) Truck maneuvering and parking areas unconnected to and exclusive of any vehicle parking; (C) Surfaced areas not to be used for vehicle parking, driving or maneuvering, provided they are made inaccessible to vehicles by a barrier such as bollards or fencing; (D) Automobile dealerships, display/sales/service/vehicle storage areas (required parking for auto dealerships is still subject to shading); (E) surfaced areas existing prior to January 1, 2002.

(3) Landscape areas and parking islands, with or without trees, shall contain living ground cover or shrubs, unless it can be shown that ground cover is incompatible with the tree. Where living ground cover is unsuitable, the director of community development may allow porous, nonliving ground cover such as pebbles or tanbark. Landscape areas and parking islands shall be designed to integrate parking lot and site drainage in order to reduce storm water runoff velocities and minimize non-point source pollution. (4) A six-inch poured in place concrete curb with drainage “weep holes” shall separate landscaping from parking areas.


Page 6 of 13

(5) A poured in place concrete header with drainage “weep holes” shall separate landscaping from parking areas. (6) Concrete wheel stops, properly installed with epoxy and metal dowels, are required when landscape areas are not adequately protected. (7) Parking lot design and landscaping guidelines shall be maintained, and modified as needed, by the director of community development; the director may approve deviations from the guidelines if certified by:

(A) A landscape architect registered in the state of California; (B) A California certified nurseryman; (C) City of Sunnyvale superintendent of parks; (D) City of Sunnyvale superintendent of street trees and landscape.

19.38.020. Screening of equipment.

(b) Mechanical, electrical or other type equipment. All roof, wall or ground mounted mechanical, electrical or other type equipment which exceeds sixteen inches in any dimension shall be screened except:

(1) Equipment otherwise permitted by a miscellaneous plan permit. (2) Solar panels. (3) Antennas as determined by Chapter 19.54. (4) Backflow preventers. (5) Detector checks. (6) Fire hydrants and risers. (7) Gauges, meters and valves. (8) Heat absorption devices. (9) Pumps, stacks and windmills. Chapter 19.56. SOLAR ACCESS 19.56.010. Permitted use. The use of solar energy systems and active and passive solar collectors for the purpose of providing energy to the structure upon which they are placed, whether as a part of such a structure or incidental thereto, is a use which may be established without the necessity for any discretionary land use approval, within all zoning districts, notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.96.020). 19.56.020. Solar envelope—Impairment of solar access by structures.

(a) No building permit shall be issued for any construction, the effect of which when completed would be to interfere with solar access to the rooftop of any structure or to any preexisting active solar collector on nearby


Page 7 of 13

property. Solar access means the absence of shadows blocking or reducing exposure to the sun to an extent greater than ten percent daily during the hours between nine a.m. to three p.m., Pacific Standard Time, throughout any solar cycle. Nothing contained herein shall require modification to any structure, the shade pattern of which would impair solar access to rooftops or active solar collectors established later in time. (b) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to structures or uses within the DSP zoning district. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.96.030).

19.56.030. Impairment of solar access by vegetation—Public nuisance.

(a) No person or entity owning or in control of real property shall allow any tree or shrub thereon to interfere with solar access to any rooftop or to any active solar collector located on a nearby or adjacent property. Vegetation interfering with solar access to any rooftop or active solar collector, including vegetation shading the area of nearby properties where rooftops or active solar collectors subsequently are placed, shall be trimmed or removed to the extent necessary to provide solar access thereto. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply so as to require the removal of vegetation determined by such procedure as the city council may specify, to have cultural, horticultural or heritage significance. Additionally, the provisions of this section shall not require the removal of any significant sized tree or tree required to be preserved as a condition of approval of a land use permit. Reasonable trimming of any vegetation otherwise exempted by this section may be allowed if no harm occurs to the vegetation and the trimming does not endanger its cultural, horticultural or heritage significance. (c) Violations of this section comprise a public nuisance, and whenever any enforcement officer of the city of Sunnyvale determines that any such condition exists upon any premises, he or she may require or provide for the abatement thereof pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 9.26 of this code, and may make the costs of abatement of the nuisance a lien upon the property. (Ord. 2808-06 § 1: Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.96.040).

19.56.040. Solar envelope—Conditions of tentative map Each tentative subdivision map approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Title 18 of this code shall be conditioned so as to prohibit new construction of structures that would interfere with passive or active natural heating or cooling opportunities available to structures capable of being built on adjoining parcels, in accordance with all site development and zoning regulations in effect at the time of such approval. No such conditions shall be imposed,


Page 8 of 13

however, which would result in reducing allowable residential unit densities or the percentage of lot area which may be occupied by a building or structure under those applicable land use regulations in effect at the time such a tentative subdivision map is filed. Positive conditions, covenants and restrictions shall be provided as a part of each tentative map. Adverse conditions, covenants and restrictions shall not be included therein, and, to the extent that they may be contained in subdivision documents approved prior to the effective date of this chapter, they are hereby declared to be contrary to the public welfare and to the public policies set forth herein. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.96.050). 19.56.050. Placement of active solar collectors Prior to issuance of any building permit for construction or placement of an active solar collector, the director of community development shall require the applicant to provide a written analysis or graphic survey of shading patterns on the subject parcel. The director is authorized to disapprove any proposed location for such a collector which would be within the existing shade pattern of vegetation growing on adjoining properties. If there is no feasible location for the collector outside of existing shade patterns, the director shall specify a location which minimizes the adverse effects upon such adjoining vegetation. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.96.060). 19.56.060. Variances

(a) Variances may be granted from restrictions imposed by this title on the height, setback and location of structures, in the public interest, upon a showing by the applicant, made pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 19.84:

(1) That the proposed construction or alteration is necessary for the purpose of placing or constructing an active or passive solar collector as defined herein; (2) That the proposed design complies in all material respects with the provisions of Title 16 of this Code; (3) That the proposed construction or alteration has been designed, located, and screened in a manner calculated to minimize adverse visual, audible, and other effects on surrounding properties; and (4) That the granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare.

(b) Applications for variances from the regulations imposed by this chapter shall be considered in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 19.84. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.96.070).


Page 9 of 13

19.68.040. Accessory living units The use, occupancy or placement of accessory living units are permitted only as follows:

(d) All otherwise applicable provisions of Title 16 shall be satisfied, including solar hot water heating requirements.

SMC 19.82.020. When required (for Miscellaneous Plan Permits)

(a) General Reviews: (20) Solar heating/cooling facilities and appurtenances;

Chapter 19.94. TREE PRESERVATION SMC 19.94.010. Findings The city council finds that:

(a) The city of Sunnyvale has a great diversity of trees that are of economic value to the city and make it a desirable place for residents, business owners and visitors; (b) The appearance of Sunnyvale contributes to the economic prosperity of the city; (c) Trees contribute to the scenic beauty of Sunnyvale; (d) Trees help to naturally control flooding and erosion, moderate noise pollution, climate, dust and other airborne pollutants, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and produce oxygen, and shelter and feed birds and other wildlife; (e) The development and redevelopment of the city often necessitates the removal of trees, thereby contributing to their depletion; and (f) It is necessary to protect and manage these valuable assets and their habitat to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Sunnyvale.

19.94.030. Definitions For the purpose of this chapter the following definitions apply:

(1) “Damage” means any intentional action or gross negligence which causes injury, death or disfigurement of a tree. Actions include, but are not limited to, cutting, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree or trenching, excavating, altering the grade or paving within the dripline of a tree. (2) “Dripline” means the outermost line of the tree’s canopy projected straight down to the ground surface. As depicted in a plan view, the dripline appears as an irregularly shaped circle. (3) “Protected tree” means a tree of significant size.


Page 10 of 13

(4) “Significant size” means a tree thirty-eight inches or greater in circumference measured four and one-half feet above ground for single-trunk trees. For multi-trunk trees “significant size” means a tree which has at least one trunk with a circumference thirty-eight inches or greater measured four and one-half feet above ground level, or in which the measurements of the circumferences of each of the multi-trunks, when measured four and one-half feet above the ground level, added together equal an overall circumference one hundred thirteen inches or greater. (5) “Tree” means any woody plant which has a trunk thirteen inches or more in circumference at four and one-half feet above ground level. (6) “Tree removal” means the physical removal of a tree or causing the death of a tree through damaging, poisoning, or other direct or indirect action, including excessive trimming, pruning, or mutilation that sacrifices the health, destroys, or diminishes the aesthetic quality, or diminishes the life expectancy of the tree. (Ord. 2808-06 § 2: Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.81.030 (part)).

19.94.040. Actions prohibited

(a) It is unlawful to damage or kill any protected tree. (b) It is unlawful to remove any protected tree from private property in any zoning district or from any city owned golf course or park, without a protected tree removal permit. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.81.040).

19.94.050. Permits required

(a) In order to remove any protected tree from private property in any zoning district, or from any city owned golf course or park, it is necessary to obtain a protected tree removal permit from the department of community development. Any tree which has been designated as a heritage landmark, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.96, shall not be removed without obtaining a tree removal permit in addition to a landmark alteration permit in accord with Chapter 19.96. (b) Tree removal permits shall be filed at least ten working days prior to the proposed date of tree removal. (c) Removal of orchard trees as part of farming operations or upon order of the county agricultural inspector are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 2808-06 § 3: Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code §§ 19.81.050, 19.81.080 (a)).


Page 11 of 13

SMC 19.94.060. Standards and Criteria One or more of the following standards must be met before a protected tree removal permit may be approved:

(c) The tree is in basically sound condition, but restricts the owner’s ability to enjoy the reasonable use or economic potential of the property, or unreasonably restricts an adjoining property owner’s use or economic potential of the adjoining property. In the event this is the sole basis for the application, the following criteria shall be used to evaluate the application under this subsection:

(1) The necessity of the requested removal to allow construction of improvements such as additions to existing buildings or incidental site amenities or to otherwise allow economic or reasonable enjoyment of property; (6) The property has become over landscaped with trees so that they are too numerous, crowded, and unreasonably restricts the property owner’s ability to use their land. In this event, selective removal can be approved in conjunction with acceptable arborist’s practices; (8) Any other information the director of community development finds pertinent to the application

19.94.080. Replacement Trees

(a) At the discretion of the director of community development, replacement trees may be required as a condition of issuance of a protected tree removal permit, or as a condition of any discretionary permit for development or redevelopment. The need for replacement trees shall be evaluated based on the following criteria:

(1) The number, species, size and location of existing trees on the site; and (2) Good forestry practices such as, but not limited to, the number of healthy trees a given parcel of land will support.

(b) At the discretion of the director of community development, other mitigation measures may be required, where either it is not feasible to plant any replacement trees on the site, or where the replacement trees to be planted are deemed inadequate by the director to sufficiently mitigate the effects of the removal of the tree(s). Mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, paying for the planting of additional trees in parks or other public areas of the city. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.81.090).


Page 12 of 13

19.94.090. Requirements for replanting programs The following items shall be included in replanting programs when protected trees must be removed:

(a) Minimum distances between trees and between trees and buildings shall be provided such that the health of the replacement trees shall be ensured; (b) Replanting shall occur within a specified time period; (c) Mixed species shall be used in large replantings whenever possible to reduce the likelihood of disease and infestations; (d) Tree care procedures shall be included in all replanting plans and shall include, but not be limited to, the following items: mulching; straightening; new staking or restaking; fertilizing; and any other procedures deemed necessary by the city; (e) Minimum size for the replacement of a protected tree shall be a California Association of Nurserymen’s standard twenty-four inch box size tree. The director of community development shall have the authority to require larger or smaller replacement trees upon review of specific cases. Smaller trees may be approved if the applicant can document the long term advantages of using the smaller tree size.

19.94.100. Relocation of trees At the discretion of the director of community development, the tree(s) to be removed may be required to be relocated on or off the subject site. The need for relocation shall be evaluated based on the criteria found in Section 19.94.080 plus the ease with which the removed tree can be replanted. 19.94.150. Emergency waivers and exemptions The provisions of this chapter are waived if compliance would hamper the rescue of life or property from immediate danger or the repair of utilities in the event of emergencies such as wind storms, ice storms or other natural disasters. 19.94.160. Penalties for violation

(a) Any person, property owner, firm or corporation who intentionally or negligently violates any of the provisions of this chapter or any permit issued pursuant to it, or who fails to comply with any condition of any discretionary permit which relates to protected tree preservation, shall be liable for a civil penalty assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by the city attorney.

(1) In the event that the violation results in any substantial injury or damage to a protected tree, the civil penalty shall be not less than five thousand dollars nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars. In the


Page 13 of 13

event that the violation results in the destruction or improper removal of a protected tree, the civil penalty shall be not less than ten thousand dollars nor more than fifty thousand dollars. The appropriate penalty shall apply separately to each tree affected by the improper action. (2) In any civil action brought to seek such civil penalties, and/or to obtain injunctive relief for violation of any provision of this chapter, in which the city prevails, the court shall determine and impose reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees incurred by the city in the investigation and prosecution of the action.

(b) The director of community development or his designee shall have the authority to require an administrative hearing for any violations of the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to, illegal tree removal.

(1) The administrative hearing shall be set for a date that is not less than fifteen calendar days and not more than thirty calendar days from the date the “Notice of Violation” is served in accordance with Section 1.08.100. (2) The hearing officer may impose such fines, reasonable expenses and landscaping deemed necessary to replace the aesthetic value of the tree based on generally accepted arborist’s practices. (3) The hearing officer may consider any relevant evidence and the decision must be supported by the weight of the evidence. Strict rules of evidence shall not apply. (4) The hearing officer shall issue a written decision within fifteen days of the hearing date. The hearing officer may continue the hearing and request additional information from city staff or the recipient of the “Notice of Violation” before issuing a written decision. (5) If the hearing officer imposes a fine for a violation of this chapter and the fine has not been satisfied within ninety days or has not been appealed, then the obligation shall become a lien against the real property on which the obligation occurred. (6) The failure of any recipient of a “Notice of Violation” to appear at the administrative hearing shall constitute a waiver of any objections to the imposition of a fine or other appropriate remedy imposed by the hearing officer and constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (7) The decision of the hearing officer may be appealed to the planning commission within fifteen days of the date of service of the written decision. The decision of the planning commission shall be final.

(c) The remedies provided for in this section are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil or criminal. (Ord. 2808-06 § 6: Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.81.190).

Attachment C Page 1 of 1

Solar Permits and Tree Removal Permits Decision Matrix

The following decision matrix is provided to clarify the process of reviewing solar permits with regard to tree preservation.

Question If Yes If No #1. Can the solar equipment be moved to another viable location?

Move equipment. Go to #2

#2. Is the tree located on the solar applicant’s property?

Applicant applies for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) for any tree(s) that conflict with the desired solar access. Staff reviews TRP to determine if it meets TRP finding of: “…restricts the owner’s ability to enjoy the reasonable use and economic potential of the property…” If finding made, staff approves TRP with standard replacement tree requirement.

Go to #3

#3. Is the tree located on neighboring private property?

Staff refers the applicant to discuss the issue with their neighbor and ask their neighbor to apply for a TRP. If neighbor submits TRP, staff reviews TRP to determine if it meets TRP finding of: “…unreasonably restricts an adjoining property owner’s use of economic potential of the adjoining property…” If finding made, staff approves TRP with standard replacement tree requirement.

Go to #4

#4. Is the tree located on City property?

Refer the request to the City’s Public Works Department to explore the possibility of trimming or removing the tree.

Attachment D Page 1 of 9

California Solar Rights Act Page Number Civil Code Section 714 2 Civil Code Section 714.1 3 Civil Code Section 801 4 Civil Code Section 801.5 4 Health and Safety Code Section 17959.1 5 Government Code Section 65850.5 6 California Solar Shade Control Act Public Resources Code Section 25950 and following 8


California Civil Code 714. (a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. (b) This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to remove obstacles thereto. Accordingly, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits. (c) (1) A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities. (2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other nationally recognized certification agencies. SRCC is a nonprofit third party supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation. (3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall also meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. (d) For the purposes of this section: (1) (A) For solar domestic water heating systems or solar swimming pool heating systems that comply with state and federal law, "significantly" means an amount exceeding 20 percent of the cost of the system or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 20 percent, as originally specified and proposed. (B) For photovoltaic systems that comply with state and federal law, "significantly" means an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in system efficiency of an amount exceeding 20 percent as originally specified and proposed. (2) "Solar energy system" has the same meaning as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5.


(e) Whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed. (f) Any entity, other than a public entity, that willfully violates this section shall be liable to the applicant or other party for actual damages occasioned thereby, and shall pay a civil penalty to the applicant or other party in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). (g) In any action to enforce compliance with this section, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees. (h) (1) A public entity that fails to comply with this section may not receive funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program for solar energy. A public entity shall certify its compliance with the requirements of this section when applying for funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program. (2) A local public entity may not exempt residents in its jurisdiction from the requirements of this section. California Civil Code 714.1. Notwithstanding Section 714, any association, as defined in Section 1351, may impose reasonable provisions which: (a) Restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas, as defined in Section 1351, to those systems approved by the association. (b) Require the owner of a separate interest, as defined in Section 1351, to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a solar energy system in a separate interest owned by another. (c) Provide for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components. (d) Require installers of solar energy systems to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of the solar energy system.


California Civil Code 801. The following land burdens, or servitudes upon land, may be attached to other land as incidents or appurtenances, and are then called easements: 1. The right of pasture; 2. The right of fishing; 3. The right of taking game; 4. The right-of-way; 5. The right of taking water, wood, minerals, and other things; 6. The right of transacting business upon land; 7. The right of conducting lawful sports upon land; 8. The right of receiving air, light, or heat from or over, or discharging the same upon or over land; 9. The right of receiving water from or discharging the same upon land; 10. The right of flooding land; 11. The right of having water flow without diminution or disturbance of any kind; 12. The right of using a wall as a party wall; 13. The right of receiving more than natural support from adjacent land or things affixed thereto; 14. The right of having the whole of a division fence maintained by a coterminous owner; 15. The right of having public conveyances stopped, or of stopping the same on land; 16. The right of a seat in church; 17. The right of burial; 18. The right of receiving sunlight upon or over land as specified in Section 801.5. Calfornia Civil Code 801.5. (a) The right of receiving sunlight as specified in subdivision 18 of Section 801 shall be referred to as a solar easement. "Solar easement" means the right of receiving sunlight across real property of another for any solar energy system. As used in this section, "solar energy system" means either of the following: (1) Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation, or water heating. (2) Any structural design feature of a building, whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating. (b) Any instrument creating a solar easement shall include, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) A description of the dimensions of the easement expressed in measurable terms, such as vertical or horizontal angles measured in degrees,


or the hours of the day on specified dates during which direct sunlight to a specified surface of a solar collector, device, or structural design feature may not be obstructed, or a combination of these descriptions. (2) The restrictions placed upon vegetation, structures, and other objects that would impair or obstruct the passage of sunlight through the easement. (3) The terms or conditions, if any, under which the easement may be revised or terminated. California Health and Safety Code 17959.1. (a) A city or county shall administratively approve applications to install solar energy systems though the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. However, if the building official of the city or county has a good faith belief that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, the city or county may require the applicant to apply for a use permit. (b) A city or county may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. This finding shall include the basis for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact. (c) Any conditions imposed on an application to install a solar energy system must be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible. (d) (1) A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities. (2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other nationally recognized certification agency. SRCC is a nonprofit third party supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation. (3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. (e) The following definitions apply to this section: (1) "A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact" includes, but is not limited to, any cost effective method,


condition, or mitigation imposed by a city or county on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. A city or county shall use its best efforts to ensure that the selected method, condition, or mitigation meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 714 of the Civil Code. (2) "Solar energy system" has the meaning set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5 of the Civil Code. (3) A "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. California Government Code 65850.5. (a) The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of solar energy systems is not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is instead a matter of statewide concern. It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes, and not unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners and agricultural and business concerns to install solar energy systems. It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to limit obstacles to their use. It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies comply not only with the language of this section, but also the legislative intent to encourage the installation of solar energy systems by removing obstacles to, and minimizing costs of, permitting for such systems. (b) A city or county shall administratively approve applications to install solar energy systems through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Review of the application to install a solar energy system shall be limited to the building official's review of whether it meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal law. The requirements of local law shall be limited to those standards and regulations necessary to ensure that the solar energy system will not have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. However, if the building official of the city or county has a good faith belief that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, the city or county may require the applicant to apply for a use permit.


(c) A city or county may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the basis for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact. (d) The decision of the building official pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) may be appealed to the planning commission of the city or county. (e) Any conditions imposed on an application to install a solar energy system shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible. (f) (1) A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities. (2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other nationally recognized certification agency. SRCC is a nonprofit third party supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation. (3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. (g) The following definitions apply to this section: (1) "A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact" includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by a city or county on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. A city or county shall use its best efforts to ensure that the selected method, condition, or mitigation meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 714 of the Civil Code. (2) "Solar energy system" has the same meaning set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5 of the Civil Code. (3) A "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.


California Public Resources Code 25980. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Solar Shade Control Act. It is the policy of the state to promote all feasible means of energy conservation and all feasible uses of alternative energy supply sources. In particular, the state encourages the planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs to create shading, moderate outdoor temperatures, and provide various economic and aesthetic benefits. However, there are certain situations in which the need for widespread use of alternative energy devices, such as solar collectors, requires specific and limited controls on trees and shrubs. 25981. As used in this chapter, "solar collector" means a fixed device, structure, or part of a device or structure, which is used primarily to transform solar energy into thermal, chemical, or electrical energy. The solar collector shall be used as part of a system which makes use of solar energy for any or all of the following purposes: (1) water heating, (2) space heating or cooling, and (3) power generation. 25982. After January 1, 1979, no person owning, or in control of a property shall allow a tree or shrub to be placed, or, if placed, to grow on such property, subsequent to the installation of a solar collector on the property of another so as to cast a shadow greater than 10 percent of the collector absorption area upon that solar collector surface on the property of another at any one time between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., local standard time; provided, that this section shall not apply to specific trees and shrubs which at the time of installation of a solar collector or during the remainder of that annual solar cycle cast a shadow upon that solar collector. For the purposes of this chapter, the location of a solar collector is required to comply with the local building and setback regulations, and to be set back not less than five feet from the property line, and no less than 10 feet above the ground. A collector may be less than 10 feet in height, only if in addition to the five feet setback, the collector is set back three times the amount lowered. 25983. Every person who maintains any tree or shrub or permits any tree or shrub to be maintained in violation of Section 25982 upon property owned by such person and every person leasing the property of another who maintains any tree or shrub or permits any tree or shrub to be maintained in violation of Section 25982 after reasonable notice in writing from a district attorney or city attorney or prosecuting attorney, to remove or alter the tree or shrub so that there is no longer a violation of Section 25982, has been served upon such person, is guilty of a public nuisance as defined in Sections 370 and 371 of the Penal Code and in Section 3480 of the Civil Code. For the purposes of this chapter, a violation is hereby deemed an infraction. The complainant shall establish to the satisfaction of the prosecutor that the violation has occurred


prior to the prosecutor's duty to issue the abatement notice. For the purpose of this section, "reasonable notice" means 30 days from receipt of such notice. Upon expiration of the 30-day period, the complainant shall file an affidavit with the prosecutor alleging that the nuisance has not been abated if the complainant wishes to proceed with the action. The existence of such violation for each and every day after the service of such notice shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense, and it is hereby made the duty of the district attorney, or the city attorney of any city the charter of which imposes the duty upon the city attorney to prosecute state infractions, to prosecute all persons guilty of violating this section by continuous prosecutions until the violation is corrected. Each and every violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). 25984. Nothing in this chapter shall apply to trees planted, grown, or harvested on timberland as defined in Section 4526 or on land devoted to the production of commercial agricultural crops. Nothing in this chapter shall apply to the replacement of a tree or shrub which had been growing prior to the installation of a solar collector and which, subsequent to the installation of such solar collector, dies. 25985. Any city, or for unincorporated areas, any county, may adopt, by majority vote of the governing body, an ordinance exempting their jurisdiction from the provisions of this chapter. The adoption of such an ordinance shall not be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 21000). 25986. Any person who plans a passive or natural solar heating system or cooling system or heating and cooling system which would impact on an adjacent active solar system may seek equitable relief in a court of competent jurisdiction to exempt such system from the provisions of this chapter. The court may grant such an exemption based on a finding that the passive or natural system would provide a demonstrably greater net energy savings than the active system which would be impacted.

Attachment E Solar Community Meeting

Page 1 of 4 Citywide Solar Plan

Community Outreach Meeting October 3, 2007 Meeting Notes

On October 3, 2007, the City of Sunnyvale Conducted two community outreach meetings to solicit feedback on the City’s proposed Citywide Solar Plan. The following is a summary of the unedited comments made by the participants. Afternoon Meeting Meeting began at approximately 2:00 p.m.

- Main concern: Defray expenses/costs for solar power - DPR as lead department for Solar Energy concerned that the focus

would be internally instead of externally City operations vs. Citywide focus

- Turn off public water features to save energy - Trees vs. Solar Panels

o Conflict: What if you’re installing solar panels on your property but the tree on your neighbor’s property is preventing solar access?

o Instead of cutting the tree down, just trim the tree – does not have to be all or nothing

o Solar installation companies perform shading studies before installation to figure out the percentage of solar access the proposed location will be able to obtain throughout the year

This measurement is based only on the size of the trees at that moment of time no projections taking into account the growth of the trees

Shade is part of the conversation in state programs

o City policy to reduce CO2 emissions – trees reduce emissions What is the priority? Trees vs. Energy conservation Argument: Should not focus on this too much and cripple

other strategies, i.e. solar, to improve the environment; there aren’t enough trees to significantly reduce emissions and reach the target

- Fees

o Sunnyvale fees for solar is higher than the average according to the Sierra Club

o Perhaps Staff is spending too much time on MPPs, inspections, etc.


Page 2 of 4 o Waiving fees is not necessary, but a reduction would show that the

City is serious about energy conservation and the use of solar energy

o Deduct solar costs from property taxes by having City give up its percentage of revenue from property taxes?

- PG&E and Solar

o PG&E can assess how large of a solar system a home would need by looking at the amount of electricity used by the home each year and calculating the average use per year

o Solar power goes back to the PG&E grids – excess is fed by an inverter back to the grid

Debits and credits depending on usage Residential homes billed for overhead costs, typically $4.50

- Solar Thermal – Get ahead with Solar Thermal

o Solar thermal water o Solar Electric solar power, electricity o Sunnyvale should be at the forefront and be the first to adopt the

Rebate/Incentive Pilot program for solar thermal Declining rebates – the longer you wait, the less

incentives/rebates citizens will have

- City partner with PG&E or Solar Company? o Solar System Plant in the City? o Partnerships to bring costs down without affecting quality o Lease land to PG&E? Must build a strong relationship, have some

kind of agreement, with PG&E o Develop City dump into a solar system plant? o Solar companies promote community programs – mass

installations; provide discounts

- Education o Workshops to inform residents/commercial business owners about

solar thermal/electric rebates o City should create a program where homes would be inspected and

provide recommendations to make homes more energy efficient – at least provide resources and let people know which organizations can do this for them

o Use Neighborhood Associations as a toll to educate citizens about conservation

o Post at bulletin @ Wolfe/ECR o Festivals/fairs/demonstrations put meter on public facility with

solar panels to demonstrate its effect o Emphasize positives


Page 3 of 4

- Attract solar businesses to locate in the City o Nathans-Cumming Foundation research

Boosting the economy, fostering businesses and creating jobs is a better way to encourage people to address global warming/change in climate, etc.

o www.findsolar.com Search solar companies in the City – REC Solar on Commercial Ave.; Radiant Power in Santa Ana Ct.

- If taking regulatory approach, focus on public/commercial buildings

(especially Downtown) and new construction; only encourage residential because costs are too high

o NEW construction: require solar or impact/in-lieu fees proportional to estimated occupancy

o Phase requirements o Thresholds for remodels to require solar or fees o Push beyond comfort zone and then back off

- Make Town & Country green! - Power Purchase Agreements (SunRun, San Francisco)

o Company would own the system, but would install and maintain the system on residential homes and charge only an installation fee

- Current rebates: 30% tax rebate for commercial and residential capped

at $2000

- Resources o Other cities: Portland, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Albuquerque, Ann

Arbor o The Apollo Alliance

- Community Solar Bank? o Share extra generated energy o If solar cannot be installed on a home but owner wants solar, they

would just pay their share and have the panels installed elsewhere but still affect the household’s bills

- Policy be more inclusive than restrictive

Meeting ended at approximately 4:15 p.m.


Page 4 of 4 Evening Meeting Meeting began at approximately 6:00 p.m.

- City should have job training programs for clean technology - Fees: achieve low fee by spending less time on process/review of permit

City should identify standardized techniques and approved installers to streamline the process

Use fees to hire a solar installation expert devoted to streamlining these inspections

- City should not focus on accelerating the progression, but focus on just

keeping it from slowing down let the private sector take the lead - Look at the overall picture Focus on areas with les or zero conflicts

don’t get bogged down in conflict areas, which may inhibit progress/solution possibilities

- Trees

o Put a limit on the number of trees that can be cut down per year for solar

o TRP in-lieu fees can go into a solar “pot” which can cut down Solar permit costs

- Allow things without requiring permits at all

o Small systems to be considered as appliances (as in Europe) Argument: solar panels have more dangers; storm can blow

it off roof; DC power is dangerous; depends on system

- HOA for non-condo complex o City should create rules for what HOA can allow/prohibit

- “Solar Farm”

o Can locate at Baylands or City dump or commercial/industrial buildings with lots of roof area

o Must build strong relationship with PG&E Rebate check written to residents by City

- Education

o post resources on City website o mail inserts on workshops in quarterly notice o capitalize on volunteers to educate, help, etc.

volunteers can do energy inspections o City should endorse nonprofits like ACTERRA

Meeting ended at approximately 7:45 p.m.

ATTACHMENT'- F _......._____of 18

>>> "Josh Richman" <[email protected]> 10/2/2007 10:26 AM >>>

We would be happy to be involved in these conversations, but when we met with Mayor Otto Lee, and when we later met with some of you at your offices, we stressed the importance of taking a technology neutral approach that includes fuel cells/ not just solar. Please let me know how I can help redirect us back on a path that includes the clean energy technologies that are being developed and manufactured in Sunnyvale.

One important distinction ... it is important to use the word "clean" or "alternative~~ rather than "renewable." Doing so stresses the importance of performance based metrics and makes it more technology neutral.

Please keep us in the loop moving forward.

Thanks! Josh

a

From: Joshua Weiner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, Aprill81 2007 5:58PM Subject: RE: Solar - Key Sections of SMC

Hi Jamie,

ATTACHM.Ef~T, f ·h~·,;~~' "l.. Ot I B.

I'm a bit confused by Sunnyvale's review of CGC 65850.58 as well as PRC 25980-86.

You mentioned that these two codes indicate some deference to existing Municipal Code. While I see this deference explicitly in PRC 25985, I do not see this deference in CGC 65850.5. In fact, I see the opposite. The first sentence of CGC 65850.5A states:

"The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and costeffective installation of solar energy systems is not a municipal affair. .. "

The reason why tl1is whole conversation got started was precisely because I saw a discrepancy between Sunnyvale's policies regarding solar permits and the rest of California State. Akeena Solar is a public, State-wide (and nation-wide) company, so we've worked with permitting offices as far north as Sacramento to as far south as Los Angeles, as well as with several offices on the east coast in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Indeed, when it comes to "consistent statewide standards," Sunnyvale is certainly unique. ·

While I understand the need to protect vegetation (and from my understanding of PRC 25980-86, the State recognizes the need to preserve trees that existed prior to the installation of the solar collector), I just do not see how the installation of solar systems directly implies that the existing vegetation is at risk. It almost seems like Sunnyvale has a fear of a potential threat that may or may not exist, and in order to "protect', its vegetation, it delays the permitting of solar systems through a discretionary review process.

Moreover, in the case of permitting, I would think that California Governmental Code takes precedence. It's only when the issue of tree preservation comes up (should, say, a homeowner with a solar system desire or decide to cut down city trees that existed before the solar installation for example) would PRC take priority. I suppose a licensed attorney would have to make an interpretation of the code in that case.

I am also surprised that Sunnyvale chose not to respond to CGC 65850.58 which establishes the permitting standards for solar energy systems based on health and safety concerns and equipment certification and performance standards. Again, while I understand the conflict between tree preservation and solar access, I do not want us to confuse "solar access" with "solar permits." Permitting solar systems· is one thing, vegetation is another.

Would you be able to elucidate the City's interpretation of the State codes that set the standards for permitting for solar energy systems, or is the City's analysis of this restricted to local and municipal codes? My understanding of your email is that Municipal codes take precedence over State codes in the case of permitting solar energy systems, is this correct?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Joshua Weiner

Akeena Solar, Inc.

.......,.

From:· Jamie Mcleod [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:30 PM To: Weiner, Joshua Subject: RE: Solar - Key Sections of SMC

Hi Josh,

In response to your question:

ATTACH l\11 ENT '= 1=- liLW

,. - ~;:·.·: 3 of 18 ··- ·····¥· .. -.J~-

Recent review of the two sections of State Law that pertain to solar equipment- the Solar Rights Act in Government Code (section 65858.58) and the Solar Shade Act in Public Resources C9de (section 25980-86) - indicate some deference to existing Municipal Code. While the State Laws appear to have some inconsistencies between them, they generally recognize the right of existing vegetation (that may be in conflict with or shade the proposed solar) to remain. One section of the Solar Rights Act suggests that the vegetation must be recognized by the City as a health benefit to the community; the City's Tree Protection Ordinance provides such recognition of existing vegetation. The City's Tree Protection and Solar Access ordinances strive to balance these competing rights. A review of the City's ordinance history, from as early as 1983, reveals that the City Council, Planning Commission and City staff have acknowledged these competing interests under state law and have incorporated those concerns in the development and evolution of the City's own solar access ordinances.

The City's Municipal Code requires a Miscellaneous Plan Permit (rviPP) for installation of solar equipment. The rviPP allows for review of the proposed location of the equipment to verify that ·it is in conformance with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. Staff's role is to verify that there is not existing conflict between the solar equipment and vegetation. An applicant may be granted a Tree Removal Permit for trees that have been planted after the installation of solar equipment and have subsequently grown and shade the equipment. ·

The standard MPP review process is to take in the application at the counter, assign to the Planner to review the application and to provide a response to the customer. The standard review time is 10 working days (typically 2 weeks); this time may be extended during period of high volume work load. In special cases, when there is clear evidence of absolutely no potential future conflict with existing vegetation (including the review of aerial photographs), an MPP may be approved over the counter.

Sincerely,

Jamie

Jamie Mcleod, Associate Planner Dept. of Community Development City of Sunnyvale

>>>"Joshua Weiner" <[email protected]> 3/28/2007 11:25:18 AM>>> Hi Jamie,

A'lTAC.HMENT .. f . ----!.-.·-- of._,/,~·

Thanks for getting back to me. I will submit my response here, and if you want to forward this to the appropriate people, I would greatly appreciate it

Perhaps I can be of some service to the City of Sunnyvale regarding the challenges of "balancing competing policies." There is a California State law that addresses this very issue. Have you heard of the Solar Rights Act? The Solar Rights Act includes Cal Civil Code 714, Cal Gov't Code 65850.5, and Cal Health and Safety Code 17959.1, among several other codes.

The code which most concerns the permitting of solar systems is California· Governmental Code 65850.5(b) which states, "A city or county shall administratively approve applications to install solar energy systems through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Review of the application to install a solar energy system shall be limited to the building official's review of whether it meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal law. The requirements of local law shall be limited to those standards and regulations necessary to ensure that the solar energy system will not have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. However, if the building official of the city or county has a good faith belief that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, the city or county may require the applicant to apply for a use permit."

This code specifically addresses what provisions local law can utilize when reviewing applications for solar energy systems. Is Steve Lynch still the Senior Planner? I believe he is aware of this code, however, it has been a while since I've spoken to him.

As regards the question of "tree preservation" vs. "encouragement of solar equipment," I would suggest that the City of Sunnyvale take another look at this California State law. The Shade. Control Act (Public Resources Code 25980) is a code I believe a local agency can exempt itself from (according to Public Resources Code 25985) if the City is concerned about tree preservation. The CGC 65850.5 addresses the encouragement of solar equipment as regards to permitting (which is restricted to health and safety issues). Perhaps the City's awareness and response to these laws may help its current predicament with approving building permits for photovoltaic installations while balancing the concern for tree preservation.

I have more resources for you upon request. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Joshua Weiner

Design Engineer

Akeena Solar

408-395-777 4, ext. 226

From: To: CC: Date: Subject:

Hello Jamie,

James Tuleya <[email protected]> Jamie McLeod <[email protected]> Barbara Fukumoto <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> 1 0/4/2007 11 :40 AM Some Resources for the SVL Solar Plan Study

Thank you for leading the Citywide Solar Plan study issue effort. Our local Sunnyvale Cool Cities volunteer team was pleased to participate in the Community Input sessions that you organized and led yesterday. Of the 13 Sunnyvale residents that participated in the two sessions, seven (54%) were members of our dedicated Sunnyvale Cool Cities team.

As I mentioned, our group is here to assist you in your efforts to put together a good plan that will help to address the urgent issue of climate disruption, while also finding ways that our community residents and businesses can benefit economically from the effort. Please feel free to contact me or anyone on our team with any questions or concerns or ideas that we might be able to help you with.

Next week, our group will also be providing a preliminary set of recommendations to you as input for the Citywide Solar Plan study. We will follow that up with additional input throughout the study issue period. We also will be actively participating in both the related Planning Commission and City Council meetings.

Some resources that can help you with additional ideas for city policies for the Citywide Sol~r Plan are as follows. The Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team has not reviewed all the details of these resources, so I am providing them as a list of ideas and current practices to consider for the Solar study. We may find more resources to send to you later, but this set includes very many examples of what other cities are doing in this important area. ·

- "New Energy for Cities," The Apollo Alliance -http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/new%5Fenergy%5Fcities%2Epdf

Please note relevant sections on a) Investing in Renewable Power (Solar Energy portion), b) Financing the Clean Energy Future, and c) Building a Workforce for the Clean Energy Future. Notable in this resource are the details and contact information provided in the "What Cities are Doing Now" portions of eacl1 section. See also related Apollo Alliance "State and Local" homepage: http://'IVww.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/.

-"Solar Electric Permit Fees in Northern California," Sierra Club, August, 2007 -http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/global_warming/fee_study.htm

Good "Why Solar" background, regional city comparative data, and recommendations for cities. Please note that I sent a copy of this to Mayor Lee 'on August 17.

-U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement Handbookhttp://coolcities.us/resources/bestPracticeGuides/USM_CiimateActionHB.pdf

City policy example actions and tools.

-U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Best Practice Reporthttp://coolcities.us/resources/bestPracticeGuides/USM_BestPractices06.pdf

Examples from other cities. See especially the "Energy Sources" section.

-The Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence, The Apollo Alliance -http://www .apolloall iance.org/strategy _center/ten _point_plan .cfm

Please let me know if there are any problems with the links provided above. I can send you the documents as attachments, if necessary.

Best Regards, James

James Tuleya Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team Member, Sunnyvale Homeowner, Sunnyvale Voter c: 650-815-8813

of.._, --..4-/.&8_

From: To: Date: Subject:

Hello Jarn ie,

James Tuleya <[email protected]> Jamie Mcleod <[email protected]> 10/4/2007 3:12PM Additional Information Related to Solar Plan Study

···A=ITACH.4EN·~ .F r~~-e __ _:)__ of I§

Following up my mention yesterday about what helps to drive support for positive action re global warming, below is the press release from the recent Nathan Cummings commissioned poll. The focus was specifically global warming positioning.

Interestingly, most people know global warming is happening though many are confused on whether humans are the cause (thanks to Exxon) and they don't know if we can do anything about it. The poll also suggests that attitudes on global warming are hardening further.

People don't appear to respond to negative "doom" messaging but support enthusiastically the idea of innovation and economic opportunity around clean energy. New bright spot: people support significant government investment in R&D, infrastructure on clean energy (85%), even with negative messaging (58%). Drivers appear to be "energy independence" and "new jobs".

-James Tuleya

September 20, 2007

New Poll Finds Hurdles, Opportunity on Global Warming

Failure to Address Energy Anxiety Could Derail Global Warming Policies

NEW YORK-- A new poll on global warming released by the Nathan Cummings Foundation shows hurdles for those advocating increasing the price of carbon to reduce global warming, but opportunity when solutions are centered around achieving energy independence, reducing the cost of clean energy, and creating new jobs. The poll follows a review of

public opinion on energy and global warming released earlier this summer.

Lance Lindblom, President and CEO of. the Nathan Cummings Foundation noted the importance of understanding the political environment while crafting public policy. "This poll demonstrates that getting the policy right means getting the politics right," Lindblom noted. "Elegant policy prescriptions that cannot generate the political support necessary won't do anything to effectively address the challenges of global climate change."

Among the survey's key findings:

"Global warming" continues to rank low as a priority for Americans,

Americans continue to be extremely anxious about the cost of energy,

': ... •:. '; : . :,, .• ~· 1 ~ . :·: . : :·. : : : ~.· ; ,•'•y ~-:.;:· ·• •• ,., ... ; •. ; ,. · · . >.·. , , ~ •• •• •v.:.~ ..... -.;;

..... ~~hil'iLE~~~F~. ~

··-·· 1._ of._/~

Messages about the potential catastrophic effects of global warming do not increase support for government action,

Of the major global warming policy proposals, investment in clean technology is most popular.

Earlier this year, the Nathan Cummings Foundation commissioned a review of publicly available polling data that demonstrated a substantive problem for initiatives to increase the price of carbon: energy cost anxiety. Voters consistently rated energy costs as a higher concern than global warming, and resisted policies that would increase the cost of electricity and gasoline.

This survey jointly conducted by American Environics and EMC Research confirmed that analysis. Global warming ranked dead last of the 16 issues tested in the survey, trailing the cost of gas and electricity, dependence on foreign oil, and even "quality of the environment." Voter concern over the cost of gas and electricity was evident in a number of question responses, from both a strong preference for proposals to lower the cost of clean energy (68%) over proposals designed to reduce consumption by making dirty energy more expensive (18%), to a majority opposing a carbon tax (58%) with 39% strongly opposing such an action .

The poll also divided the sample to observe the effects of various psychological primes on global warming public opinion, including using specific consequences of global warming expressed by the environmental

. : ' _·, : :. AU.Ac'8~tliEAr, e Ll

~"~: :.;e '1 of f S,

community such as the movie An Inconvenient Truth. Telling voters about these consequences did not increase their desire to take action on global warming.

"Telling voters that global warming will lead to environmental disaster did not lead to increased support for action on global warming," noted Dr. John Whaley who conducted the survey for American Environics. "In addition, when voters were told that specific proposals would lead to higher energy costs, support for policies to limit carbon dropped dramatically."

"What I find particularly intriguing is that the vast majority of voters (70%) think the evidence is 'solid' that the earth is warming, but remain more concerned about deficits and crime, and nearly as concerned about taxes than they are about the climatic shift that will no doubt have a bigger effect on their lives and their children's lives than any of those issues," noted Alex Evans, Principal at EMC Research. "It is clear to me that scaring people is not the way to get them to act · particularly when they display such a strong interest in clean energy and American ingenuity. Again, we find that Americans respond better when we appeal to their native optimism."

Finally, the poll tested public support for a variety of global warming policy prescriptions. Voters expressed initial support for a variety of potential government actions, with support for an Apollo-type investment strategy scoring highest. However, when told of the potential costs of those programs, support dropped precipitously, with only the Apollo-type investment proposal retaining support from a majority of voters.

The survey tested a number of proposed policy prescriptions including a "Cap-and-Trade" program, the "Sky Trust" proposal, and an investment-centered "New Apollo" program. Respondents were then presented with likely arguments against each program to track shifts in opinion.

The investment-centered "New Apollo" program received more support than either Cap-and-Trade or Sky Trust proposals. Additionally, when voters were told of the negative consequences of each program (cost of energy for Cap-and-Trade and Sky Trust; tax and deficit implications of Apollo-type investments), Apollo was the only program to maintain majority support of the electorate (54%). Support for a Cap-and-Trade

program fell from 62% to 46% when voters were told of the potential impact on energy prices.

"Voters remain extremely anxious about the cost of energy, and care more about energy costs than global warming," noted Jeff Navin, a political analyst who worked on both this survey and the earlier review of public opinion. "Global warming proposals that can be framed as increasing the cost of gasoline and electricity will likely trigger tremendous backlash from an anxious electorate."

The strong support for action to achieve energy independence, create new

· jobs, and lower the cost of renewable energy sources provides an opportunity to overcome voter anxiety over energy to confront global warming.

"The key to passing substantive limits on carbon emissions is to couple those limits with specific policies to make clean energy cheaper," noted Navin. "Unless advocates can address the real anxiety Americans feel about the cost of energy, passing substantive limits on carbon emissions will prove extremely difficult."

A memorandum from Dr. Whaley and Alex Evans explaining the findings is attached. The poll was conducted August 26- September 6 among a random, representative sample of American voters, by American Environics and EMC Research for the Nathan Cummings Foundation. The sample included a national control sample of 600 likely voters and three groups of 300 likely voters each, which were used to test the impact of different messages, arguments, and primes on global warming opinion. Margins of error are± 4.0% and± 5.7% for each of the sub-samples.

The Energy Attitudes report released earlier trlis year is available at http://www.americanenvironics.com/PDF/EnergyAttitudesSummer2007.pdf

Page /0 of. I f!J


Hi, Jamie

<[email protected]> <[email protected]> 10/4/2007 3:26 PM Solar Home Tour and Workshop Saturday, Palo Alto

Thank you for including the community in thinking through the solar study issue. More on that later. Meanwhile, this looks like a good event.

_http://www.acterra.org/solartour/index.html_ (http://www.acterra.org/solartour/index.html)

Barbara Fukumoto Cool Cities Team

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

... A:t:r:ACi:i.MEMT, F

P;,lg€. II of. f S

From: To: CC: Date: Subject:

Hi Jamie,

James Tuleya <[email protected]> Jamie McLeod <[email protected]> <[email protected]> 1 0/9/2007 3:44 PM Some Solar Basics To Help Dispel I Myths

,AT!AQB,M~M~ F

?age. 11. of IS.

Below are some resources for helping the Planning Commission and City Council to better understand the current nature of solar and why it is important. There are lots of resources for useful information, but the US Dept. of Energy has perhaps the best set of very useful and concise Webpages on the subject.

SOLAR ELECTRIC POWER: From U.S. Government Dept. of Energy:

-Why PV is important: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_important.html

- Maintenance or weather damage concerns? -See "highly-reliable" sub-section http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_you.html#highly_reliable

- "PV is highly reliable and needs little maintenance" -"Because manufacturers test solar panels for hail impact, high wind, and

freeze-thaw cycles representing year-round weather conditions, weather damage is no greater potential problem for PV systems than for other types of energy production systems."

-Is it a fad? - No. See sub-section on PV importance to the economy at

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_economy.html. Sunnyvale residents and businesses should participate in the benefits of this new economic engine.

- Isn't PV expensive? http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_you:html#build_operate - "PV supplies electricity when and where energy is most limited and most expensive, making a

valuable strategic contribution to our energy mix. Energy from PV doesn't simply replace some fraction of the generation; it displaces the right portion of the load. Once installed, PV systems can produce power continuously with little upkeep and minimal operating costs."

- Doesn't PV look really ugly on the roof? http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_you.html#form_function -"Not anymore. State-of-the-art PV modules are now available in a variety

of colors and styles, allowing designers to use them as aesthetic ·elements built right into roofs, skylights, awnings, entryways, and facades."

- Industry examples: - http://andalay.net/cm/why_choose/Home.html

- http://www.solarcity.com/tabid/155/Default.aspx - http://www.sunpowercorp.com/-/media/Gallery%201mages/sunsethouse.ashx?img=True

-Why PV is Important to Energy Assurance: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_energy_assurance.html

-Why PV is Important to the Environment: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_environment.html.

- PV System Basics: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_systems.html

- PV in Use: Getting the Job Done with Solar Electricity: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_use.html

of.----.....~L"-1::18_

-"Modern solar electric power-generation systems such as photovoltaics (or PV) are some of the most elegant and environmentally benign energy systems ever invented. But do people actually use them? The answer is yes - and not just in space. PV systems can also be found in the most isolated spots on Earth as well as in the heart of some of our largest cities. And every place in between."

-See applications categories on the same Webpage, especially re Grid connected PV at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/grid_connect.html.

From solar installer websites: Case studies-- typical systems and why it makes financial sense for residents and businesses:

- http://www.sunrunhome.com/benefits/example.html - http://www.sunpowercorp.com/For-Homes/Success-Stories.aspx

http://www.borregosolar.com/solar-power-systems!installations-results-details.php?search_type=home&se arch_location=14&perpage=1 O&uid=79&orderby=Date&order=DESC&page=2

- http://akeena.net/cm/Residentiai_Solar_Power/California_Case_Studies/sanfrancisco.html

SOLAR HOT WATER: From U.S. Dept. of Energy:

- Homepage for solar hot water and solar pool heating: http://WW'vV1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_heating.html

-The Economics of a Solar Water Heater: http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12860

- FAQs: http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=Solar%20Heating/cat=ALL - Including: Aren't solar water heaters bulky and unattractive?

- Answer: "In the 1970s, solar water heating technology was being developed and installed quite rapidly in response to that decade's energy crises. At that time, efficiency and ease of installation were the priorities, often at the expense of appearance. Many people thought that roof-mounted solar collectors were unsightly, even though they helped to reduce the amount of unsightly smoke billowing from coal-fired power plants! Still, the resulting attention to aesthetics has resulted in the "skylight" look of many of today's solar collectors."

Thank you.

Best Regards, James

James Tuleya Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team Lead for Renewable Energy Solutions

[:If11·1.s/2ooy) ·. J•al11 ·i·~ :· ·.~·c,.:~~·9~ .. ~ •·•r:"Y~ ·: ···.·:$§1§.~ ...... P.9YY.~ .. r ... §l.99.P!i.9h.:t§ ··~.~~·.Q •§~ .-·9 .~~~:6.h•9·g~-~-·Q~:~ •· -~:fll··,ssl'o6~·.·. · · ·· ·-·_:/AT.ii\cR·M·E:N~··· · iZ


Deborah Gorman Mcleod, Jamie; Ryan, Trudi 10/9/2007 4:55 Pl"l Fwd: Solar power adoption to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

?age ___ J ...... V_.

Attached is an e-mail sent to the Planning Division regarding the Study Session last evening regard.ing Solar power.

I am forwarding this to you as an FYI at the request of the sender.

Thank you. Debbie Gorman (408) 730-7440

>>> On 10/9/2007 at 3:27 PM, "Patrick Gallagher" <[email protected]> wrote: Debbie Gorman Staff Support, Sunnyvale Planning Commission

Dear Ms. Gorman,

I hope you can provide this communication to the appropriate parties.

At the Planning Commission's study session last night I raised the point that solar energy would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Sunnyvale community and help prevent global warming. I have done a small calculation in that regard.

My annual C02 emissions from electricity consumption at home are a little more half a metric ton. The average C02 emissions per capita in Palo Alto are 11.3 metric tons and should likely be the same for Sunnyvale. Thus if I could replace my electrical home consumption 100 percent with solar power this would provide a drop of about 5 percent in my per capita emissions, which is certainly significant if carried out city wide. And it would also be significant at only 50 percent replacement.

So if my consumption is typical, and I expect it is, 5 percent is the possible savings in community emissions from only residential sources. Public, commercial, and industrial savings from solar power would certainly also be significant.

This calculation, and others that might be made, support the proposition that significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Sunnyvale can be achieved by facilitating the use of solar power in the City. Thus facilitating solar power in the City will help the City meet its pledges to reduce greenhouse gases entailed by the Council's subscription to the goals of Sustainable silicon Valley and the Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. In my opinion the staff study on solar power in the city should reflect this conclusion.

Patrick Gallagher

W. Patrick Gallagher, PhD

864 Elmira Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94087-1229

phone: 408-483-9366 fax: 408-228-6205

email: [email protected]

of. 18


Hi, Jamie

<[email protected]> <[email protected]> 1 0/1 0/2007 9:38 AM Solar for business

It seems to me that there would be a big bang for the buck by promoting business solar. Since businesses consume a lot of power, they may be likely to buy big systems, that would prevent substantial C02 emissions. Also, their payback could be quicker than residences that don't consume as much power. The business state rebate is higher. And businesses benefit more from federal tax credits and accelerated depreciation, as indicated at _http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/tax_credit.html_ (http ://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/tax_credit.html) . By facilitating and promoting business solar, the city would make businesses more profitable in the not-so-long run. We would bring federal and state money into Sunnyvale.

Barbara Fukumoto Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


"Patrick Gallagher" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> 1 0/15/2007 11 :59 AM Heads up- Solar Power Policy in Sunnyvale draft

Dear Ms. Mcleod,

This is to provide you, below, with advance notice of the contents of a position statement draft I've prepared for Sunnyvale Cool Cities. The statement hasn't been widely reviewed, so may not be adopted in full (or part), but it may be helpful to you to know the issues it raises.

Patrick Gallagher

864 Elmira Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94087-1229

phone: 408-483-9366 fax: 408-228-6205

email: [email protected]

[the following is an incomplete draft to start the process of preparing a statement of our recommendations on the subject- PG]

Full Recommendation by Sunnyvale Cool Cities on Sunnyvale Solar Power Policy and Related Actions

The material presented !lere has been prepared and approved by members of Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team. We are a group of Sunnyvale, California, residents and friends organized to act to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in our community.

Sunnyvale Cool Cities has investigated the current status of solar power technology. We have found convincing evidence in the literature, and through experience of our members, that modern solar power systems provide outstanding weather and storm resistance while retaining high efficiency through a long life, with low maintenance. It is obvious through their advocacy of the adoption of solar power, that Federal and California energy agencies, electric power utility companies, and many communities and firms around the world agree with these conclusions. We believe that in high electrical cost areas such as Sunnyvale that reasonable assumptions for future electrical costs and current solar power capital costs are economically favorable for the adoption of solar power. In agreement with this conclusion are recent calculations by a consultant to Sunnyvale, which sh.owed attractive pay-back periods for solar power installations by Sunnyvale.

For these reasons we urge the use of solar powerin Sunnyvale to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and thus reduce global warming and its associated climate changes. The use of solar power will significantly contribute to achieving the City's pledges to reduce greenhouse gases entailed by the Council's subscription to the goals of Sustainable Silicon Valley and the Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. In our opinion the staff study on solar power in the city should reflect this conclusion, a~d the Sunnyvale Council should adopt policies and take actions

.... ATJ:.ACH.M.El~~

Page....______/_,__h~ of" _ _,_/..~..,.~-

to increase the use of solar power by the City, its residents, and its commercial and industrial firms.

Specifically, Sunnyvale Cool Cities urges the Sunnyvale City Council to take the following actions. These recommendations include eliminating the greenhouse gas emissions of new construction in the City, since those potential sources are a substantial hindrance to the City in meeting its pledged emissions reductions goals.

Pursue all opportunities for the City operations to use solar power as identified in the report to council earlier in the year, and others which may be identified.

Adopt additions to building and development codes such that 100 percent of the electricity use of new or redeveloped commercial and industrial facilities will be offset by the installation of photovoltaic solar power.

Adopt additions to building and development codes such that 100 percent of the electricity use of new or redeveloped residential units will be offset by the installation of photovoltaic solar power.

Facilitate the use of solar power in Sunnyvale by making City facilities available to solar power advocacy groups to hold workshops, expositions, and educational forums.

Facilitate the use of solar power in Sunnyvale by assuring that City planning and permitting processes do not provide unreasonable burdens to the installation of solar power.

Facilitate the use of solar power in Sunnyvale by publically promoting the use of solar power in Sunnyvale by City operations, its residents, and its commercial and industrial firms.

Undertake to build a large solar power facility to achieve substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and reduce future electrical rates in Sunnyvale. The construction of such a facility is authorized by the Community Choice Aggregation law, and can utilize the the advantages of combined public and private funding.

[end of draft]


Hello Jamie,

James Tuleya <[email protected]> Jamie Mcleod <[email protected]> 1 0/19/2007 11 :07 AM CA Incentives for Solar Water Heating

Thanks for the call back this morning about the Solar Plan study issue.

You may have already learned this, but last Friday, the governor signed AB 14 70, the Solar Hot Water and Efficiency Act of 2007, which will create an incentive program for solar water heating inCA similar to the current CSI program for PV. See http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50298 for a good summary article, with some interesting reader commentary at the bottom.

Planning early to take advantage of this new program at launch sometime early next year will give Sunnyvale residents and businesses a chance to take advantage of the highest levels of incentives for this new program, unlike what happened to most of us here who have missed our chance for the highest levels of state rebates for PV.

Best Regards, James

James Tuleya Lead for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team c: 650-815-8813 833 Mulberry Ln, Sunnyvale

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 1 of 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2007 2007-0800: Council Study Issue to consider a City-wide Solar Plan. This study would explore the feasibility of adopting a new and comprehensive solar energy plan and regulations that could also include policies for solar cells on parking area roofs. JM (Continued from October 22, 2007) Jamie McLeod, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She provided three clarifications to the report. She said that the solar access component of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code is included in Attachment B, and was not referenced as part of the policy statement in the report. The second clarification is that both a planning and a building permit need to be issued to install solar equipment. She referred to page 9 of the report and said the number of permits listed as issued for the installation of solar equipment is for planning permits and the actual number that also pulled building permits is less. She said the total number of planning permits issued that also pulled building permits for solar installation since 1988 is 128, with the total number this year being 46. The third clarification is to provide a modification to Alternative 3)a. that the related building permit fee is “not more than $250” for the installation of solar equipment. She also noted that the fees for the planning and building permits could be waived for a period of time. Staff is recommending adopting Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 as listed in the report and to refer Alternative 4 to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue and the FY2008-09 budget process for further consideration. Comm. Hungerford referred to Alternative 3 on page 21 of the report and said that the recommendation could allow a deviation for setbacks and/or height as an incentive for installation of solar equipment. He asked if there is a requirement that the solar equipment be used for a certain amount of time to avoid the equipment being installed just to receive the incentive or deviation. Ms. McLeod said a time requirement is not detailed, and that clarification from the Commission would be helpful. He asked if staff has a recommendation about how long the equipment should be required to be used. Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, said that the deviations would be allowed to accommodate the solar equipment only and she said she does not know if anyone would go to the expense of installing solar equipment for one additional foot of setback and then abandon the solar equipment. Comm. Hungerford and Ms. Ryan further discussed incentives and deviations. Chair Hungerford asked staff for clarification of Alternative 2.f regarding Legislative Advocacy Position for non-residential projects. Ms. McLeod said that this item regarding net metering was added by the Public Works Department and she would provide further clarification in the Report to Council. Comm. Hungerford said he thought this resulted from PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) giving credit for residential solar panels net metering for residential producing projects, but not for non-residential.

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 2 of 12 Comm. Simons said that he thinks this is a great document for a solar plan. He said he wondered if there would be value in adding text regarding the economics of solar energy. He discussed the importance of good insulation related to solar systems, what can be done to reduce energy consumption, and said he would like to see economic information regarding energy units per dollar invested for solar. Staff said that this solar study has narrowed down information specific to solar and that it is a baby step towards the broader sustainability study which will be covered in an upcoming study issue. Comm. Simons and staff further discussed that the solar study could be one of several other reports that are part of the larger sustainability issue, and how the solar report may provide some framework for the overall city-wide plan. Ms. Ryan said that in the sustainability and green practices study, she hopes the Commission will find a better context and interrelatedness of other green practices. Comm. Simons said that maybe it would be more cost effective do alternative investments rather than some of the recommendations included in the Alternatives since the sustainability study is not yet complete. Ms. Ryan said that solar study does not contain other sustainability issues and is only looking at solar issues. Ms. Ryan said if Comm. Simons feels this study is too narrow that the Commission can reflect that in their deliberations and actions. Vice Chair Rowe referred to page 2 regarding financial barriers and incentives, and asked if the term “minor setbacks” would be quantified. Ms. McLeod said that the intent of page 1 and 2 are to provide an overview of the alternatives and that “minor setback” is quantified on page 21, Alternative 3)b. Vice Chair Rowe referred to page 5 confirming that the solar would be used to heat and/or provide power to buildings. Vice Chair Rowe referred to page 10 and discussed with staff the distributed generation in relation to net metering. Ms. McLeod said that utilities are concerned about how the photovoltaic system feeds into the larger energy distribution system. Vice Chair Rowe referred to page 13, 2)c)ii and asked for clarification regarding waiving requirements for screening electrical equipment from view when installing a solar system. Ms. McLeod said that the code currently states that electrical equipment must be screened from view and that 2)c)ii is part of cleaning up the code as reviewing aesthetics is not part of current practice when reviewing a solar permit application. Kathryn Berry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, clarified that if a person applies for a permit for installation of solar equipment that it is a ministerial permit and the only limitations are if there are health and safety concerns, with aesthetic concerns not being one of the limitations. Vice Chair Rowe referred to Attachment D, page 1 regarding the Solar Rights Act amended in 2004 by AB 2473, and said that part of the test seems to indicate that limitations can be applied for aesthetics to those systems that cost less than $2,000. Ms. Berry said that this text refers to when cost considerations are being considered, that there is a new state law that limits what the cost considerations can be. Ms. Berry said that this law is intended to address and limit the types of cost components. Ms. Berry said she would address this question after she has reviewed it further.

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 3 of 12 Comm. Chang referred to page 16, the timeline based on type of structure, beginning with Public Facilities. He then referred to page 7 and said that many of the examples in the report provide information on single-family homes and suggested that he would like to see examples for the Public Facilities and Commercial type of structures first. He said he would like to see the report include the calculation for the cost of the solar hot water system which would be the more affordable type of solar system. He said that the photovoltaic system would cost between $22,000 and $60,000 to install. He said if a system cost $30,000 to install that there would need to be a savings of $250 per month over 10 years to recoup the cost of the installation. Comm. Chang said he would also like to see some hard numbers for the ROI (Return on Investment) and how it is being calculated. He discussed with staff Attachment C, the Solar Permits and Tree Removal Permits Decision Matrix, and clarified that an applicant for a solar permit could not require a neighbor to remove a tree. Comm. Chang asked staff if an applicant could remove a protected tree from their own property and further discussed tree the tree removal permit process with staff. Ms. McLeod said if an applicant has a protected tree to remove because it conflicts with the installation of the solar equipment that a Tree Removal Permit should be applied for and reviewed by staff based on the criteria in Attachment C. Ms. McLeod addressed Comm. Chang’s request for Public Facility examples commenting that a Public Facilities solar study issue went to City Council in May, 2007 and that tonight’s report is focusing on private property. Ms. McLeod said that a copy of the study for Public Facilities can be provided to Comm. Chang and commented that there was no specific figure listed for Commercial in the report this evening as the cost varies based on the size of the building. Comm. Klein referred to the aesthetics and the staff recommendation to waive the screening requirement for electrical equipment from view of the neighboring property. He confirmed with staff that the waiving of screening applies to the solar panels, not the ground equipment, and is related to solar access. Comm. Klein asked staff about the parking lot shading requirement and how it might be affected. Ms. Ryan said that staff is looking for some direction on this so that staff can prepare the ordinances for consideration. Ms. Ryan said that she thinks that 50% of the shading requirement being met by the installation of solar panels rather than trees would be the upper limit. Ms. McLeod referred to an addendum to Attachment D that was e-mailed to the Commission that includes California Government Code 65850.5 and the California Solar Rights Act of 1978, Civil Code 714. She said that copies are available for the public in the back of the room. Ms. Berry referred to Attachment D that was prepared by Kurt Newick and Andy Black. She said that Attachment D is a summary of different solar laws that have been enacted. She said that she noticed that the report contained only a portion of the Solar Rights Act (a) and (b) and the addendum provided includes (c) through (g) also. She said also included in the addendum is Civil Code section

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 4 of 12 714.1 which addresses Vice Chair Rowe’s question about the Solar Rights Act of 1978. This code prohibits Homeowner’s Associations from including in their covenants any prohibition or restriction of installation or use of a solar energy system with the exception that the restrictions do not significantly increase the cost of the system. She said the code defines what is significant, which includes domestic water heating systems and solar swimming pool costs, not to exceed 20% of the cost of the system, and photovoltaic system costs not to exceed $2,000, to help address financial barriers. Ms. Berry said that this is a new State law and the addendum was provided because it is part of applicable statutes. Vice Chair Rowe referred to the addendum pages and said she was not sure if this is an addendum to the Code or to Attachment D. Ms. Berry said this is an addendum to Attachment D. Ms. Berry said that the California Solar Rights Act of 1978 has been amended several times with the major amendments added in 2002. Vice Chair Rowe referred to the Solar Right Act amended in 2004 by AB 2473 and asked if aesthetic solar restrictions have been added. Vice Chair Rowe said that the addendum pages address mostly safety concerns and did not address aesthetic solar restrictions. Ms. Berry said that the attempt by Mr. Newick and Mr. Black, the authors, are to address significant changes related to solar. Chair Sulser opened the public hearing. James Tuleya, a Sunnyvale resident, spoke on behalf of Sunnyvale’s Cool Cities Team. He said that they applaud the staff for this well-researched report and a that this is a reasonable set of first step recommendations. He said they endorse the staff recommendations for Alternative 1, 2, and 3 except for 2)a as they have not formed a position on the trees. He said regarding 3)a that they feel the related building permit fee should be no more than $200. He said a $300 permit fee would place Sunnyvale among the most expensive half of Bay Area cities for this type of permit, which is not consistent with the City’s general vision to be a leader in sustainable practices. He said they endorse Alternative 4) to refer this item be included in the upcoming Sustainable Green Building Practices Study Issue. He said the Cool Cities team is helping to organize educational efforts to push for solar adoption and to encourage a group purchase effort from December 2007 to March 2008 since state rebates are to drop sometime between January and March. He said City leader support to encourage and endorse these efforts would be helpful. He also requested the City waive the permit fees for solar permits between December 2007 and March 2008 to further jumpstart solar adoption. Comm. Simons asked staff to comment about Mr. Tuleya’s suggestion to waive permit fees through March 2008. Ms. McLeod said that waiving the permit fees up to March 2008 would fall within the amended staff recommendation. Ms. McLeod referred to page 19 in the report which addresses the fiscal impact of reducing the fees. She said if the Commission wanted to recommend and the

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 5 of 12 Council wanted to adopt that the fees be waived for that time period, that would be a statement to the community about the intent to encourage solar energy. Comm. Simons commented that it seems odd to lower fees when the project costs are less and then increase fees when project costs are more. Comm. Klein asked staff for clarification about the $250 fee listed on page 19. Ms. McLeod clarified that an applicant needs to apply for two permits, a planning permit and a building permit. She said the $250 fee would be for the building permit which would be a sliding fee based on the size of the system and that staff’s amended recommendation is that the fee be “not more than $250” rather than a flat fee. Comm. Klein thanked Mr. Tuleya for the links he provided to related websites and said that providing information to the public must be one of Cool Cities’ main goals. Mr. Tuleya said one of the biggest hurdles to adopting clean energy is basic education and that it benefits financially and environmentally. Comm. Klein discussed shading parking lots with photovoltaic cells. Comm. Klein asked Mr. Tuleya asked if Cool Cities has any position on shading with photovoltaic cells or trees in parking lots. Mr. Tuleya said Cool Cities has not gotten into the middle of this issue. He said his personal opinion would be to have a mix and not too few trees. Comm. Hungerford commented about an applicant putting in a solar system to gain incentives and then not using the solar system. He referred to Alternative 3)c, incentives that would allow additional lot coverage and Floor Area Ratio. He asked Mr. Tuleya if he had any thoughts on this issue. Mr. Tuleya said that he thinks it is useful for the City to offer incentives, but he does not think someone would spend the money to install solar and not use it just to qualify for the incentives. Mr. Tuleya said that enforcement would be difficult, but possibly a fine could be fine determined. Arthur Schwartz, a resident of Sunnyvale, and co-chair of the Cool Cities Team said Mr. Tuleya has been a good leader and he should be commended. He said he is glad to see Sunnyvale catch up with himself as he put his first five collectors up in 1978 and it feeds his domestic hot water system and his radiant heating system. He said he added four more collectors a few years ago. He said the solar collectors combined with insulation have made him a leader in the solar energy field. He said he gets about 20 percent of his radiant heat and about 90 percent of his hot water with his system and he is anxious to see solar energy spread through the City. He said that this report is an excellent start to sustainability and he urged that it be adopted without worry about the overall sustainability study that is coming. He said this is providing an important source of energy conservation. He suggested that legislative advocacy go beyond net metering and that the City should include the Berkeley Plan into this study so that installed solar gets added into the tax base of a home and can be passed on to subsequent buyers.

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 6 of 12 Comm. Simons commented that Mr. Schwartz brought up the sale of energy, and referred to a plan inducted in Germany, where a price was fixed for 20 years on what would be paid for solar derived energy which would guarantee a return on the investment. Comm. Simons asked Mr. Schwartz if he had any further comment regarding the sale, or fixed return allowed loans for solar projects. Mr. Schwartz said that is not his idea. He said his suggestion for legislative advocacy beyond net metering is that any power generated and delivered back to PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) would get paid for at the wholesale level and not the retail level. He said we need a study of this issue and it should be a part of this report. Mr. Schwartz said a clever design in parking lots could shade just strategic areas. Bill Bach, with Akeena Solar, thanked the City staff and Mr. Tuleya for addressing the solar issue in Sunnyvale. He commented that there are different types of metering for commercial. He said the Berkeley model is good for cities to look at as it uses the tax base. He said the City would pay for the solar system so there would be no upfront costs for the person who owns that system and the owner would pay for the system over the years through their taxes. He said one of the big issues that they have as a company is the tree issue. He said that sometimes they will look at a site and determine that it is too shady for a system. Mr. Bach said when permits for solar are applied for that City staff has to look at the trees to see if the system can go in. He said they are hoping to mitigate this process because it takes time, and costs money. He said if there is not more than 20 to 25 percent shading that typically a good system can be installed. He said part of the problem for them has been City staff stopping the flow of process to get the permit. Josh Weiner, with Akeena Solar, thanked Ms. McLeod for her assistance on this issue. He said with California Government Code 65850.5 that the State seemed to have streamlined the process to install solar systems. He said they install systems throughout California and that Sunnyvale’s Municipal Code seems unique and inconsistent in regards to solar installation. He said that the State requires that the solar permits be nondiscretionary permits. He said he would like to see consistency with State law and the Sunnyvale Municipal Code. Dan Hafeman, a resident of Sunnyvale, said he has a 1.5 kilowatt (kW) system on his roof. He commented that the staff report is a well-written document. He referred to page 20, regarding “Reducing Information Barriers,” and said that he would like to see the concept of volunteers added to this section. He said Sunnyvale is known for having good volunteers and that an educated citizen base to offer informational workshops would really help. Mr. Hafeman referred to the Alternatives and said he is curious why there is a 2 kW minimum for single-family residential to qualify for the incentives. He said he would have liked to have had a bigger system installed on his home, but his electricity usage limited him to 1.5 kW. He said if the City allowed smaller systems that maybe more of the population base would qualify for incentives. He commented about trees and

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 7 of 12 asked what happens if a neighbor plants a fast growing tree after the solar system is installed. He said if this would also be addressed that it might eliminate a source of concern for a potential buyer. Comm. Simons commented that he has a passion for trees. He asked Mr. Hafeman to comment about long-term tree growth or if a neighbor decided to be difficult and plant trees that would shade solar panels. Mr. Hafeman said he just brought up the question because it could take 20 years before a person could see a return on their investment and a person considering buying a system might have that concern because you cannot control the neighbor’s environment. He said maybe a way to protect the investment would be that once the City approves the permits that an individual has a right to the light. He said with houses close together and on a single-story house that tall trees are a concern. Comm. Simons discussed setbacks and possible variations that could encourage more solar installation. Mr. Hafeman said to avoid shading issues, panels might be positioned higher up on the roof. If the panels were allowed closer to the property line the shade trees would become more of a problem. Comm. Hungerford asked Mr. Hafeman to further address his concern about the minimum wattage of solar equipment eligible for incentives being 2 kW and asked the wattage he would recommend. Mr. Hafeman said that if a lot of energy saving efforts have already been installed in a home and the size of the system is limited to the electrical usage then, in his case only 1.5 kW was all he could install. Bruce Karney, a resident of Mountain View, said that nine months ago he volunteered and helped organize his community to adopt solar in a rapid way through a community solar group purchase program. He said 119 households voluntarily participated. He said people are interested in owning their own source of power. He said once people start thinking about electricity consumption deeply that conservation follows. He said he works for a company called Solar City and finds that community-wide adoption is a viable model. He said the Berkeley plan uses the model of the underground utility assessment district. He said a city can give allow citizens to borrow the money from the city to go solar, the city floats a bond at municipal bond rates and encumbers the property with a 20-year tax and whoever lives in the home over the next 20 years pays back the loan. He said it is a lower financing package, has better tax advantages, and the funds can be made contingent on something, i.e. better insulation. He said the city is then in a position to accelerate adoption by using an ingenious tax approach and provides control over electrical generation and also over conservation measures. He said the Berkeley model was just passed by the Berkeley City Council three weeks ago and he feels it will sweep across California if not the nation. He said he would like to see Sunnyvale be the second city in California to adopt this approach. Chair Sulser closed the public hearing.

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 8 of 12 Ms. Berry commented about a statement from the public that the Government code requires that a city approve solar systems with a ministerial permit. Ms. Berry said that City of Sunnyvale has ordinances that make it very clear that the permit is a non-discretionary permit and is applicable in all zoning districts, referring to Attachment B, code section 19.56.010. Ms. Berry also commented about conflicts with solar shading. She said the State law says if a tree which casts a shadow, is existing prior to the installation of a solar device then it is not required to cut the tree down to install a solar device. She said if the solar device is installed first and then a neighbor’s tree is placed, or if placed, grows and begins to shade the device, then the neighbor must trim or remove the tree. She said public entities can exempt themselves from the requirements to enforce the removal of trees that shade solar devices. She said the City of Sunnyvale endorses State law, but has exempted itself in two instances. The instances are if the vegetation has historic value, or if it is a significant-sized tree. Comm. Klein discussed with staff multi-level parking structures, and the installation of solar devices on the top level of a parking structure in relation to a possible deviation to the height requirements of a site. Ms. Ryan clarified that staff is not asking for direction regarding shading of parking structures, but is asking for direction regarding substituting solar facilities for a percentage of shading in parking lots. Comm. Klein said the report does not address the installation of photovoltaic devices on the top level of a parking structure and confirmed with staff that the recommendation could include the concept of allowing additional height to the parking structure as an incentive for installing solar devices. Comm. Hungerford said he is concerned about an applicant receiving an incentive for the age of the building and then not meeting the spirit of the incentive by using the system. He suggested that there could be a recommendation that the size of solar system has to be commensurate with the size of the building. Ms. Ryan referred to page 22, which addresses the minimum size system and the percentage of the incentive based on the average or anticipated energy use. Comm. Hungerford and Ms. Ryan further discussed incentives, and that the cost of installing a system would generally be high enough that an applicant would be inclined to keep the system in use. Ms. Ryan said this is not an exhaustive analysis of what is the right number, but staff did not want to make the incentives or deviations so high that it eroded the zoning code or the incentives too easy. Ms. Ryan said if the Commission and Council recommend and require staff to do so, that staff would need to come back with an ordinance that addresses these items. Vice Chair Rowe moved for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and to refer Alternative 4 to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue of Fiscal Year 2008-09. Comm. Simons seconded the motion. Comm. Simons discussed making modification regarding the shading of parking lots and said he does not

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 9 of 12 want to exchange trees for solar, and that he would still like to encourage solar panels in parking lots. Comm. Klein said he was thinking about how shading with photovoltaic devices would be laid out in a parking lot. Comm. Klein and Comm. Simons discussed the issue and provided a modification that up to 25 percent of the parking lot could be covered with photovoltaic devices or other solar devices, and remaining 75 percent would maintain the current requirement for tree shading. The maker of the motion agreed to the modification. Comm. Simons requested modification of the financial incentive alternative, that the single-family residential incentive allowance be based on providing a minimum system size of 1.5 kW instead of 2 kW. This was acceptable to the maker of the motion. Comm. Simons and Comm. Klein discussed adding directive to further explore possible incentives for the addition of photovoltaic devices on parking structures, including a deviation from the height requirement. Ms. Ryan clarified that this part of the motion is providing a directive to be included in the ordinance to give options for incentives for photovoltaic systems on top of parking structures. She said that the ordinance should come back to Planning Commission for review. This directive was acceptable to the maker of the motion. Comm. Klein offered a friendly amendment to add language to Alternatives 3)b.i and 3)b.ii that the deviations to accommodate solar installation applications only apply to the locations where the panels are being installed. The friendly amendment was acceptable to maker and seconder of the motion. Comm. Hungerford offered a friendly amendment regarding Alternative 1, that the concept of volunteers be added. The friendly amendment was acceptable to maker and seconder of the motion. Vice Chair Rowe said that this is another great report from staff. She said it helped straighten out a lot of information. She said she loved the outreach program with citizens and produced some very good information. Comm. Klein said he would be supporting motion and this is a very good first step to making ourselves more energy efficient. He said that this is a bit rushed trying to push solar energy when there is need to look at bigger picture and other types of power sources. He said maintenance of the solar systems is very important. He said that this is a lot of information to sift through and staff has boiled it down to a fairly good piece that is understandable. Comm. Simons said he would be supporting motion. He said that he agrees that this is a first step. He said he is concerned about the details and how this would be implemented and what could happen in possible conflicts between trees and photovoltaic solar cells. He said he is concerned about heritage trees and it bothers him when people think they can cut down a 200 year old tree and

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 10 of 12 that it can be planted again. He said that there should be further discussion about tree issues. Chair Sulser said he would be supporting the motion. He said there are some good common sense steps forward in the report and that this is a good direction for the City to go in.

ACTION: Vice Chair Rowe made a motion on 2007-0800 to recommend that City Council adopt Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, with modifications: to modify Alternative 2.c that up to 25 percent of the parking lot could be covered with photovoltaic devices or other solar devices; to modify Alternative 3 that the single-family residential incentive allowance be based on providing a minimum system size of 1.5 kW; to further explore possible incentives for the addition of photovoltaic devices on top of parking structures; to add language to Alternatives 3)b.i and 3)b.ii that the deviations to accommodate solar installation applications only apply to the locations where the panels are being installed; to add to Alternative 1, the concept of volunteers; and to refer Alternative 4 to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue of Fiscal Year 2008-09. Comm. Simons seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0, Comm. Babcock absent. Alternatives (with modifications included)

1) Reduce information barriers. Participate in joint efforts with partner agencies, volunteers, developers and solar-focused businesses to provide community education and promote existing opportunities to utilize alternative energy, including solar. Approximate cost for staffing to coordinate efforts is $120,000 to $200,000 per year, and approximate cost for workshops is $50,000.

2) Reduce institutional barriers. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance that

provides the following zoning code provisions to accommodate and encourage installation of solar equipment:

a. Clarify process of reviewing solar permits with regard to tree preservation:

i. Confirm the solar permit decision matrix process provided in Attachment C (e.g. if a protected tree restricts solar access, relocate solar system to another viable location);

ii. If a protected tree located on the applicant’s property restricts solar access, require the applicant to apply for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) for any tree(s) that conflict with the desired solar access (note: the TRP will be denied if other viable solar access options exist, and will be approved if no other viable options existing for solar equipment, and the

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 11 of 12

typical replacement tree requirement applies); and iii. If a protected tree located on a neighboring property restricts

solar access, refer the applicant discuss the issue with their neighbor and ask their neighbor to apply for a TRP, and staff will review the application if submitted.

b. Modify the permitting process to develop a specialized planning permit for solar equipment;

c. Allow staff flexibility to consider allowing a portion of the parking lot shading requirement, such as 25%, to be met by the installation of solar panels rather than trees;

d. Clarify Sunnyvale Municipal Code to waive any screening of electrical equipment requirement for solar PV panels; and

e. Develop a Legislative Advocacy Position that supports making investor owned utilities (IOU) certification of solar installations a higher priority than at present.

f. Develop a Legislative Advocacy Position that supports expanding net metering to larger alternative/distributed energy projects and more types of such projects (e.g. non-residential).

3) Reduce financial barriers and provide incentives. Provide the following

incentives for installation of solar equipment. a. Adopt a resolution to modify the current fee schedule for a revised

planning permit fee of $50 and a related building permit fee of $250 for installation of solar equipment. The approximate subsidy is anticipated to be at least $25,000 per year, depending on demand.

b. Allow staff discretion to consider minor Municipal Code deviations to specifically accommodate solar installation applications including, on top of parking structures:

i. Allow a deviation of up to one (1) foot for setbacks, and/or ii. Allow a deviation of up to two (2) feet in height.

c. Allow staff discretion to consider minor Municipal Code deviations to provide an incentive to install solar equipment:

iii. Allow up to 1% in additional lot coverage, and/or iv. Allow up to 1% in additional Floor Area Ratio.

For single-family residential, the incentive allowance shall be based on providing a minimum system size of 1.5 kW for PV systems or a minimum of 50 gallons for a hot water system. For all other uses, the incentive shall be based on a minimum system size of 10% of the anticipated or average electrical energy use.

2007-0800 Solar Plan Draft Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 12 of 12

4) Adopt a conceptual outline of a Citywide Solar Plan. Increase the use

of solar by public, industrial, commercial and residential buildings by adopting an overall framework and referring it to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue (anticipated Spring 2008) for development. The Plan may include efforts to:

a. Participate in regional efforts to promote the development of the solar industry, including research & development and workforce development.

b. Explore funding mechanisms to promote the use of solar and other alternative energies by home owners and businesses.

c. Explore opportunities to develop the growth of alternative energy businesses in Sunnyvale.

d. Establish a full-time Sustainability Manager or Officer as part of the FY2008-09 budget to coordinate and manage the City’s environmental sustainability efforts, including solar (also referenced in Alternative 1).

APPEAL OPTIONS: This recommendation will be forwarded to City Council scheduled to be considered on December 11, 2007.

Documents

December 11, 2007 SUBJECT: 2007-0800 Citywide Solar Plan