|
Planning Officer Trudi Ryan presented the staff report.
Councilmember Howe inquired what the discretionary portion of the regulations for a solar permit would a homeowner association (HOA) have that would be different from a single family residence. Planning Officer Ryan stated as an owner of a single family residence, the owner has full discretion on what the solar installation will look like, whereas with a community property such as a condominium, the HOA or governing body has authority to require modifications to meet esthetic standards. Planning Officer Ryan stated the City cannot request any modifications when reviewing an application for solar facilities. Director Hom added that HOAs also have the authority to review the structural integrity of an installation of solar panels.
Councilmember Howe inquired if the City’s permit process would look into the structural aspects for a single family home and Planning Officer Ryan stated in all cases (such as a single family home, condominium, apartment, or commercial property) the building permit would look at the structural integrity of any solar installation.
Councilmember Howe confirmed that Director Hom’s understanding of the authority of an association regarding solar panel installation is allowable only if the HOA has additional provisions in their Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) that governs improvements such as a solar panel installation. Councilmember Howe confirmed the review authority for the HOA would be allowable if within the CC&Rs; the association was required to maintain the roof.
Councilmember Howe inquired if the City has the ability to override an HOA in order to streamline things so that there are not two classes of permits (single family homes and HOA developments). Planning Officer Ryan referred to City Attorney Kahn but Councilmember Howe stated this could be addressed during the motion.
Councilmember Moylan confirmed with Planning Officer Ryan that the proposed fees for solar installation would offer approximately a 40 percent discount from the current fees.
Councilmember Moylan asked if staff could provide feedback regarding incentives that the City might be able to offer because many homeowners have pointed out that solar systems take quite some time to pay for themselves. Planning Officer Ryan stated staff is not aware of any particular resources available in the City; however, staff has suggested Council ask staff to explore the model that the City of Berkeley is using where bonds are issued allowing residents to obtain a loan for solar installation. Payments are then made back to the City over time through property taxes.
Councilmember Swegles confirmed that modifying the current fee schedule for solar installation planning permits would result in an approximate cost to the City of at least $25,000 per year, depending on demand. Councilmember Swegles confirmed this deficit would affect the Community Development’s revenue, which goes into the City’s general fund.
Councilmember Hamilton asked how easy is it to achieve a 1.5 kilowatt (kW) and Planning Officer Ryan stated that although 2 kW might be average, 1.5 kW is more than adequate for a smaller home or for someone more frugal in their use of electricity; therefore, the Planning Commission and staff recommended the smaller system.
Mayor Lee inquired what the cost would be per year if Council were to waive all fees related to solar installation and Planning Officer Ryan estimated a cost of $67,500 per year. Mayor Lee stated if the fees were reduced, more residents would possibly install solar panels. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the permit fees are a small part of the overall expense of solar installation.
Councilmember Swegles inquired if the reduction in fees would go to the contractor or homeowner. Planning Officer Ryan stated that would depend on who pulled the permits. Councilmember Swegles inquired if there is a way staff could make sure that the discount is passed on to the resident. Planning Officer Ryan stated staff does not monitor the relationship between the contractor and the property owner. Director Hom added that what staff can do is educate homeowners so they are aware that this fee is discounted.
Public hearing opened at 8:08 p.m.
James Tuleya, member of Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team, stated that Cool Cities endorses the staff recommendation (as modified by the Planning Commission) with minor exceptions. The team did not receive consensus on the tree issue (2a) so they have no position on this issue. On recommendation 3a, the team would like the total permit fees to be $299 instead of a maximum of $300 because there is at least one solar vendor in existence that will pay the permit fees if they are under $300.
Tuleya stated the team has started a new educational effort for solar power within Sunnyvale called “The Solar Sunnyvale Effort” which has a Web site and is offering educational workshops. Tuleya stated the Cool Cities team is attempting to do their part with outreach efforts to promote solar use.
Councilmember Swegles inquired if Council approves the staff recommendation, then would Cool Cities be agreeable to include information about the City’s reduction in permit fees within their educational seminars. Tuleya agreed they would include that information.
Werner Gans stated staff provided an excellent and thorough staff report. Gans explained that Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E) has issued two different contracts for facilities that will use the sun to generate electricity. Gans stated it is important to note that solar cell efficiency drops off in the winter time. Gans stated there are less expensive alternative systems also available.
Caroline Vissers and representatives from the Global Warming Awareness Club at Homestead High School stated their support of the staff recommendation.
Arthur Schwartz stated he supports the City of Berkeley’s plan which offers loans for solar installation. Schwartz stated the plan guarantees repayment of the loan regardless if the owner sells their home or not. Schwartz stated this is a great plan that would encourage residents to buy a system they might not otherwise be able to afford. Schwartz stated he would recommend that the City pass an ordinance stating that the permit fees for solar installation would be returned to the owner.
Councilmember Swegles confirmed with Planning Officer Ryan that the City of Berkeley plan would be looked at if Alternative 4 was approved by Council.
Amit Saivastava, member of Sunnyvale Cool Cities Team, stated they support the staff recommendation and also support Council directing staff to further investigate the City of Berkeley’s plan for possible adoption. Saivastava stated PG&E rebates will run out soon.
Jim Griffith, President of Sutton Place Homeowners Association, urged Council to use extreme caution when tampering with the ability of HOAs to enforce their CC&Rs because they are written for specific reasons.
Barbara Fukumoto, Cool Cities member, stated support of the proposed reduction in total fees for solar installation to no more that $299. Fukumoto stated that reduction will send a signal to the community that City leadership wants to encourage adoption of solar electrical systems.
Public hearing closed at 8:23 p.m.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired if staff views the City of Berkeley plan as being a viable option for the City. Planning Officer Ryan stated the City of Berkeley has not actually established the program at this point; rather it is the concept that has been approved. City Manager Chan added that the Berkeley model is an assessment type of model, which the City of Sunnyvale has used in many different forms. City Manager Chan stated the question at hand is how the bond is structured and that would be researched further if the staff recommendation is approved.
MOTION: Councilmember Swegles moved and Councilmember Hamilton seconded to approve Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and refer Alternative 4 to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issues and the FY 2008-2009 budget process for further consideration
with emphasis on looking at the City of Berkeley program and the ability to offer a zero cost loan.
Alternative 1: Council approves reducing information barriers by participating 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. Council approves incorporating efforts 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 FY 2008-09 budget review process.
Alternative 2: Council approves reducing institutional barriers and directs 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:
a) clarify the 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 exist for solar equipment, and the typical replacement tree requirements 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 percent 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) Council approves reducing financial barriers and providing 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.
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:
i) allow up to 1% in additional lot coverage, and/or
ii) 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 hot water system. For all other uses, the incentive shall be based on a minimum system size of 10 percent of the anticipated or average electrical energy use.
4. Council refers adoption of a conceptual outline of a Citywide Solar plan to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue and the FY 2008-2009 budget process for further consideration
with emphasis on looking at the City of Berkeley program and the ability to offer a zero cost loan.
Councilmember Hamilton offered a friendly amendment to reduce the building permit fee listed in Alternative 3a by $1 to a cost of $249.00.
Councilmember Swegles accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Howe offered a friendly amendment to add options for HOAs such as allowing input from the association as to what is put on the roof should the roof be maintained by the HOA. Councilmember Howe stated the intent of his amendment is to (whenever possible) reduce the amount of discrepancy between single family homes and HOAs.
Councilmember Hamilton accepted the friendly amendment.
Restated MOTION: Councilmember Swegles moved and Councilmember Hamilton seconded to approve Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and refer Alternative 4 to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issues and the FY 2008/09 budget process for further consideration
with emphasis on looking at the City of Berkeley program and the ability to offer a zero cost loan.
Alternative 1: Council approves reducing information barriers by participating 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. Council approves incorporating efforts 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 FY 2008/09 budget review process.
Alternative 2: Council approves reducing institutional barriers and directs 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:
a) clarify the 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 exist for solar equipment, and the typical replacement tree requirements 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 percent 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
and allow options for HOAs in order to reduce the amount of discrepancy between single family homes and HOAs.
3) Council approves reducing financial barriers and providing 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 $249 for installation of solar equipment (for a total of not more than $299). 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:
iii) Allow a deviation of up to one (1) foot for setbacks, and/or
iv) 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 percent in additional lot coverage, and/or
iv) allow up to 1 percent 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 hot water system. For all other uses, the incentive shall be based on a minimum system size of 10 percent of the anticipated or average electrical energy use.
4. Council refers adoption of a conceptual outline of a Citywide Solar plan to the Sustainable Green Building Practices study issue and the FY 2008/09 budget process for further consideration
with emphasis on looking at the City of Berkeley program and the ability to offer a zero cost loan.
VOTE: 7-0
|