Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Analysis: City Council's recent decisions on development projects underscores need for green policy
• The council has been inconsistent in setting "green" requirements for recent development projects.

by Sean Howell

Two recent approvals of development projects by Menlo Park's City Council — and the headaches that ensued when council members tried to figure out how to craft green building regulations from the dais — have made the city's need for a "green" building code very clear.

But setting climate change-related policy when it comes to new development projects won't be easy.

In approving an 110,000-square-foot development for 1300 El Camino Real at their Oct. 6 meeting, council members stipulated that the operation of the structures be "carbon neutral." City staff members and the site developer say they're still trying to figure out exactly what that means; Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson and the city attorney spent several minutes hashing out the exact wording at a subsequent council meeting.

In approving a two-story, 10,100-square foot office building for 1706 El Camino Real at its Oct. 20 meeting, the City Council opted not to impose the same requirement.

"These things are tough to do up here on the last, final approval," Mayor Heyward Robinson said. "It was OK on 1300, that was a bigger project, but I want to keep this one fairly clean."

Ms. Fergusson dissented in the vote, in large part because she wanted the council to stipulate that the operation of the buildings be carbon-neutral.

While current council members have repeatedly stated their commitment to addressing the issue of climate change, they have not set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the city. Nor have they discussed setting policies related to new real estate development projects, perhaps the arena where the city can make the most impact in terms of climate change.

"Menlo Park has not set a mandate for developers to reduce the emissions their projects generate. Shouldn't we do that now?" Mitch Slomiak, head of the volunteer Green Ribbon Citizens' Committee, said in an interview. "Once the buildings are already in place, it's much harder to do so."

New policy?

In January, the council is scheduled to discuss adopting the state's green building code. That code will become mandatory for all development projects in late 2010, according to Community Development Director Arlinda Heineck.

The code sets standards for water use and greenhouse gas emissions, but it does not call for carbon neutrality — the condition the council imposed on the 1300 El Camino Real project. If the city wants to set its own code, "it would take some research to look at what other options are out there, both the beneficial and adverse impacts of them," she said.

Even a demanding green building code would not regulate greenhouse gases generated by new traffic, which typically accounts for the great majority of emissions associated with a single project. About 86 percent of the projected greenhouse gas emissions for the 1300 El Camino Real project will come from vehicles going to and from the site, according to the environmental impact report. Despite the council's carbon-neutral specification, the project will increase annual emissions by 1.4 percent citywide over 2005 levels.

"We can build green all day long, I think it's a good thing to do ... but the transportation impacts are a real challenge to mitigate, because in general, they're things that involve multiple jurisdictions," Mayor Robinson said at the Oct. 20 meeting. "They're regional, if not broader, issues."

Mr. Slomiak suggested the city require developers to offset climate impacts by either funding projects to reduce emissions elsewhere in the city, or buying annual carbon offset credits through a PG&E program.

While the City Council could impose additional "green" requirements as a condition of approval for projects that come before it, doing so on an ad hoc basis would be dangerous, Mr. Slomiak warned.

"When climate change gets thrown into the fray in politically controversial decisions, it's awkward," he said, noting that it can be convenient for people to wave the flag of climate change when they oppose a project on other grounds. "If Menlo Park had guidelines in place, it would be cut and dried."

Former council member Paul Collacchi sent a letter to the city in September, urging the council to set a policy before it considers David Bohannon's proposed "Menlo Gateway" office/hotel project in east Menlo Park, slated for a council decision in spring 2010. The environmental impact report for that project estimates that it would cause citywide greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 3 to 4.5 percent over 2005 levels — the bulk of that from transportation to and from the site.

Getting a policy in place before then will be a tall order. For the city to even set a threshold of "significance" on greenhouse gas emissions, as it relates to environmental laws, would be a serious undertaking, Ms. Heineck said. And the council has not asked city staff to do so.

"It's not a project for us right now," she said.