HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-20 City Council Agenda Packet
1 10/20/08
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
October 20, 2008
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint Meeting With Youth Council Regarding Youth Issues
ATTACHMENT
7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sam Zuccaro Upon
His Retirement
ATTACHMENT
3. Appointment of Two Candidates to the Architectural Review Board for
Two Three-Year Terms Ending September 30, 2011
ATTACHMENT
4. Presentation of Voice of the People Awards
10/20/08 2
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
5. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules E-1, E-1-G,
E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-TOU, E-4-G, E-7, E-7-TOU, E-7-G, E-18, E-18-G,
G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-6, S-1, S-2, W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7;
Repealing Utility Rate Schedules E-8, E-9, E-10, E-11, E-12, E-13 and
E-17; Amending and Restating W-1-B and W-1-C as New Utility Rate
Schedule RW-1, and Utility Rate Schedule G-COG as New Utility Rate
Schedule G-8; Amending Utility Rules and Regulations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
9, 11, 12, 21 and 23; Repealing Rule and Regulation 19; and Adding a
New Utility Rule and Regulation 29
CMR 397:08
6. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Amended and Restated
Northern California Power Agency Pooling Agreement and Associated
Schedules
CMR 391:08 ATTACHMENT
7. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Palo Alto Electric Utility
Resource Adequacy Program and Authorizing the City Manager to
Amend the Program or Part Thereof that Conform to Changes in
California Law and Policy that Implement Prudent Utility Practices
CMR 392:08
8. Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating a Portion of the Laguna
Oaks Place Street Right-of-Way at 3740 Laguna Avenue
CMR 404:08 ATTACHMENT
9. Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating a 10-foot Public Utilities
Easement at 3480 Murdoch Court
10/20/08 3
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
CMR 405:08 ATTTACHMENT
10. Adoption of a Resolution Designating 2560 Embarcadero Road, Known
as the Former Sea Scout Building, to be Eligible as a “Sender Site” in
the Transfer of Development Rights Program
CMR 414:08 ATTACHMENT
11. Adoption of a Resolution Formally Establishing a Corrective Action
Reserve Within the Refuse Fund in Accordance With the California
Integrated Waste Management Board Financial Assurance
Requirements
CMR 385:08
12. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action Upholding Appeal of Director’s
Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application for a Four Story
Commercial Mixed Use Retail/Office Building, Including Design
Enhancement Exceptions to Exceed the Maximum Height and Floor
Area, and a Variance Application for an Encroachment Into the Bryant
Street Special Setback, Thereby Denying the Project, at 278 University
Avenue
CMR 421:08
13. Approval of an Amendment to Contract C06114731 With The Standard
Insurance Company to Extend the Term for and Additional Four
Months and Add $280,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$2,680,000 for Group Life, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and
Long Term Disability Insurance
CMR 415:08 ATTACHMENT
14. Approval of a Purchase Order With Golden State Fire Apparatus in an
Amount Not to Exceed $3,295,765 for the Purchase of Six Type I Fire
Engines
CMR 406:08 ATTACHMENT
15. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Adopting a
Resolution Approving a Field Use Policy Applicable to Playing Fields in
Palo Alto
10/20/08 4
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
CMR 408:08
16. Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Management Agreement with Brad
Lozares Golf Shop for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero
Road, Palo Alto
CMR 410:08 ATTACHMENT
17. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the
Implementation Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Bay Area
Clean Water Agencies for the Disbursement of $972,800 in State Grant
Funds for the Mountain View/Moffett Area Recycled Water Pipeline
Project (CIP WQ-04010)
CMR 412:08
18. Adoption of a Resolution Opposing Proposition 7: The Solar and Clean
Energy Act of 2008
CMR 407:08
19. Approval of First Amendment to Option to Lease to the Environmental
Volunteers for the Former Sea Scout Building at 2560 Embarcadero
Road
CMR 419:08 ATTACHMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The
presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than five minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger
number of speakers.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
20. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve a Pilot
Program to Implement “Open City Hall” Online Service (continued by Council Motion from 10/06/2008)
CMR 398:08
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10/20/08 5
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
21. Consider Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and Design
Review, Conditional Use Permit and Record of Land Use Action for a
New Spa and Fitness Facility, Below Grade Parking, Tennis Court and
Other Site Improvements Located Within the Open Space (OS) Zone
District at 3000 Alexis Drive
*This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council's Disclosure Policy
CMR 413:08 ATTACHMENT
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
22. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Approval of a New
Agreement With GreenWaste of Palo Alto to Provide Solid Waste,
Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Yard Trimmings Collection
and Processing Services Effective July 1, 2009; Approval of Fueling
Permit to GreenWaste of Palo Alto; and Approval of a Lease Agreement
With GreenWaste of Palo Alto
CMR 416:08
ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C & D
STUDY SESSION
23. Water Supply Issues and San Francisco's Program EIR on the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement
Program
CMR 417:08
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
24. Policy and Services Committee and Human Relations Commission
Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Encouraging the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agency Under “Operation Return to Sender” to Enforce
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Laws in a Manner That Complies
With all Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations, Including the
Constitutional Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
CMR 402:08 ATTACHMENT
10/20/08 6
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
COUNCIL MATTERS
25. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Burt and Espinosa Requesting
Adoption of a Resolution in Support of Santa Clara County Measure A,
the Hospital Seismic Safety and Medical Facilities Bond
ATTACHMENT
CLOSED SESSION
26. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Michael Schmidlin v. The City of Palo Alto, et al.;
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1-00-CV-794565
Subject Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
27. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 3281 E. Bayshore Road, APN 8-5-005
Negotiating Party: John Anderson, AR Automotive,
LLC dba Anderson Honda
City Negotiator: James Keene, Steve Emslie, Lalo Perez, Donald
Larkin, Bill Fellman
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008
SUBJECT: Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session Special
Meeting with the Palo Alto Youth Council
Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint study session with the PALO
ALTO YOUTH COUNCIL scheduled for October 20, 2008 at 6:00 PM.
1) Palo Alto Youth Council priorities for school year 2008-09
2) Connection between Palo Alto Youth Council and Palo Alto Unified School
District student leadership groups
3) Other items relating to youth
____________________________ _____________________
Rob de Geus JAMES KEENE
Division Manager, Recreation & Golf Services City Manager
Community Services Department
Adam Howard
Recreation Supervisor
Community Services Department
CMR: 397:08 Page 1 of 5
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 397:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules E-1, E-1-
G, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-TOU, E-4-G, E-7, E-7-TOU, E-7-G, E-18, E-
18-G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-6, S-1, S-2, W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 AND W-
7; Repealing Utility Rate Schedules E-8, E-9, E-10, E-11, E-12, E-13
and E-17; Amending and Restating W-1-B and W-1-C as New Utility
Rate Schedule RW-1, and Utility Rate Schedule G-COG as New
Utility Rate Schedule G-8; Amending Utility Rules and Regulations 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 21 and 23; Repealing Rule and Regulation 19;
and Adding a New Utility Rule and Regulation 29
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution (Attachment A) to:
1) Amend Utilities Rate Schedules E-1, E-1-G, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-TOU, E-4-G, E-7, E-7-
TOU, E-7-G, E-18, E-18-G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-6, S-1, S-2, W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and
W-7, including the discontinuance of the Solar Energy Discount on Rates Schedules E-1,
E-1-G, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, and E-4-TOU;
2) Terminate the Electric Direct Access Program, which involves repealing Utilities Rate
Schedules E-8, E-9, E-11, E-12, E-13, and E-17 and Utility Rule and Regulation 19;
3) Repeal Utilities Rate Schedule E-10;
4) Amend and restate Utilities Rate Schedules W-1-B and W-1-C as new Utility Rate
Schedule RW-1;
5) Amend and restate Utility Rate Schedule G-COG as new Utility Rate Schedule G-8;
6) Amend Utilities Rules and Regulations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 21 and 23; and
7) Add new Utilities Rule and Regulation 29.
These changes, if approved, would become effective November 1, 2008. No rate increase is
associated with any of the proposed changes. See Attachment C for an Index of Utilities Rate
Schedules, Rules and Regulations.
BACKGROUND
Presently, there are twenty-three Electric Utility Rate Schedules, ten Gas Utility Rate Schedules,
eight Water Utility Rate Schedules, five Wastewater Utility Rate Schedules, three Refuse Utility
Rate Schedules, one Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility Rate Schedule, four Fiber Optic
CMR: 397:08 Page 2 of 5
Utility Rate Schedules, four Miscellaneous Utility Rate Schedules and twenty-seven Utilities
Rules and Regulations (Rules) which set forth the conditions for providing utility services and
associated charges by the City of Palo Alto (Attachment B).
The Rules address a wide range of operating procedures, conditions and customer requirements,
including the rendering and payment of bills, replacement of overhead and underground
distribution facilities, customer deposits, electric voltage and frequency control, and reasons for
discontinuance of service. The last major revision to the Rules was in 1998 (CMR 196:98), but
individual rules have been brought before Council from time to time as the need for revisions
arose. The Rate Schedules are also updated as required based on rules and regulations governing
the Utility operations. The last revision to the Rate Schedules was in June 2008 as part of the
FY2008-09 Budget Adoption (CMR 269:08). Inevitably, there is an ongoing need to add new
provisions, delete outdated sections or schedules, or update language to reflect current (and new)
practices and procedures.
DISCUSSION
The proposed revisions to Utilities Rate Schedules and to Utilities Rules and Regulations are
based on: 1) proposed changes to existing City Council policies or programs; and 2) updated
existing operations and practices since 1998 and the identified need to eliminate inconsistencies
between various rate schedules and rules.
1. Changes that involve revisions to current City Council policies or programs include:
• Termination of the Electric Direct Access Program. Electric direct access programs were
implemented in California after the legislature passed a law in 1996 to deregulate the
electric utility industry in the state (AB 1890, the Electric Utility Industry Restructuring
Act). Under direct access, electric customers could choose to have their electric supplies
provided by a supplier other than the City. In July 2001, Council acted to change the
requirements for customers who were eligible for electric direct access by requiring
customers who choose to be served by the City to forfeit their eligibility for direct access
in the future (CMR 259:01). Electric direct access in California was suspended for all
investor-owned utilities pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission Decision
D.01-09-060 effective September 20, 2001. No Palo Alto customers ever elected to
receive supplies from alternative electric suppliers and all existing eligible customers
gave up direct access eligibility and elected to receive service under the City’s non-direct
access rate schedules. To effect the termination of electric direct access, electric direct
access related Rule 19 and Rate Schedules (E-8, E-9, E-11, E-12, E-13 and E-17) are
eliminated and Rule 3 is edited to delete the reference to Direct Access Service.
• Removal of Solar Energy Discount. Currently, customers who installed a solar hot water
heating system under an old program receive a 10 percent discount on electric bills. This
program was closed to new applicants in 1987 and many of the systems installed in this
old program no longer exist, but customers continue to get this discount. Even if these
systems still exist, after more than 20 years, they have reached the end of their useful
lives. A new program has been launched to encourage the installation of solar hot water
heating systems (CMR 174:08). This program does not include a discount on electric
bills, but does include an up-front rebate. Under the new program, customers who install
solar water heating systems also receive lower natural gas bills related to water heating.
CMR: 397:08 Page 3 of 5
Customers currently receiving this discount will be notified by a letter from the Utilities
Department explaining the changes and describing the new solar hot water heating
program.
2. Changes that are recommended for accurate reflection and clarification for the customer and
City staff of existing operations and practices and consistency across rate schedules and rules
are reflected in Tables 1 through 5 below and include:
• Clarification of electrical engineering related requirements and language.
• Clarification of existing terms and conditions for discontinuance, termination, and
restoration of service.
• Clarification of bill payment terms, collections processes, landlord/tenant disputes with
regard to submetering/ resale.
• Replacement of uniform language associated with Usage Tiers (such as Tier 1, Tier 2)
instead of specific units (such as 300kwh, 20 therms, etc.) to standardize rate schedules.
• Addition of descriptive language on the calculation of Usage Tiers in Special Notes
section to clarify tier proration.
• Replacement of uniform language for Calculation of Cost Components, and inclusion of
this language where applicable.
• Clarification and standardization of Seasonal Rate Changes language across rate
schedules where applicable.
• Clarification and standardization of Demand Meter and Power Factor sections where
applicable.
• Deletion of “domestic dwellings” definition in E-1 and S-1 and inclusion in Rule 2.
• Revision of “Applicability” statements to reflect all customers served by rate schedules.
• Revision of “Territory” statements to achieve uniformity across rate schedules.
• Clarification of gas charge calculations in some gas rate schedules for consistency
• Clarification of PaloAltoGreen participation language.
• Consolidation of Recycled Water Hauling Rate Schedules W-1-B and W-1-C as new
Rate Schedule RW-1.
• Renaming of Gas for Electric Generation schedule G-COG as new Rate Schedule G-8.
• Replacement of Electric Net Energy Metering (E-10) with new Rule 29
Attachment B summarizes the proposed changes to Utility Rules and Regulations, Electric Rate
Schedules, Gas Rate Schedules, Water and Recycled Water Rate Schedules, and Other Rate
Schedules respectively. Attachments D through I present the actual revisions in
underlined/strikeout format.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Proposed revisions are not expected to have a significant impact on Utilities revenues. The
elimination of old solar hot water heating program discount will result in increased revenues of
$50,000. No rate increase is associated with any of the proposed changes.
CMR: 397:08 Page 4 of 5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed revisions include changes to two existing City policies: the elimination of the
Electric Direct Access Program and the elimination of the Solar Energy Discount.
In 1997, Council approved the direct access program for electricity customers (CMR 460:97).
The program allowed large customers to seek alternative suppliers of electricity to delivery
electricity to their facilities over the City’s distribution systems. The program was intended to be
expanded to smaller customers over time. In July 2001, Council suspended the expansion of the
direct access program to additional customers and required direct access-eligible customers who
choose to be served by the City to forfeit their eligibility for direct access in the future (CMR
259:01). No Palo Alto customers ever elected to receive supplies from alternative electric
suppliers and all existing eligible customers gave up direct access eligibility and elected to
receive service under the City’s non-direct access rate schedules. The action taken by the
Council in July 2001 did not explicitly apply to new customers, so presumably they could be
eligible for direct access. If the recommended actions are taken, the Electric Direct Access
Program will be completely eliminated, removing the possibility of new customers electing to
receive electricity supplies from vendors outside of the City.
The Solar Energy Discount would be eliminated under the proposed changes to the Utilities
Rates. This discount of 10% on electric bills has been provided to customers who installed a
solar hot water heating system on their homes under an old Utilities program that has been closed
to new customers since 1987. Many of these systems are no longer in existence and all have
likely reached the end of their useful life. A new solar hot water heating program (CMR 174:08)
has been launched to provide an incentive for customers to install new solar hot water heating
systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s
definition of a project, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21065, therefore no
environmental assessment is required.
CMR: 397:08 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Summary of Proposed Changes to Rate Schedules, Rules and Regulations
C. Index of Utilities Rate Schedules, Rules and Regulations
D. Utilities Electric Rate Schedules E-1, E-1-G, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-TOU, E-4-G, E-7, E-
7-TOU, E-7-G, E-8, E-9, E-10, E-11, E-12, E-13, E-17, E-18, and E-18-G
E. Utilities Gas Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-6, and G-8
F. Utilities Wastewater Collection Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2
G. Utilities Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-7, W-1-B, W-1-C
H. Utilities Recycled Water Rate Schedule RW-1
I. Utilities Rules and Regulations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, 23, and 29
PREPARED BY: IPEK CONNOLLY
Senior Resource Planner
REVIEWED BY: ________________________________
JANE O. RATCHYE
Utilities Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT HEAD: _________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: _________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR: 391:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 391:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Amended and Restated
Northern California Power Agency Pooling Agreement and Associated
Schedules
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the Amended and Restated Northern California Power
Agency (NCPA) Pooling Agreement and its associated schedules.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto is a member of NCPA. NCPA, acting on behalf of the City, schedules the
City’s electric load and resources within the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
balancing authority area. The City also participates in an aggregated pooling arrangement with
other NCPA members, known as “Pool Members” (Cities of Alameda, Biggs, Gridley,
Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, and Ukiah; Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative; and Port of
Oakland). Under this pooling arrangement, the City’s loads and resources are scheduled within
an aggregated portfolio that is operated and managed by NCPA.
The Palo Alto City Council, at its September 20, 1993 meeting, adopted a motion to approve the
execution of the original NCPA Pooling Agreement. The Pooling Agreement established the
rules for participation in the Pool, along with operational, billing and dispute resolution
protocols.
DISCUSSION
The Pooling Agreement, which has not had a major update since it was established in 1993, is
currently out of date and does not reflect the changes in market structure and interconnection
agreements that have taken place since 1993, including formation of the CAISO. NCPA
management and staff have made a concerted effort in the past twelve months to work with
members to update the Agreement. The result of these efforts is the Amended and Restated
CMR: 391:08 Page 2 of 3
NCPA Pooling Agreement (Attachment C), as approved by the NCPA Commission (Attachment
B – NCPA Resolution No. 08-73 approved September 26, 2008).
Many of the modifications to the Pooling Agreement address the addition of new regulatory and
legislative obligations, and deletion of obsolete definitions associated with old interconnection
agreements that are no longer relevant to the pool’s operations. A summary of the key changes
made to the Pooling Agreement is provided in Exhibit 1 of Attachment D: NCPA Commission
Staff Report. The more significant modifications to the Agreement include the following:
1) The article on resource development has been deleted in the amended Pooling
Agreement. This represents a change from the original pool emphasis on long-term joint
planning activities, and instead reflects the pool member’s need to have flexibility in
pursuing individual electric procurement activities that are more aligned with the
individual member’s regulatory compliance requirements and resource preferences.
2) The section on resource planning has been amended to include a mechanism for
evaluating compliance with resource adequacy requirements and for assessing cost
allocation for non-compliance.
3) The Pooling Committee has been eliminated and replaced with ad-hoc committees that
will meet from time to time for limited purposes and will be dissolved when the purpose
has been met.
4) The article on settlement of disputes and arbitration has been updated to require informal
resolution followed by mediation followed by binding arbitration for settlement of
disputes.
5) The termination provision has been modified from a 6-month termination notice to a 2-
year notice and requirement for termination to coincide with the end of a fiscal year.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Pooling Agreement was originally established to provide a mechanism for members to share
in the savings resulting from the reduced operating costs that could be realized from the pooling
of resources and scheduling and dispatch activities. The amended Pooling Agreement continues
the pooling of resources and activity and also addresses new resource adequacy obligations.
These resource adequacy obligations are not a result of the amended Pooling Agreement, but are
imposed on the City by the CAISO Tariff, and are already included in the City’s Electric
Portfolio Budget at an estimated $3 to $4 million a year.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan with
regard to managing supply portfolio risk to provide stable rates, and to manage business
processes cost effectively.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s
definition of a project, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21065, therefore no
environmental assessment is required.
CMR: 391:08 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Amended and Restated
NCPA Pooling Agreement and its associated Schedules.
B. Resolution of the NCPA Commission Approving the Amended and Restated NCPA Pooling
Agreement and its associated Schedules.
C. Amended And Restated NCPA Pooling Agreement
D. NCPA Commission Staff Report
PREPARED BY: DEBRA LLOYD
Senior Resource Planner
REVIEWED BY: ________________________________
JANE O. RATCHYE
Utilities Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR: 392:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 392:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Palo Alto Electric Utility
Resource Adequacy Program and Authorizing the City Manager to
Amend the Program or Part Thereof that Conform to Changes in
California Law and Policy that Implement Prudent Utility Practices
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council adopt the
resolution approving the City of Palo Alto Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program
described in Attachment B and delegating the authority to the City Manager or designee to make
changes to the elements of the Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program to conform to
changes in state law and policy that implement prudent utility practices.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto is a member of Northern California Power Agency (NCPA). NCPA,
acting on behalf of the City, schedules the City’s electric load and resources within the California
Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) balancing authority area pursuant to the terms of the
CAISO Tariff and the NCPA Metered Subsystem Aggregator Agreement.
The City has established and adopted an Interim Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program,
which has been in place since May 2006 (Resolution No. 8602, approved May 1, 2006). This
Interim Program was intended to expire on the date that the CAISO’s Market Redesign and
Technology Upgrade (MRTU) Tariff, which would introduce new resource adequacy
responsibilities and reporting requirements, was implemented. However, because
implementation of MRTU has been substantially delayed, the CAISO has incorporated resource
adequacy compliance language in the currently effective CAISO Tariff.
To comply with current tariff requirements, and in anticipation of revised reporting requirements
for 2009 under the CAISO’s MRTU Tariff, staff has been working with NCPA staff and member
agencies to develop a replacement Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program.
CMR: 392:08 Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
The attached Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program has been developed to coordinate with
the rules and requirements incorporated within the CAISO’s MRTU Tariff. In addition to
regulatory compliance, the program is designed to achieve a high degree of reliability in the
electric service supplied to the City’s customers and includes the following information and
requirements:
• Applicability of the CAISO’s resource adequacy requirements to the City.
• The City’s requirement to provide resource adequacy demonstrations to the
CAISO. As the City’s Scheduling Coordinator, NCPA will submit the
information to the CAISO on behalf of the City.
• The use of the California Energy Commission’s monthly peak demand
determination for calculating the City’s capacity requirements.
• Determination of the capacity reserve margin, which states that the City shall
retain capacity equal to no less than 115% of the monthly peak demand.
• Clarification that the CAISO’s authority to dispatch generation facilities is
governed by the terms of Metered Subsystem Agreement.
• A description of the generation resources and contracts that count towards
meeting the City’s capacity requirements, and the rules and criteria for counting
capacity.
• Procedures for compliance and enforcement of the resource adequacy
requirements.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program was presented to the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) at its October 1, 2008 meeting. The Commission discussed local capacity
issues such as how long the City had been subject to this requirement, how local capacity could
be met or reduced through lowering peak demand and transmission investments, and sources for
local capacity. The Commission also confirmed that the expected costs for local capacity are
included in the current budget for the electric utility. The Commission requested further
clarification that the proposed Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program was the result of a
collaborative effort with NCPA and member agencies. The UAC voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council approve the Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program.
Excerpted minutes from the UAC meeting are included as Attachment C.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The costs of meeting the reliability requirements specified in the Electric Utility Resource
Adequacy Program are included in the current electric utility budget. A new component of this
updated program relates to local area requirements that are assigned to the City. The CAISO
requires all load serving entities, such as the City of Palo Alto, to procure a large portion of their
required resources from generators in their local areas – for Palo Alto that means within the San
Francisco Bay Area. Current assumptions indicate that these requirements may cost $3.4 million
per year. These costs for local area requirements were anticipated and are included in the
electric budget.
CMR: 392:08 Page 3 of 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Adoption of the Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program is consistent with the Council-
approved policy to follow regulatory mandates, maintain local control over utility services and
provide reliable electric power. Additionally, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Implementation
Plan that was approved by Council on April 17, 2006, included a statement to, “Establish a
policy to address mandatory resource adequacy requirements.”
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of this resolution does not require review under the California Environmental Quality
Act because it does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to California Public Resources
Code Section 21065.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution Approving City of Palo Alto Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program
B. City of Palo Alto’s Electric Utility Resource Adequacy Program
C. Excepted Minutes from the October 1, 2008 Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting
PREPARED BY: DEBRA LLOYD
Senior Resource Planner
REVIEWED BY: ________________________________
JANE O. RATCHYE
Utilities Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR:385:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR:385:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Formally Establishing a Corrective Action
Reserve Within the Refuse Fund in Accordance With the California
Integrated Waste Management Board Financial Assurance Requirements
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) approving the formal establishment of a
Corrective Action Reserve within the Refuse Fund in the amount of $636,216 (plus annual
inflation updates) in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) requirements that would provide for initiating and completing corrective action
in the event of a potential groundwater release from the Palo Alto Landfill; and
2. Authorize the City’s Director of Administrative Services to verify the establishment of the
Corrective Action Reserve (Attachment B) and the Director of Public Works to certify the
establishment of a financial mechanism for corrective action for the Palo Alto Landfill
(Attachment C) in letters addressed to the CIWMB.
BACKGROUND
In 1990, the City Council passed a resolution formally establishing the landfill’s
closure/postclosure maintenance refuse reserve (Resolution No. 6919). In 1992, the City’s landfill
consultant, “EMCON”, developed a cost estimate for potential corrective actions as part of the
groundwater monitoring program for the Palo Alto Landfill. Subsequently, the City established a
refuse reserve titled “Water Resources Board Reserve” in order to accommodate these potential
corrective action costs. In 2003, another City consultant, “Conor Pacific”, prepared a cost estimate
update for a potential release to groundwater for the landfill. The City’s corrective action reserve
was modified to reflect this updated cost forecast. Since 2003, the City has increased this reserve
by an amount equal to inflation based on annual inflation factors provided by the CIWMB. The
current amount contained in this account is now $636,216 accounting for the last update in May
2008. City staff believed that with the establishment of the corrective action reserve, the City was
in full compliance with the CIWMB policies and regulatory requirements. However, CIWMB
staff has recently contacted City staff to request a more formal establishment and committal of
funds.
CMR:385:08 Page 2 of 3
The CIWMB has promulgated regulations requiring that landfill operators have adequate
financial assurances for closure activities and corrective actions. A financial assurance
mechanism is an arrangement whereby a party facing a potential or certain liability pledges or
deposits funds so that 1) all anticipated costs will be covered; 2) all funds will be secure over
time; and 3) all funds will be available when needed. PRC section 43501 mandates that landfill
operators establish "a trust fund or equivalent financial arrangement" as evidence of financial
ability to pay for the costs of closure/postclosure maintenance and corrective action for their
respective facilities. The purpose of the financial assurance mechanism (for corrective action) is
to directly obligate public entities, involved in environmentally hazardous activities, to commit
funds in advance for the costs of protecting the environment.
There are several mechanisms allowed for government entities to provide financial assurance.
The City has chosen an enterprise reserve for both the landfill’s closure/postclosure maintenance
and corrective action. To provide security over time and ensure funds are readily available,
CIWMB regulations require that monies from the enterprise fund be dedicated to closure/
postclosure maintenance and/or corrective action, and deposited into a mechanism offering
protection "equivalent to" a trust fund. The funds must be held by a public agency (or separate
department) not directly connected with, nor responsible for operating the subject landfill or the
waste management operations of the county or city, such as the auditor or treasurer. Public
operators have the flexibility to make arrangements to suit their own needs as long as the
CIWMB is satisfied that the funds are adequately protected. On each anniversary of the
establishment of the fund, the balance must be increased in accordance with a formula specified
by the regulations.
DISCUSSION
As mentioned above, the City has already established a corrective action reserve to cover
potential costs associated with a reasonable foreseeable release from the landfill and has
increased the fund annually based on inflation factor updates provided by the CIWMB.
However, the City has not formally established this reserve by resolution, officially verified the
establishment of the reserve, or certified this financial assurance mechanism in accordance with
CIWMB requirements. The resolution is necessary to demonstrate the commitment of this
reserve for the sole purpose of providing corrective action and gives the CIWMB the authority to
direct the Director of Administrative Services to use the funds for corrective action if the City
fails to perform corrective action as required by law.
Once the attached resolution has been adopted, the City will need to provide a letter signed by
the Director of Administrative Services verifying the formal establishment of the reserve
(Attachment B) and another letter signed by the Director of Public Works certifying the
establishment of a financial mechanism for corrective action for the Palo Alto Landfill
(Attachment C).
RESOURCE IMPACT
Sufficient funds have already been budgeted for the corrective action in the amount of $636,216
and are available in the Refuse Fund.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation does not represent changes to existing City policies.
CMR:385:08 Page 3 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of this resolution and formally establishing this reserve is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the activity will not cause either a direct
physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution
Attachment B: Letter Verification of Establishment of Reserve
Attachment C: Letter Certification for the Establishment of a Financial Mechanism for
Corrective Action of the Palo Alto Landfill
PREPARED BY: ___________________________________
RON ARP
Manager, Environmental Control Programs
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ___________________________________
LALO PEREZ
Director of Administrative Services
___________________________________
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ___________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR: 408:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 408:08
REPORTY TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Adopting a Resolution
Approving a Field Use Policy Applicable To Playing Fields in Palo Alto
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve the attached Field Use Allocation Policy, and
2. Adopt the attached resolution approving a Field Use Policy applicable to playing fields in
Palo Alto.
BACKGROUND
The Recreation and Golf Division has worked closely with the Parks and Recreation
Commission over the last six months to develop a formal “Field Use Allocation Policy” to
ensure that park and field facilities are utilized for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational,
social and community service functions that meet the needs and interests of the community. The
City of Palo Alto Recreation and Golf Division brokers the use of all City and Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) playing fields. These include fields at 16 parks, 5 sports complexes, 15
elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 2 high schools. The Division works regularly with 34
local sports clubs and non-profit organizations that represent approximately 25,000 sports
participants. Athletic field space in Palo Alto, which is limited, continues to be in high demand.
At the same time, the demand for fields for practice and competition continues to increase each
year.
Existing informal field reservation guidelines are no longer adequate to address the demand for
fields or for the competing interests of how often and to whom fields are brokered. There has
never been a formal policy that establishes procedures and sets clear policies governing the use
of City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District playing fields managed by the City of
Palo Alto. As the City continues to experience ever growing demand with limited supply of
playing fields, the need for a clear, concise and objective field use policy has become evident.
CMR: 408:08 Page 2 of 3
The interests of many stakeholders were considered in the formulation of this policy draft
including: various neighborhood residents, park maintenance staff, Field User Committee
members, Parks & Recreation Commissioners, PAUSD, and regular field users. A Parks and
Recreation Commission special study session was held on November 8, 2007, at Jordan Middle
School to hear neighborhood and field user concerns about the use of the playing fields at Jordan
Middle School. Public comment and feedback regarding the policy draft was solicited via email
and the City’s website. Various neighboring cities were benchmarked from South San Francisco
to San Jose to see what, if any, field use policy are currently in place. The proposed policy
incorporates segments of the field use policies from the City of Campbell and the City of
Cupertino, as these agencies appear to have the most comprehensive and effective policies of the
various policies reviewed.
The policy provides the public and staff with fair and reasonable guidelines to broker City of
Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District fields. The policy: helps prioritize the high
volume of field requests staff receives; it provides clear expectations of field users for turf
preservation; and recognizes the impact on residents who live close to fields. The “Good
Neighbor Guidelines” provide strategies that will hold field users accountable for excessive
noise, litter and disregard of parking regulations. The Field Allocation Policy also addresses the
appropriate type and amount of use that will be permitted on fields based on such criteria as:
proximity to homes, field drainage, lights, restrooms and quality of turf.
The policy is unlikely to reduce field space allocation to regular field user groups but will
provide clear policies and procedures for how staff determines field allocation amongst the many
user groups.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
At its August 26, 2008 regular meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the first
draft of the Field Use Allocation Policy and reviewed the public comments and suggestions
received from various stakeholders regarding the draft policy. At its September 23, 2008 regular
meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission heard additional public comment, discussed
further revisions, and unanimously voted to recommend the final draft (Attachment A) to
Council for adoption.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of this policy will not result in a significant impact on staff time or
resources.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed policy is consistent with the Department of Community Services’ Strategic Plan
and with current Park and Open Space Rules and Regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed policy is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements.
CMR: 408:08 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Field Use Policy
Attachment B: Resolution Approving a Field Use Policy
PREPARED BY: ____________________________________________
SHIA GEMINDER
Recreation Supervisor, Recreation and Golf Division
DEPARTMENT HEAD:_______________________________________
GREG BETTS
Interim Director, Community Services Department
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:_________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR:410:08 Page 1 of 4
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 410:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Management Agreement with Brad
Lozares Golf Shop for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero
Road, Palo Alto
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the attached Amendment No. 3 to the management agreement with Brad Lozares for golf
course professional services at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1875 Embarcadero Road.
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 1998, the City issued tax-exempt bonds to finance golf course improvements. For
the 20-plus years prior to the bonds being issued, the City and the golf professional had operated
under one lease agreement for both professional services and the lease of the City-owned pro-
shop facility. When the bonds were issued in 1998, IRS regulations required that there be two
agreements, a management agreement for golf course professional services and a lease to operate
a golf retail establishment.
In 1998, the Council approved a 20-month management agreement and a 15-year lease with golf
professional, Brad Lozares. The original management agreement was amended three times prior
to the Council’s approval of a new restated management agreement (Agreement) on January 27,
2003. On May 1, 2006, the Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement which: 1)
extended the term for an additional eighteen months; 2) increased the fixed fee compensation by
3 percent; and 3) reimbursed the golf professional for 60 percent of the bank’s credit card
merchant charges attributed to golf cart rentals.
On May 14, 2007, the Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement, in which a 2
percent cost of living increase was approved with a City resource impact of $553.21 per month
or $6,638.46 for the duration of the 12-month term - January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008.
DISCUSSION
Brad Lozares and his staff have provided excellent services to the City of Palo Alto for more
than 25 years, providing the primary interface between the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and
CMR:410:08 Page 2 of 4
patrons. They are highly respected for their professionalism, knowledge of the game and quality
of instruction.
Amendment No. 3 is an extension of the agreement for only one year primarily due to the
pending golf course operational study recently conducted by Economic Research Associates. The
golf course operational study will come before the Council in a study session on November 17th,
2008. A review of the study will provide an opportunity to develop short and long term strategies
for the future of Palo Alto Golf Course
The study of the Palo Alto Golf Course examines Bay Area golf market trends, Palo Alto Golf
Course market performance, the condition of existing facilities, capital improvement
requirements, stakeholder and golfer responses to services and operational policies, and expected
future financial performance of current and alternative operating options available for the golf
course.
Staff and Brad Lozares recognize the golf course operational study may provide some new
direction for the golf course. A one-year extension of the Brad Lozares Management Agreement
will allow the Council and staff time to review and discuss the golf course operational study and
then develop a plan for how to proceed, while still maintaining high quality golf professional
services in the interim.
Term:
The attached proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement will extend the term of the
Agreement for an additional 12 months – January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009.
Compensation changes:
A number of changes are recommended to the terms of compensation, Percentage Fees and
Productivity Rewards, all of which are agreeable to Brad Lozares, and are described below:
A) Fixed Management Fee
It is recommended the golf professional receive a 2 percent cost of living increase of $564.27 per
month, or $6,771.24 for the duration of the 12-month term, January 1, 2009 to December 31,
2009.
B) Percentage Fee Changes
In fiscal year 2007-08, the City of Palo Alto invested $559,086 to replace the deteriorated
driving range synthetic turf and netting. The debt service for this investment is $82,186.40
annually for the next 5 years. To ensure there are sufficient revenues to cover the increased debt
service, staff proposes an adjustment to the Driving Range fees percentage from the existing
arrangement of 60% revenues to the City and 40% of revenues to Brad Lozares to a new
arrangement of 62% of revenues to the City and 38% of revenues to Brad Lozares. The result of
this change, along with increased fees and increased play is expected to generate sufficient
revenue to meet the new debt obligation.
C) Productivity Reward Changes
CMR:410:08 Page 3 of 4
The productivity reward creates an additional incentive for the golf professional to increase
revenues for both the City of Palo Alto and the Golf Professional. The current productivity
reward terms have been in place since 2003 and need to be adjusted to reflect current market
conditions for meaningful and achievable incentives. The changes are described below:
Paid Golf Rounds (Discount Card & Replay Rounds)
If more than 77,500 annual rounds are played per year, then the golf professional will
receive $3.00 per round.
Explanation of change:
This is a change from 87,000 rounds to 77,500. The average annual paid rounds played
over the last three years was 75,623 rounds, consequently 77,500 rounds is a more
realistic and attainable incentive for the golf professional.
Power Golf Cart Rentals
If more than $300,000 in annual power cart rental revenue is generated, then the golf
professional will receive $100 per $1,000.
Explanation of change:
This is a change from a target of $250,000 in annual power cart rental revenue with golf
professional receiving $200 per $1,000. The average annual power cart sales for the last
three years were $294,806. In 2009, the golf professional will increase the fleet size and
quality of power carts, and will raise fees which will increase Power Cart revenues
significantly. Consequently, $100 per $1000 exceeding $300,000 is a more appropriate
incentive.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The changes proposed in Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement will result in an additional annual
City expense of approximately $6,771.23 for the 12-month duration of the Agreement. The
financial terms of the Agreement will be accommodated within the existing resources available
to the Community Services Department. The golf course operation is expected to fully recover
costs including debt service and cost plan charges during the term of this Agreement. The impact
of changes in Productivity Reward and Percentage Fees are dependent on the amount of play at
the golf course; staff anticipates an increase in overall golf course revenue as a result of more
meaningful and achievable incentives.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendment is consistent with prior Council direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the amendment to agreement does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment No. 3 to Management Agreement
CMR:410:08 Page 4 of 4
PREPARED BY:_______________________________________________________________
ROB DE GEUS
Division Manager, Recreation & Golf Services
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:______________________________________________
GREG BETTS
Interim Director, Community Services Department
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:___________________________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR:412:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR:412:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the
Implementation Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto And Bay Area
Clean Water Agencies for the Disbursement of $972,800 in State Grant
Funds for the Mountain View/Moffett Area Recycled Water Pipeline
Project (CIP WQ-04010)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager or
designee to execute the Implementation Agreement (Attachment A) with the Bay Area Clean Water
Agencies (BACWA) for the disbursement of a $972,800 State grant to the City of Palo Alto (City)
for the Palo Alto, Mountain View/Moffett Area recycled water pipeline project.
BACKGROUND
BACWA is a Joint Powers Authority existing under the laws of the State of California and
consisting of various wastewater agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area Region. On behalf of the
wastewater agencies in the nine Bay Area counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, BACWA
has applied for a Proposition 50 Chapter 8 Grant from the Department of Water Resources (DWR)
for implementation of recycled water and water conservation projects that are included in the
integrated regional water management plan (IRWMP). The Mountain View/Moffett Area recycled
water pipeline project is one of the projects in the IRWMP.
The Mountain View/Moffett Area recycled water pipeline project is a joint project between the cities
of Mountain View to construct a reclaimed water pipeline from the Palo Alto Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to the Mountain View Shoreline community. The City of Palo
Alto, as the owner and operator of the RWQCP, is the lead agency for the project. The two cities
have worked together and sought grant funds for the project since the fall of 2003. The cities’
partnership qualified the project as a regional project that would benefit the Bay Delta water supply,
and maximized the opportunity for grant funding. The project has received other State grants and
loans, and was fully funded in 2007 when construction began. Much of the project is now complete
and the project is within budget. In March 2007, DWR awarded BACWA a $12.5 million grant in
State funding to reimburse for implementation of projects in the IRWMP. The share of grant
funding for the Mountain View/Moffett Area recycled water pipeline project is $972,800 for the
construction, implementation, environmental mitigation and enhancement.
CMR:412:08 Page 2 of 3
The Implementation Agreement governs the process, by which each of the participating agencies
will submit their reimbursement requests to BACWA, and how BACWA will disburse the State
grant funds to each of the participating agencies. When BACWA has executed the implementation
agreements with the participating agencies, it will then sign a State Agreement with DWR. The
State agreement will govern the process by which DWR will disburse the State grant funds to
BACWA. It is anticipated that the State Agreement will be executed in November this year. A copy
of the State Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Implementation Agreement (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
Under the Implementation Agreement, the City is entitled to a reimbursement of $972,800 for the
City’s implementation of the Mountain View/Moffett Area recycled water pipeline project, and City
agrees to the following:
1. The City will implement, operate, and maintain the Mountain View/Moffett area recycled
water pipeline in accordance with the work plan, schedule, and other attachments to the
Implementation Agreement; and
2. The City will cooperate with BACWA and each of the participating agencies in fulfilling the
obligations under the State Agreement for disbursement of the State Grant funds to
BACWA; and
3. The City will submit project reports in accordance with the Implementation Agreement.
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the Implementation Agreement.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Mountain View/Moffett Area recycled water pipeline project is fully funded. There is no
budget increase associated with the project, and no additional funding is requested. However, the
City is committed to seek State and Federal grants to reduce costs of the project to the City. The
City’s share of the State grant is $972,800. This grant will repay part of the construction cost of the
project, which totals $16 million.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations of this staff report are consistent with City Council’s sustainability policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Execution of the Implementation Agreement does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration and mitigation/monitoring and reporting plan was prepared and adopted by Council for
the Mountain View/Moffett Area recycled water pipeline project on January 12, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Implementation Agreement
Attachment B: Resolution
CMR:412:08 Page 3 of 3
PREPARED BY: ______________________________________
JAMES S. ALLEN
Acting Manager, RWQCP
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ______________________________________
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR: 407:08 Page 1 of 4
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 407:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Opposing Proposition 7: The Solar and Clean
Energy Act of 2008
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution opposing Proposition 7:
The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008.
BACKGROUND
In the November 4, 2008 general election, California voters will be asked to vote on Proposition
7, known as “The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008.” If passed, this proposition will impose
new renewable energy portfolio standards on California’s electricity providers, including
publicly-owned utilities such as the City of Palo Alto’s electric utility. These new requirements
culminate in a 50% renewable energy portfolio standard by 2025. However, the majority of the
City’s current renewable resources, such as hydroelectric resources and small (less than 30
megawatts) landfill and solar projects, will not be eligible to count towards the 50% target. The
measure will also extend state authority over locally-controlled public power systems, and
impose penalties for noncompliance.
A large number of local government, industry, and environmental organizations have taken
positions in opposition to Proposition 7, including: the California League of Cities; the California
League of Conservation Voters; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Environmental
Defense Fund; the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies; the Sierra Club of
California, and the California Solar Energy Industries Association.
DISCUSSION
The idea of setting an aggressive goal of a 50% renewable energy target is one that can make
great sense for California, but the Solar and Clean Energy Act is a poorly written measure that is
likely to impose significant costs on the City and probably California as a whole. It also cannot
be implemented as drafted. It is stated in the proposition that the Solar and Clean Energy Act
will not add more than 3% per year to electricity bills. However, there is no analysis provided to
CMR: 407:08 Page 2 of 4
evaluate such a statement and no explanation of how the following cost impacts will be
contained or mitigated.
• Proposition 7 excludes small renewable generation projects from competing in the
market
On March 5, 2007, the City adopted a target to meet 33% of its electric supply needs from
renewable energy by 2015. The City’s hydroelectric resources, which provide 50% of the City’s
electric supplies, do not count towards this renewable goal. However, very few of the City’s
current resources would qualify under the Proposition 7 definition of an “eligible” renewable
resource either. Proposition 7 not only continues the current disqualification of large (greater
than 30 megawatts) hydroelectric projects but adds a further restriction that disqualifies other
renewable projects under 30 megawatts. For the City, this will mean that current qualifying
contracts for renewable energy in the electric portfolio, such as small landfill generation and
solar projects, may not qualify towards the 50% requirement. Disqualification of small
renewable projects will also reduce competition in the renewable energy market, driving up costs
to consumers.
• Proposition 7 locks in a 10% premium for eligible renewable resources
Proposition 7 sets a cap of 10% above market rates for energy from eligible renewable resources.
As a cap often sets the price in uncompetitive markets, this provision will allow eligible
renewable energy providers to always charge 10% above the market price of energy, again
driving up costs to consumers. Additionally, this cap does not apply to publicly-owned utilities
such as the City’s electric utility. This makes it unclear if the City would be released from the
obligation to enter into eligible renewable energy contracts even when the price exceeds the 10%
above market cap.
• Proposition 7 creates incentives and expedited permitting solely for projects and
transmission facilities for eligible renewable projects
A 50% statewide renewable target will require significant construction of renewable projects and
transmission facilities to connect these new projects to the California transmission grid. While it
is clear that the costs of such new facilities will be passed along to consumers in their electric
retail rates, it is unclear if the expedited process will provide the same cost oversight, and
environmental and land-owner protections that are currently provided in the planning and
permitting processes. Due to the exclusion of small renewable projects, Proposition 7 will likely
result in significant new transmission construction. The City is an advocate of transmission
investment to improve reliability and access new generation, but not at any cost to consumers or
the environment. A major investment, such as in transmission infrastructure, should include a
careful analysis of the costs and benefits and should consider all alternatives. An arbitrary
exclusion of small local renewable resources and permitting preference for large solar projects
sited in the desert could easily result in unnecessary construction and consumer costs.
CMR: 407:08 Page 3 of 4
• The imposition of penalties under Proposition 7 creates risks for the City’s General
Fund
Proposition 7 imposes a penalty of 1 cent per kilowatt hour1 when an electricity provider fails to
meet its renewable energy target, and there is no cap on the total amount of penalties that may be
imposed in any given year. Additionally, the measure states that the cost of any penalties cannot
be recovered through rates paid by customers. Proposition 7 fails to address how this penalty will
apply to publicly-owned utilities, such as the City’s electric utility; publicly-owned utilities
typically have no other source of revenues that could be used to pay a penalty other than rates
paid by customers or the City’s General Fund. This provision of the measure represents an
unknown but potentially significant cost to the City’s General Fund.
RESOURCE IMPACT
If Proposition 7 were approved, the cost for Palo Alto is uncertain, but is expected to be
significant and could approach $100 million. These increased costs are due to: (1) reduced value
for existing renewable contracts in the City’s electric resource portfolio that would not be
counted; (2) increased transmission costs; (3) increased energy costs; (4) unknown
regulatory/legislative action to try and “fix” the measure; and (5) the imposition of penalties for
noncompliance that cannot be passed through to consumers (a point of major confusion for all
publicly-owned utilities).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities’ legislative priorities to:
1. Preserve/enhance local flexibility in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility
programs and rates for our customers.
2. Support meaningful climate protection legislation with recognition for early voluntary
actions.
3. Support efforts to maintain or improve the reliability of the supply, transmission and
distribution infrastructures.
4. Maintain the City’s ability to provide reliable, sustainable, and competitively-priced utility
service.
ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION
Adoption of this Resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition
of a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental
review is required.
1 For comparison, the baseline rate for residential electric service in Palo Alto is 8.66 cents per kilowatt hour.
CMR: 407:08 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Opposing Proposition 7: The Solar and Clean Energy
Act of 2008
B. Members of Separate and Independent Environmental Coalition Formed to Defeat Prop. 7
PREPARED BY: DEBRA LLOYD
Senior Resource Planner
REVIEWED BY: JANE O. RATCHYE
Utilities Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR:419:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR:419:08
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of First Amendment to the Option to Lease Agreement with the
Environmental Volunteers for the Former Sea Scout Building Located at
2560 Embarcadero Road
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached First Amendment to the July 9, 2008 Option
to Lease Agreement with the Environmental Volunteers for the property located at 2560
Embarcadero Road, known as the former Sea Scout Building.
BACKGROUND
The former Sea Scout building is a 2,209 square foot, wood frame structure designed by Birge
and David Clark, and donated to the City by Lucie Stern on May 30, 1941. Located in the Palo
Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, the building is currently in poor condition; and its floors have
been subjected to flooding during biannual extreme high tides. Its rehabilitation requires
extensive sub-floor construction and relocation to a higher elevation at or near its current
location in the Baylands Preserve.
On May 6, 2002, Council adopted the Historic Resources Board’s (HRB) recommendation to
designate the former Sea Scout building as a Category 1 structure to the City of Palo Alto’s
Historic Inventory. On July 9, 2007, after a lengthy Request for Proposals (RFP) process,
Council approved a two-year Option to Lease Agreement (Agreement) with Environmental
Volunteers (EV), a non-profit organization promoting the understanding of and responsibility for
the environment through hands-on science education. The Agreement provides for a two-year
option term during which EV must satisfy certain conditions prior to exercising its option and
entering into a 40-year lease to relocate, rehabilitate and reuse the site as its office headquarters
for conducting its mission and providing other public benefits. Conditions of the Agreement
include EV obtaining approval of its project plans from the City and other agencies having
jurisdiction over the Baylands. On September 4, 2008, following review and approval of the
CMR:419:08 Page 2 of 3
project by the HRB and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the project received final
approval from the Director of Planning and Community Environment .
On September 15, 2008, Council adopted a Park Improvement Ordinance for the rehabilitation
and relocation of the Sea Scout Building in accordance with the approved EV project plans.
DISCUSSION
Since entering into the Agreement with the City, EV has diligently pursued its required
approvals from the City and several other agencies having Baylands jurisdiction. All approvals
appear to be complete, with the exception of the California State Lands Commission (State). EV
notified the State in February 2008 of its intent to develop and operate the former Sea Scout
Building, but received no response until September 2008. The State sent notification that, based
on its alleged sovereign rights to the property, it wanted either the City or the EV to enter into a
lease with the State as a condition of its approval.
The issue of who owns the Baylands has come up periodically over the years. The State claims
ownership of former submerged lands in the Baylands which existed at the time of California’s
incorporation into the United States in the 1850’s. The City disagrees with this claim based on its
deeds for the Baylands property and the historic use of the property. A 1972 lease between the
State and the County permitting continued County use of the yacht harbor and the airport
acknowledges the dispute between the City and State and allows the County to proceed with its
development plans. In 1989, the City and State entered into a 49-year lease agreement to avoid
protracted litigation to resolve the ownership question and allow the City to construct the Byxbee
Park improvements. In 1991, the City and State entered into a 49-year lease for construction of
improvements in a portion of the Baylands in the vicinity of the former Sea Scout building. All
three agreements reserve the right of both the City and State to assert their mutually adverse
claims of ownership at some time in the future.
It is critical to the EV project that this jurisdictional dispute not impede prompt construction. As
a nonprofit organization, EV is fundraising in order to undertake the project. Of its $3.2 million
construction budget, EV has commitments for $2.2 million and requests of new donors in the
works for an additional several hundred thousand dollars. Of the $2.2 million in commitments,
over $300,000 of that are pledges that are time-bound and linked to the project beginning by a set
date. If EV does not begin construction on time, it could potentially lose those pledges. In
addition, EV’s construction schedule is constrained by the need to protect the clapper rail, an
endangered species whose Baylands habitat cannot be disturbed during its breeding season which
begins in February. If EV cannot begin construction very soon, the project may not be completed
by February 2009 when construction must cease.
To avoid delaying the EV project while the City and State negotiate to resolve the issue, staff
proposes the attached First Amendment to the Option to Lease with EV. The amendment will
add a clause to the option agreement and future lease addressing the jurisdiction dispute by
requiring the City to defend any ownership claims asserted by the State. In the event the State is
successful in its title claim, the City will indemnify EV for any lost investment.
The proposed amendment will enable EV to sign the lease and proceed with its construction in a
timely manner so as not to jeopardize the project. In the meantime, staff will negotiate with the
CMR:419:08 Page 3 of 3
State to amend the existing lease to permit the EV project. Once this occurs, the defense and
indemnity obligation to EV will terminate.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There will be no resource impacts of this amendment unless the City is unable to negotiate a
lease with the State and the State is determined to be the owner of the property. If these two
events occurred the City could be subject to an indemnity obligation equal to the depreciated
value of the construction costs of the building. (approximately $1-2 million). This possibility is
currently considered to be very remote.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Declaration for the rehabilitation and relocation project was
adopted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on September 4, 2008.
PREPARED BY:
MARTHA MILLER
Senior Financial Analyst
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
LALO PEREZ
Director/Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment to Option to Lease
CMR: 417:08 Page 1 of 5
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER Department: UTILITIES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 417:08
REPORT TYPE: INFORMATIONAL
SUBJECT: San Francisco Planning Commission’s Release of the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report on the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission’s Water System Improvement Program
This is an informational report and no Council action is required. This item is provided as
background information in conjunction with the study session on October 20, 2008.
BACKGROUND
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) operates the regional water system,
which supplies water to Palo Alto and the 26 other member agencies of the Bay Area Water
Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The regional water system is in need of repairs
and upgrades to ensure that it can reliably deliver high quality water to meet the region’s water
supply needs. A report released in January 2000 indicated that the regional water system could
suffer damage from a large earthquake so severe that water supplies would be cut off for up to
two months. In response, the SFPUC developed the Water System Improvement Program
(WSIP) comprised of 37 capital improvement projects to address the deficiencies of the regional
water system.
Palo Alto and the other BAWSCA agencies have worked with the SFPUC since early 2003 to
prepare for the environmental review phase of the WSIP. Since the environmental review would
evaluate the impact of delivering additional water supplies to San Francisco and the BAWSCA
agencies, BAWSCA and the SFPUC coordinated on the establishment of the future water
supplies needs for the region. Water supply demands for 2030 were calculated for each agency
after incorporating cost-effective water conservation measures. The BAWSCA agencies
committed to a total of 15 million gallons per day (MGD) of conservation, groundwater and
recycled water to meet future water supply needs. Palo Alto’s long-term demand projections
incorporated a savings of 4% from all measures found to be feasible and cost-effective at the
time. These measures and natural conservation from improved efficiency standards for water-
CMR: 417:08 Page 2 of 5
using fixtures and appliances resulted in no increased demand for water from the regional system
for Palo Alto.
Despite the 15 MGD committed to by the BAWSCA agencies, San Francisco and the BAWSCA
agencies indicated a need for 35 MGD of additional water by 2030 from the regional water
system. On June 27, 2007, the San Francisco Planning Department released the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) on the SFPUC’s WSIP for public review and comment.
The WSIP proposed that the additional water supply needs for 2030 be met with 10 MGD of
additional conservation, water recycling and groundwater supply programs in the City and
County of San Francisco and 25 MGD from increased use of Tuolumne River water.
The Draft PEIR described the proposed WSIP, identified the environmental consequences
associated with implementation of the WSIP, specified mitigation measures to reduce significant
and potentially significant impacts, and analyzed and compared the environmental effects of
alternatives to the proposed program as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Draft PEIR also included an analysis of three variants to the WSIP as requested by the
SFPUC.
On September 24, 2007, the Council considered comments on the Draft PEIR (Attachment B,
CMR: 370:07). On September 25, 2007, the City of Palo Alto submitted comments on the draft
PEIR to the San Francisco Planning Department (Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
On September 30, 2008, the San Francisco Planning Department released the Final PEIR on the
SFPUC’s WSIP. The Final PEIR consists of the Draft PEIR, comments and recommendations
received on the Draft PEIR, the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points
raised in the review and consultation process and any other information added by the lead
agency.
Since publication of the Draft PEIR in June 2007, the SFPUC has proposed revisions to the
WSIP in three areas, either in response to comments received on the Draft PEIR or as part of its
ongoing system operations and planning. These revisions include: (1) changes in the project
descriptions of two WSIP facility improvement projects (both of which help reduce impacts
associated with the projects as originally proposed) which affect overall system operations; (2)
updated water system assumptions and corresponding updates in the system modeling and
results; and (3) development of the Phased WSIP Variant, a “hybrid” program that is a
combination of the proposed program and one of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft PEIR.
The “Phased WSIP Variant” was developed by the SFPUC as an option that would involve full
implementation of the proposed WSIP facility improvement projects to ensure that the public
health, water quality, seismic safety, and delivery reliability goals are achieved as soon as
possible, but a phased implementation of water supply delivery through 2030. Phasing the water
supply element of the WSIP would allow the SFPUC and its wholesale customers to focus first
on implementing additional local recycled water, groundwater, and demand management actions
while minimizing additional diversions from the Tuolumne River. Under this variant, the
SFPUC would establish an interim, mid-term planning horizon—the year 2018. If the SFPUC
CMR: 417:08 Page 3 of 5
adopts this variant, it would make a decision about future water supply for its customers through
2018 only and defer a decision regarding long-term water supply until after 2018.
Under this variant, the SFPUC would limit average annual water deliveries supplied from its
watersheds to 265 million gallons per day (mgd), which represents the base-year level of supply
delivered from the SFPUC watersheds through the regional water system to both the retail and
wholesale customers analyzed in the Draft PEIR. The SFPUC would maintain the 265 mgd
average annual delivery of surface water from the SFPUC watersheds to existing levels through
2018. At the same time, through 2018, the SFPUC would implement the delivery and drought
reliability element of the WSIP, which would increase average annual diversions from the
Tuolumne River by about 2 mgd over the existing conditions.
By 2018, the demand on the SFPUC regional water system is projected to be 285 mgd,
consisting of 91 mgd for San Francisco and 194 mgd for the BAWSCA agencies. To satisfy the
remaining 20 mgd of demand on the regional system through 2018 while holding deliveries from
the SFPUC watersheds to 265 mgd, the SFPUC proposes development of local conservation,
recycled water, and groundwater projects within its service area. As proposed under the WSIP,
the Phased WSIP Variant would develop 10 mgd of local supply and supply offsets through
conservation, recycled water and groundwater projects in San Francisco. The SFPUC also
proposes to develop an additional 10 mgd of local conservation, recycled water, and groundwater
within the service area.
By 2018, the SFPUC would reevaluate the delivery amount and consider whether to maintain
these delivery limitations from the SFPUC watersheds through 2030 or increase them, and
whether and how to provide additional supply to the BAWSCA agencies.
The Final PEIR determines that the potential environmental effects of the Phased WSIP Variant
fall within the range of impacts already evaluated in the Draft PEIR for the WSIP and the
alternatives. Although the Phased WSIP Variant does not include a specific water supply
proposal beyond 2018, for purposes of environmental impact analysis and comparison to the
proposed WSIP and other alternatives evaluated in the PEIR, the PEIR does assess the range of
water supply that could be provided under this variant through 2030.
Table 13.1 in the Final PEIR, reproduced below, summarizes the SFPUC average annual water
deliveries to its retail (San Francisco) and wholesale (BAWSCA agencies) customers under the
Phased WSIP Variant. In that variant, the SFPUC proposes to establish an interim delivery
amount through the year 2018, and then to either maintain this same delivery amount through
2030 or increase it, possibly up to the level proposed under the WSIP.
CMR: 417:08 Page 4 of 5
(SFPUC, WSIP, PEIR)
As explained in the Final PEIR, although the SFPUC would only make a decision regarding
water supply through 2018 under the Phased WSIP Variant, after 2018 and through 2030 it is
possible that average annual deliveries to the wholesale customers could range from 184 mgd to
209 mgd, as shown in Table 13.1 (or 199 mgd, on the high end if it is an assumed additional 10
mgd of local conservation, recycled water and groundwater programs is implemented by 2018).
If, after 2018, the SFPUC decides to maintain the 184 mgd average annual limit on SFPUC
watershed deliveries to the wholesale customers, then by 2030 the SFPUC regional water system
deliveries to the wholesale customers could be up to 25 mgd less than their 209 mgd purchase
request amount. It is possible that, in combination with the additional local conservation,
recycled water, and groundwater already developed during the first phase of this variant, the
wholesale customers could receive up to their full 2030 purchase request amount of 209 mgd
with no shortfall.
Impact on Palo Alto
The impact on Palo Alto of the Phased WSIP Variant is not completely clear. Since Palo Alto
did not project and does not anticipate growth in water supply needs, the stricture to limit future
water deliveries from the regional water system of the variant may not negatively impact Palo
Alto. However, Palo Alto will need to re-examine its water needs and potential to implement
additional water efficiency programs along with all the BAWSCA agencies to ensure that all
CMR: 417:08 Page 5 of 5
water supplies are used as efficiently as possible. It is also true that Palo Alto residents use more
water per capita than most of the BAWSCA agencies. Additional efficiency programs, perhaps
related to water used on landscaping, may need to be evaluated. In addition, Palo Alto will need
to seriously evaluate expanding the recycled water distribution system to new users in the search
for solutions to the regional water supply issues.
The Final PEIR contains responses to Palo Alto’s comments on the Draft PEIR (Attachment D).
Many of the comments were acknowledged and additional information was provided as
appropriate. On the request for the PEIR to address the concept of an intertie with the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) the response was that the SCVWD does not have excess
water to transfer and, therefore, would not be a dependable future water source for the regional
water system. The Final PEIR also revised a paragraph describing Palo Alto’s parklands.
NEXT STEPS
The San Francisco Planning Commission is scheduled to certify the Final PEIR (if it is
determined to fulfill all requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act) on
October 30, 2008. On that same day, the SFPUC is expected to adopt the WSIP, including the
Phased WSIP Variant.
BAWSCA and its member agencies have already begun a study to update the estimates for future
water demand and the potential for efficiency measures that were developed in 2003 and 2004
for the Draft PEIR. This study is expected to identify additional water efficiency programs and
recycled water projects that can be completed to meet the water supply restrictions that are
expected to be adopted. One part of the study is the development of a plan to implement the
identified programs and projects.
ATTACHMENTS
A. September 30, 2008 Memorandum from Ed Harrington, SFPUC General Manager
regarding Staff Recommendation for WSIP Adoption
B. CMR: 370:07 – Approval of Palo Alto’s Comments on Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report Concerning San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System
Improvement (Hetch-Hetchy) Program (without attachment)
C. September 25, 2007 Letter from the City of Palo Alto Mayor to San Francisco Planning
Department Regarding Comments on the Draft PEIR for SFPUC’s WSIP
D. Response in the Final PEIR to City of Palo Alto Comments on Draft PEIR
PREPARED BY: JANE RATCHYE
Utilities Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director, Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR: 402:08 Page 1 of 2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR: 402:08
REPORT TYPE: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
SUBJECT: Policy and Services Committee and Human Relations Commission
Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Encouraging the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Under
“Operation Return to Sender” to Enforce the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Laws in a Manner That Complies With all Applicable Laws, Rules and
Regulations, Including the Constitutional Protection Against Unreasonable
Searches and Seizures (November 14, 2007)
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee and the Human Relations Commission (HRC) recommend
that the City Council adopt a resolution encouraging the U.S. Immigration and Custom
Enforcement Agency, under “Operation Return to Sender,” to enforce the immigration and
customs laws in a manner that complies with all applicable laws, rules and regulations and the
constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and is in accordance with
principles of fair play and substantial justice.
BACKGROUND
At its November 14, 2007 meeting, the Policy and Services Committee voted unanimously (3-0)
to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution encouraging the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency under “Operation Return to
Sender” to enforce the U.S. immigration and customs laws in a manner that complies with all
application rules and regulations and the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
The Policy and Services Committee asked how this resolution is pertinent to the City of Palo
Alto. Council Member Drekmeier referenced a recent newspaper article that discussed
immigration enforcement activities occurring in the City of Palo Alto and stated that the
resolution contains references to local immigration issues.
CMR: 402:08 Page 2 of 2
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council, at its December 10, 2007 meeting discussed the resolution. Mayor Larry
Klein stated his lack of support for the resolution. A motion was made to table the resolution
and the City Council voted 5-4 in support of the motion.
A motion to agendize the discussion to Adopt a Resolution Encouraging the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Under “Operation Return to
Sender” to Enforce the U.S. Immigration and Customs Laws in a Manner That Complies With
all Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations, Including the Constitutional Protection Against
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures was made at the City Council’s September 8, 2008 meeting.
The motion passed 6-3 to agendize the resolution for a future City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR 415:07
Attachment B: Minutes from the November 14, 2007 Policy and Services Committee
Attachment C: Minutes from the December 10, 2007 City Council Meeting
PREPARED BY: _________________________________________________________
KATHY ESPINOZA-HOWARD
Division Manager, Cubberley & Human Services
DEPARTMENT HEAD:____________________________________________________
GREG BETTS
Director of Community Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:______________________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 20, 2008
TO: City Council Colleagues
FROM: Council Member Pat Burt and Council Member Sid Espinosa
SUBJECT: Request for the City Council to Approve Resolution in Support of Measure A
RECOMMENDATION
We hope you will join us in supporting and approving the attached resolution endorsing
Measure A, a bond supporting hospital seismic safety, which will be on the November
ballot.
BACKGROUND
Within the past four years, one in every four Santa Clara County residents (and many
Palo Altans) have been treated at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (VMC), the
county’s busiest hospital. This is a critical regional medical facility, especially for
specialized treatments like emergency, trauma and burn care. Because the VMC has
one of northern California’s two burn trauma centers (the other one is in Davis), if a Palo
Altan is severely burned, they will be treated at the VMC. The problem, which Measure
A seeks to address, is that this important regional resource must be seismically
retrofitted or it risks being closed by the state.
After the tragic 1994 Northridge earthquake in which twelve southern California
hospitals were severely damaged and eleven were forced to close, California
established an unfunded mandate that all hospitals must be seismically retrofitted by
2013. Unfortunately, over half of the VMC’s beds are in buildings that do not meet
California’s earthquake safety standards. We must fix this problem now, and Measure
A will do just that. This measure has received resounding support from across the
county, and it is notable that no organized opposition has emerged.
We have attached back up materials that provide details about why this measure makes
sense for Palo Alto and for our region. We hope that the Council will support the
attached resolution endorsing Measure A.
Article Launched: 09/07/2008 11:59:08 PM PDT
When Silicon Valley residents go to a hospital, they expect to receive quality care
utilizing the latest advances in technology.
That holds true at Valley Medical Center today. But it won't five years from now unless
Santa Clara County voters approve Measure A on the November ballot, providing the
funding to seismically retrofit 272 of Valley Med's hospital beds and keep open its prized
burn and trauma centers.
Administrators at competing hospitals agree that VMC provides the glue that holds the
county's medical system together. No hospital will be able to pick up the slack if VMC
loses nearly half of its beds and its burn and trauma centers in 2013 when California's
new safety standards go into effect.
Voting to approve the $840 million bond measure to replace the older part of the
hospital is the only way to guarantee that Silicon Valley residents will have an adequate
supply of hospital beds. The bond measure would cost property owners just under $14
per $100,000 in assessed home value, annually, for 30 years.
County officials know that this is not an ideal time to put a big revenue measure on the
ballot, especially one that will require two-thirds approval to pass. But they have no
choice. It speaks volumes that no organized opposition to the project has surfaced.
Despite the cost, this is one bond measure that must pass, for the good of the valley's
overall health.
The state imposed new seismic standards after the Northridge earthquake damaged 12
Southern California hospitals. But the Legislature provided no funding for hospitals to
retrofit their buildings by the 2013 deadline. Since the cost of replacement is roughly $2
million per bed, hospitals, including the San Jose Medical Center, have been closing at
an alarming rate; more than half in California are operating in the red.
VMC's main building, completed in 1999, meets California standards. But its older
building, which houses more than 250 of its 524 beds, was built 40 years ago and must
be replaced. The county has already allocated $172 million, and $790 million from the
bond measure would allow VMC to comply with the state's seismic safety mandate. If
the bond measure does not pass, and the hospital is forced to close half of its beds,
then the remaining 250 beds would not be enough to justify running a burn and trauma
center.
The remaining $50 million from the bond measure would go toward construction of an
outpatient medical service facility in downtown San Jose — greatly needed since San
Jose Medical Center closed its 302-bed hospital in 2004. The city, county and San Jose
State University have been in ongoing discussions to determine how best to accomplish
that goal. The $50 million would provide care to downtown residents, no matter the
outcome of the talks.
Silicon Valley already has just 1.5 hospital beds per thousand population — one of the
lowest ratios in California and the nation. At the same time, Valley Medical Center's
patient load has increased nearly 50 percent this decade.
There is no cure available for the valley to meet its future medical needs other than
swallowing hard and passing Measure A on Nov. 4.
From the ballot:
Valley Medical Center (VMC) - the hospital our community will rely on in the event of a
disaster or critical injury - doesn't meet California's mandatory earthquake safety standards.
A YES vote will make essential safety improvements to keep this vital hospital open when we
need it most.
VMC is a Level One Trauma Center, the highest-level hospital facility, and able to treat the most
serious accident and emergency patients. No matter where you usually go for healthcare, if you
are the victim of a serious accident or emergency in Santa Clara County, you are likely to be
taken to VMC's Trauma Center.
The 1994 Northridge earthquake in Southern California killed 70 people and sent 1,600 seeking
emergency care to local hospitals. Tragically, the damage forced 11 area hospitals to close.
Following that disaster, the State Legislature passed a law requiring all California hospitals to be
seismically safe by 2013. But the legislature provided NO state funding to make hospitals
earthquake safe.
Measure A will provide the necessary funding for Valley Medical Center to comply with
this State mandate and ensure our County's busiest hospital is seismically safe and able to
operate following the next big quake, which as we all know, could strike at any time.
VMC is our lifeline in a disaster, but without Measure A, many of its facilities - including
essential emergency and trauma care facilities - will be forced to close, including:
• Trauma Center for children and adults
• 272 hospital beds - about one-half of the hospital
• Santa Clara County's only burn injury unit
Measure A requires independent audits, oversight by a citizens committee, and public disclosure
of all spending from the measure. And legally no money can be spent on administrators'
salaries.
We urge a YES vote on Measure A - an investment that might save your life.
/s/ Mike Honda
Congressman, United States House of Representatives
/s/ Michael R. Splinter
President & CEO, Applied Materials, Inc., and Chairman, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
/s/ Laurie Smith
Sheriff, Santa Clara County
/s/ Roland Torres
MD, Director of Neurotrauma, Stanford University Medical Center
/s/ Anthony "Tony" Spitaleri
Mayor, City of Sunnyvale and Retired Palo Alto Fire Captain
Hospital Seismic Safety and Medical Facilities
To prevent state mandated shutdown of one-half of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center's beds;
closure of SCVMC's trauma, burn center; and, loss of disaster response, by rebuilding, and
improving earthquake safety of the hospital, meeting state seismic laws, and help replace
closed medical facilities in downtown San Jose, shall the County of Santa Clara issue $840
million in general obligation bonds with independent citizens' oversight committee, annual
audits, and no money for administrators' salaries?
BONDS YES
BONDS NO
Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote on this measure means:
A "yes" vote would authorize the issuance and sale of the bonds in the amount of
$840,000,000, to be secured by the levy of ad valorem taxes on property located within
the County.
A NO vote on this measure means:
A "no" vote would not authorize the issuance and sale of the bonds in the amount of
$840,000,000, to be secured by the levy of ad valorem taxes on property located within
the County.
Impartial Analysis from the County Counsel
Upon approval of 2/3rds of the votes cast by voters in an election, California law permits a
county to issue general obligation bonds. Bonds are secured by the levy of ad valorem taxes on
property within the county and bond proceeds can be used for any lawful purpose for which a
county may expend funds. Bond measures must meet certain accountability requirements,
including a statement of the specific purposes of the bond and that proceeds will only be used for
specific purposes, the creation of a separate account for deposit of the bond proceeds, and
issuance of annual reports on the collection and expenditure of bond funds.
State law, adopted following the temporary closure of several hospitals resulting from the 1994
Northridge earthquake, mandates that hospitals comply with seismic safety requirements by
2013, subject to a two-year extension to 2015 if certain requirements are met. Any hospital
facility that does not undergo the mandated seismic upgrade and remains at potential risk of
collapse, or which poses significant loss of life, in the event of a major earthquake is restricted to
being used solely for non-acute care purposes.
The County proposes issuing bonds in the amount of $840,000,000 at legal rates to: (1) retrofit
the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC); and (2) fund medical facilities in downtown
San Jose to replace the closed San Jose Medical Center. The stated purpose of the bonds is to pay
for the state-mandated seismic upgrade in order to prevent elimination of over half of SCVMC's
acute care patient beds and its trauma and burn center, and to pay for additional medical facilities
in the downtown San Jose area.
Measure A includes all accountability measures required by State law, and also requires the
creation of a Citizens' Oversight Committee to review annual reports on the collection and
expenditure of funds. Additionally, it prohibits the County from using bond proceeds for
administrators' salaries.
The County's best estimate of the tax required to be levied to fund the bonds during the first
fiscal year after the sale of the first series of bonds is $13.90 per $100,000 of the assessed value
of taxable property within the County. The County's best estimate of the highest tax required to
fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the last sale of the bonds is $13.90 per
$100,000 of assessed valuation. The County's best estimate of the highest tax rate required to
levy the bonds is $13.90 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
A "yes" vote would authorize the issuance and sale of the bonds in the amount of $840,000,000,
to be secured by the levy of ad valorem taxes on property located within the County.
A "no" vote would not authorize the issuance and sale of the bonds in the amount of
$840,000,000, to be secured by the levy of ad valorem taxes on property located within the
County.
Ann Miller Ravel
County Counsel
By: /s/ Susan Swain
Lead Deputy County Counsel