HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-12 City Council Agenda Packet
1 04/12/10
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.
REVISED
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
April 12, 2010
5:30 PM
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSIONS
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD WITH THE CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch,
Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Local 521 Service Employees International
Union
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Russ Carlsen,
Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2 04/12/10
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.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Nick Marinaro, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Russ Carlsen,
Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Local 1319, International Association of
Firefighters
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Nick Marinaro, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Russ Carlsen,
Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Proclamation Recognizing April as Parkinson’s Disease Awareness
Month
ATTACHMENT
STUDY SESSION
3. Preview of the City Manager’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2011
ATTACHMENT
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.
3 04/12/10
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 15, 2010
March 22, 2010
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
4. Approval of Utilities Public Benefit Three-Year Contract with OPOWER,
Inc. in the Total Amount of $574,083, $213,000 of Which Comes From
Federal Stimulus Funds, for Administration and Delivery of Residential
Home Energy Reports
CMR 191:10 & ATTACHMENT
5. Approval of the Nomination of the Category 2 Roth Building (300
Homer Avenue) to the National Register of Historic Places and
Transmittal of a Letter of Support to the State Historical Resources
Commission
CMR 205:10 & ATTACHMENT
6. Adoption of a Water Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance in the
Amount of $117,000 and Approval of Amendment No. 3 to
Contract C07120333 with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. in
the Amount of $372,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$674,700 for Completion of Environmental Documents for
Capital Improvement Program Project WS-07001, (Recycled
Water Distribution System Extension)
CMR 207:10 & ATTACHMENT
4 04/12/10
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.
7. Adoption of Two Resolutions to Incorporate a Side Letter Agreement
with the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA) to Provide a
Supplemental Military Leave Benefit to Pay for the Differential Between
Regular Salary and Military Pay to PAPOA Members Called to
Involuntary Active Duty Amending: (1) Section 1601 of the Merit
System Rules and Regulations Regarding the 2007-2010
Memorandum of Agreement and (2) the Compensation Plan for Police
Non-Management Personnel (PAPOA) Adopted by Resolution No. 8779
CMR 140:10 & ATTACHMENT
8. Approval of a Joint Powers Agreement to Form the Silicon Valley
Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) to Improve Public Safety
Communications and to Modify the Current Joint Funding Agreement
CMR 202:10 & ATTACHMENT
9. Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract With
the Avogadro Group, LLC for a Period of Three Years for Incinerator
Emission Testing at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant With
Funding for the First Year Approved in the Not to Exceed Amount of
$89,175 and a Total Contract Amount of $280,000
CMR 185:10 & 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 three minutes per speaker.
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters
5 04/12/10
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.
10. Public Hearing: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Change the Classification of Property Located
at 1700 Embarcadero Road from PC Planned Community 2378
and PC Planned Community 2491 to Service Commercial (CS)
and Site and Design (D) Review; and Approval of a Record of Land
Use Action for a Site and Design Review and Variance for the
Construction of a Four-Story Hotel and Restaurant at 1700
Embarcadero Road
CMR 184:10 & ATTACHMENT
11. Review and Comment on Revised Draft Program EIR for the Bay Area
to Central Valley High Speed Train and Monthly Update on City
Activities Related to the California High Speed Rail Project
CMR 211:10 & ATTACHMENT
12. (1) Library Construction and Bond Issuance Update, (2) Confirmation
of Approval of Use of Available General Obligation Bond Proceeds to
Pay for Temporary Facility Costs for Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center; and (3) Preliminary Direction Regarding a
Temporary Main Library
CMR 209:10 & ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
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
PROCLAMATION
April is Parkinson's Awareness Month
WHEREAS, Parkinson's disease is a progressive neurological movement disorder of the
central nervous system, which has a unique impact on each patient; and
WHEREAS, according to the Parkinson's Action Network, Parkinson's Disease Foundation,
the National Parkinson's Foundation, the American Parkinson's Disease Association, and the
National Institute of Health, there are over one million Americans diagnosed with Parkinson's
disease; and
WHEREAS, symptoms include slowness, tremor, difficulty with balance and speaking, rigidity,
cognitive and memory problems; and
WHEREAS, although new medicines and therapies may enhance life for some time for people
with Parkinson's, more work is needed for a cure; and
WHEREAS, increased education and research are needed to help find more effective
treatments with less side effects and ultimately a cure for Parkinson's disease; and
WHEREAS, a multidisciplinary approach to Parkinson's disease care includes local
Wellness, Support and Caregiver Groups; and
WHEREAS, April has been proclaimed as World Wide Parkinson's AWareness Month for all
to recognize the need for more research and help in dealing with the devastating effects of
Parkinson's disease. .
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patrick Burt, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City
Council do hereby proclaim April as Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month in the City of Palo
Alto.
Presented: April 2010
Mayor
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 12,2010
REPORT TYPE: Study Session
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
DEP ARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR: 208:10
SUBJECT: Preview of the City Manager's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2011
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review and comment, as needed, on a General Fund "Preview Budget" for
FY 2011.
BACKGROUND
The budget preview provides an early look at the budget cuts and revenues under consideration
for inclusion in the City Manager's Proposed Budget to be presented to Council on May 3, 2010.
This preview is for the General Fund only, which includes such services as Police, Fire, Library,
Community Services, Planning, Public Works, for instance.
In FY 2010, the adopted budget closed a $10 million gap, followed by an additional $6.2 million
gap closed with the FY 2010 midyear budget approved by Council on April 5. In FY 2011 the
City is facing an approximate $8.3 million budget gap that has increased from $6.4 million
identified in the February Long Range Financial Forecast (CMR:I43:10). The increase is
primarily due to a decrease in projected Utility User's Tax revenue due to recommendations to
have no utility rate increases in FY 2011. These numbers reflect Palo Alto's continuing fiscal
difficulties in the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Cities across California are in a
similar, or worse, condition.
Because the magnitude of service reductions to the community and loss of jobs to the City
workforce are significant, this overview is being released early to help prepare the City
organization and the community for tough choices that must be made during the upcoming
deliberations on the proposed budget that will begin in May.
DISCUSSION
The Preview Budget provides an overview of representative service reduction, cost recovery, and
revenue proposals that could included in the City Manager's FY 20 II Proposed Budget
scheduled to be released on May 3, 2010.
CMR: 208:10 Page I of6
At the direction of the Finance Committee, the City Manager has produced a range of options
that exceed the $8.3 million budget gap, to provide the Finance Committee and Council with
choices to balance the budget.
The table below provides a financial summary of the budget gap and proposed solutions.
Preview Budget Options Summary ($ millions)
Projected Budget Gap (as of 4/5/10) ($8.3)
Total Proposed Cuts ($7.4 ongoing, $1.1 onetime) $8.5
New Revenue and Revenue Increases $0.9
Proposed Budget Balancing Solutions $9.4
Additional Budget Balancing AlternativeslNext Tier $0.9
Total Prooosed Budget Solutions $10.3
Pending Other Revenue and Reductions $1.07
Total Potential Solutions for Finance Committee $11.3*
Review * Provides $3 million more than needed for decision
flexibilitv.
It is important to acknowledge that there may be refinements to these proposals, but they are
representative of the budget reductions that will be necessary to resolve the City's current
structural budget deficit. Projections at this time show that approximately 56.5 full-time
equivalent (FTE) positions would be eliminated with all the proposals. In addition, 18.52
temporary positions would be eliminated. The total of FTE and temporary positions is 75.02,
representing a total of 119 individual positions, of which 70 are currently filled. A breakdown of
the position reductions by fund and citywide is shown below.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Reductions
Total Reduction Percentage
General Fund 622.51 (50.50) (8.1%)
Enterprise Funds 356.24 (0.10) (0.03%)
Other
Funds/Internal
Service Funds 76.6 (5.90) (7.7%)
Total 1055.35 (56.50) (5.4%)
T emporary oSItIon Re uctlOns P .. d
Total Reduction Percentage
General Fund 41.71 (8.71 ) (21%)
Other Funds 32.93 (9.81 ) (30%)
Total 74.64 (18.52) (25%)
CMR: 208:10 Page 2 of6
FY 2011 position reductions would follow other reductions over the past decade. In FY 2004 the
City eliminated 29.9 FTE, in FY 2006 25.45 FTE, and in FY 2010 21.30 FTE.
As we work through the public outreach meetings, hear from employees, and in the Finance
Committee meetings these recommendations will be subject to change.
Given the magnitude of the structural budget gap, however, there is no escaping service
reductions and job losses. In resolving a structural budget gap, there will be no easy answers.
The proposed cuts represent a mix of targeted and across the board reductions. The City
Manager and Department Directors identified cuts based on maintaining services at lower costs,
so contracting-out solutions have been included where possible. Some programs cuts were made
where the service could be preserved but at a reduced level. For example, the Traffic Team in
the Police Department is subject to elimination under this plan. Regular patrol will need to pick
up some amount of their responsibility. Finally, some programs have been proposed for
elimination entirely. For example, the annual sidewalk maintenance program is recommended to
be cut (with costs shifted to homeowners). Following is a list of reductions that illustrate the
range of impacts of the service reductions, cost-recovery and revenue proposals included as
potential budget decisions.
I. Elimination of contract funding for the annual Side"{alk Replacement Program with shift
of responsibility for sidewalk repair to residents ($500,000)
2. Contracting out of some tree trimming/line clearing and elimination of four full-time
positions ($386,000)
3. The elimination of the Traffic Team will cut five full-time Police Officer positions
($894,000)
4. Elimination of one Community Services Officer position serving the centralized
community outreach program, including Neighborhood Watch, Citizen and Student
Academies, Community Newsletter, Community Events and Fairs, Community
Education Programs, Coordination of the Officer Request for Services Programs,
coordinating public education efforts in Emergency Preparedness with Block
Coordinators, Neighborhood Watch Captains and PANDA ($101,000)
5. Funding for school crossing guards eliminated ($345,000)
6. Reduction ofI-ISRAP funding ($50,000)
7. Library hours shortened and the closure of the Library on Mondays at Main, Mitchell and
the Children's Library will eliminate two full-time and one part-time position ($215,000)
8. The re-opening of the College Terrace Library delayed an additional eight months to June
30,2011 ($74,000)
9. Book collection funds for the Libraries reduced ($117,000)
CMR: 208:10 Page30f6
10. Partial cost recovery increases are proposed through increased participation and/or
admission fees for many programs including Junior Museum and Zoo, Art Center
Gallery, Children's Theatre productions, recreation classes, ali classes, nature interpretive
program, and the science outreach program, Animal Services, HazMat inspection fees
and Planning fees.
11. Shuttle services will be reduced to hourly stops at limited locations eliminating the
service for the Noon shuttle and Marguerite shuttle and reducing the Cross-town shuttle
to one bus ($196,000)
12. Elimination of the twilight concert and brown-bag summer concert series ($27,000)
13. In the Fire Department, Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) fees
are proposed to increase by 10% generating an estimated $200,000 in new revenue.
14. Elimination of one full-time Child care position and reduction of one Family Resources
Coordinator position to a half-time position in the Community Services Department
($137,000)
15. The proposed contracting out of Lawn Bowling Maintenance eliminates one fUll-time
position ($45,000)
16. Day use fees at Foothills, Arastradero and Baylands parks are proposed ($100,000)
17. The proposed contracting out of park maintenance at Mitchell Park and Rinconada will
eliminate four full-time positions ($147,000)
18. Vehicle replacement funding for the City's fleet/equipment purchases was reduced by
$483,000. A review of the size of City's fleet has been undertaken to further reduce
future fleet/equipment expenditures.
19. Employee training and education reduced Citywide across all departments ($92,000)
20. Elimination of funding for building maintenance services resulting in the reduction of
three full-time building maintenance positions ($230,000)
21. Contracting out custodial services will eliminate five positions ($540,000)
22. The City will be seeking 50 percent cost sharing from the PAUSD for the School
Resource Officer position ($83,000)
23. Elimination of two full-time positions in Police investigative services that investigate
cases of financial loss, and fraud ($377,000)
24. Elimination of a Fire Hazmat Position with future Hazmat services proposed to be
provided by mutual aid through the County ($37,000)
CMR: 208:10 Page 4 of6
25. The proposed contracting out of golf course maintenance includes the elimination of
seven full-time maintenance positions ($236,000)
26. The proposed reorganization of the Community Services department eliminates one
Division Manager position ($185,000)
27. Elimination of a building inspector, senior planner and staff support eliminates three
positions in Plauning ($382,000)
28. The reorganization and contracting out of the Print and Mail shop includes the
elimination of three full-time positions in the Administrative Services Department
($269,000)
29. Elimination of administrative support organization-wide resulting in the elimination of
seven positions ($462,000)
30. Reductions in the City Attorney's outside legal funds ($145,000)
31. Reduction of one full-time position in information technology ($159,000)
32. Reduction of one full-time position responsible for customer service and revenue
collection ($90,000)
33. $1,237,000 revenue decreases: the golf course ($225,000), plan check fees ($537,000),
and parking citations ($475,000)
CONCLUSION
The Preview Budget is a new approach, given the unprecedented challenges and choices facing
the city. It is provided to illustrate the range of possible budget balancing recommendations
under consideration in advance of the final preparation of the City Manager Proposed Budget,
which will be presented on May 3, 2010.
The City Council Finance Committee directed staff to identify a range of budget reduction
options and revenues larger than the deficit, in order to provide a range of choices for Council
consideration. As a result, the Preview Budget includes $10.3 worth of recommendations, with
another potential $1 million pending.
Since the number of options identified are greater than what is needed for closing the general
fund budget gap, more layoff notices will have been sent than will eventually be necessary. (See
attachment A for the full list of positions identified for possible elimination.)
The Preview Budget provides information designed to provide as much flexibility in job
reassignments as possible to minimize actual layoffs, and to inform the public about the
challenging choices Council will be facing.
Staff is in the process of completing design for a series of community outreach meetings and
information sharing efforts begiuning in late April and continuing through May, as directed by
CMR: 208:10 Page 5 of6
1 _____ _
Council. City Management is also engaging employees in design team meetings into June to
explore other budget ideas and organizational changes to consider.
It is expected that the City Manager's Proposed Budget issued in May 3, 2010 may vary some
from the Preview Budget as we refine proposals and hear feedback. Obviously, the final
decisions in FY 2011 will be made by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Details of Potential Position Eliminations
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 208:10
DAVID RAMBERG
Assistant Director
MARC PUCKET.a'
Budget Manager
Director, A ministrative Services
Page 6 of6
. •
. • ..
ITotal
I I
Administrative Specialist I
Building Serviceperson
Maintenance Assistant ~ H
Management Spec
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
Detail of Potential FTE Eliminations· Temporary Positions
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
vacant (0.25) 11,294
vacant (0.46) 19,940
vacant
vacant (0.92) (73,281)
Project Construction Inspector· H vacant , .
I I I
(13.51) (859,808)
(0.25) (11,294
0.46) (19,940
(0.92 (73,281)
(0.46) (27,211) (0.46) (27,211) , '. "
(5.01) (219,568) (18.52)1 (1,079,377) I
(1.00)
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
Detail Potential of HE Eliminations· Regular Positions
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
. ,
1126,693) (5.00) (459,973) (7.00) (760,524) (43.50) (2,544,116) (66.50) (3,891,306)
j
1
1
j
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REPORT TYPE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
-,'.-' .. -
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL . ..
"" .:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
APRIL 12, 2010 CMR: 191:10
CONSENT
Approval of Utilities Public Benefit Three-Year Contract with OPOWER,
. Inc. in the Total Amount of $574,083, $213,000 of Which Comes From
Federal Stimulus Funds, for Administration and Delivery of Residential
Home Energy Reports
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council:
I. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract with OPOWER, Inc. for
administration and delivery of residential Home Energy Reports.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
. TIle Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant (EECBG) program was created by Congress in 2007 and
was funded for the first time by the American Recovery and Reiief Act (ARRA) with an appropriation of
$3.2 billion. On March 26, 2009, the City of Palo Alto was determined to be eligible to receive up to
$663,000. The funds were received on October 27, 2009 for two demonstration projects as approved in
the EECBG application: the early replacement of High Pressure Sodium (BPS) siI'eet lights on selected
streets with Light Emitting Diode (LED) streetlights and the implementation of a Home Energy Report
for residential customers. The EECBG funds allocated to the LED Streetlight Project and the Home
Energy Report pi-oject are $450,000 and $213,000, respectively.
Under the Home Energy Report project, six quarterly Home Energy Reports will be sent to City of Palo
Alto Utilities residential customers. The first report will be sent with a letter introducing residential
customers to the project and offering them the chance to continue participating or to opt out. If residents
opt to participate, the Home Energy Reports they receive will compare their home energy usage to the .
average energy used. by a similar borne, and to the average energy used by the most efficient similarly
sized borne in a comparison group. Energy usage data. for individual bomes in the comparison gi'oup will
not be ·repOlted, to protect customer pl1vacy.
The first report and introductory letter will be sent to all residential customers, and futnre reports will only
be sent to customers who did not opt out. Report data will also be available on a website for customer
access via secure log-in. Water and greenhouse gas information are planned to be added at a futnre date.
The cost of the project is $574,083 for project development and then two years of report delivery
($74,083 setnp .and $250,000 per year). .
BACKGROUND
The Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) objectives and guidelines set the direction for planning
and managing the electric suppli portfolio, including the use of cost-effective efficiency as energy
. resources. Cowlcil approved tbe LEAP Objectives and Guidelines in 2001 and 2002 (CMR:425:01 and
CMR:398:02). Staff updates the Council on progress in implementing LEAP. The LEAP implementation
tasks were most recently updated in March 2007 (CMR: 158:07). In addition, 'the City's Ten-Year Energy
CMR: 191:10 Page 1 of4
I Efficiency Portfolio Plan, approved by Council in Apri12007 (CMR:2 I 6:07) identifies and sets high goals
for gas and electric conservation !Old efficiency programs. An update of this Plan will come to Council in
May 20 I 0 and also recommends large efficiency gains. .
Home Energy Reports are issued by a variel;y of utilities, lncbiding the Saer!ll11ento Municipal Utility
District (SMUD). These utilities have done comparative research on energy usage by customers who
receive or do not receive the reports and have documented that customers who receive the reports reduced
energy usage on average by about one to three percent. The Federal Government, including the President,
has also expressed interest in these reports .as ways of encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.
The Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant (EECBG) program, created by Congress in 2007 and
funded by the· American Recovery and Relief Act (ARRA) with an appropriation of $3.2 billion.,
administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides federal grants to units of local
.government, Indian tribes, states !Old territories to reduce energy use aud fossil fuel emissions, and for
improvements in energy efficiency. .
. On March 26, 2009, DOE allnounced 1I1e EECBG formnla grant allocations, and the City of Palo Alto
was detennined to be eligible to receive up to $663,000. The Cil;y of Palo Alto received ftmds on October
27, 2009 for two projects. The two demonstration prqjects approved in the EECEG application include
1I1e early replacement of High Pressure Sodium (lIPS) street lights on selected streets with Light Emitting .
Diode (LED) streetlights, and the implementation of a Home Energy Report for residential customers.
The EECBG funds allocated to the LED Streetlight Project and the Home Energy Report project are
$450,000 and $213,000 respectively,
DISCUSSION
In October 2009, the Cil;y issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking responses from organizations
interested in providing the home energy reports. An evaluation committee of CPAU staff members
reviewed 1I1e firms' qualifications and submittals in response to 1I1e criteria identified in the RFP. The
committee evaluated the firms based on six main criteria consisting of qualil;y of service proposed, cost,
location of the vendor, qualifications of the consultant, experience, and the financial capabiJil;y of the
company to deliver 1I1e services requested in the Request for Proposal. Of the two responses received,
OPOWER's was ranked first primarily due to the company's extensive experience ill implementing Home
Energy Reports for utilities.
SummarY of Solicitation Process
Proposal DescriptionINumber Home Energy Report, RFP Number 134341
Proposed Length ofP'Qject I Up to 5 Years i
Number of Proposals 'Received: : Two
Company Name Location (City, Program Description Points Out of
State) SOOP .... il>l.
1. OPOWER ~~!!ll!0nLYA __ .. Produce I) quarterly Home Energy 402 I-,----~-.--... --.-.. ---$574,083 for project Reports to residents comparing electric development and and natural gas usage with similar Comparable
Proposal Amount Submitted then two years of homes. Delivered by mail and on web· product
report delivery years site. Water and greenhouse gas to be delivered at
($74,083 setup and 20+ utilities
$250 000 per year) added at a future date.
2. Ennovatianz M~!!!!.tail} V~'!.'".g.!L Develop product to deliver 2 residential 238 . ._ .. _ .... _--_ .. __ ... __ ._.-... _. __ ._---
: reports on energy usage or 5 a borne No product yet
Proposal Amount Submitted $198,000 for one . energy/water audits and small developed and year : commercial benclunarking no experience • dlltll\)aselreports.
OPOWER was selected for this project due to expertise wi1l1 delivery of similar programs at a variety of
01l1er municipally and investor owned utilities, inCluding SMUD mentioned in the background.
CMR: 191:10 Page 2 of 4
i
1
I
I
I
The project will be complete;i as follows:
Task 1: Deploy tachllicallnfrastructure
OPOWER will install and configure all necessary hardware, software and network infrastructure for the
delivary of the Home Energy Reports and OPOWER Custoiner Portal in conjunction with City of Palo
Alto's (CPA) IT Department. OPOWER will host servers on a secure site.
Task 2: Select pilot regions agd acquire 31'4 party data
OPOWER will perform historical energy usage, demographic and geographic research, in conjunction
with CPAU, to identity the regions of CPAU's territory best suited to deploy the pilot program. Zip
codes, city, and county boundaries will be considered so as to optimize data coverage and ensure speedy
deployment .. Data bases researched for this data will be from public sources such as census records.
Task 3: Design optimization, segmentation and targeting plan
OPOWER will work with CP AU to optimize targeting of rebates programs and energy water saving
recommendations. Key metrics, ·such as internal and external cost per acquisition, will be used to improve
this targeting effort where possible. OPOWER will use energy, housing, and demographic data and
available past utility program participation data. to design a multi-dimensional segmentation plan based
on:
o Energy consumption patterns (e.g. normalized high seasonal peak, high base load, etc.).
No individual customer information will be available Of identified. Customers will only
be able to eompare their own data against an average sample.
o Publicly available bousing data (e.g. age of house, size of house, value of home, type of
constructil)n, presence of a pool, preSence of a garage).
o Past program participation & rebate redemption (e.g. ENERGY STAR® rated appliarice
and other rebates; rate assistance programs, etc.), wben available; and
o Publicly available demographic data (e.g. renter vs. bomeowner, presence of children in
the household, indicators of interest in environmental issues, age of customer, duration of
residence, socioeconomic/income levels, as available).
Task 4: Integration of prggram rnaWtlng for Home Energy Reports and OPOWER Customer
Portal.
OPOWERwill work with CPAU to target rebates, programs, and recommendations in the Home Energy
Reports and through the OPOWER Consumer Portal. Updates to marketing materials will be
implemented as needed. Rebates recommendations will be targered to customers based· on individual
usage patterns. All residential customers will receive a first letter introducing them to the Program and
offering them the option to opt out of future reports. Customers must lpg-on to the portal to achieve the
benefits of this program. '
Task 5: Deploy OPOWIR CSRPortal
OPOWER will provide its customer web portal to support the Home Energy Reports and conduct on-site
trairdng of customer service staff on using this interface.
Task 6: Implement Aut9Jllllted Data Transfer
OPOWER and CPAU will jointly develop, implement, and finalize a protocol for regular, secure transfer
of data from CPAU to OPOWER in 'a mutually agreed upon format(s). OPOWER will maintain data
confidentiality and will use sample averages in comparison with individual customer billing histories, It .
is expected that transfers will come from the two CPAU billing Systems (Banner for inforination previous
to May 2009 and SAP for information from May 2009). Program participation rates will come from
Excel and Access databases.
CMR: 191:10 Page 3 of4
I
1
I
Task 7; Inte!!rate Utility data streams and Dlm.late Insight Engine
The Insight Engine is the back-end data services and anaIytics engine that powers OPOWER's customer
facing applications, including both the online and offline components of the Home Energy Reporting
System, for all OPOWER. clients. OPOWER will integrate data received from CPAU with third party data
and populate the Insight Engine.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost of the project is $574,083 for project development and then two Years of report delivery
($74,083 setup and $250,000 per year). $213,000 will be funded by the federal stimulus funds (ARRA)
and the remaining $361,083 will be funded by tbe Public Benefit program areas in both the Electric and
Gas Funds Alternate Resources Supply Funds. Contract funding for initial setup is includad in the FY
09110 Electric and Gas Fund budgets for Public Benefit Programs. Funds for subsequent years will be
subj eet to appropriation qf funds in subsequent budgets. Contract costs will" include program
development, implementation, and some energy incentives payments.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed contracts support the Council-approved Gas Utility Long-Term Plan, the Ten-year Energy
Efficiency Portfolio Plan, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, and Comprehensive Plan Goal N-9.
Implementation of efficiency programs support greenhouse gas reduction goals identified in the Palo Aho
Climate Protection Plan and in the California-Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AD 32).
ENVIRONHENTALREVIEW
The provision of these services do not constitute a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California
Public Resources Code, thus no environmental review under CEQA is required.
AlTACBMENT
A. Contract
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 191:10
~ \l • l\ ~OYCE KINNEAR r Utility Marketing Services Manager
TOM AUZENNE
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0134341
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
OPOWER, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL S.ERVICF13
. HOME ENERGY REPORTS
This AGREEMENT is entered into on this 3rd day of May, 2010, by and between the
CITY OF P ALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and OPOWER,
INC., a Delaware corporation, located at 1515 North Courthouse Road, Suite 610, Arlington, VA
22201 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A· CITY intends to provide Home Utility Usage Reports for residential customers to identify
energy and water savings ("Project',) and desires to engage a consultant to configure, design and
implement a program in connection with the Project ("Services'').
B. CONSULT ANT has represented that it has the necessary .professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, tenns, and conditions, this
Agreement. the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exlubit "A" in accordance with the tenns and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement Shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the
services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit "B" unless temrinated .
earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
Professional Services
Rev. September 2009
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement
shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner
based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's
agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSUL rANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Five Hundred Seventy Four
Thousand Eighty Three Dollars ($574,083).
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit "C".CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "An.
SECTION S. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY deacribing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of persOlUlel who performed the services, hours worked, hourlyrates, and reimbursable
expenses). based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C"). If applicable, the
invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in
CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT sha1l
send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City
will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt Notwithstanding the
foregoing, half the annual license fees listed in Exhibit "C" shall be due and payable upon execution
of this Agreement.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. Ail of the Services shall be
perfonned by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sllfficient skill and expcrience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpernutted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications.
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
cireumstences.
Professional Services
Rev. September 2009
2
\\Cc-!ern;\slwredIASDIPURCHISOUCITATIONSICURRENTIlUYER·CM FOIDERS\UTlllTlES· CARDLYNNIRFP,I134341 Ikme Enerl!J'
Reports\FINALCONTRALi'.doc
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULT ANT shall keep itselfinfonned of and
in compli\l.Dce with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perfonn
Services under this Agreement. CONSutTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the perfonnance of the Services,
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT, If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all crrors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10"10)
. of the CITY's stated construetion budget, CONSULTANT shaJl make recommendations to the CITY
for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations,
and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY,
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed byor contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor andlor materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY,
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations forthis Agreement CONSULTANT sha1l not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor theperfonnance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void,
SECTION 12. SUBCOt'l'TRACTING.
Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subcontractors, including third-party service
providers, may be used to complete the Services. The subcontractors initially authorized by CITY to
perform work on this Project are those used by CONSULTANT in its nonnal course of business,
including, but not limited to, those performing printing, mailing, dsta storage an~ other data services.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULT ANT shall be fully responsible to CITY fur all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
)
Prof~ia:nal Services
Rev. September 2009
1\Cc-olmlshlltCdlASDIPURCH\SOLlCfrA TlONSICURl<ENT BUYER·CM FOLDERSIl.1Tl11TIES • CAROL YNN\RFI'sl134341 Han. Energy
Rep ..... IFlNAL.CONTRACT.doc
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANTwlllassignChrisPattonasthe
Client Solution Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Proj ed. If
circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key
personnel for any reason: the appointment of a substitute proj ect <lirector and the assignment of any
key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's proj ect
manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly removcpersonnel who CITY finds do
not perform the Services in an acceptable manner,are uncooperative, or present a threat to the
adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons'or property.
The City's project manager is Joyce Kinnear, Utilities Department, Marketing Services Division, 250
Harniltnn Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650)329-2652. The project manager will be
CONSULT ANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the
Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTIeN 14. OWNERSmp OF MATERIALS. Refer to Exhibit "En for complete terms and
conditions of OPOWER Licensing Agreement.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at anyreasonabletimcdoring
the term oftbis Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTM'T's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such
records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnifY, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents
(each an "Jndennrified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all coats
and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements
("Claims") resulting from, arising out of orin any manner related to performance ornonperforrnance
by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless
of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithatanding the above, nothing in tbis Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnity an Jndenmified party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of anyhreach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provi sion of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed In be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
~
Professional Services
Rev_ January 2009
\\C .. telTll\<;har.dlASD\PURCH\SOUClTATIONs\cURRENT BUYER-eM FOLllERSIUTIUTIES -CAROLYNNIRFPsl134341 H<rn' Energy
Report<>\FThlALCONTRACT.doc
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
I S.l. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit ''D''.
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
IB.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:Vn or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in thc State ofCalifomia. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
dUring the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
IB.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY conCurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation. or mndification,
CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for ensUring that current certificates evidencing the insurance
are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
IB.4. The procUring of such required poliey or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement Notwithstsnding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULT ANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the teon has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The city manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in
part, or teoninate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (1 0) days prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Serviees by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in thc event of a
substsntial failure of perforrnanee by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to
Profe.,sional Services
Rev.Sepbonher2009
\\Cc''''rTlIlaharedIASDIPURClI\SOLlClTATIONSICURRENI BUYER-eM FOLDERS\UTIUTlES· CAROL YN1'MFP,\u4341 Home Energy
Rtlpor1s\FINAL.CONTRACT ,doe
CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement Such materials will
become the property of CITY. .
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULT ANT will be paid
forthe Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or temrination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or tenninated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULT ANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of hislher discretion .
19.5: No payment. partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices herermder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY; Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants; contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will havc any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Govermnent.Code of the State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT isa "Consultant" as
that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Cormnission, CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to filc the appropriate fmancial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
Professional Service&
Rev. Sepl<_ lOO9
\\Cc-temI\sharedIASOIPURCHISOUCITA TIONSlCURRBNT BUYER-CM FOLD!lRSIUTILlTlllS • CAROL YNN\RFP,\134341 H<me Energy
ReporlJiIFlNAL.CONTRACT.noc
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the perfonnance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, natiornU origin. ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING. The City of Palo Alto
is a green business and works to purchase and provide products in an environmentally sustainable
manner. CONSULTANT will use production methods that reduce waste and enviromnentallytoxic
products, as well as have less packaging. CONSULTANT will adhere to the standard that printed
materials will be, at a minimmn, printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper with vegetable based
ink. The designer will check with the project manager to discuss the maximmn recycled content
paper available for each project. FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper that is "process
free" is preferred. CONSULTAt"\lT will use methods that reduce energy use and thus the carbon
footprint for the development, production and delivery of products. CONSULT ANT shall adhere to
. the City's Enviromnentally Preferred Purchasing policies as may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 24. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
24.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
24.2 .. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
24.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
24.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrmnent, which is signed by the parties.
24.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
24.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction fmds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
24.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporsted in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
Professional Servit;:eJj
Rev, September 2009
\\Cc·terralsh,red\ASD\PURCHISOUCITA TIONSICURRENT BUYIlR.cM FOLDERSIUTIUTIES • CAROLYNN\RFPs\l34341 Hane Energy
Reports\FlNAL.CONTRACf.doc
24.8. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will tenninate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 24.8 shall take .
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
24.9. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have
the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
24.10 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal infonnation as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about
a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security
of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing
purposes beyond the scope of services attached in Exhibit "A" without City's express written
COllSent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
. representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager or Designee
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~-..... ~--=--:------Senior Ass!. City Attorney
Attschments:
EXHIBIT "A": .
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHffiIT "C":
EXHIBIT "D";
EXHffiIT"E":
SCOPE OF WORK.
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
LICENSE AGREEMENT
Ptofess'iooa! Services
·Rcv. Scptemb ... 2009
\\o:-IemI\SharedIASD\PURCIl\SOUCITATIONSlCURRBNT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\UTlLlTlES • CAROL YNNIRFPs\134341 Halle Enerl!Y
ReportsIFlNAL.CONTRACT.doc ;
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
PHASE 1 A: INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRODUCT CUSTOMlZATlON
Task 1 i Deploy tecbnical infrastructure
OPOWER shall install and configure all necessary hardware, software and network infrastrUctnre
fur the delivery of the Home Energy Reports and OPOWER Customer Portal in conjunction with
City of Palo Alto's (CPA) IT Department. .
Task I Details:
In coordination with CPA's IT Department, OPOWER shall set up and configure the t!lChnical
infrastructure: '
• Requisition and conflgUre OPOWER servers.
• Install and configure required underlying software (e.g. database server, application server,
web server, etc)
• Install and configure multi-layered backup system
• ·Extend and secure networking topology.
Harden networked servers and implement operations processes and access controls
• All servers will hosted be on OPOWER's server network and no servers will be hosted on
CPA systems
Task 1 DeJiyerables:
• Fully deployed hardware and software infrastructure ready for program launch
Task 2: Select pilot regions and acquire 3'" party data
OPOWER shall pcrfonn historical energy usage, demographic and geographic research, in
co~unction with CPAU" to identify the regions ofCPAU's territory best suited to daploYthe
pilot program. Zip codes, city, and county boundaries will be considered so as to optimize data
coverage and ensure speedy deployment.
Task 2 Details:
OPOWER shall identify program regions:
• CP AU has approximately 25,000 Electric residential customers. The initial plan is for
approximately 25,000 customers to receive duel fuel (electricity and gas), paper Home
Energy Reports (HER) and the OPOWER Consumer Portal website. Control groups will
also be established for each type of customer, through a synthetic control group or other
standard M & V methodology. The final split will be agreed to based upon program goals
and by mutual consent.
• Analyze demographic, geographic, and local data coverage rates to select optimal regions fur
the program.
Profdilliona1 Services
Rev. September :2009
\\Cc-rerra'sh".dIASDIPURCHlSOLIC1TATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIUTlLlTlflS • CAROLYNNIRFP,I134341 H""" Energy
Report&\FlNAL.CONTRACT.doc
• Acquire housing data from 3nl party providers and county assessor offices in pilot region
• Acquire demographic data from 3rd party providers for pilot region
• Extend geocoding licenses to selected areas
Task 2 Deliverables:
• Selected pilot regions with accompanying 3rd party data sample.
Task 3: Design optimization, segmentation and targeting IIlan.
OPOWER shall develop an analytically grounded segmentation plan to optimize targeting of
Utility programs and recommendations.
Task 3 Details:
OPOWER and CP AU shall:
• Compile available analysis of previous marketing campaigns used to market CPAU
rebates, programs and energy/water saving recommendations. Where possible, key
metrics, such as internal and external cost per acquisition, will be provided to better
inform targeting efforts.
OPOWER shall:
• Use energy, housing, and demographic data and available past program participation data
to design a multi-dimensional segmentation plan of Designated Customers based on:
o Energy consumption patterns (e.g. normalized high seasonal peak, high base load,
etc.)
o Housing data (e.g. age of house, size of house, value of home, type of
construction, presence of a pool, presence of a garage)
o Past program participation & rebate redemption (e.g. ENERGY STAR appliance
and other rebates; rate assistance programs, etc ), when available
o Demographic data (e.g. renter vs. homeowner, presence of children in the
household, indicators of interest in environmental issues, age of customer, duration
of residence, socioeconomic/income levels, as available)
• Identity high-potential prospects for program marketing by profiling historical
participants and available historical marketing campaign results.
Task 3 Dcliverables:
• Designated Customer segmentation and targeting plan summary.
Task 4: Integration of prow am marketing for Home Energy Reports and OPOWER
Customer Portal.
OPOWER shaH work with CPAU to target CPAU rebates, prognuns, and recommendations in
the Home Energy Reports and through the OPOWER Consumer Portal. Updates to these
marketing materials will be iroplemented as nccded.
Ta.k 4 Details:
Profe.!lSJ011al Services
Rev. September 2009
1\Q:-!err,lsboredIASDlPURCflISOLlCITA TlONSICURRENT BUYERoCM FOLDERSIUTILITlES • CAROLYNNIRFPsll34341 Hane En"lll'
IwportsIFINAL.CONTRACT.doc
OPOWER and CPAU shall:
• Compile a comprehensive list of rebates, programs, and recommendations for inclusion in
the Home Energy Reports and the OPOWER Customer Portal.
OPOWER shall:
• Brand the Home Energy Reports and OPOWER Consumer Portal with the CP AU logo
according to CPAU's branding style guide.
• Integrate CPAU,s rebates, programs, and recommendations into OPOWER'g offer and tip
database fur presentation on the Home Energy Reports and OPOWER Consumer Portal.
• Update rebates, programs, and recommendations, as needed, by material changes in
program structure or availability of program funds.
Task 4 Deliverables:
• Sample Home Energy Re:t:iort branded with the CPAU logo, according to CPAU's style
guide.
• OPOWER Consumer Portal branded with the CP AU logo, according to CP AU's style
guide. CPAU marketing materials and efficiency programs integrated and formatted for
use in OPOWER's Action Steps database.
• Periodic updates of marketed CP AU efficiency programs and campaigns as required.
PHASE I D: PRODUCT INTEGRATION AND CUSTOMJZA110N
Tasks in Phase m will need to occur in parallel with Phase IA, as they often require greater time
for completion.
Task 5; DeplOY OPOWER CSR Portal
OPOWER shall provide its OPOWER CSR Portal to support the Home Energy Reporting
System, and conduct on-site training of customer service staff on using this interface.:
Task 5 Details:
OPOWER shall:
.Create and permission password-protected accounts for customer service representatives
and customer service managers. OPOWER shan not be providing customer sqvice
representatives for this program, as they will be provided by CP AU's Utility Marketing
Services and Customer Service Representative staff.
.Conduct eight-hours of on-site training session.
Task 5 Deliverables:
.Configured and deployed OPOWER CSR Portal
.Onsite training day (8 hours).
Task 6: Implement Automated Data Transfer
OPOWER and CPAU shall jointly develop, implement. and fmalize a protocol for regular, secure
Profossional Services
Rl:v. Seplllmbcr 2009
\\Cc·terr.lsh"edIASDIPURCII\SOUCITATIONSICURRENT BUYER.cM FOWERSIUTlLlTlES· CARDLYNNIRFP,\134341 Htme Energy
RepOl11i\FINAL.CONTRACf.doc
transfer of data from CPAU to OPOWER in a mutually agreed upon format(8). It is expected
that tdlllsfers will come from the two CP AU billing Systems (Banner for infurmation previous to
May 2009 and SAP for information from May 2009). In addition, program participation rates
will come from Excel and Access databases. .
Task 6 Details:
• Establish secure, firewalled connection (e.g., sftp, ssh) between OPOWER servers and CPAU
data center for secure transmission of data.
OPOWER and Utility shall jointly develop data transfer protocols:
• Develop the list of data elements owned by CP AU (e.g., electricity usage and billing data,
gas u,sage and billing data, energy efficiency program participation) and mutually agreed
upon data funnats for each to be used in the project implementation. Transfer protocols
will need to be developed for data coming from both the electricity and the gas
infonnation systems.
• Establish a process for the initial transfer of historical data from CPAU to OPOWER. The
expected data transfer will include 12+ months of energy usage data (back to January I,
2009, as available) and customer identifYing data (address, account #, etc) for the
customers from which Designated Customers, neighbors and control groups will be
developed. OPOWER shall follow CP AU's confidentiality requirements fur customer
data and will sign a non-disclosure form. OPOWER shall notify CP AU immediately if
any leak of customer data is suspected, so that all customers may be immediately
notified.
• Establish an ongoing process for energy usage updates for the selected groups of
Designated Customers and customers in the neighbor and control groups:
• Establish an ongoing process for notification of all new Customers and all Customers that
have ended their relationship with CP AU.
Task 6 Deliverables:
Task 6A Deliverables: Electricity deployment
• Establish secure, firewalled connection (e.g., sftp, ssh) between OPOWER servers and
City of Palo Alto data center for.secure transmission of electricity data, in coordination
with the CPA IT group.
• OPOWER receives initial historical energy data and other agreed upon data elements via
established, secure connection.
• OPOWER and Utility establish a sehedule for ongoing automated data update processes
. for new, continuing, and departing Customers.
Task 6B Deliverables: Gas deployment
• Establish secure, firewalled connection (e.g., sftp, 5sh) between OPOWER servers and
City of Palo Alto data center fur secure transmission of gas data, in coordination with the
CPAUIT group.
• OPOWER receives initial historical energy data and other agreed upon data elements via
established, secure connection.
OPOWER and Utility establish a schedule for ongoing automated data update processes
Prflfessional Sen-ices
Rev_September 2009
IICc-tella\;baredlASD\PURCHlSOLlClTA T10NSlCURRENT BUYER.cM FOLDljRSlUTJUTIES -CAROLYNN\RFP,\J34341 Heme Energy
Report,\Io1NAL.CONTRACT.doo
for new, continuing, and departing Customers.
Task 7: Intel!rate Utility data streams and populate Insight Engine
The Insight Engine is the back-encl clata services ancl analytics engine that powers OPOWER's
customer facing applications, including both the online and offline components of the Home
Energy Reporting System, for all OPOWER clients. OPOWER will integrate data received from
CP AU with third party data and populate the Insight Engine database by performing the
following steps.
Task 7 Details:
OPOWER shall:
• Define and author clata transform layer for initial and ongoing meter data from Utility.
• Parse and load initial account infurmation and meter read data, and additional data provided
by Utility in accorclance with Task 6.
• Parse and load available third-party clata (e.g. housing data, demographic clata) sourced by
OPOWER in Task 2.
• Match data, ensuring accurate combination of initial and ongoing Customer and 3r<l -party
clata through the unique customer identifier from your system, and for the 3r<l party data
through rigorous name and address matching to append those data to your customer data.
• Standardize all addresses to USPS standards for geo-coding and mailing purposes.
• Geo-code all addresses to establish longitude and latitude coordinates for each premise.
• Initiate 'ongoing normative calculations to determine and regularly update neighbor and
efficient neighbor calculations for each Customer.
Task 7 Deliverables:
Task 7 A Deliverables: Electricity deployment
• Insight Engine with loaded and matched historic and ongoing energy data, housing, and
demographic data for all Customers.
• Geo-codes and normative calculations for all Customers loaded in the Insight Engine.
Task 7B Deliverables: Gas deployment
• Insight Engine with loaded and matched historic and ongoing energy data, housing, and
demographic data for all Customers.
• Goo-codes and normative calculations for all Customers loaded in the Insight Engine.
Task 8: Final selection of Designated Customers
OPOWER shall analyze the integrated clata resulting from Task 7 ancl provicle statistics and
insights nccessary to enable the final selection of the test and control groups for the program.
Task 8 Details:
• Working in conjunction with CP AU, OPOWER may randomly partition the customers in
Profesliional Services
Rev. September 2009-
IICc-terra"haredIASDIPURCHlSOUCITATIONSICURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERSIUTILlTIES • CAROLYNl'iIRFP,\134341 HOOl' Energy
Reports\FlNAL.CONTRACT.doc
the selected pilot regions into test and control, selecting an exact set of customers from
the pilot regions identified in Task 2. The final test group selection will comprise the
Designated Customers. A potential option fur control groups is tocornpare CPAU
customer data with thst of a synthetic control or other standerd M & V methodology.
• The selection of the Designated Customers must meet OPOWER's technical eligibility
requirements for available data and "neighbor" selection. Such eligibility requirements
shall be shared with and agreed to by CPAU in writing prior to implementation, via a data
requirements document.
Task S DeliYerables:
Task SA Deliverables: Electric deployment
• Final selection of Designated Customers and control group for the program implementation.
Task 8B Deliverables: Gas deployment
• Final selection of Designated Customers and control group for the program implementation.
PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION
Task 9: Implement Home Energy Reports Program
OPOWER shall deliver the Home Energy Reports to CP AU Designated Customers through an
opt-out program. OPOWER shall make the OPOWER Customer Portal.3vailable to CPAU
Designated Customers.
Task9De~s:
.Designated Customers will receive oftline Home Energy Reports 10 reports, on average, for
an initial period 0[20 months, with 12-month extensions subject to mutual signed
agreement by Utility and OPOWER .
.Accompanying the first months' mailing will be an introductory insert explaining the nature
of the program, its duration, and the options for learning more or opting out.
-Home Energy Reports shall be delivered at an average frequency of no fewer than six
reports per Designated Customer per year .
• The OPOWER Customer Portal will be available to Designated Customers throughout the
initial term of the program.
CP AU customer service staff will be able to opt-out Designated Customers who call in and
request to no longer receive the Home Energy Reports:
,Optional: Only upon CP AU's review and approval, OPOWER may source and include 3rt!
party offers and coupons in the Home Energy Reports to increase their effectiveness and
ability to be acted upon.
Task 9 Deliverables:
• Deliveryofan average often (10) reports per year per Designated Customer fur 20 months.
Over the program duration, 250,000 paper reports will be delivered to CPAU Designated
Customers.
Professional Services
Rev. September 2009
IlC<:-terralsharcd\ASDIPURCH\<tOLICITATKlNSICURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERSIUTILITIES • CAROL YNN\RFPs\134341 Hane Energy
Repori£IFINALCON'rRACf.doc
Task 10: Deploy Home Energy Reporting Website
OPOWER shall make available the OPOWER Customer Portal to all Designated Customers.
Task 10 Details;
• OPOWER shall work with CPAU to "private-label" the website, branding it with CPAU's
logo, according to CPAU's style guide.
• OPOWER shall work closely with CPAU to set up a mutually agreed upon authentication
process to ailow Designated Customers access to their energy infonnation online. Such
authentication process will include a method to provide Designated Customers with secure
and easy access to their infonnation through the website.
• OPOWER shall host and maintain the website, which is integral to the Home Energy
Reporting System, which in tum is integrated with the Insight Engine, both also hosted and
maintained by OPOWER only after approval by CPA's IT group.
Task 10 DeliYerables:
• Contractor shall make available the OPOWER Customer Portal to all Designated
Customers for a period of twelve (12) months.
PHASE III: MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION
Task 11: Measnre and Report on Conservation. Efficiency and Program Participation
OPOWER shall provide annual reports, thirteen months from the date of the first mailing of
Home Energy Reports and every twelve months thereafter or until this Agreement is terminated
in electronic fonnat to verify program accomplishments (the "Program Reports").
Task 11 Details:
Program Reports shall include:
o Analysis of change in electric consumption among Designated Customers
compared to the established control group and to their historic consumption.
Analysis shall include breakdown of program impact by segments, subject to
sufficient data sets and mntual consent. Such segments may include analysis by:
• Heat type (electric or gas)
• Designated Customer investment likelihood (a combined measure of
wealth, home ownership, etc)
• Energy profile (high summer peak, low summer peak, etc)
• Year over year analysis of energy usage
o Final output includes overall analysis of savings impact of Reports and cost of
Reports to customer and to CP AU (per customer and total for time period).
OPOWER shall provide all assumptions and factors used in the calculation of
energy and cost savings for Utility internal verification purposes.
Professional Services
Rev. September 2009
IICc-termls]llll1,dIASDIPURCHISOUClTA TIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIUTILITlES -CAROL YNNIRI'P,I134341Hunc &''''&Y
Rcport,\F1NALCOXfRACT.doc
o Response rates for trackable actions taken by Designated Customers and for
program participation rates for which data is provided to OPOWER, including
rebate redemptions and other efficiency and conservation programs tracked at the
household level. OPOWER shall measure the incremental response rates and
aggregate program participation attribution rates for Designated Customers
compared to the control group.
Task 11 Deliverable:
• Delivery of annual Program Reports
PHASE IV: OPTIMIZATION AND EXPANSION (Optional)
TIISk 12: Optimize expansion and selection of new Designated Customers based on
learnings from PHASES I -m.
At the end of the first year and any subsequent years as agreed to by Utility and OPOWER,
OPOWBR shall analyze the results from DELlVERABLES II and m and provide
recommendations about how to optimize the expansion of the Home Energy Reporting System
among CPAU's customers. Among these options will be the addition of water and greenhouse
g!!S emission data onto the reports, which will be priced separately at that time.
Task 12 Details:
• Working in conjunction with CPAU, OPOWER shall identify the priorities subject to
CPAU's approval, for expansion and select a set of households that is optimized to
increase the efficacy of the program and to increase and explore learnings from the
ongoing implementation.
• If desired by CPAU, OPOWER and CPAU will together select additional Designated
Customers or some other number of Designated Customers as determined by CP AU, and
an accompanying control group.
• Customers must meet OPOWBR's technieal eligibility requirements for available data
and neighbor selection, as provided to CPAU.
• The froquency of Home Energy Report delivery to different sub-segments of the
Designated Population as determined in Task 5 above shall be reconsidered and
optimized and this frequency shall be established by amendment to this Statement of
Work, with an accompanying amendment to the budget, lIS appropriate.
Task 12 Deliverables:
Selection of Designated Customers and control group for the program expansion.
Professional Services
Rev. September 2009
\\Cc-tena\>han:dIASD\l'URCHlSOLICITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-eM POLDERSIUT1LITIES ·CAROLTh'N\RFP,1134341 Heme Energy
Repor\sIFlNAL.CONTRACT.doc
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so
long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a
detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks ofreceipt of the .
notice to proceed .
.,Mi .. · .. les""t""on"'e""s'---___ ~ ..... _~. _______ ...;C .. o!l!m!!,p""l""eti",' Omn
1. Finalize Look of HER's
2. OPOWER Portal Set-up
3. First Reports Sent
4. Second Reports Sent
5. Third Reports Sent
6. Fourth Reports Sent
7. Fifth Reports Sent
8. Sixth Reports Sent
9. Program Year Two; First Reports
to. Program Year Two; Second Reports
11. Program Year Two; Third Reports
12. Program Year Two; Fourth Reports
Estimated by July 1, 20to
Estimated July 1,2010; maybe later if
CP AU is late in delivering required data.
Within 60 days of Portal Set-up
Within 60 days of First Reports
Within 60 days of Second Reports
Within 60 days of Third Reports
Within 60 days of Fourth Reports
Within 60 days of Fifth Reports
Twelvc Montbs after First Reports (60 days
after Sixth Reports)
Within 60 Days of Second Year; First
. Reports
Witbin 60 Days of Second Year; Second
Reports
Within 60 Days of Second Year; Third
Reports
Professional Services
Rev. September 2009
IICc-teml,haredIASD'J>URCHlSOLICITATiONSICURRBNT BUYER-GM FOIDERSIUTIUTIES· CAROLYNNIRPP,1134341 Hane Energy
Report,lFlNALCONTRACT.doc
EXHffiIT "C"
COMPENSATION
, The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the not to exceed budget amount
for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
descnlled in ExhIllit "An ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$574,083. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services;inc1uding reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment
would result in a total exceeding the rruiximmn amount of compensation set forthherein shall
be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $574,083.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Maximum Total Compensation $574,083
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reiinbursed are: $10,000.
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subj eet to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone cellular phone, facsimile transmission and postage charges are
reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.
Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's
project manager.
Professional Services
RIw. Seplembcf 2009
\\Cc.terralsharedIASDIPURCH\SOLICITATlONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOillERS\UTIL!TIES -CAROL YNNlRFPs\134341 Herne Energy
ReportsIFlNALCONTRACT.doc
1 j
ORDER # 1'--_---'
OPOWER
APPLICATION SERVICE AGREEMENT
ORDER
The following products are licensed under the tenus and conditions specified in the Application
Service Provider Agreement (the "Agreement'1 between OPOWER and CP AU dated
as well as the additional tenus and conditions set forth in this Order: ----
OPOWER Proprietary Home Energy Reporting System Suite Software:
: OPOWER Portal URL: www.citvofualoalto.orglenenMejlOrl (exact URL TBD)
..
4 Month Implementation
Access Term: 20 months of reporting and web access from: 7/1/10-2/30/12 (exact
datesTBD)
X Printed and Mailed Home Energy Reports
Included Features: X OPOWER Portal
X OPOWER eSR Portal
X Program Reports
I
I Training Time & Expenses 1 eight hour training day with OPOWER trainer and training
! Included: materials included
Fees and Payments:
1. Service Fees
Home
,
!
I
$75,000 set-up fee initial Upon
26,2010
of the Agreement, estimated April
25,000 Designated Customero.
license fee per Designated
Customer per year.
$62,500, half of which is due at Execution ofthe Agreement,
estimated April 26, 2010
$62,500 due at First Reports Sent (FRS), July 1, 2010
due
Professional Services
Rev. s.prembei 2009
I\C<H"rmlsh ... dIASDIPURClI\SOUCITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOI.DERSIUTIUTIES -CAROL YNNIRFPs1134341 H«ne Energy
R"""",iFlNALCONTRACTdoc
-.. -.-.. --.----.-..... -.--------r (proratedfor-S·M;;;'ths ).--... --... --.-.-----.-.... -.-.----.---.]
_ .... __ ... _ .. __ .... _____ l __ . ___ .. _____ ._ .. _______ ._._._. __ . __ .
OPOWER Portal ... -----------------------.. -........ ------.---.--~-~.---.-~-... -----.--.---.---$25,000 Set-up Fee Waived
$l.sOii;';"se-fee-per D~~ig;;t;d-----$37,500 due at FRS:-eiti;-;.t~d Jiily T; 2()10--·-·-·····----·---·-
Customer per year
$25,000 due beginning of Program Year 2, estimated July 1,2011 I (prorated for 8 Months)
'-............... --.---.-*" .. * •• ------~.--~---I.--.-------~--.-----.-.. -. ___ . ____ . __________ .... ~ ___ . ____ _
1. Service Fees
Service Fee Payment Terms
I Home Energy Reports
I ~~~~~:n~~~ ::r:~~d 1~~~R;POrts S~nt-(';FRS'1;----··-·-·------
$5.00 per Designated Customer I 0 40% of annual printing and mailing fees, $53,750,
Year I including an introductory mailer for first time
6 reports Per Household report reeipients, due when first reports sent
(estimated for July 1, 2010)'
Program Year 1: 2010: 7/1110 -6/30/2011:
Remaining balance of$75,OOO paid in 1/3 increments as
reports are mailed
o 1/3 due, $25,000 after first 3 months from start of
Program Year
o 113 due, $25,000 after first 6 months from start of
Program Year
o 113 due, $25,000 after first 9 months from start of
Program Year
... _. __ ... ___ . __ . __ ... _. __ . ____ ._ ..... _._L ___ ... ____ . ___ ._ .. __ ..... _____ ._. __ . __ . ____ ._1
Proteatdooai Services
Rev. September 2009
l\u'teJT,\SbaredIASDIPURCHISOUCITATIONSlCURRENT BUYER-CM FOIDERSIUTILITIES -CAROL YNNIRFP.1134341 Fkttle En_
Report.Il'INAL.CONTRACT.doc
j
~
l
-----------------------------r=:--,---~_:---::-=_::~_::_--=:_:'=:-=---~_:::.~:-:=-:-:-::_'-----------, YEAR 2: 8 months of Reporting Program Year 2: 2011: 7/112011 -2/30/2012
$5.00 per Designated Customer ' 0 1/3 due, $29,167 after first 12 months from start of i
Year (prorated 8 mo.) Program
4 reports Per Household 0 l/3 due, $29,167 after first 15 months from start of
------------------,------
, Program
o 113 due, $29,167 after first 18 months from start of
Program
, §_tl!ff Training.!~!J.'y's a.!,~ Trav~L ___________ . ____ ~ _____________ , ______________ _ I $2,000 per day or portion there of Upon invoice, not prior to training.
L$5,OOO Travel Fees Years 1 & 2
.. ,...,...._~ _________ .. ____ •• ______ .• ___ ._-'-________ __ ••• __________________ -.l
* Fee Calculation is based upon delivery to each Designated Customer ten (10) Reports over the
20 month program each report being one-page double-sided 8.5" by 11" Home Energy Reports
per Program Year via USPS standard mail at current freight and postage prices. OPOWER may
increase the fees by not more, than an amount equal to the percentage increase of the USPS rate
for Standard Mail Regular -Letters AADC Local entry rate, as defined in the USPS Domestic
Mail Manual (current price is $0.256).
Additional Services may be subject to additional Fees as quoted by OPOWER.
All Fees are non-refundable except as expressly provided herein. Upon tennination, OPOWER
shall only refund the pro-rated portion of any Home Energy Report printing and mailing service
Fees paid for services not yet delivered as of the termination date. , All setup and license fees are
payable pursuant to Section 5 of the Agreement, and will be invoiced accordingly.
All invoices to be paid generally within 30 days of reCeipt ofinvoice.
ProfessIonal Services
Roy, Sop_her 2009
\\Cc-temlsllaredIASD\PURCI!\SOUCITATIONSlCURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIUTILITIES -CAROLYNNIRFPs\134341 Heme Energy
, Rop""'II'lNALCONTRACT,doc
Pt!lymlUlt SChedule (an JU'lynNlntlllre !lu5 Net 30 upon CPAU's receipt of1nvokt:l)-
1 year Pfoatilm. 25.000 Houlubokb; IteteIvlnI hpOftX, ZO mDIIlhuf repruu; 10 report. pl!l" haWlehokl for 5 Total of 250,000 rt;cUu
.. Tl1ls Paymont; Schlldulsls b.u.ed (Ill cootm.t sfgnabJre prior to 3/30/201D
"''''*Ptintlng and I'4alllnQ!( Fee Cetcuf~ 1$ baRd I,Jpon ilmjvmy to each Designated Customer of lUI average Df fourtetn (14) (lite' page dOlJble-stded
IJ.S~ by U' Home. Er,ergy Reports via USPS slandal'd mall, over 2(1 morrths of '''porting. at current freight and postage prices, The fees set forth fer
printing end mailing ahall b& In eff,act from the date of eontract signing liM ror a period of 12 months, Th.11!Iefte:r~ Poslttve: Energy may IllcresS. ttte fees
by not mg.re than an &1liO\l1'tt: equal to. the psroantage InCrease 1)1 Ute USPS rate for Standard Mall Regul~r -l.6ttill'i MDe looeal entty rttte, 85 defined In
thEI USPS Domestlt Mail Manual {OJrretttly $Q.2S6}.
Professional Services
Rev, September 2009
\1Cc-term-..hw'edIASDIPURCH\SOUCrr ATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOlDBRSlt;TILITIES· CAROL YNNIRFP,1134341 Hane EnerllY
RJ>portsIFlNALCONTRACT,doc
. , ,
I
EXHIBIT "D"
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TOTllE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITy),AT rnElR SOLEEXPENSE,SHALLFOR.'l'HETERMOFTllECONTRACT OBTAIN
AND MAlNTAlNINSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPEClFIEDBELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM
BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:Vn, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AIJTHOIl.lZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGEI-;,. ON COMPUA.'1CE wrrn CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPEClPllID BELOW:
MINIMUM LIMITS
RIlQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE I\EQDlREMENT EIlCH
: YES
i YES
,
: YES
YES
YES
YEs
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S lJAB[L[TY STATUTORY
BODlLYINIURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GllNllRAL IJABILITY, INCLUDING I PERSONAL INI1JRY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $IJooo,ooO $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
: BODILYINIURY &; PROPERTY DAMAOE CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL $1,000,000 : $1,000,000
LIABIIJTY : COMBINED.
BODILY INJURY $l.000~OOO SI,OOO,OOO -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNBD PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
BODlI,Y INI1JRY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $\,000,000
DAMAGE COMIIlNED
PR.OFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRoRs AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGUGENT PIJIU'ORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000000
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALLOBTAINANDMAINTAIN,INFULLFORCEANDEFFECTTHROUGHOUTTllEENTIRETERMOPANYRBSULTANfAGREEMENT,
THE INSURANCB COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CON'IRACTORAND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT
ALSO, wrrn THE EXCIlPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S lJABILITY AND PROPESSIONALJNSURANCE,NAMING
AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPWYEES.
L INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A A PROVISION FOR A WRlITEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CTTY OF CHfu'lGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCEI~ATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL UABfLrfY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO lNDFJ,.INIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTffiLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $100,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR AFPROV AL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
m. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO TIlE INSURANCE AI1J'ORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS"
A PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF TIlE :-.lAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY TIilS POllCY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR TIlE BENEFIT OF TIlE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS I.!ABlLlTY
Professional Services
Rev, September 2nO!}
\\Cc-terralslmredIASDIPURCH\SOLlClT ATIONSICURRENT BUYER.-CM FOLDERSIUTILITIES -CAROL YNN\RFPs1134341 !fume Enugy
ReportsIPINAL.CONTRACT,doc
TIlE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM. OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SllALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RlGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLElNSUREDS, SHALL NOT lNCREASB THB TOTAL LlABlLfIY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICB OF CANCELLATION
1. IF TIlE1'OLlCY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATEFORANYREASON OTIlBR
TIrAN THENON·PAYMENTOP PREMIUM, THE lSSUINO COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITI'EN NOTICE BEFORE TIlE EFFECTIVE DATE 01' .
CANCELLATION.
2. IF TIlB POLICY lS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON·PAYMBNT
OFPRBMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TIIN (10) DAY
WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECIWE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO.
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMlN.ISTRATION
ClTYO'PALOALTO
P.O. BOX 111:150
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
Professional Services
RoY. Seprember 2009
IICc-terr,\SharedlASll\PURCIl\SOIlCI:rATIONSICURRENT BUYllR-CM FOIDERSIUTILITlES· CAROLYNNIRFPsl134341 Home Energy
Reporl5\FINALCONTRACT,ooc
EXHmIT"E"
OPOWER UCENSTNG AGREEMENT
1. Definitions Related to Licensing Agreement
"Generalized Information" shall mean: (i) any data or information provided to OPOWER by the
Utility ooderthe terms ofthis Agreement; (li) any data orinfonnation collected and/or compiled by
OPOWER ooder the terms of this Agreement, and (ill) the results and data from any manipulation,
analysis, calculations, or processing of such data, including, without limitation, Utility Data, in
accordance with this Agreement, which in each of (i), (ii) and (iii) does not pennit the personal
identification of any Authorized User. All Generalizedli1fonnation shall be considered OPOWER's
Confidentialli1formation.
"Colltellf' shall mean any OPOWER Content, Third Party Content and/or Utility Data made
available to Utility and/or Authorized Users, as applicable, on or through the Services, in accordance
with this Agreement.
"Customer Service Application" shall mean the online portal provided by OPOWER enabling
Administrative Users, including Utility customer service staff to access the Home Energy Reports
and other features and functions of the Portal Services.
"Home Energy Report' shall mean the reports prepared by OPOWER and delivered to the
Designated Customers describing those customers' energy use, comparing such customers' energy
use to their neighbors and providing targeted energy efficiency offers and rebates.
"Home Energy Reporting System" shall mean the combined offline and online system by which
OPOWER delivers customized energy data and recommendations to Designated Customers,
including, but not limited to, the Home Energy Reports and the OPOWER Portal Website.
"OPOWER Contenf' shall mean any data, results, ideas, plans, sketches, texts, files,links, images,
photos, video, soood, inventions (whether or not patentable), notes, works of authorship, articles,
feedback, or other materials, including, without limitation, statistics, analyses and forecasts, and any
similar information that is either owned or licensed by OPOWER and that OPOWER makes
available through the Services, specifically including Third Party Content, and specifically excluding
Utility Data.
"OPOWER Illtellectual Property" shall mean: (i) any proprietary work; (ii) any system owned or
licensed by OPOWER outside the scope of this Agreement; (iii) any analysis, compilation,
aggregation, derivative work, or work of authorship created by OPOWER under the terms ofthis
Agreement, including Program Reports, Customer Service Application; (iv) data independently
developed or created by OPOWER for purposes of implementing, administering, improving, or
otherwise providing the OPOWER Portal Website; and (v) data entered by Customers via the
OPOWERPortal Website.
"OPOWER Portal Websitll" shall mean a website created and maintained by OPOWER to provide
Designated Customers with additional information about their energy usage. All Designated
Professional Services
Rev. September 2009
1\C .. '"",,\ShllredIASDIPURCH\~OLlCITA TlONSICUJlRENT BUYER-eM FOUlBRs\t'TILITlES • CAROL YNNIRFPs113434! II<rne Enugy
Repo!"ls\FINAL,CONTRACT,doc
Customers must agree to OPOWER's terms and conditions ofuse to access the OPOWER Portal
Website
"Services" shall mean the Portal Services and all other services requested pursuant to an Order.
Services may include any or all aspects of tile Home Energy Reporting System, tile Customer Service
Application and Program Reports.
"Utility Brand" shall mean anyone or more of the trademarks, service marks, trade names, domain
. names, logos, business and product names, slogans, and registrations and applications fur registration
thereof owned by the Utility as of the Effective Date.
"Utility Data" shall mean any data or information supplied by the Utility to OPOWER under this
Agreel)lent, including personally identifiable data; provided, however, that Utility Data shall
specifically exclude Aggregated Analytics, OPOWER Content and Third Party Content.
1.2. Retained Rights -Ownership.
(i) Subject to the rights granted in this Agreement, Utility retains all right, title and interest in and to
the Utility Brand and Utility Data, and OPOWER acknowledges that it neither owns nor acquires any
additional rights in and to the Utility Brand or Utility Data not expressly granted by this Agreement.
OPOWER further acknowledges that Utility retains the right to use the Utility Brand and Utility Data
fur any purpose in Utility's sole diacretion.
(ii) OPOWERretains all right, title and interest in and to the Services, Generalized Jnformation, the
OPOWER Retained Intellectoal Property, the OPOWER Content and the OPOWER Intellectual
Property. Utility acknowledges that it neither owns nor acquires any additional rights in and to the
furegoing not expressly granted by this Agreement. Utility further acknowledges that OPOWER
retains the right to use the furegoing for any purpose in OPOWER' 8 sole discretion.
(iii) Utility owns each tangible Home Energy Report created as part ofth6se Services, including any
sample reports, and all right, title and interest therein, provided that OPOWER retains ownership in
the: (a) design, look, and feel; (b) graphical elements; (c) content other than the Utility Data; and (d)
any intellectnal property therein.
(iv) Utility grants OPOWER a non-exclusive and on-transferable license to Utility Data, for the
provision of Services under this agreement.
2.3; Third Party Content. Utility acknowledges that Third Party Content maybe available through
the Services, and that use of such Third PartyContcnt may be suQject to additional terms and
conditions of the Third Party Providers ("Prtnlider Terms"). Utility shall comply with all
such Provider Terms and pass through any applicable Provider Terms to Authorized Users as
required by Third Party Providers. OPOWER makes no representations or warranties
regarding any Third Party Content found on or through the Services or that is otherwise
available using the Services.
Professional ServJces
Rev.SopkmOber2009
\\C"'e",\shacedlASDIl'URCH\SOLlCITATIONSICURRENT BUVEll-CM FOLDERS\uTlllTIES -CAROLYNNlRFPsll34341 Hun. Energy
Reports\Fn-JALCONTRACT,doc
4. Usage Restrictions. (i) Utility not will assign, sublicense, sell, resell, lease, rent or otherwise
transfer or convey, or pledge as security or otherwise encumber, Utility's rights ~der this Section
(ii) Utility will ensure that its use of the Services, the Application Documentation Content, and all
Utility Data complies with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations or rules, including, without
limitation, the OPOWER Terms of Use. (iii) Utility shall notifY OPOWER immediately of any
nnanthorized use of any password or account, or any other kD.own or suspected breach of security.
(iv) Utility will only allow Administrative Users who have been assigned a unique user identification
to access the Customer Service Application.
5. Brand Licenses. The Parties will cooperate to develop a mutually agreeable strategy fur co-
branding of the Home Energy Rep()rts and the OPOWER Portal Website. Subject to the terms
and conditions ofthia agreement, Utility grants to OPOWER a non-exclusive, non-transferable
right and license to use the Utility Brand during the Term in accordance with such reasonable
Utility branding guidelines as Utility may specifY for the limited purposes of performing
OPOWER's obligations under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) Utilityrnsy.
use the OPOWER Brand to identify and publicize the Services at trade shows and utility industry
events; (b) OPOWER may identify the Utility as an OPOWER customer and use the Utility
Brand in connection therewith, 'provided that such identification shall not state or imply an
endorsement by the Utility; (0) OPOWER may identify the Services with the OPOWER Brand
and ''runs on OPOWER" or other similar phrasing. Except as expressly permit'ted by this
Agreement, each Party shall have a written right of approval over the use of its Brand by the
other Party, not to be unreasonably withheld .
Professional Service;
Rev. Septemb" 2009
1\Cc-ren>\sharedIASD\PURcHISOLICITA TIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM POlDERS\UTILiTlES • CAROL YNNIRFP,\134341 Him. Energy
Rl:port,IFlNAL.CONTRACT<doc
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 12,2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 205:105
SUBJECT: Approval of the Nomination of the Category 2 Roth Building to the
National Register of Historic Places and transmittal of a letter of
support to the State Historical Resources Commission (Publie
Facilities (PF) with a SOFA 1 CAP)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue. is currently designated as a Category 2 historic
resource under the City's historic resource inventory assuring the building's status as an historic
resource for development purposes. The National Register of Historic Places designation will
provide additional recognition for the building and will enhance opportunities for funding its
renovation. 9n December 17, 2009, staff received a request from the State Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) asking for review of the nomination of the Roth Building to the National
Register of Historic Places. OHP requested the review because the subject property is City
owned and the City is classified as a Certified Local Government (CGL). CLG status requires
review by a City's historic review board prior to any National Register listing. OHP requested
that thc City review the nomination for compliance with National Register eligibility criteria
and, if in support, send a letter of support to the State Historical Resources Commission (State
Commission) prior to April 30, 2010, when the item will be reviewed by the State Commission
at its quarterly meeting. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) conducted the review at a public
hearing onMarch 3, 20 10. The HRB unanimously supported the nomination and recommended
that the Council support the nomination and send a letter of support to the State Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The HRB and staff recommend that the City Council, acting in its eapacity as a CLG and as the
property owner, support the approval of the nomination of the City's historic Category 2 Roth
Building located at 300 Homer Avenue to the National Register of Historic Places and send a
letter of support to the StalcCommission.
BACKGROUND
The Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue is currently designated as a Category 2 historic
resource under the City's historic resource inventory assuring the building's status as an historic
resource for development purposes. A Category 2 designation is defined as a building of major
regional importance, meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of an
CMR:205.1O Page 1 of4
1. Criterion A: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history; and
2. Criterion C: The property emhodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values,
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual
distinction.
Criterion A represents the period of 1932-1999 when the property was utilized as a professional
medical fucility. During that time it was associated with persons and events important to the
development of the healthcare industry in Palo Alto by establishing the first multi-specialty
group medical practice in the community in 1932 that continued until closure in 1999. The
original organizational pattern became a model within the healthcare industry nationwide. The
organization's long-term commitment to iunovative community healthcare and research laid the
foundation for the progressive healthcare network that thrives in Palo Alto today.
Criterion C represents the architectural significance of the building during the time of
construction in 1932 as representative of the work of a master architect, Birge Clark, and an
artist, Victor Amautoff, as a resource displaying high architectural and artistic value. The
building was constructed in the Spanish Eclectic style of concrete with a terra cotta roof.
Exterior frescoes created by Victor Arnautoff depicting contrasts between modem medical
practices of the era and primitive medical practices are of high artistic value to the community.
The nomination form is provided as Attachment B.
If the Council is in support of the proposed nomination of the Roth Building to the National
Register of Historic Places, a letter of support will be submitted to the State Historical
Resources Commission prior to its quarterly meeting on April 30, 2010. A draft letter of
support is. provided as Attachment C. If the Council is not in support of the proposed
nomination, a notarized letter of objection is requested to be mailed to OHP prior to the
scheduled meeting date. Consent of the property owner is not required for a National Register
nomination but properties caunot be listed over the objection of the owner.
TIMELINE
The State Commission will meet for its quarterly meeting on April 30, 2010. If the State
Commission approves the nomination, it is then sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer
for nomination to the National Register. The final detennination is made 45 days after receipt
by the Keeper oflhe National Register in Washington, D.C.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Museum currently has an Option to Lease agreement in place with the City for the Roth
Building. The Museum is continuing with fUlld raising efforts with the intent of obtaining a
long-tenn lease for the building and utilizing the building for a local history museum. The
listing of the Roth Building to the National Register has multiple historic protection and fimding
benefits as previously discussed. In support of the fund raising efforts by the Museum, the
listing would allow the utilization of federal tax credits that could assist in the rehabilitation of
the building.
CMR:205.1O Page 3 of4
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Resource impacts include involvement of staff time, allowance for some permit revenue when
project is submitted and built and would not prohibit future sale of the site if the Museum does
not move ahead with the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
review per Section 15331. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF) with a SOFA I cap.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~\k)~~.
CURTIS WILLIAMS, Director
Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: It(
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Courtesy Copy:
CMR;205.10
Findings for Approval
Roth Building National Register Nomination
Draft Letter of Support
Mareh 3, 2010 HRB staff report
March 3, 2010 HRB minutes
Palo Alto History Museum
Page 4 of4
ATTACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
300 Homer Avenue
Attachment A
The Palo Alto City Council has found the proposed National Register of Historic Places
nomination of the building located at 300 Homer, locally known as the Roth Building, compliant
with the evaluation criterion established by The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended.
I) The property known as the Roth Building is eligible for the National Register under Criterion
A at the local level for its association with persons and events important to the development of
the' healthcare in Palo Alto by establishing the first multi-specialty group medical practice in the
community in 1932 that becflme a model within the healthcare industry nationwide. The
organization's long-term commitment to innovative community healthcare and research laid the
foundation for the progressive healthcare network that thrives in Palo Alto today; and
2) The building known as the Roth Building is eligible for the National Register at the local level
under Criterion C as representative of the work of a master architect, Birge Clark, and artist,
Victor Arnautoff, and as a resource displaying high artistic value. Constructed in the Spanish
Eclectic style, the concrete structure with a terra cotta roof remains for the most part intact since
it was constructed in 1932. Exterior frescoes created by Victor Arnautoff depicting contrasts
between modern medical practices of the era and primitive medical practices are of high artistic
value to the community.
300 Homer Avenue -National Register Nomination -Attachment A I
NPS Form 1O~900 (Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMS No, 1024·0018
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
Attachment B
This form is fot use In nominating or reques1ing determinations for indivIdual properties and districts. See Instructions In National Register Bulletin, How
to Completa the NatlonaJ Register of Historio Places RegIS/Milan Form. If any Item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "NIN for
"not applicable." For functions, architectural c!asSificaUon, materials, and areas of slgnificanoe, enter only categories and suboategorles (rom the
instructions.-Place addItional cartlneatlon comments, entries, and narratlve Items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10..g008).
1. Name of Property
Historic name Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Other names/site number . Roth Building
2. Location
street & number 300 Homer Avenue
cityoflown Palo Alto
State California code CA
3. StetelFederal Agency Cartlflcatlon
county Santa Clara code 085
D not for publication
D vicinity
zip code
As the designated authority under the Na~onal Historic Preservation Act, as amended,
I hereby certify that this __ nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards
for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional
requirements set forth in 36 CFR Pert 60.
: In my opinion, the property _ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this
. property be considered significant at the following Iwel(s) of significance:
_ national statewide _local
Signature of certifying official! Date
i Title State or Federal agency end bureau
In my opinion, the property _ meets _ doss not meet the National Register orlteria.
Signature of certifying offioial Data
Title State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification
i I, hereby, oertify that this property Is: Signature of the Keeper Data of Aotion
_ entered in the National Register
_ determined eligible for the National Register
_ determined not eligible for the National Register
_ removed from the National Register
_ other (axplain:)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Name of Property
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(Chock as many boxes as appty)
, privale
X • public -Local
i public ~ Slate
public· Federal
private
Category of PropertY
(Check only one box)
X building(s)
district
site
slructure
building(s)
object
Name of misted multiple propertY listing
(Enter "N/N if property Is not part of a multiple prope':!y listing)
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
{Enter categories from Instrudlons}
HEALTH CAREICUNIC
1. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from Instruotlons)
Lete 19'" and 20'" Century Revival
Others: Spanish Colonial ReviviaVMonterey Style
Influence
Santa Clara, CA
County and SIale
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not Include previously listed resources In the count.)
Contributing Noncontributing
1 buildings
______________ sites
______________ structures
~~~ ____ ~ ____ Objects
______________ buildings
__ ---'~~ ___ ~~~_ Total
Number of contributing resources previously
listed in the National Register
N/A
Current Functions
{Enter categories from instruotions)
V ACANTINOT IN USE
Materials
(Enter categories from Instructions)
foundation: _C"'o"'n"'c"-re"'t"'e __________ _
wails: Concrete
roof: Terra-Cotta
other: (see continuation sheet)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic Santa Clara, CA
Name of Pmperty County and State
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and. current physical appearance of the property. Explain contributing and noncontributing
resources if necessary. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the
property, such as its iDeation, setting, size, and significant features.)
Summary Paragraph
300 Homer Avenue is. one· and two·story, Spanish Eclectic style, U-shaped concrete building clad in beige cement stucco and
topped by a clay Mission tile roof, The building sits on a comer lot, at the edge of Heritage Park, bounded by Homer Avenue and
Bryant Street, It is oriented northwest. facing Homer Avenue with a playground to the northeast, an open grassy space to the southeast
and residential development facing it on the surrounding blocks, The neighborhood Is a mixture of new infiH, multi·family housing
and traditional tum·of·the century residences, Limited ground·floor commercial enterprises are located along Bryant Street. The
subject building wraps around a landscaped courtyard that is centered on a large oak tree, The central spine of 300 Homer Avenue
runs parallel with Homer A venue and is two-stories with a hipped. tile·clad roof, A tbree·story elevator shaft and stairwell punctuates
the roof plane at the central rear of the building, Opposite the elevator shaft and stairwell, facing the courtyard, is a second floor
rusticated wood balcony. reminiscent of the Monterey style, Below the balcony, also facing the courtyard is an arched arcade. which
protects the primary entry to the building, Perpendicular to the spine are two, one·story wings with front·faeing gables and tile-clad
roofs, The building predominantly has five· lite steel casement window modules. arranged in large. roughly square assemblies of
various sizes, Most windows are currently covered by plywood on the exterior surface of the building, The interior is a mix of office
and unfinished spaces arranged around a central, U-shaped circulation corridor, The offices traditionally functioned as doctors' offices
and examination rooms with some limited storage in the basement. The finishes and configuration of the one-story wing interiors
closely resemble their original forms and appearance. while more liberal modifications to the two-story spine have been made to
accommndate mndem waiting rooms and office administration, Overall, the building is in good conditions with many original features
and finishes,
Narrative Description
300 Homer Avenue has a restrained design tbat was typical for its architect, Birge Clark, The simplicity of the exterior finishes is
contrasted with large features. such 8S the wood balcony overlooking the courtyard and smaller decorative features such as green
scalloped wood eave molding. circular roof vents filled with overlapping Mission tiles and large window openings facing mature trees
and landscaping in the examination and office rooms. Each element is part of the overall composition and is harmonious with creating
• soothing, peaceful environment for the clients of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. .
The primary elevation of 300 Homer is the most articulated, The main entrance is recessed from the street wall. at the far end of a
small brick and landscaped courtyard, A three·bay arched arcade shelters a series of medically themed frescos painted by famed
muralist and student of Diego Rivera. Victor Amautoff, The four color frescos depict modem medical practices, including a pediatric
examination. an internist using a stethoscope to examine a woman. surgery being performed with an Albee saw, and an early
fluoroscope (x-ray machine), They are paired with .maller frescos illustrating like procedures used by "modem medicine's"
predecessors, All are in excellent condition and have not been modified since their creation, (They remain the only public exterior
fresco murals in Palo Alto), Wood double doors with five borizontallights open into the clinic lobby, The original berringbone pattern
brick floor of the loggia is intact on both sides. but the center section has been changed to cement for bandicapped entry,
The original primary entrance to the building is centered on this wall. surrounded by frescos, On the exterior wall, centered above the
arch columns, are four painted medallions depicting Lister. Hippocrates. Pasteur and Roentgen, also completed by Am.utoff, Above
the arcade is a cantilevered wood balcony supponed by rusticated beams (visible from below) with carved ends, Similar beams and
decorative ends are used to support the roof above the balcony, Tbe balcony runs the length of the central spine and is accessed
througb two pairs of multi-lite wood French doors, (A multi-lite steel window of tbe same dimensions has replaced a third pair of
French doors), Eigbt square wood posts with simple wood brackets support the roof and a low railing and turned wood balustrade. The
balustrade is composed oftbree styles ofrandomly mixed turned wooden balusters, The courtyard i. bounded on the remaining two
sides by the original one·story clinical wings, These elevations have a mirrored fenestration pattern of different modulations of the
multi-lite steel windowforrn found tbroughout the structure, Each window is recessed into the concrete wall with a simple slightly
projecting concrete sill, These windows are currently covered with plywood, The one·story wings terminate their gable ends at the
street wall, These facades are similar in composition, with a central door or window (originally a door but converted to a window by
1959), flanked by two larger windows and topped by a circular roof vent opening centered under the roof peak. (See Continuation
Sheets)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Name of Property
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark 'x" in one or more boxes for the criteria quetifying the property
for National Register listing)
Property is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patlerns of our
history.
Properly Is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
Property embodies the dls1inctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components lack
Individual distinction,
Property has yielded, or Is likely to yield, information
Important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Consideratione
(Mark ~x~ in all the boxes that apply)
Property is:
owed by a religious institution or used for religious
A purposes,
B removed from its original location,
C a birthplace or grave.
D a cemetery.
E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
F II commemorative proparty.
G less than 50 years old or achieving significance
within the pasl 50 years.
Period of Significance (justification)
Santa Clara, CA
County and State
Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions)
A· Development of health care in Palo Alto; first group
medical practi,,~iC"n-,P __ a",lo,-,A=lto=-________ _
-_ ... _---------
C ArchitecturelDesign'-__________ _
--~.---------~--
Period of Significance
A 1932-1999
C 1932
Significant Datas
I 932 -Date of Construction
1947 -U-shaped addition added at rear (wings now
. removed)
Significant Person
(Complete only if Criterion B Is marked above)
Cultural Affiliation
Architect/Builder
Birge Clark, Architect
Wells P. Goodnough, Builde"-r _______ _
The period of significance encompasses the building's period of use by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. It spans from construction of tbe
original clinic building to the year tbe clinic vacated the property (1932·1999).
Criteria Consideratons (explanation, If necessary) NIA
Palo Alto Medical Clinic Santa Clara, CA
Name of Property County and State
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (provide a summary paragraph that includes level of signficance and
applicable criteria)
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic building at 300 Homer Avenue in Palo Alto, California was the home of the first multi-specialty group
practice in the community, founded in 1932. The Palo Alto Medical Clinic was a leader in advancing Palo Alto's health care resources
and, from the beginning, introduced new ideas and medical technology to the practice of medicine both in Palo Alto and to the Bay
Area. The clinic's founders pioneered a model of group practice in the community that, though at first controversial, would later
become common within the healthcare community nationwide. The clinic was one ofthe first in the region to offer a specialist in
obstetrics and the first to offer a specialist in pediatrics. One of Palo Alto's first female physicians was also a founding member of the
practice. Known today as the Roth Building, the building is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A at the local level for
its association with"persons and events important to the developmenfof the healthcare in Palo Alto. The organization's long-tenn
commitment to innovative community healthcare and research laid the foundations for the progressive healthcare network that thrives
in Palo Alto today.
Founded by Palo Alto's beloved Dr. Russell Lee, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic group practice built its first clinic building in 1932. The
new building, designed by architect Birge Clark, was constructed in the Spanish Eclectic style, the architectural style for which he is
best known. A unique feature of the building is the series of fresco paintings, completed by noted Depression-era muralist Victor
Arnautoff, that decorate the wall fac~ around the front entry. They are the only known exterior frescoes visible to the public in Palo
Alto. Many ofthe building's original decorative and functional features are still extant and some, especially the frescoes themselves,
are of high artistic value to the community. Interior features' unique to the function of the building as a medical clinic are also still
intact including the physicians' offices, examination rooms, and accompanying original finishes as well as the "in use" lights above
the examinadon room doors along each corridor of the original clinic. As such, the building is eligible for the National Register at the
local level under Criterion C as representative of the work of a master architect and artist and a resource displaying high artistic value.
Narrative Statement of Significance (provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance)
THE BEGINNINGS
Dr. Russel Lee, the founder of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, was bom in Spanish Fork, Utah in 1895 as one of eight children.' He
came to California in 1913 to study chemical engineering at Stanford University and, to earn his living expenses, took a job washing
glassware for Hans Zingser, the first professor of bacteriology at Stanford. Inspired by the professor's work, the young student
switched to pre-med and studied at Stanford for three years before he transferred to the University of California in 1913 when he got a
job in the State Hygiene Laboratory in Berkeley.'
Lee completed his pre-med degree at Berkeley and moved back across the Bay to complete his medical degree at Stanford University
Medical School, then located in San Francisco. In 1920, having earned his M.D. at Stanford, Dr. Lee entered into private practice with
San Francisco internist Dr. Harold Hill. In 1924, Dr. Lee accepted an offer to go into partnership with Dr. Thomas Williams in Palo
Alto. The doctors initially worked out of Dr. Williams' office building at the comer of Bryant Street and Hamilton Avenue in Palo
Alto (60 I Bryant). ' It was out of this early partnership that the seeds of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic began to grow.
From the beginning of this joint venture, the two doctors had a tremendous workload. In an attempt to stem the tide of incoming
patients, Dr. Lee raised the price of care. He famously stated, "I didn't particularly enjoy obstetrical practice, so I upped my delivery
fee from $35 to $100. This immediately quadrupled my practice. My patients said, 'If he charges that much, he must be pretty good. '"
The practice quickly grew to a point where the two men could not handle it alone and their practice soon grew with the addition of
surgeon-obstetrician Dr. E. B. (Fritz) Roth in 1925 and pediatrician Dr. Esther B. Clark in 1927. At the time that she joined, Dr. Clark
was the only pediatrician between San Francis,co and San Jose.4 Dr. Wiibur, a surgeon who had spent time training at the Mayo Clinic,
was added to the practice in 1930.' (See Continuation Sheets).
Developmental history/additional historic context Information (if appropriate)
I Palo Alto Medical Foundation House Report, "Russ Lee -'He Was the Person With Vision' ," (Vol. I, No. 1,29 January 1982), 1,
2 Ibid., 3.
3 Ibid., 3. Also see the Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "The Founding Physicians," aceessed 22 Oetober 2009.
4 R. Hewlett Lee, M.D., "Historical Notes on the Palo Alto Medical Clinie (Rcvised in part from notes of Russel V. Lee, M.D.)", (11 Scptember
J 989), 1-2.
5 Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Dr. Blake Wilbur dies; surgeon for 49 years," 11 Mareh 1974. Also sce thc Palo Alto Medical Foundation
website, "The Founding Physicians," accessed 22 Oetober 2009.
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Nam-e of Property
9. Major Bibliographical References
Santa Clara, CA
County Bnd Stete
Bibliography (Cite the books, artlcles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more oontinuati~1J Sheets) Seo Continuation
Sheets for list of references.
Previous documentaUon on fne (NPS)~
preliminary determination of Individual listing (36 CFR 67 has been ~~requestad
previously listed In the Natlomil Register
x previously determined eligible by the National Register
designated a National Historic Landmark
~~recordad by Historic American Buildings Survey #-;;~~~_
recorded by HistoriC American E:ngln~rlng Record #
Primary location of additional data:
State Historic Preservation Office .. ---Other state agency'
~~Federal agency
x Local government
UnlvorsHy
-XOther
Nama of repository: Palo Alto Historical AssocIation archives
Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): Antonio Aguilar of the NPS determined that the property "appears to meet the
National Register Criteria fur Evaluation and will likely be listed in the National Register of Historic Places if nominated by the SHPO
according to the procedures set forth in 36 CPR Part 60 (12.06.2007, Project # 21121).
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property Less than an acre.
(do not include prevIously listed resource acreage)
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet)
1 10
Zone
2
Zone
574680
Eastlng
Easting
4144250 Northi'"ng=-=---~
Northing
3
Zone Easting
4
Zone Eastlng
Verbal Boundary Oescrlption (describe the boundaries ofthe properly)
Northing
Northing
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic (Roth) Building is located at 300 Homer Avenue I the City of Palo Alto, County of Sanla Clara, Stale of
California, on: A pOrtion of Lot I in Block 24 as shown upOn Ihal certain map entitled "University Park," which was filed for record in
the office of the Recorder oflhe County of Santa Clara on February 27, 1889, in Book D of Maps, page 69, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly line of Bryant Street, 60 feet wide, with the southeasterly line of Homer Avenue, 60
feet wide; thence along said Southeasterly line of Homer Avenue, North 39 degrees, 20 minutes, 51 seconds East 140.00 feet; thence
parallel with the Northeasterly line of Bryant Street,South 50 degrees 40 minutes 04 seconds East 1,25.00 feet; Thence parallel with
the Southeasterly line of Homer Avenue, South 50 degrees 20 minutes 51 seconds West 140 feet to the Northeasterly line of Bryant
Street; thence along said Northeasterly line, North 50 degrees 40 minutes 04 seconds west 125.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The portion of Lot I, Block 24 that is occupied by the subject property is referred to as Parcel B. Said parcel contains 17,500 square
feet more orless. The Santa Clara County Assessors Property Number for the subject property is APN 120-17-093 (a portion).
Boundary Justification (explain why the boundaries were selected)
The building is located within a large parcel of land fonnerly owned and developed by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. The boundary
includes property now owned by Ihe City of Palo Alto and under long-tenn lease to the Palo Alto History Museum. The boundaries of
the lot currently occupied by subject property encompass the building and the site immediately surrounding the building envelope.
Palo Alto Medical Clinic~~~~ ___ _
Name of Prop.rtY-~-·····
Santa Clara, CA
County and State
11. Form Prepared By
name/title Palo Alto History Museum assisted by Sarah Hahn and Becky Urbano, Architectural Historians
organization Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.
street & number I SuIter Street, Suite 910
city or town Sao Francisco
e-mail
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
date 1111712009
telephone (415) 391-9633
state CA zip code 94104
• Maps: A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all
photographs to this map.
• Continuation Sheets
• Additional Items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Photographs:
Submit clear and descriptive black and white photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi
(pixels per inch) or larger.
Name of Property: Palo Alto Medical Clinic
City or Vicinity: Palo Alto
County: Santa Clara State: CA
Photographer: George Koerner (all original digital image files held by photographer)
Date Photographed: Various, see matrix.
Description of Photograph(s) and number:
f' ~Photo~-T~-~-'~--~~~~
I Number 1 Photo Date 1"",·"",--1, ''-' --'
: .. (j0Q1.j,.14 lv!ar.~h~O.o9
i()()()~' .'. ,:!(l.1'-:ovell1lJ<'r_ 2()O91 . .,N'"rtl1 ... estJfro .... tl"lev-"tion ,sh,,\'1 i~gf r<)nt&"b:;",,-n~s i. carnell1faci"l!soutll..
0003 20 November 2009 . I . Northeast (side) elevation; camera facing southeast. I
..O(J()4 14 Mll"'~:1009 .. .:..., .. . .. .~S<:>uth.".ast (",ar) -,,1~~ati(Jn.i.camera.facin.l$.n0l't.h... ',,',','.'.,1
•. ·.·······~~!~=t·.-.. -;b·~:: .. :::.;;;. ~. ~. ' ... " ·,,1 ..... ,.',· .. '. ~._._:"~l1lhwest(~i<lel~"a,tion;.ca!l~""ftiCing"'!lSt._.. .... ......... _.,.1., ~ .... __ .____ , ____ 3."lllng: came~a facing,onllh.ellSt,. __ '" .
0007 9 Nov 2009 I .. ____ w.e~t<;on:!<!"!;"c_amerala~i'!!!,llo_rt~we..st to .... ."'<iJront ofbuiJdJn!L..,,_"
CQ!i8 __ 'I~ -·--9~()vjQ09'· ~'=T=-.... _,_Bc<)°.rn!l.i"OJ'fI,c-"-Qv-"rvi"lVi.carn~ll1f""iIlJl\'l<:l.St.... .J
i .. "\l.()Q~,, .J. . ..... 1J .. r-I()v2(109 __ ·i_· _____ "'_,J<()()Il1)..3.?!JLx~JI1i'!"!i.0:'1f()()Il1;,C"Ill.ara.fa,cilll! :.'. ~:"', . "' ____ ., ..
'OilIO i9 N'()v2()O~' .,.. ,.I< .. r Stai"we.1l;5aJl1",ra Jacinll.s()\l!.h~",sL_. __ ... ..,
....Jl.0il....+ __ ... __ 2 .. N.(Jv .. ~002_., __ ... C __ . __ l\1 ural: ... l'e<li.tric E""!l1inati0ll; cameraf.""ing Il0rth.east.. ____ ___ 1
. .0.012. . .. J ....)IN.ov .~009.... Mural:W,omell.'s .I:!e ... l!hFlx~'!'i!lati()!li.,,~'!'er ... f"c.in.gn<lrth,easL .. ,... "'_'
Palo Alto Medical Clinic Santa Clara, CA
Name of Property County and State
0013 I 9 Nov 2009
~~" ,---------_.---
05J14_~1.. 9l>1<>.v20.lJ.9_ ... _._.
! . 0(1151'" ._ .9I'Iov 2009 . L ...... B& \\,t.1u.rals.::~illhtofe.!''''an.ce;2all1era faci.nllsollth.\V,st
0016 I.. 9.t{"v2Q09 ]3.1<\\,MlIral~.::l,eft()fentran~;carn~~a.faci~g nortileast .
i. 0017.t .. J.4.l\~"t:~b.2g09 .. _t.1~dalliol':)"ister; camera facil1g.souJ~"a.st
, 0018 i 14 March 2009 Medallion: Hippocrates; camera facing southeast
.. Q()l.~ .. L.~) 4 Marcll.2()09 .t.1edallion: !'.a.ste.llr; c; .. ~rllfltci.!'llso.lltll.ea~t
... O()2.().J_ J .<tt.1»rEh20(l.9~_ ..... M .. dallion:I~oentgen: camera f'!Cil1g!()tJ!h.e~ .... .
_ 002L.l ... ~.l.4:Ma~h 2009_._~ .... _.___ CO~"lxldetail; cam;>ra fll£il'.!l. SOUIll.east_~ ... _ ... _~ ___ j
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic praces to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request Is required to obtain Ii
benefit In accordance with the National HIstoric PreservaUon Act, as amended (16 U.S.CA60 at seq.).
Estimated Burden ,Statemsnt: Public reporting burden ror this form is estimated to average 18 hours per response Including time for reviewing
Instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and oompleting and reviewing the form. Direct oomments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of
this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, PO Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and thaOffice of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024~0018), Washington, DC 20503.
NPS Form 10-900-. (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 1 of 3
DESCRIPTION (continued)
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.§_a!'!<lS_I<l~<l __ ~?~I1.ty!..~A __________________ . _____ ...... _ "
The northeast elevation of 300 Homer Avenue is largely devoid of the decorative detailing found within the central
courtyard. The stucco wall plane is broken by large window openings (all covered with plywood) and the same slightly
projecting sills found in the courtyard. At the rear of this elevation, along the two-story spine, the wall is solid with no
window or door openings.
The southeast elevation (rear) of the building has a more modern stucco finish as the result of the recent removal of two later
additions to the building. These wings connected to the building along the central spine. They were removed, and the surface
was finished with a modern interpretation of the original stucco finish and scored to approximately indicate the fanner floor
levels of the removed building sections. The remaining windows on this elevation are associated with the central circulation
stair and elevator core and are a mixture of two arrangements of steel casements similar to the rest of the building and two
arrangements of glass block.
The final elevation is the southwest elevation facing Bryant Street. This street fa~ade is quite different from the fonnal
Homer Avenue entry. The Bryant Street side of the building was used for supply deliveries and other functional, non-public
activities. Toward the rear, as part of the two~story spine. a projecting one-story gable roof extends to the street wall. It is
access by a small entry porch with a single wood column, with wood brackets at the porch roof. It is similar, although simpler
in composition, to the courtyard balcony. The remainder of the elevation is marked by a series of multi-lite steel casement
windows arranged similarly to those on the northeast elevation. This section marks the street-facing wall of the southern one-
story wing.
Detailed Description ~ Interior
The interior of 300 Homer continues to exemplify the building's history as a medical clinic. Its first floor areas are arranged
in a series of small examination rooms and office spaces that are both interconnected and accessed by a central hallway.
Many of these rooms still retain their original finishes while others have been modified, but traces of the original materials
remain. Generally, the building is divided into three types of spaces -doctors' offices, administrative spaces and patient care
areas.
Today, the primary entrance through the courtyard opens into a small foyer flanked by two smaller rooms and facing a series
of very small rooms used for storage or as restrooms. Beyond this entry point, a modern reception desk and waiting room has
been created by combining a series of the original laboratory and examination rooms at the rear of the building. Originally,
the front doors opened to a large foyer and reception area with a black and rust colored clay tile floor. Beyond the reception
area are the 1947 terrazw Streamline Moderne stairs. They begin in the basement and rise to the second floor. The balusters
are matte finish aluminum with a graceful walnut handrail bending at each landing. Slightly less ornate stairs continue on to
the top of the elevator tower where the original machinery and switch panels remain in place. These stairs are lighted by the
use of glass brick windows and original lighting fixtures. The adjacent Otis elevator was operable when the clinic moved out
in 1999. Original center-opening doors remain on each floor. The elevator car has wood paneling with horizontal aluminum
bands and rounded Modeme comers. Beyond the modern waiting room areas, an open, unfinished space marks the location
of the central two-story spine. This area was fonnerly connected to two 1947 rear wings and to an adjacent building via a
shorr hallway. These later additions and features were removed in 2003 and the space was left unfinished.
Off the open unfinished central spine, two perpendicular hallways provide access to the one-story wings. Each of these wings
is dedicated to doctors' offices and examination rooms of various types. Many of the original offices retain their Flex wood
wall paneling, decorative radiator plates, Art Nouveau door and window hardware and built in cabinetry. These highly
refined rooms are generally arranged to face one another across the central hallway. They are spread out throughout the one-
story wings. Between the offices are small examination rooms. 'The original black and white tile backsplashes, hexagonal tile
counters, black porcelain soap dishes and glass shelf brackets and sinks remain in several of the examination rooms. The rest
NPS Form 10-900-0 (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number..l.-Page 2 of 3
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
?ll!1!".9<l!"S_()~:::tr,,_<;:f:: __ . ________ . ________ . ___ . __
have been replaced in whole Or in part with 0.1960s equivalents, Each of Ihese rooms originally had a door Ihat opened to a
small hallway with access to a shared waler closet. Generally two rooms shared a single waler closet. Original restrooms are
finished with green floor tile. Today, mosl of the restrooms have their original tile but the fixtures bave been replaced, Where
examination rooms have been combined, the restrooms have been removed or allocated to access to a single examination
room. All of the restrooms in the two single-story wings retain all or a significant portion of their original ftnishes,
The second floor consists of another open unfinished space along the central spine with. suite of offices and examination
rooms toward the front of the buildings, These rooms were finished after original constlUction, but before the rear additions
were added. As such, they exhibit slightly later finishes, but these finishes are original to the spaces. They consist largely of
bleached wood paneled walls in the rooms and painted white wallboard in the hallways and restrooms. The entire suite is
carpeted and shares a single waiting room that opens onto the balcony, Some walls have been relocated since original
construction but the suite, in general, remains in its original configuration.
Beyond the functional fealures of each room, the interior retains a good representation of period fixtures and lighting. On the
fu-st floor, small semi-circular globes are placed above each doorway of the original examination rooms. While no longer
functional. they were used to indicate whether the patient had been seen or not, or if they needed assistance. A corresponding
switch was placed in each room to activate the light. On the second floor. light fixtures consisting of concentric rings of white
metal are found in the office suite. They appear to date to the original finishing of the spaces in 1937. Drawer pUlls, solid
wood doors, doorknobs and plates, window hardware and switch plates remain, providing an authentic aesthetic to the entire
space.
Alterations
300 Homer A venue was originally constructed in 1932 as a medical clinic. At that time the building was a U-plan design with
a two story, hip-roof spine and two one-story gable roof wings. The first floor housed the medical clinic and the smaller
second floor contained an unfinished office suite. This suite was completed in 1937 to accommodate additional doctors'
offices and examination rooms.
In 1947, the building was greatly expanded by the construction of a U-plan addition that connected at the rear of the building.
Designed by the original architect, Birge Clark, this new construction was a full two-stories in height and consisted of a new
two-story spine and two, two-story wings. The spine contained a new circulation core consisting of a Moderne-style Otis
elevator and three-story terrazzo, metal and oak stair. The rest of the work was executed in mostly mass-produced materials
and had greatly simplified interior finishes and detailing. The resulting structure had an H-plan and housed a number of
additional medical services including expanded x-ray and surgery capabilities.
Additional room was needed as the clinic continued to expand. In 1961, a new building was constructed just east of 300
Homer Avenue on the site of the corrent playground. Known as the Lee Building, it was larger in size than 300 Homer
Avenue. An opening was cut into the east wall of the 1947 spine to accommndate a hallway to connect the two buildings. At
this time, the counyard entry ceased to be the primary patient entry point. The lobby was converted into a nurses' station and
this is the configuration that remains today.
The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (fonoerly the Palo Alto Medical Clinic) operated the facility until 1999 when they sold
the property to the CIty of Palo Alto. In 2000, the Lee Building was demolished and the hallway opening in the east wall of
300 Homer A venue was filled in.
In 2003, the 1947 wings at the rear of the building were also removed. Key character-defining features of these wings were
salvaged (roof tile, gutters. wood trim elements) and the 1947 spine, including the central circulation corridor was retained.
This portion of the building was seismically retrofitted and left unfinished pending a new use for the building.
NPSForm 10-900-a (Rev. 1lJ2()02) OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National, Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
(expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.?_":~!~_S:1.~~~_.S:~'::!~o/.!._S:!.\ ___ . ___ . ______ . ______________ _
Section number _7_ pa"-ge:..:=3::o::f=3==-_________________ _
Of ~n unknown date are the alterations that transformed the original X-ray and surgery rooms in the 1932 west wing into the
examination room, omce and support spaces that are currently in place. The date of conversion of the east waiting room into
examination rooms and support spaces is also unknown. However. many of the existing walls and finishes appear to be
original even if their former configuration, have been modified.
The building's current form is approximately that of the original 1932 construction. It contains all portions from the original
construction plus the form and volume of the 1947 spine. Representative rooms, displaying the original 1932 finishes and
uses remain to provide a clear image of the patients' experiences and the doctors' work environments in the early years of
this highly influential medical institution. The overall appearance, both inside and out,is that of an early mid-20" century
medical clinic, uniquely designed to fit within the architectural traditions of Palo Alto.
CONCLUSION
300 Horner Avenue was constructed in 1932 to house the newly formed Palo Alto Medical Clinic. I! has served as a medical
building forthi. organization until its sale to the City of Palo Alto in 2000. The exterior design of the building is in keeping
with the predominant architectural style executed in Palo Alto in the early part of the 20" century and the interior is
specifically designed to create an efficient medical clinic operation. The decorative features throughout the building are of a
high quality and design that is atypical for modern medical facilities and give 300 Homer Avenue an overall welcoming
character that exemplified the Clinic's mission and dedication to the surrounding community of Palo Alto. I! retains its
integrity despite years of continued use as a medical facility and recent alterations to later additions to the property. While
currently unoccupied, it has been stabilized and protected for future use and is subject to regular inspections and
maintenance.
NPS Form 10-900-. (Rov.812002) OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 10f9
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (continued)
(Expires 5·31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.~'!:!!~a..S=!a.!<I .. C::()':'f!:ty!..S~_._._ ... _ ...... _._ ... _ ... _
The continued rapid growth of the practice soon necessitated Ihe addition of more physicians. As such, Dr. Milton Saier, an
internist and allergy specialist joined the practice in 1931, and Dr. Niebel, a family practitioner and specialist in
anesthesiology, joined c,1932. Dr. Williams, the elder of the group, retired in 1929,' In the first years of the 19308, the
evolving group practice was still operating out the crowded 601 Bryant Street location and plans were beginning to form for a
new partnership and a new facility.
THE FOUNDING MEMBERS7
In 1932, six Palo Alto physicians formally agreed to join their practices in a new and innovative type of medical partnership
in Palo Alto. The partnership agreement, just three pages long, offers little indication of how unusual their decision was at a
time when many doctors viewed group practice as something close to communism,' Nor does it foretell how the fledgling
Palo Alto CliniC, founded in a small college town several miles south of San Francisco, would become one of the largest and
most well-respected physician groups in the United States! In addition to Dr, Russel Lee, the founding members are as
follows:
Dr. Edward Frederick (Fritz) Roth
Known interchangeably as "Fritz" or "Butch" by those who knew him; Dr. Roth was born in Ukiah, CA and educated at
Stanford University and Stanford University Medical School, graduating from the latter in 1920, Roth later went to Boston
where he received additional training in general surgery and obstetrics/gynecology, He joined Dr. Russell Lee in practice in
1925 initially handled most of the group's work in that specialty. Later, when more doctors joined the clinic, he turned to his
first love, orthopedics and sports medicine. Dr. Roth was noted for his outstanding work as an orthopedist and became team
physici"" for Stanford University in the 1930s,' position in which he continued throughout his career, Roth was a founding
member of the group practice and the original clinic building at 300 Homer Avenue, the Roth Building, is named for him.
Dr, Esther Clark
Dr. Esther Bridgeman CII;!k, sister offamed Palo Alto Architect Birge Clark, was one of the first female doctors in Palo Alto
and the first pediatrician in the Palo Alto area. Clark was born in 1900 and attended Stanford University and later Stanford
University Medical School (then located in San Francisco), receiving her M,D. in 1925, She began her pediatric practice in
Palo Alto after graduation and joined tjle Palo Alto Clinic as a partner in 1927, She joined the clinical faculty of Stanford
Medical School in the 1930s and in 1953 established the Children's Health Council. Dr. Clark retired in 1972 at age 72."
'R Hewlett Lee, M.D., "Historical Note'" (11 September 1989), 2.
1 Various accounts exist about the funnation and development of the Palo Alto Clinie and its founding members. Some list only four
founding members (Lee. Roth\ Clark and Wilbur). and some as many as iline. According to the "Historical Notes;' written by Dr. R.
Hewlett Lee (Dr, Russel Lee's son), the group formally established itself as the Palo Alto Clinic in 1929. A 1953 Palo Alto Times article
Indicate, that Palo Alto Clinic Ltd. incorpomted in 1932. An August 1932 Palo Aim Times article entitled "Medical Staff In New Building"
identifies the physicians present at the time the buHding at 300 Homer Avenue was originally occupied as the following: Lee, Roth. Clark.
Wllbur. Saier and Nicbe). These six physicians are also recognized as the founding members by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
(website) and in the publication entitled Palo Alto Medica1 Clinic: the First 75 Yeats by Sara Katz O'Hara. A reproduction of another
formal partnership agreement. dated 1 October 1936. is shown in the latter publication on page 20 (same six doctors) .
• Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Redistribution of Stock Started by PA Clinic," 25 July 1953, Another early partnership agreement
was made in 1936. see: Sarah Katz OJHara, Palo Alto Medical Clinic, the First 75 years. Dr. Francis A. Marzoni, Editor, (Palo Alto
Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, CA: n.d,), 20.
'" The Palo Alto CHnic added the word "Medical" to its title in 1955 when a law passed by the Californja Legislature required it
" Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl. "Esther Clark," 27 March 1972, Also Online Archive ofCailforni. (hltp:lloac.edlib.org), Guide to the
Bsther Bridgeman Clark Papers {accessed 22 October 2009.
NPS Form 10-900-a {Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5-31-2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 2of9
Dr. Blake C. Wilbur
~!':~!a.S!a!a.._<;:,o~!YL~ _____ . __ . _____ ... _____ .. ___ ..
Born in San Prancisco, Dr. Blake Wilbur, son of Stanford University president Ray Lyman Wilbur, attended Stanford and
Harvard medical schools, graduating from Harvard in 1925. He tniined at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota and
practiced briefly in San Prancisco before returning to Palo Alto in 1930. Dr. Wilbur joined the Palo Alto Medical Clinic that
same year and became renowned for his work as a surgeon. For many years, he was a clinical professor of surgery at Stanford
University Medical School and he practiced surgery up to the time of his death in 1974."
Dr. Millon H. Saier
Dr. Milton Saler joined the Palo Alto Clinic group practice in 1931, when the group was still operating out of an
overcrowded office in a two-story house at 60 1 Bryant Street. Born in Fresno, California in 1902, he earned a biochemistry
degree at Stanford University in 1924 and a medical degree from Stariford Medical School in 1928. Dr. Saier practiced
internal medicine and specialized in allergies. When he joined the clinic, he was the only allergist between San Francisco and
San Jose, and he created the first allergy department at the clinic. Dr. Saier retired in 1968.12
Dr. Herbert Lee Niebel
An Ohio native, Dr. Herbert Niebel graduated from Stanford University with a degree in civil engineering in 1914, and
following graduation selVed for a period as an assistant instructor in bacteriology at Stanford. The latter experience led to an
interest in clean air and water as weU as a decision to enter Stanford Medica! School where he received his M.D. degree in
1923. Dr. Niobel entered into private practice in Palo Alto for a time before joining the Palo Alto Medical Clinic as • general
practitioner skilled in anesthesiology. He remained with the clinic until his retirement in 1956."
As common as it might seem today, group medical practices were relatively uncommon in 1932, when Dr. Lee and the five
partners incorporated as Palo Alto Clinic Ltd." Group medical practices had existed in the Unlled States from the late 1800s,
when the Mayo Clinic was founded in Rochester, Minnesota. As Mayo-trained physicians spread throughout the country.
some set up their own group practices. By 1932, there were approximately 12.5 group practices in the country, with nearly a
third of them located in the Midwest."
As medicine in the United States had traditionally been practiced on an individualized, fee-for-serviCe basis, the early group
practices that did exist were seen by many independent physicians as forms of corporate or "socialized' medicine that
threatened their professional autonomy." At one point, a resolution was introduced in the Santa Clara County Medical
Society barring any Palo Alto Medical Clinic physician from membership. This was a reaction both to the clinic's growing
presence in the community, and to a 1946 agreement to provide pre-paid medical care to Stanford University students -an
II Pala Alto Times (Palo Alto. CAl, "Dr. Blake Wilbur dies; surgeon for 49 years," II March 1914; Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl.
"Blake Wilburs feted on Anniversary," 25 lune 1973; Palo Alto Tim.es (Palo Alto, CAl, "Scholarship for Surgeons established," \3
September 1972. Also see the Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "The Founding PhySicians." accessed 22 October 2009.
12 Palo Alto Daily News (Pa1o Alto! CA), #D. Milton Saier, Founding Partner of Palo Alto Clinic,: 1 June 1996; San Fnmcisco Chronicle
(San Francisco, CA), "Dr. Milton H, Baier," n.d.
11 Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CA), "Dr. Herbert Lee Niebell" 26 February 1979, Also see the Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, «The
Founding Physicians,'; accessed 22 October 2009.
J4 Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Redistribution of Stock Started By Palo Alto Clinic." 712511953.
""A Brief History of Group Practice." Palo Alto Medical Foundation. 2OO1{accessed 17 Novemher2009).
http://www.pamf.org!.boutlpamfhistorylgrouppracnce.html.
It. "The 19308; Medicine And Health: Overview,1I American Decades. The Gale Group, Inc. 2001. Encyclopedia.com
http://www.encyc!opedi •. comidocI1G2-3468301278.html(accessedI7November2OO9).AI.o. "The BQods of Brothcrhood, Teamwork
and the Group Practice," Mayo Foundation for Medica1 Education and Rcseareh.''http://www.mayoc1inic.orgltradition-heritageJgroup~
practice.hlml (accessed 17 November 20(9).
NPS Form 10-900-8 (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5-31-2(12)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 3 of9
.S..~~S:la.!.a..C::~~Il.o/.LSi.?:. __ ........ _._._._ .. _ ..
uncommon arrangement at the time and one that many independent practitioners saw as unfairly exclusive. 17 The group
practice, however, became increasingly more common in the following decades and by 1969, it is estimaled there were just
over 6,000 group medical practices in the United States; in 1999 there were approximately 20,000.'"
To accommodate the new Palo Alto Clinic's expanding operations, Palo Alto architect Birge Clark was contracted in 1931 to
draw up plans for a new office and clinic building." The new location was designed to accommodate twelve doctors, thereby
allowing for future growth. Notice of a building permit issued for the clinic was printed on the front page of the February 10,
1932 issue of The Palo Alto Times." The building at 300 Homer Avenue, which was at the outer odge of Palo Alto's
commercial district at the time, opened later that year." An article in the Palo Alto TII'MS on August 4, 1932, described the
new clinic as ua complete, self-contained unit, providing not only doctors' suites1 but an X-ray department, an operating
room, clinical laboratory, together with bookkeeping office and other facilities.""
The Palo Alto Clinic was the fIrst group medical practice in Palo Alto, and one of the earlier group practices in California."
Not only was the clinic a different type of medical practice than was common in those days, it wa. al.o innovative in its
application of that practice. Whereas the Mayo Clinic and most other clinics of the time operated on a "referral" system, with
petients referred by outside physicians for "secondary" care by. clinic's specialists, the Palo Alto Clinic's primary care
physiCians referred patients to specialists within the clinic if the need arose, thus providing both primary and secondary care
in a single setting."
The structure and operation of the organization itself was unique as well. The clinic was organized as a partnership and in the
. early years each partner was assigned whatever percent of income the individual deemed appropriate for his or her services.
Dr. Lee's philosophy was, "Give a guy what he wants and then make him earn it."" A separate corporation was also
established by the group, in which each partner held stock, owned the real estate, the medical equipment and office furniture.
Governing decisions were made as a group, with each physician'. vote carrying equal weight"
Prior to Palo Alto Clinic's opening in 1932, Palo Altans' local health care options had consisted primarily of individual
physicians and a one hundred-bed hospital, which was built in 1929, owned by the City of Palo Alto, and operated by
Stanford Medical School. The opening of the Clinic widened the scope of medical care available in Palo Alto by having
specialists, a rare feature at the time, within the Clinic', practice. Further, the group practice setting made it possible for
primary doctors and specialists to easily interact with one another within the clinic when making a diagnosis of a patient" It
also allowed for new technology to be made available as it was developed, something that was often too expensive for
individual doctors to afford.
""A Brief History of Group Practicc." Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 2001 (accessed 17 November 2(09).
http://www.pamf.orglaboutlpamthistllrylgrouppractice.html.
IB Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Francis Marzoni, Ed.), Palo Alto Medical Clinic, The First 75 Years 1930·2005, (Palo Altll: Palo Alto Medical
Foundation).
" Architectural Plans. Office BuiMinsfor DoclorS L<le. Roth, Clark and Wilbur, by Birge Clark. 19 December 1931.
» Palo Alro Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "'Three Building Permits Issued, Total $93,400," 211011932.
" Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl. "Medical Staifln New Building." 81411932.
12 Ibid.
" SlU1Ih Katz O'Hara (Dr. Franci, Marzoni, Ed.), Palo Alto Medical Clinic: The Firs/ 75 Years 1930·2005, (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Medical
Foundation).
" Ibid. Also: Palo Alw Times (Palo Alto, CAl, Medical Insert Section, "Facility Seeks Comple", Community Care," 9/1511959.
"Palo Alto Weekly (Palo Alto, CAl, "PA Medical Clinic Marks 50'" Year," 311311980.
2(, Sarah Katz O'Hara, The FirSl 75 Years, 13.
11 Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Francis Matzoni, Ed.). Palo Alto Medical CUnic: The First 75 Years 1930·2005, (Palo Altll: ralo Alto Medical
Foundation).
NPS Form 10-900-. (Rev. 812002) OMS No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5-31-2012)
United States Department ofthe Interior
National Park Service
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 4 of9
.§_~t",~_\~::,,_~_'!.tI~tyLS!i __ . ___ .. _______ . _______ ....
Palo Alto, like the rest of the nation in the 1930s, felt the burden of the Great Depression. Clinic physicians often waived
their fees -$3.00 for an office visit, $4.00 per daytime house call, and $1 0.00 per nighttime house call --since many patients
could not afford to pay. Some patients brought in food from their gardens to offer as compensation. After the war however,
many patients returned to payoff old debts."
POST WAR BOOM
Until 1946, the Palo Alto Clinic grew at a measured pace, adding doctors as they were needed. However. the large increase in
thePaningula's population following World War II created an urgent need for more doctors and the office space to
accommodate them. In 1946 alone, 12 doctors joined the staff." The increased demand was met by the 1947 opening of aU·
shaped addition, designed by the firm of (Birge) Clark and Stromquist, which attached to the rear of the 1932 building." The
rear addition tripled the clinic's capacity and was constructed for an estimated $450,000."
The clinic continued to grow, increasing the variety of specialists and services offered. A 1953 PaW AI/a Times article noted
that the Palo Alto Clinic had 1.000 patients a day filing through its doors, only one· fifth of that number coming from Palo
Alto. The same article states that by 1953. the clinic had 58 doctors and new patients were being added at a rate of 1,200 per
month.:n
By 1961, Palo Alto Medical Clinic (as it became in 1955 to conform to alaw requiring that "medical" he added to its name)
had undergone further expansion into a new building on the property, adjacent to the original Roth·building." The new
building was named the Lee building in honor of Dr. Russel V. Lee, and the original building at 300 Homer Avenue became
known as the Roth building after Dr, "Fritz" Roth." Both buildings provided medical offices and treatment rooms for clinic
doctors.
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic and the Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation were combined in 1981 to fonn the not-for-
profit Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAM!'); the Palo Alto Medical Clinic continued to exist as a "separate for·profit
corporation under the Foundation umbrella"."ln 1993, the Foundation became an .ffiliate of Sutter Health. Today the Palo
Alto Medical Foundation is one of the largest multispecialty group practices in California."
ACHIEVEMENTS
From its inception, innovation and commitment to community health care were tenets of the Clinic's philosophy, In 1946, the
Palo Alto Clinic became one of the earliest medical groups to work with managed care insurance plans when It contracted
with Stanford University to care for students under a prepaid medical plan. This was the first time in its history that Stanford
had offered a comprehensive health service to its students."
U Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "Depression, War and a Population Explosion," http://parnf.org (accessed 1 o<:tober 2008).
19 Ward Winslow and others. Palo Alto: A Centennial Hist(H'Y! (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historical Association. 1st edition), 174,
" Palo Alto Medical Foundation, A History of Innovation: 'he S'ory of 'he Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 1987.
" Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl "Work to begin on $450,000 Clinic Addition," 251uly 1946.
n Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CA) "P.A. Clinic major medical centet\" 30 July 1953, A1so. San Francisco Examiner (San Francjsco. CAl,
"Palo Alto Clinic Treats 1000 A Day," 712611953.
n Palo Alto Medical Foundation. A History oj Innovation: the Story of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 19&7.
l4 Conversation between Dr. Robert Roth and Beth Bunnenbcrg, Palo Alto, CA, June 2004.
" Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Francis Mar1.Oni, Ed.), Palo Alto Medical Clinic: The First 75 Years 1930·2005. (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Medical
Foundation).
36 Palo Alto Medical Foundation, A History of Innovation: the Story of/he Palo Alto Medical Foundation. 1987.
" Palo AI,a Times (Palo Alto, CAl "Stanford now offers students full prepaid Ilealtll progrnm," 9 April 194~.
NPS Form 10·900·. (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024o(1018 (Expires 5·31-2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number -1;L Page 5 of 9
.§.~.!:!a..~l~~S.()1!.I1.tl'!..9':. .......... _, ...... _._ ...... :
Known initially as prepaid health care, managed care first manifested in Southern California when the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power contracted with a local clinic to provide medical care for its workers at the rate of $2.69 per
month, Shortly thereafter, industrial baron Henry J. Kaiser made simHar arrangements for worke", at the Grand Coulee Dam
and in his shipyards and steel mills," Though a handful of similar plans were set up following those models, prepaid health
plans did not become common until the 1970's, when the Nixon Administration announced its plan (in 1971) to fund the
development of prepaid health maintenance organizations or HMOs,"
The agreement between Stanford and the clinic was that the clinic would provide medical care for an university students for
an advance fee of$5,00 per semester, taken out of tuition, This was the first prepaid medical care plan on the Peninsula and it
initially caused a stir with the Santa Clara County Medical Society, prompting unsuccessful efforts to remove the clinic
doctors from the membership organization. A similar prepaid plan was developed by the Clinic in the 1950's for Stanford
faculty and staff.40
In 1950, the Clinic became one of the first facilities in the country to offer radiation therapy for cancer patients in an
outpatient setting. In the same year the Clinic founded the Palo Alto Research Foundation, a separate legal entity, located in a
separate building." Originally conceived to provide Palo Alto Clinic doctors with the opportunity to engage in medical
research, it instead developad into a facility for scientists doing basieresearch; research that has produeed a number of
medical advances." Clinic doctor Esther Clark established the Children's Health Council, as a separate entity, to care for
disabled children in 1953." Dr. Lee had long fostered an interest in care for the aged and in 1964, founded the retirement
community Channing House, providing lifetime medical care by Palo Alto Medical Clinic's doctors. Both the Children's
Health Council and Channing House were established with the help afthe Palo Alto Clinic founded not-for-profit Medical
Research Foundation.44
Dr. Russel V. Lee hsd long supported pre-paid health care and was a national advocate for the development of group
practice. In 1951, he was appointed to President Truman's Commission on Health Needs of the Nation, which proposed a
plan that later became a basis for Medicare."
The Clinic also "served as a model for other nascent medical groups. Indeed, Dr. Lee claimed that the first partnership
agreement of the Permanente system -'was worked out in my living room right after the war'."" The desire to bring
innovative medical approaches and new technology to the community was an original goal of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic
that still continues today. Examples are: the first mammography machine on the West Coast purchased in 1965, the
pioneering in the early 1970's of outpatient surgery to reduce hospital stays, and, also in the 1970's, the establishment of one
of the first stand alone Sports Medicine Departments in the United States," This department was rooted in the work and
interest of one of the CHnic?s founders, Dr. "Fritz" Roth.411
" Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "Early Experiments With Managed Care," http://pamf.org (accessed: 10.23,2009).
39 Ibid,
., Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "Early Experiments With Managed Care," http://pamf,org (aecessed: 10.23.2009),
41 Ibid,
42 Palo Alto Medical Foundation, A History oj Innovation: the Story a/the Palo Alto Medical FoundatioNI 1987.
43 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Histories) Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (pa10 Alto: Palo Alto Historical Association,
1993),179,
" Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Francis Marzoni, Ed.), Palo Alto Medical Clinic: The First 75 Years 1930·2005, (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Medical
Fouadation).
45 Article: "Dr. Russel V, Lee: A Radical or SimpJy Ahead of His Time," no date, Palo Alto Historical Association files.
46 Ibid.
4-7 "Timeline: 1930-2005." Palo Alto Medical Foundation (website). httpJlwww.parnf.org/aboutipamfilistory/timeJine,hrml(aecessed 17
November 2009).
'" Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Letter from Russell V. Lee, Dr, Roth Linked Two Medical Eras," 41611972.
NPS Form 10-900·. (Rev. 812002) OMB No.1 024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 60f9 (
(Explr~. 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
?!IE.~_s:.l.!!~ilS:()!:1r.'ty!._~ A ... _. __ . _____ . ________ ...
Over Ihe years, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation had expanded into various neighboring buildings, A decision was made to
consolidate these facilities, and in September 1999, most of the facilities had heen moved to a new building and campus in
Palo Alto, approximately five blocks from its original home. The obsolete property ofthe Medical Foundation was sold,
including the Roth building, which the City of Palo Alto purchased in WOO.
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic's group medical practice. was a forerunner in the evolution of Palo Alto as a progre~sive
medical center, In 1959, in conjunction with the construction of a new hospital owned jointly by Palo Alto and Stanford
University, Stanford moved the campus of its medical school in San Francisco to Stanford's main campus in Palo Alto, The
Stanford Lane Hospital was also moved from San Francisco and to the new Palo Alto/Stanford Hospital at that time, The
Palo Alto Medical Clinic's long·standing and mutually beneficial relationship with Stanford University and its medical
school played a significant role in facilitating this move,
In the late 196Os, Stanford University bought out the City of Palo Alto's interest in the above-mentioned hospital and
subsequently embarked on an extensive medical expansion program that has continued into tbe 2000's, A number of other
medical facilities were subsequently developed. Among them were the Veteran Affairs Hospital, which opened on Stanford
land,adjoining Palo Alto's border in 1960, the Peninsula Children's Center (1960), and the Community Association for the
Retarded (1963). Interplast, Inc" providing free reconstructive surgery in third world countries, was founded in Palo Alto in
the late 1960's," Today the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Stanford University Medical complex, and groups of individual
physicians, form Palo Alto's health industry· an industry which altracts regional, and to some degree, national and
international patients.
PALO ALTO MEDICAL CLINIC BUILDING
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic building is an excellent example of the Spanish Eclectic style of architecture and retains many
interesting decorative and functional features from its original conception. Birge Clark, an architoct of major local
importance, deSigned the building in 1931-32 in the architectural style for which he is best known, Victor Arnautoff, a
depression era artist of note in the Bay Area, painted the frescos at the entryway, They are the only known exterior frescoes
visible to the public in Palo Alto,
Birge Clark
Birge Clark (1893-1989) was a significant Palo Alto architect whose work had a major impact on the City of Palo Alto,
Paula Boghosian, an architectural historian, in 1979 wrote in Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto
that Birge Clark's "Spanish Colonial Revival designs are largely responsible for the coherent Spanish Colonial Revival image
of much of Palo Alto and for the consistency between the downtown commercial area and the Spanish Colonial Revival
residential neighborhoods of the town."'·
A lifelong resident of Palo Alto, Clark earned an undergraduate degree from Stanford University, graduating in 1914 with a
major in art and a minor in engineering, He earned his master's degree in architecture from Columbia University, Birge Clark
used many architectural styles for his commercial and residential buildings but is best known for the Spanish Eclectic style,
or what he called California Colonial." His three National Register listed buildings and all of his buildings in the National
Register-listed Ramona Street Architectural District were designed in this style." It is also in this same style that the Roth
building waS designed at the height of Birge Clark', Spanish Eclectic period.
49 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Paw Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historical Association,
1993).
5(l Paula Boghosian, Architectural Historian, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City 0/ Palo Alto (1979), 13.
~I San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, CA), "Peninsula Architect Birge Clark, 96," 3 May 1989.
~2 The listed National Register properties designed by Birge Clark are the Norris House, Dunker House and the U.S. Post Office building in
Palo Alto,
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5-31-2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 7of9
.s._a.!'!~.f.~~r.~ .. C;!l';l~t.l:'!.f!':_. ______ ... ______ . __ .. __ .
According to Birge Clark's memoirs, at Ihe time they began planning the new clinic building in 193 I, clinic physician
Russell Lee was in favor of using the Art Moderne sty Ie of architecture. Though the architect made a number of sketches for
a Moderne building, he advocated for a design in the California Colonial style that he felt more comfortable with. As stated
in his memoirs, he felt that, "Ihe 'moderne' was still in its infancy at best and would probably change a good deal as time
went on, while the California Colonial was a developed, mature style with its tile roofs, thick walls, wrought iron, balconies
[and] arches." After much dcbate, the doctors settled on the "California Colonial" or Spanish Eclectic style promoted by
Birge Clark and the building was completed in 1932.
Birge Clark, and his architecture firm Clark & Stromquist, was employed by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic to design
numerous projects over the years including a small offIce building at 321 Channing and the two-story rear addition to the
Clinic building in 1946. They .lso finished the interiors on the second floor of the original clinic building in 1937. The last
large addition, added in 1969, was completed in a more modem style th.n the first portions of the building, .s it was intend to
be the first three stories of a nine-story high rise."
As is evident tod.y, the building combined a commercial use with a predominately residential-type exterior design.
Employing two single-story wings enclosing a courtyard with a mature oak tree, and using residential scale doors and
windows, and French doors opening onto a gallery on the front elevation of the recessed second story, Birge Clark enabled
the Roth building to blend into its residential surroundings. Additionally. the familiar architectural style made the building
comfortable and inviting to patients who had, up to that point in time, largely been treated by medical practitioners working
out of their own homes.
Victor Arnautoff
In 1931, Dr. Russell V. Lee commissioned Russian artist Victor Arnautoff (1896 1979) to paint the fresco murals around
the front entry to the new Clinic building. Alfred Frankenstein, San Francisco Chronicle's long-time art critiC, described
Amautoff in 1955 a. "one of the best mural painters in the United States"." Am.utoff was born in Russia in 1896 and
emigrated to Mexico in the early 20" Century where he studied mural painting and became an assistant to Diego Rivera in the
late 1920.. In 1931, the carne to San Francisco and worked with Rivera on the mural commissioned for the San Francisco Art
Institute.'" Arnautoff also studied art at the California School of Fine Arts in San Francisco.
His first solo commission in California was for the Palo Alto Clinic, which was completed in 1932.57 In 1933-34,Arnautoff
was chosen by the Works Progress Administration .s one of the artists for the murals at Coit Tower in San Francisco. Some
of his other murals include the large fresco in the Main Post Chapel in the Presidio (1935) as well as frescoes in high schools
and other buildings in the Bay Area. Arnautoff taught art at Stanford University from 1939 until his retirement in 1963 after
which he returned to Russia, where he lived out his life.'"
The Roth bun ding's frescoes have a medical theme contrasting modern medicine with earlier medical methods. There are
four fresco panels in color. Three of these panels depict the modem medical branches of pediatrics, surgery, and internal
medicine, and include three doctors whose contributions to modem medicine Dr. Lee felt were most important. The fourth
panel depicts modem technology,
Underneath each of the colored fresco panels is a smallcr monochromatic panel depicting a contrasting primitive method of
treatment. Beginning on the left of the entrance wan, the first colored fresco i. of Emmett Holt (1855-1924) a distinguished
~) An Architeci Grows up in Palo Alto: Memoirs n/Birge Malcom Clark, F.A.1.A •• (typescript: 1982),69,
541bid. The ninc-story addition was never constructed.
51 News and Notes -Medical Murals, PaJo Alto Medical Clinic, August 1959. Also. San Francisco Chronicle (San FrancIs<:o. CAll "Artists
Can Do Better Than A Dick MeSme.r," 101311955.
56 Stanford Historical Society, Memorial Resolution: Victor Amautoi!0896.1979), n.d.
!7.Ibid.
'" "The Chapel, Hallowed Ground" at: http://www.interfailh-presidio.org!thcchapel.html(accessed 10.19.2009). Also "Victor Arnautoff.
1896-1979:: at http://www.hc1fenfinearts.eomibiogsiamautoffFset.html(accessed 10.19.2009).
NPS Form 10-900-. (Rev. 8/2002) OMS No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 8 of9
(Expire. 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.~~~:,_g"r_a_S:~':1~!S:A.: ________ .. __ .. __ . ______ ._ ...
American pediatrician and a pioneer in children's diseases. The monochromatic panel beneath him has a Flathead Indian
pressing a board againsl an infanl's head 10 produce a sloping forehead, believed to be a sign of intelligence. The next color
panel, located between the window and door, is of Sir William Osler (1849-1919) a Canadian internist, highly regarded
teacher and writer on mediclnf? His contrasting monochromatic panel depicts a witch doctor exorcising evil spirits. The third
colored panel, to Ihe righl oftbe entrance door, is of Harvey Cushing (1869-1939) a Boston neurosurgeon who refined the
use of the Albee saw. Beneath him the monochromatic fresco is of a wound being cauterized with a hot poker. The final color
panel, between the rJght window and far wall, shows an early form of x-ray, a fluoroscope, being used. This panel is in
contrast with the monochromatic fresco beneath depicting Ihe use of horoscopes 10 diagnose illness.
Undernealh each window on the entrance wan is a monochromatic fresco with a reclining man and woman. The left-hand
fresco depicts the woman holding. scythe and the man a set of scales; in the right-hand fresco the woman holds a laurel
wreath and the man a sword. Beneath the windows on the Iwo end walls of the entrance loggia are monochrome frescoes
depicting the modern microscope and Bunsen burner Oeft end) and the old remedies of herbs and rools (right end). Above the
entrance door is a narrOw monochromatic fresco with a skull and a snake surrounded by books representing knowledge.59
Arnautaff's cohesive design integrated Ihe frescoes wilh Ihe wall's feneslralion and door to prnduce a unified, rhythmic, and
forceful composition. The predominanl colors in Ihe murals echo the warm lanes of the red clay tile roof, the blue green
lanes of the cornice molding, window and door trim, and the beige tones of the medaliions. Similar colors appeared on Ihe
inlerior in Ihe original tile floors, warm Flexwood walls and the beige window sill tiles. His subject matter emphasizing the
advancement of modern medicine and technology was appropriate for a newly opened medical building, and the depiction of
pediatrics, inlernal medicine, surgery, and x-ray technology focused on Ihe broad range of medical care Ihat was available al
the Palo Alto Clinic.
The murals caused a minor scandal when Ihe clinic building opened in 1932, duc to depictions of several patients receiving
medical care in a state of partial undress. Palo Alto's reaction was so intense that the controversy was covered in San
Francisco newspapers. Under the title, "Murals and Morals: Palo Allo's Pulse Quickens," a San Francisco Chronicle reporter
wrole, "The builders, aided and abelled by Ihc nationally known doctors who make up the staff, have gone in for art in a big
way, and the startling result has sel this little college IOwn by the ears!" The article continued to stale Ihal, "Ihe consensus is
that. clinic ought to be a clinic, and not an art gallery. Especially a modern art gallery!"'" On the first Sunday afrer the
murals were unveiled, the steady stream of townspeoplc driving along Homer A venue to see the mural for themselves caused
a traffic jam and clinic surgeon Fritz Roth threatened to have the walls whilewashed before he would move in. In lime, the
uproar faded away and Ihe artwork became a fixture."
CONCLUSION
From ils conceplion, the Palo Allo Clinic was a leader in advancing Palo Alto's heallh care resources. The early group
practice introduced new innovations in Ihe practice of medicine and the use of new medical technology ta both in Palo Alto
and the Bay Area. It drew patients nol only from Ihe immediate community but from throughout the Peninsula, featured
specialists as part of the Clinic's practice, and attracted accomplished physicians from around Ihe nation that were interested
in lhe Clinic's facilities and its use of new technology. The legacy of Ihe Palo Alto Medical Clinic is closely associated with
the long pattern of events Ihal helped 10 eSlablish Palo Alto's health care industry as one of the leading medical networks in
the country.
YJ News and Notes. Pa10 Alto Medical Clinic, 1959.
W San Francisco Chronicle (San Franeisco, CA). «Paintings of Semhmdes In Clink Stir Palo Alto", 21 August 1932.
61 Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, ''A Moral Dispute Over Murals," http://www.pamf,orglaboutlpamfbistorylmoral.html (Accessed
10.20.2009) .
NPS Form 10·900·. (Rev. 612002) OMB No. 1024·0018
United States. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number a Page 90f9
(Expire. 5-31·2012)
Palo Alto Medical Oinic
.§!lE!~S!~::a..f.o.!:!~!Y.! C:L .... _ ... _ ... _ ...... _ ..
300 Homer Avenue was constructed in 1932 to house the newly formed Palo Alto Medical CUnic. It served as a medical
building for this organization until its sale to the City of Palo Alto in 2000. The Spanish Eclectic style was the architectural
style of choice in Palo Alto throughout the early part of the 20'" century and the interior was specifically designed to form an
efficient medical cUnic operation. The decorative features throughout the building are of a high quality and design that is
atypical for modem medical facilities. imparting an overall welcoming character that exemplified the Clinic's mission and
dedication to the surrounding community of Palo Alto. Overall, the building retains a high degree of integrity despite years of
continued use as a medical facility. The architectural design and historic character of the original clinic building is still intact,
despite removal of the later rear wings.
NPS Form 10-900-. (Rev. 812002) OMS NO.1 024-00 18
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Regls.er of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 9 Page 1of3
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
_~a.!!!~g_~r.~_£~.!:l!!!Y.!S!> ______ ...... _. ______ ._ ... .
"An Architect Grows Up in Palo Alto", Memoirs of Birge M. Clark, F.A.I.A, Printed September 1982. (Document held in
the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Portney, Mary T. "Palo Alto Medical Clinic, at age 50, Celebrates a String ofF!rsts," The Peninsul. Times Tribune (Palo
Alto, Cal, 11 March 1980.
Gullard, Pamela and Nancy Lund. History-of Palo Alto: The Early Years. San Prancisco: Scottwan Associates, 1989.
Hendricks, Rickey. A Model for National Healthc"re: the History afKaiser Permanente. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press, 1993.
Lee, R. Hewlett, M.D. Historical Noles on Ihe Palo Alto Medical Clinic. Presented to the
Partnership 911111 989 and revised in part from notes of Russel V. Lee, M.D. (Document held in the Palo Alto Historical
Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
MacColI, William A., M.D. Group Practice and Prepayment of Medical Care. Washington D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1966.
Murray, Bruce. "Palo Alto Medical Clinic Marks 50ili Year," Paio Alto Weekly (Palo Alto, CAl 3113/l 980, p. 11-12.
News Report, Palo Alto Medical Foundation 112711982. "Dr. Russell V.A. Lee Medical Pioneer Die, AI Home At Age 86
After Long Illness"
O'Hara, Sarah Katz, Dr. Francis A. Marzoni, ed. Palo Alto Medical Clinic, the First 75 years. Palo Alto: Palo Alto Medical
Clinic, m.d. (Document held in the Palo Alia Historical Association Archives allhe Palo Alto Main Library.)
Palo Alto Daily News, (Palo AIIO, CA). "Dr. Milton Saier, Founding Partner of Palo Alto Clinic," I June 1996.
Palo Alto Medical Oinic publication. News & Noles -Medical Murals: Aug. 1959. (Document held in the Palo Alto
Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Foundation Report: Winler 1990. 60140 Anniversary Issue. (Document held in the Palo Alto
Historical Association Archives at the Palo A!to Main Library.)
Palo Alto Medical Foundation. A History of lnnovation: Story of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto Medical
Foundation: Palo Alto, 1987.
Palo Alto Medical Foundation: House Report. "Russ Lee-'He was the person with vision.'" 29 January 1982. (Document
held in the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Palo Alto Medical FounOOtion: News Report. "Dr. Russel V.A. Lee, Medical Pioneer, Dies at Home at Age 86 After Long
Illness" 27 January 1982.
Palo Alto Tittles, (Palo Alto, CAl. "Three Building Permits Issued: Physicians' Office Structure and Two Homes, Total
$93,400" to February 1932.
----"Medical Staff in New Building," 4 August 1932.
NPS Form 10-900·. (Rev, 812002) OMS No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 9 Page 3 of3
(Expire. 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.~!l!l~ .. 9ar!!.f!?!:.I1.ty,s:;:\.".""._ .. ""." ....... "._
article titled "Introducing the New Campus of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation"
San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, CAl. "Paintings of Semi·nudes in Clinic 8tir Palo Alto;" 21 March 1932.
_ ... "Palo Alto's Pulse Quickens," 21 August 1932
.... Birge M. Clark, obit, "Peninsula Architect Birge Clark, 92", n.d.
_._. "Dr. Milton H. Saier," (Obituary, c. June 1996).
San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, CAl. "Palo Alto Clinic Treats 1000 • Day," 7/26/1953.
San Jose Mercury News (8an Jose, CAl. "Noted Dr. Succumbs at Palo Alto: Dr Thomas M. Williams," 28 March 1947.
Winslow, Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historical
Association, 1993.
Web Resources
Mayo Clinic Website:
http://www.mayoclinic.orgltradition-heritage/
Palo Alto Medical Foundation website:
http://www.pamf.orglaboutlhistoryl
April 13, 2010
Milford Wayne Donaldson
State Hi'storic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Attachment C
RE: Palo Alto Medical Clinic, Roth Building, 300
National Register of Historic Places Nomination
Dear Mr. Donaldson,
The Palo Alto City Council, acting in the and
for the property owner, fmds the above nominated
listing on the National Register of Historic Places
Preservation Act of 1966, as amLen(j~
Resources Commission:
1) The property known as the Roth il'ational Register under
Criterion A at the for its m'd'~I{] events important to the
development Palo first multi-specialty group
be()arrl~ a model within the healthcare medical pralctiCiea
industry
community he.a1t11()are
local
Clark,
Constructed
remains for the
created by Victor
era and primitive
Sincerely,
Patrick Burt
Mayor
commitment to hmovative
maldon for the progressive health care
~nding is eligible for the National Register at the
)sel1tal1ve of the work of a master architect, Birge
aut,on: and as a resource displaying high artistic value.
cle'vtic style, the concrete structure with a terra cotta roof
since it was constructed in 1932. Exterior frescoes
depicting contrasts between modem medictj! practices of the
practices are of high artistic value to the community.
Attachment D
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Date: March 3, 2010
To: Historic Resources Board
From: Kathy Marx, Planner
Department: Planning and Community Environment
Subject: 300 Homer Avenue (Roth Building): Request by the Department ofPlancing and
Community Environment on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Historic Resources
Board review and recommendation to the City Council authorizing staff to send a
letter of support to the State Historical Resources Commission for the nomination
of the Category 2 Roth Building to the National Register of Historic Places.
(Public Facilities (PF) with a SOFA I Cap)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historie Resources Board (HRB) recommend to the City Council support
for the nomination of the Category 2 Roth Building to the National Register of Historic Places and
authorize staff to send a letter of support to the State Historical Resources Commission.
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2009, staff received a letter from Milford Wayne Donaldson, State Historic
Preservation Officer, requesting review of the nomination ofthe Category 2 Roth Building to the
National Register of Historic Places. The applicant for the nomination is the Palo Alto History
Museum (Museum). The application was prepared for the Museum by Sarah Hahn and Becky
Urbano, architectural historians for Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. The City is identified as the
property owner and a Certified Local Government (CLG) under the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966. Upon review for completeness and compliance with National Register eligibility
criteria by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) the nomination is scheduled for hearing by
the State Historical Resources Commission (Commission) on April 30, 2010. (Please see
Attachment B-Correspondence and Attachment C-National Register Nomination)
OHP requests that the HRB also review the nomination for compliance with National Register
eligibility criteria, If the HRB is opposed to the nomination, a recommendation would be made to
City Council requesting a notarized leiter of objection to be mailed to OHP prior to the scheduled
hearing date. If the HRB is in support of the nomination, a recommendation would be made to
City Council requesting a letter of support be mailed to OHP fifteen days prior to the scheduled
hearing date. (Please See Attachment E -Draft letter of support to OHP.)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The building at 300 Homer Avenue was constructed in 1932 as a healthcare clinic, the first group
medi cal practice in Palo Alto. The architect for the building was Birge Clark. The builder for the
project was Wells P. Goodnough. The period of significance for the building, 1932 -1999, represents
the period of the building's use by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, spanning from the construction date
of the original clinic to the year the clinic was vacated. The building was altered in 1947 with the
addition of two wings in a U-shaped configuration to the south/rear fayade. In 2003 the 1947 wings
were demolished but character defining materials including roof tile, gutters and wood trim elements
were salvaged. As well, the 1947 spine of the addition including the central circulation corridor was
retained. That portion of the building was seismically retrofitted and left unfinished pending a new
use for the building.
DISCUSSION:
The area of significance applicable to National Register criterion for the proposed Roth Building
nomination is:
Criterion A) lbe property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; and
Criterion C) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
The following statement of significance summary paragraphs from the nomination provides
applicable criterion for level of significance necessary to be eligible to the National Register:
"The Palo Alto Medical Clinic building at 300 Homer Avenue in Palo Alto,
California was the home of the first multi-specialty group practice in the community,
founded in 1932. The Palo Alto Medical Clinic was a leader in advaneing Palo
Alto's health care resources and from the beginning, introduced new ideas and
medical technology to the practice of medicine both in Palo Alto and to the Bay Area.
The clinie's founders pioneered a model of group practice in the community that,
though at first controversial, would later become common within the healthcare
community nationwide. The clinic was one of the first in the region to offer a
specialist in obstetrics and the first to ofter a specialist in pediatrics. One of Palo
Alto's first female physicians was also a founding member of the practice. Known
today as the Roth Building, the building is eligible for the National Register under
Criterion A at the local level for its association with persons and events importanHo
the development of the healthcare in Palo Alto. The organization's long-term
commitment to innovative community healthcare and research laid the foundations
for the progressive healthcare network that thrives in Palo Alto today.
Founded by Palo Alto's beloved Dr. Russell Lee, the Palo Alto medical Clinic group
300 Horner Avenue National Register Nomination Page 2
practice built its first clinic building in 1932. The new building, designed by
architect Birge Clark, was constructed in the Spanish Eclectic style, the architectural
style for which he is best known. A unique feature of the building is the .series of
fresco painting, completed by noted Depression-era muralist Vietor Arnautoff, that
decorate the wall face around the front entry. They are the only known exterior
frescoes visible to the public in Palo Alto. Many of the building's original decorative
and funetional features are still extant and some, especially the frescoes themselves,
are of high artistic value to the community. Interior features unique to the function of
the building as a medical clinic are also still intaet including the physicians' offiees,
examination rooms, and accompanying original finishes as well as the "in use" lights
above the examination room doors along each corridor of the original clinic. As
such, the building is eligible for the National Register at the local level under
Criterion C as representative of the work of a master architect and artist and a
resource displaying high artistic value."
Please see Attachment A for HRB Findings. To assist the HRB i.n review of the proposed
nominations the National Register Bulletin "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation" is attached as Attachment C.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff has not received written comments related to this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
per Section 15331. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF) with a SOFA I cap.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
HRB findings
National Register Nomination
National Register Bulletin
Correspondence
Draft. letter of support for the nomination
Site location map
Kathy Marx, Planner
Steven Turner, Manager of Advance Planning
COURTESY COPIES
Michael Garavaglia, Garavglia Architecture, Inc.
Steve Staiger, Palo Alto History Museum
Karen Holman, Palo Alto History Musenm
300 Homer Avenue -National Register Nomination Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
300 Homer Avenue
The Palo Alto Historic Resources Board has found the proposed National Register of Historic
Places nomination of the building located at 300 Homer, locally known as the Roth Building,
compliant with the evaluation criterion established by The National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended.
I) The property known as the Roth Building is eligible for the National Register under Criterion
A at the local level for its association with persons and events important to the development of
the healthcare in Palo Alto by establishing the first multi-specialty group medical practice in the
community in 1932 that became a model within the healthcare industry nationwide. The
organization's long-term commitment to innovative community healthcare and research laid the
foundation for the progressive healthcare network that thrives in Palo Alto today; and
2) The building known as the Roth Building is eligible for the National Register at the local level
under Criterion C as representative of the work of a master architect, Birge Clark, and artist,
Victor Amautoff, and as a resource displaying high artistic value. Constructed in the Spanish
Eclectic style, the concrete structure with a terra cotta roof remains for the most part intact since
constructed in 1932. Exterior frescoes created by Victor Amautoff depicting contrasts between
modem medical practices of the era and primitive medical practices are of high artistic value to
the community.
300 Homer Avenue National Register Nomination -Attachment A 1
Attachment B
NPS form 10-900 (Rev, 0112009)
Unlled Slales Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMB No, 1024-0018
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
This form is for use In nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. Sse inslruclions in Natronal Register Bulletin, How
to Complete the Net/onal RegIster of Historic; Pisces Registration Form. If any Item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" (or
"not applicable," For functions, srchileclural classification, materials, and areas of signlficanca, enter only categories and subcategories from the
instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative Itema on continuation sh •• ts (NPS Form 10..(008).
1. Nllme of Proe0rty
Historic name Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Other names/site number Roth Building
2. Location
streeU number 300 Honier Avenue
city oltown
State
Palo Alto
code CA
3 StatelFederal Agency Certlflcotlon .
county 'Santa Clara code 085
As the deSignated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended,
o not lor publication
o vicinity
zip. code 9430 I
I hereby certlly that this __ nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards
for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional
requirements set forth In 36 CFR Part 60.
In my opinion, the property _ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this
property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance:
-national -statewide _local
Slgn.lUre of corillying officiall Date
Titl. state or Federal agency and bureau
.._ ... _ ... __ ..... -.................... _.
In my opinion, Ihe property _ meets _ do .. nol meet Ihe Nalional Raglster crileria.
Signalure of certllying official Dete
Title Stale or Federal agencY and burel:iu
4. National Park Service Certification
I, hereby, cerlify thallhls property Is: Signature of U1a Keepar Dale of Action
~ entered in the National Register .... -_.-
_ detennined ellglble (or the NatIonal Register
__ determined not eligible for the National Register --~.-... ,,~ ....
_ removed from the National Register
___ other (explain:) ...........................................
\ . \./
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Name of Property
5. ClassIfication
Ownership of Property
(Check .•• many boxes as appl)l)
: private
X public· Local
public· State
public· Federal
private
Category of Property
(Check only on. box)
X building(s)
district
site
structure
buildlng(s)
object
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "NlA" If property i. not part of • multiple property listing)
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from Instruc"ilons)
HEALTH CARE/CLINIC
7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from Instructions)
Late 19'" and 20'" Century Revival
Others: Spanish Colonial ReviviallMonterey Style
Influence
Santa Clara, CA
County and St.te
Number of Resources within Property
(D? not Include previously I1sted resources in the count.)
Contributing Noncontributing
__ --'1 __________ buildings
______________ sites
______________ structures
_____________ Objects
____________ buildings
__ --' _________ Total
Number of contributing resources previously
listed In the National Register'
N/A
Current Functions
(Enter categories from Instructions)
VACANTINOT1N USE
Materials
(Enter categories (rom Instructions)
foundation; -'C"'o"'n"'c"'ret"'e"-_________ _
walls: Concrete
roof: Terra-Cotta
other: (see continuation sheet)
i \/
Palo Alto Medical Clinic Santa Clara, CA
Name of Property County and State
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current physical appearance of the property. Explain contributing and noncontributing
resources if necessary. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the
property, such as its location, setting, size, and significant features.)
Summary Paragraph
300 Homer Avenue is a one-and two-story, Spanish Eclectic style, V-shaped concrete building clad in beige cement stucco and
topped by a clay Mission tile roof. The building sits on a comer lot, at the edge of Heritage Park, bounded by Homer Avenue and
Bryant Street. It is oriented northwest, facing Homer AvenQe with a playground to the northeast, an open grassy space to the southeast
and residential development facing it on the surrounding blocks. The neighborhood is a mixture of new infill, multi-family housing
and traditional tum-of-the century residences. Limited ground-floar"commercial enterprises are located along Bryant Street. The
subject building wraps around a landscaped courtyard that is centered on a large oak tree. The central spine of 300 Homer Avenue
runs parallel with Homer Avenue and is two-stories with a hipped, tile-clad roof, A three-story elevator shaft and stainvell punctuates
the roof plane at the central rear of the building. Opposite the elevator shaft and stairwell, facing the courtyard, is a second floor
rusticated wood balcony, reminiscent of the Monterey style. Below the balcony, also facing the courtyard is an arched arcade, which
protects the primary entry to the building. Perpendicular to the spine are two, one-story wings with front-facing gables and .tile-clad
roofs. The building predominantly has five-lite steel casement window modules, arranged in large, roughly square assemblies of
various sizes. Most windows are currently covered by plywood on the exterior surface of the building. The interior is a mix of office
and unfinished spaces arranged around a central, V-shaped circulation corridor. The offices traditionally functioned as doctors' offices
and examination rooms with some limited storage in the basement. The finishes and configuration of the one-story wing interiors
closely resemble their original forms and appearance, while more liberal modifications to the two-story spine have been made to
accommodate modem waiting rooms and office administration. Overall. the building is in good conditions with many original features
and finishes.
Narrative Description
300 Homer Avenue has a restrained design that was typical for its architect, Birge Clark. The simplicity of the exterior finishes is
contrasted with large features, such as the wood balcony overlooking the courtyard and smaller decorative features such as green
scalloped wood eave molding, circular roof vents filled ·with overlapping Mission tiles and large window openings facing mature trees
and landscaping in the examination and office rooms. Each element is part of the overall composition and is harmonious with creating
a soothing, peaceful environment for the clients of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic ..
The primary elevation of 300 Homer is the most articulated. The main entrance is recessed from the street wall, at the far end of a
small brick and landscaped courtyard. A three-bay arched arcade shelters a series of medically themed frescos painted by famed
muralist and student of Diego Rivera, Victor Arnautoff. The four color frescos depict modem medical practices, including a pediatric
examination, an internist using a stethoscope to examine a woman, surgery being performed with an Albee saw, and an early
fluoroscope (x-ray machine). They are paired with smaller frescos illustrating like procedures used by "modem medicine's"
predecessors. All are in excellent condition and have not been modified since their creation. (They remain the only public exterior
fresco murals in Palo Alto). Wood double doors with five horizontal lights open into the clinic lobby. The original herringbone pattern
brick floor of the loggia is intact on both sides, but the center section has been changed to cement for handicapped entry.
The original primary entrance to the building is centered on this wall. surrounded by frescos. On the exterior wall, centered above the
arch columns, are four painted medallions depicting Lister, Hippocrates, Pasteur and Roentgen. also completed by Arnautoff. Abovc
the arcade is a cantilevered wood balcony supported by rusticated beams (visible from below) with carved ends. Similar beams and
decorative ends are used to support the roof above the balcony. The balcony runs the length of the central spine and is accessed
through two pairs of multi-lite wood French doors. (A multi-lite steel window of the same dimensions has replaced a third pair of
French doors). Eight square wood posts with simple wood brackets support the roof and a low railing and turned wood balustrade. The
balustrade is composed of three styles of randomly mixed turned wooden balusters. The courtyard is bounded on the remaining two
sides by the original one-story clinical wings. These elevations have a mirrored fenestration pattern of different modulations of the
multi-lite steel windowforrn found throughout the structure. Each window is recessed into the concrete wall with a simple slightly
projecting concrete sill. These windows are currently covered with plywood. The one-story wings terminate their gable ends aUhe
street wan. These facades are similar in composition. with a central door or window (originally a door but converted to a window by
1959), flanked by two larger windows and topped by a circular roof vent opening centered under the roof peak. (See Continuation
Sheets)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Name of Property
S, St$tement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property
for National Register listing)
liJC
Property is associated with events that have made a
signilicant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history.
Property Is associated with the lives 01 persons
slgnllicant in our past.
Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction. .
Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply)
Property is:
owed by a religious institution or used for religious
A purposes.
B removed from its original location.
C a birthplace or grave.
D a cemetery.
E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
F a commemorative property.
G less than 50 years old or achieving Significance
within the past 50 years.
Period of Significance (justification)
Santa Clara, CA
County and State
Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from Instructlon.s)
A -Development of healthcare in Palo Alto; first group
medical practice in Palo Alto
C -ArchitecturelDesign
Period of Significance
A 1932-1999
C 1932
Significant Dates
1932 -Date of Construction
1947-U-shaped addition added at rear (wings now
removed)
Significant Person
(Complete only if Criterion B Is marked above)
Cultural Affiliation
Architect/Builder
Birge Clark, Architect
Wells P. Goodnough, Builder
The period of significance encompasses the building's period of use by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. It spans from construction of the
original clinic building to the year the clinic vacated the property (1932-I 999).
Criteria Consideratons (explanation, if necessary) N/A
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Name of Property
Santa Clara, CA
County and SI.le
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (provide a summary paragraph that includes level of signficance and
applicable criteria)
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic building at 300 Homer Avenue in Palo Alto, California was the home of the first multi·specialty group
practice in the community, founded in 1932. The Palo Alto Medical Clinic was a leader in advancing Palo Alto's health care resources
and, from the beginning, introduced neW ideas and medical technOlogy to the practice of medicine both in Palo Alto and 'to the Bay
Area. The clinic's founders pioneered a model of group practice in the community that, though at first controversial, would later
become common within the healthcare community nationwide. The clinic was one of the first in the region to offer a specialist in
obstetrics and the first to offer a specialist in pediatrics. One of Palo Alto's first female physicians was also a founding member of the
practice. Known today as the Roth Building, the bullding is eligtble for the National Register under Criterion A at the local level for
its association with persons and events important to the development' of the healthcare in Palo Alto. The organization's long·term
commitment to innovative community healthcare and research laid the foundations for the progressive healthcare network that thrives
in Palo Alto today.
Founded by Palo Alto's beloved Dr. Russell Lee, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic group practice built its first clinic building in 1932. The
new building, designed by architect Birge Clark, was constructed in the Spanish Eclectic style, the architectural style for which he is
best known. A unique feature of the building is the series of fresco paintings, completed by noted Depression·era muralist Victor
Amautoff, that decorate the wall race around the front entry. They are the only known exterior frescoes visible to the public in Palo
Alto. Many of the building's original decorative and functional features are still extant and some, especially the frescoes themselves,
are of high artistic value to the community. Interior features' unique to the function of the building as a medical clinic are also still
intact including the physicians' offices, examination rooms, and accompanying original finishes as well as the "in use" lights above
the examination room doors along each corridor of the original clinic. As such, the building is eligible for the National Register at the
local level under Criterion C as representative of the work of a master architect and artist and a resource displaying high artistic value.
Narrative Statement of Significance (provide at least one paragraph for each area of Significance)
THE BEGINNINGS
Dr. Russel Lee, the founder of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, WaS born in Spanish Fork, Utah in 1895 as one of eight children.' He
came to California in 1913 to study chemical engineering at Stanford University and, to earn his living expenses, took a job washing
glassware for Hans Zinsser, the first professor of bacteriology at Stanford. Inspired by the professor's work, the young student
switched to pre-med and studied at Stanford for three years before he transferred to the University of California in 1913 when he got a
job in the State Hygiene Laboratory in Berkeley.'
Lee compieted his pre-med degree at Berkeley" and moved back across the Bay to campletehis medical degree at Stanford University
Medical School, then located in San Francisco. In 1920, having earned his M.D. at Stanford, Dr. Lee entered into private practice with
San Francisco internist Dr.Harold Hill. In 1924, Dr. Lee accepted an offer to go into partnership with Dr. Thomas Williams in Palo
Alto. The doctors initially worked out of Dr. Williams' office building at the comer of Bryant Street and Hamilton Avenue in Palo
Alto (601 Bryant). J It was out of this early partnership that the seeds of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic began to grow.
From the beginning of this joint venture, the two doctors had a tremendous workload. In an attempt to stem the tide of incoming
patients, Dr. Lee raised the price of care. He famously stated, HI didn't particularly enjoy obstetrical practice, so I upped my delivery
fee from $35 to $100. This immediately quadrupled my practice. My patients said, 'If he charges that much, he must be pretty good ....
The practice quickly grew to a point where tbe two men could not handle it alone and their practice soon grew with tbe addition of
surgeon·obstetrician Dr. E. B. (Fritz) Roth in 1925 and pediatrician Dr. Esther B. Clark in 1927. At the time that she joined, Dr. Clark
was the only pediatrician between San Francis.co and San Jose.' Dr. Wiibur, a surgeon who had spent time training at the Mayo Clinic,
was added to the practice in 1930.' (See Continuation Sheets). .
Oevelopmentel history/additional historic contexllnformatlon(lf appropriate)
I Palo Arlo Medical Foundation House Repon, "Russ Lee·-'He Was the Person WHh Vision· ... (Vol. 1, No. It 29 January 1982), L
2 Ibid" 3.
J Ibid., 3. Also see the Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "The Founding Physicians," accesse<l 22 October 2009.
4 R Hewlett Lee, M.D" "Historical Notes on the Palo Alto Medical Clinic (Revised in part from notes of Russel V. Lee, M,D.Y\ (II September
J 989), J -2.
; Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl. "Dr. Blake Wilbur dies:; surgoon for 49 years," 11 March 1974. Also see the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
website, "The Founding PhysiCians," accessed 22 October 2009.
\ , . .' "
Palo Alto Medical Clinic Santa Clara. CA
Name of Property County and Slate .
9. Major Blbllographlcsl References
Bibliography (Cite the books, al1!cles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets) See Continuation
Sheets for list of references.
Previous dDcume"tetlon on file (NPS): Primary loeallon of additional data:
preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67 has been State Hisloric PreselVation Office
--requested --Other State agency'
previ""sly listed In the National Register --Federal agency
-x-previously determined eligible by the National Register -.-Local govemment
--d~gnated a National Hisioric Landmark --University
reoorded by Historic Am.rlcan Bulldlng~ SUlVey #-;;____ --.-Oll1er
:::::::::.!.re~oo=rda:!!!!.d.!:bY=H!.!!I.~to~~"-c-"A",m",.rI",ca",,,-n =E",ng ... lna=e",rin"aL!R~e~co:!!r<I~.!!# _______ .!:N",a!!!m~e.!:ofc..reposltory: Palo Alto Historlea' A.a •• lallon archive.
Historic Resounces Survey Number (if assigned): Antonio Aguilar of the NPS determined that the property "appears to meet the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation and will likely be listed in the National Register of Historic Places if nominated by the SHPO
according to the procedures set forth in 36 CPR Part 60 02.06.2007. Project # 21121).
10. Geogrsphlcal Data
Acreage of Property Less than an acre.
(do not include previously listed resource acreage)
UTM Refersnces
{Place addltional UTM references on a continuation sheet}
10 574680 4144250 3 ---Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing
2 4
Zone Eaeling Northing Zone Easting Northing
Verbel Boundary Description (describe the boundaries of the property)
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic (Roth) Building is located at 300 Horner Avenue 1 the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara. State of
California. on: A portion of Lot 1 in Block 24 as shown upon that certain map entitled "University Park," which was filed for record in
the office of the Recorder ofthe County of Santa Clara on February 27 .. 1889. in Book D of Maps. page 69, more particularly
described as follows: .
Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly line of Bryant Street, 60 feet wide. with the southeasterly line of Homer Avenue. 60
feet wide; thence along said Southeasterly line of Homer Avenue. North 39 degrees. 20 minutes, 51 seconds East 140,00 feet; thence
parallel with the Northeasterly line of Bryant Street,.south 50 degrees 40 minutes 04 seconds East I.2S.00 feet; Thence parallel with
the Southeasterly line of Horner Avenue, South SO degrees 20 minutes 51 seconds West 140 feet to the Northeasterly line of Bryant
Street; thence along said Northeasterly line, North 50 degrees 40 minutes 04 seconds west 125.00 feet to the Point of Beginning,
The portion of Lot I, Block 24 that is occupJed by the subject property isteferred to as Parcel B, Said parcel contains 17.500 square
feet more or Jess. The Santa Clara County Assessors Property Number for the subject property is APN 120-11-093 (a portion).
Boundary Justification (explain why the boundaries were selected)
The building is located within a large parcel of land formerly owned and developed by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. The boundary
includes property now owned by the City of PaJo Alto and under long-term lease to the Palo Alto History Museum. The boundaries of
the lot currently occupied by subject property encompass the building and the site immediately surrounding the building envelope.
Pala Alto Medical Clinic
~of Property
.!!.:.form Prepared By
Santa Clara, CA
County and State
nama/titis Palo Alto History Museum assisted by Sarah Hahn and Becky Urbano, Architectural Historian,
organization Garavaglia Architecture, Inc, date 1111712009
straet & number 1 Sutler Street, Suite 910 telephone (415)391-9633
city or town !c!S~.n~F,-!ra!!n",c",is",co"-_________________ ",st",a,,,te,,-...:C::::A:.!-___ ::,zi"'p'-'co=d"'e'-'9"'4"'1O;;:.4::.-__ _
a-mail sArab@garayaglia,com
Additional Documentation
Submit the following Items Wnh the completed form;
• Mapa: A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location,
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all
photographs to this map.
• Continuation Sheets
• Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional Hems)
Photographs:
Submit clear and descriptive black and white photographs, The size of each image must be 1600)(1200 pixels at 300 ppi
(pixels per inch) or larger,
Name of Property: Palo Alto Medical Clinic
City or Vicinity: Palo Alto
County: Santa Clara Stale: CA
Photographer: George Koerner (all original digital image files held by photographer)
Date Photographed: Various, see matrix,
Description of Photograph(s) and number:
-1'1101'0· r---Ii Nllll!.b~r i ._ .. _.l'~t .... ~~!t>_. __ ._i, _ ____. ____ ._~ __ ._ .!Itl}!oJ!lls.c!!J!lifjn_._._~.____. __ I
....... ()OQlJ__J~_Maf£~~O'OJ. ____ L _________ I'IE.l'!h.~_"~9.!lt)"I~yat!o.~.i.~~!I'~aJ"'ci~g_S2'!.t~,~a!~ .1
{)()Q2. _oj _.__.2{),N..CI~~t:l)!>.e.0!QQ2 .. , . __ ~ __ .. _l'I011lt.\1I".s.t_\!~2.!lt)."I~v_~ti()E.!..SIl()"'ingfr.o!lt_g~b Ie en.<ls;'::llll1~r."_fa_cinl!.~(}lIth-,-__ .1
0003 20 November 2009 i N.orthe.a.~t(side) elevation; camera f.cing southeas!.
0004.l!Mar,h:2()Q9__: .. _. __ .... __ ._._Soutll,,~t.(fl!a:Q el~,,"!ion; C"JIler-"Ja~in~_nortjl ...
0005 i ... 2.Q.1'I()-"~II1Il<lr_£Q()<) _ .. J _________ ~ __ .So'!tl'-!'!S!_(s_!c:I.e) ele."ation; -""1I1~r.a_ facing_.".~s~, ._._
__ 0006. ..1 .... )0_ N"Y.ember~~ __ L. ___________________ . Setting; cam~11I facing n0l1.!'-~~!,-__ ._ ...... ______ _
__ Oil07 ___ 1___ _JU!O>i. 2002 .. _ ----1.-_____ Wesi.C<ll!iti<l!l.c.!l1l1era focillt. northwest toward_front."f bu!l2i!lll.:. ..... --1
. _OQQ~_i ._. __ <)1'I°~()Q2 ___ . ..:___ ___ ______ ~.o~JJ4:,5).!f!£~_~~er:vie.\¥i"am!'_"!'J:~cing_~~s): ... . .. -------.. J
0009 i 9 Nov 2009 : ... ___ . ____ R~13!!!...Examin."_t!0n ",.'>",;5'!lle.!a facltllt!'.est._ ....... __ ._J
0.0. _10.' .--t-_:,;' ----_. _.9, _N_--._;;-.. v_·.-._2do_·.9_.-." '.-. -.'-._ .. T-, R ta' II fae" c so theast 1 __ _ .. ___ . ___ ... , __ ._. ___ ear.L !"},,e i-""-~era. ___ '~,, ... -,, _____ -,-___ . _____ ._.. _____ .... _1
--.;
QQll_+ . __ . ...2_I'I.'>v 2009 ... _ ... _ ... ___ ..... M_u!al: ~CIIiol!ric ~~at1linatio~; camera fac.itlg~orthe~L ... ______ J
0012 1 9 Nov 2009 ._Mu~~!;)\'om-"~~'J!ea1tI1Il)(alIlinati()nL"~I1l~r.f."il1gn()r.the.~~L._. __ ._1
\;:
Palo Allo Medical Clinic Santa Clara, CA
Name of Property County and State
OOl-3~-~r~--9~N;~2009-M I Alb Sf' h-~-----"
1------I-'--~-~-~---'--, -.-., ___~!l@_:~._a",;c~"-m~r~.a..c!.~.g .. ~t. .. -"'_~L .. --.... --"--"'-"---1
, 0014 i 9 Nov 2009· ~1~~ ___ I\:I""~~.!'lIlQ1'{)s...C<>Jle exa!!ljll~ti()Il;_~~!)'lera f~cllls_so_uth"'-"-st_'_i ~=~Q(j;i __ r~~i~()v~QOJ=-.;-. .~!\V~l\:IllraIs.-=-gi~~()f-"lltra.n~~'~~!!l"r~ f~cin.llsp'ulh\Vest , __ ,1
! _ •. 0.0..16'1 ~...9 1'Iov_2QOJ . . ... .B.~_\V .. lIill.ra!'.=-l,,,ft. of..e..m!.~c~i~~Il1e.!~laci.nli!,(),!~east___
I··~~~~-~~-r---~: ~:~:: }~~---~---.---------Me:i!:~~~;p~~=~t::;::::;a~i~~~~;::~~;~~------------I
1 ___ ()!lI~ __ L._~14 March 2()_O~ ____ L. __ ... _ ... ~.~ .. _._ .. __ l\:Iedallion: Pa~eur; ~!lme~i!('t~l!!<!':'the~!t --.. ---.------.. -.-1 i. 0020 __ .~ ~ . .J.±.l\:Iarch.2009_._ L ......... _ ._. ~ ___ M_e<!~lli()I!:Roentgen; camera faci!llt~l!.th_ea~L __ .. _ .... ___ J
I_QQ2J ___ L_ :....!.4_~arcl1_ 2OQ9 __ ~I ___ . __ .. _______ ~Oll!ly!!'<!~_ta!!i_"~"!"f·"iI!i!outhe..'!sL~__-7------!
Paperwork: Reductton Act Statement: This information Is being collected for applioatlons to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligIbility for listing, to list properlies. and to amend eXisting listings. Response to this reques1 is required fo obtain a
benafit in accordance wfth the Nallonaf Historic Preservation Act, as amended (t6 U.s.C.460 at seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form Is estimated to average 16 hours per response including tIme for reviewing
instructions. gathering and maintaIning data. and completing and reviewing the form, Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of
this form to the Chlaf. Admlnfstrative Services DM.ion. National Park Servlce, PO Box 37127. Washington, DC 20013-7127: and the Offioo of
Management and Budgat, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0016), Washington, DC 20003.
NPS Form 10·900·. (Rov.8I2oo2) OMB No. 1024·0018 (Explres5·31·2012)
, United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Palo Alto Medical Clinic ; .s..a.~!~.q~!,~S.9~!:.!y'!_s~···············_··_··········1
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 1 of 3
DESCRIPTION (continued)
The noltheast elevation of 300 Homer Aven.ue is largely devoid of the decorative detailing found within the central
courtyard. The stucco wall plane is broken by large window openings (all covered with plywood) and the same slightly
projecting sills found in the courtyard. At the rear of this elevation, along the two·story spine, the wall is solid with no
window or 900r openings.
The southeast elevatina (rear) of the building has a more mndem stucco finish as the result of the recent removal of two later
additions to the building. These wings connected to the building along the central spine, They were removed, and the surface
was finished with a modem interpretation of the original stucco finish and scored to approximately indicate the former floor
levels of the removed building sections. The remaining windows on this elevation are associated with the central circulation
stair and elevator core and are a mixture of two arrangements of steel casements similar to the rest of the building and two
arrangements of glass block.
The final elevation is the southwest elevation facing Bryant Street. This street fa~de is quite different from the formal
Homer Avenue entry, The Bryant Street side of the building was used for supply deliveries and other functional, non-pUblic
activities. Toward the rear, as part of the two·story spine, a projecting one-story gable roof extends to the street wall. It is
access by a small entry porch with a single wood column, with wood brackets at the porch roof. It is similar, although simpler
in composition, to the courtyard balcony, The remainder of the elevation is marked by a series of multi-lite steel casement
windows arranged similarly to those on the northeast elevation, This seciion marks the street-facing wall of the southern one-
story wing,
Detailed Description -Interior
The interior of 300 Homer continues to exemplifY the building's history as a medical clinic. Its first floor areas are arranged
in a series of small examination rooms and office spaces that are both interconnected and accessed by a central hallway.
Many of these rooms still retain their original flnishes while others have been modified, but traces of tbe original materials
remain, Generally, the building is divided into three types of spaces -doctors' offices, administrative spaces and patient care
areas.
Today, the primary entrance through' the courtyard opens into a small foyer flanked by two smaller rooms and facing a series
of very small rooms used f.or storage or as restrooms. Beyond this entry point, a modem reception desk and waiting room has
been created by combining a series of the origlnal1aboratol'), and examination rooms at the rear of the building. Originally,
the fr.ont doors opened to a large foyer and reception area with a black and rust colored clay tile flo.or. Beyond the reception
area are the 1947 terrazzo Streamline Modeme stairs, They begin in the basement and rise to the second floor. The halusters
are malle finish aluminum with a graceful walnut handraIl bending at each landing. Slightly less ornate stairs coatinue .on to
the top ofthe elevator tower where the original machinery and switch panels remain in place. These stairs are lighted by the
use of glass brick windows and original lighting fixtures. The adjacent Otis elevator was operable when the clinic moved out
in 1999. Original center-opening doors remain on each floor, The elevator car has wood paneling with h.orizontal aluminum
bands and rounded Moderne comers. Beyond the modem waiting room areas, an open, unfinished space marks the location
of the central two-story spine, This area was formerly connected to two 1947 rear wings and to an adjacent building via a
short hallway. These later additions and features were removed in 2003 and the space was left unfinished.
Off the open unfinished central spine, two perpendicular hallways provide access to the one·story wings, Each .of those wings
is dedicated to doctors' offices and examination rooms of various types. Many of the original offices retain their Flexwood
wall paneling, decorative radiator plates, Art Nouveau door and window hardware and built in cabinetry. These highly
refined rooms are generally arranged to face nae another across the central hallway. They are spread out throughout the one·
story wings. Between the offices are small examination rooms. The original black and white tile backsplashes, hexagonal tile
counters, black porcelain sQap dishes and gla .. sbelf brackets and sinks remain in several of the examination rooms, The rest
NPS Form 10·900·. (Rev. 812002) OMS No. 1024·0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 20f 3
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.§.~D~.f!~!.'!So.~!:'ty!.s.~._._ .. _ ... _ ..... ______ _
have been replaced in whole or in part with c.1960s equivalents. Each of these rooms originally had a door that opened to a
small hallway with access to a shared water closet. Generally two rooms shared a single water closet. Original restrooms are
finished with green floor tile. Today. most of the restrooms have their original tHe but the fixtures have heen replaced. Where
examination rooms have been combined, the restrooms have been removed or allocated to aCCeSS to a single examination
room. All of the restrooms in the two single-story wings retain all or a significant portion of their original finishes.
The second floor consislll of another open unfinished space along tile central spine with a suite of oflices and examination
rooms toward the front of the buildings. These rooms were finished after original construction, but before the rear additions
were added. As such, they exhibit slightly later finishes, but these finishes are original to the spaces, They consist largely of
bleached wood paneled walls in the rooms and painted white wallboard in the hallways and restrooms. The entire suite is
carpeted and shares a single waiting room that opens onto the balcony. Some walls have been relocated since original
construction but the suite, in general, remains in its original configuration.
Beyond the functional features of each room, the interior retains a good representation of period fixtures and lighting. On the
first floor, small semi-circular globes are placed above each doorway of the original examination rooms_ While no longer
functional, they were used to indicate whether the patient had been seen or not, or if they needed assistance. A corresponding
switch was placed in each room to activate the light. On the second floor, light fixtures consisting of concentric rings of white
metal are found in the office suite. They appear to date to the original finishing of the spaces in 1937. Drawer pulls, solid
wood doors, doorknobs and plates, window hardware and switch plates remain. providing an authentic aesthetic to the entire
space.
AUerations
300 Homer Avenue was originally constructed in 1932 as a medical clinic. At that time the building was a U-plan design with
a two story, hip-roof spine and two one-story gable roof wings. The first floor housed the medical clinic and the smailer
s<rond floor contained an unfinished oflice suite. This suite was completed in 1937 to accommodate additional doctors'
offices and examination rooms.
In 1947, the building Was greatly expanded by the construction of a U-plan addition that connected at the rear of the building.
Designed by the original architect, Birge Clark, this new construction was a full two· stories in height and consisted of a new
two·Story spine and two, two-story wings. The spine contained a new circulation core consisting of a Modeme-Slyle Otis
elevator and three-story telTazzo, metal and oak stair. The rest of the work was executed in mostly mass-produced materials
and had greatly simplified interior linishes and detailing. The resulting structure had an H-pl.n and housed a number of
additional medical services including expanded x-ray and surgery capabilities.
Additional room was needed as the clinic continued to expand. In 1961, • new building was constructed just east of 300
Homer Avenue on the site of the .culTent playground. Known as the Lee Building, it was larger in size than 300 Homer
Avenue. An opening was cut into the east wall of the 1947 spine to accommodate a hallway to connect the two buildings. At
this time, the courtyard entry ceased to be the primary patient entry point. The lobby was converted into .·nurses' station and
this is the configuration that remains today.
The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (fonnerly the Palo Alto Medical Clinic) operated the facility until 1999 when they sold
the property to the City of Palo Alto. In 2000, the Lee Building was demolished and the hallway opening in the east wall of
300 Homer Avenue waS filled in.
In 2003, the 1947 wings at the rear of the building were also removed. Key character-delining features of these wings were
salvaged (roof tile, gutters, wood trim elements) and the 1947 spine, including the central circulation corridor was relllined.
This portion of the building was seismically retrofitted and left unfinished pending a new use for the building.
NPS Form 10-900-e (Rev, 812002) OMB No, 1024-0018
United States Department Of the Interior
National Park S,ervice
National Register of Historic Places
C,ontinuation Sheet
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
,?<::rl!".S;:_~'!!"_S:.~u !:,:~y!. _<;.1:= ___ . __ .. __________________ _
Section number_7_ page-=3=of::3==-______ ----_________ _
Of an unknown dete are the alterations that transformed Ihe original X-ray and surgery rooms in the 1932 west wing into the
examination room, office and support spaces that are currently in place. The date of conversion of the east waiting room into
examination rooms and support spaces is also unknown, However, many.of the existing walls and finishes appear to be
original'even if their former configurations have been modified.
The building's current form is approximately that of the original 1932 construction. It contains all portions from the original
construction plus the form and volume of the 1947 spine. Representative rooms, displaying the original 1932 finishes and
uses remain to provide a clear image of the patients' experiences and the doctors' work environments in the early years of
this highly influential medical institution_ The overoB appearance, both inside and OU~ is that of an early mid-20· century
medical cliniC, uniquely designed to fit within the architectural traditions of Palo Alto.
CONCLUSION
300 Homer Avenue was constructed in 1932 to house the newly formed Palo Alto Medical Clinic. It has served as •. medical
building for this organization until its sale to the City of Palo Alto in 2000. The ex terior design of the building is in keeping
with the predominant architectural style executed in Palo Alto in the early part of the 20· century and the interior is
specifically designed to create an efficient medical clinic operation, The decorative features throughout the building are of.
high quality and design that is atypical for modern medical facilities and give 300 Homer Avenue an overall welcoming
characteithat exemplified the Clinic's mission and dedication to the surrounding community of Palo Alto. It retains itS
integrity despite years of continued use as a medical facility and recent alterations to later additions to the property. While
currently unoccupied, it has been stabilized and protected for future use and is subject to regular inspections and
maintenance.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev,1II2002) OMS No, 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park SelVice
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 1 of 9
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (continued)
(Expire. 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
,~!:~!~S_!~!,~S:9.l:!!:':~!._~ _________ ._._. _______ ._ ... _
The continued rapid growth of the practice 800n necessitated the addition of more physicians, As such, Dr. Milton Saier. an
internist and allergy specialist joined the practice in 1931, and Dr, Niebel, a family practitioner and specialist in
anesthesiologY, joined c.l932. Dr. Williams. the elder oUhe group, retired'in 1929_· In the first years of the 1930s. the
evolving group practice was stin operating out the crowded 60) Bryant Street location and plans were beginning to form for a
new partnership and a new facility.
THE FOUNDING MEMBERS'
In 1932, six Palo Alto physicians formally agreed to join their practices in a new and innovative type of medical partnership
in Palo Alto. The partnership agreement. just three pages long, offers little indication of how unusual their decision was at.
time when many doctors viewed group practice as something close to communism.' Nor does it foretell how the fledgling
Palo Alto Clinic, founded in a small college town several miles south of San Francisco, would become one of the largest and
most well-respected physician groups in the United States! In addition to Dr. Russel Lee. the founding members are as
followS!
Dr. Edward Frederick (Fritz) Roth
Known interchangeably as "Fritz" or "Butch" by those who knew him; Dr. Ro\h was born in Ukiah, CA and educated at
Stanford University and SllIllford University Medical School. graduating from the latter in J 920. Roth later went to Boston
where he received additional training in general surgery and obstetrics/gynecology. He joined Dr. Russell Lee in practice in
1925 initially handled most of the group's work in that specialty. Later, when more dOClors joined the clinic, he turned to his
first love, orthopedics and sports medicine. Dr. Roth was noted for his outstanding work as an orthopedlstand became team
physician for Stanford University in the 1930s. a position in which he continued throughout his career. Roth was a founding
member of the group practice and the original clinic building at 300 Homer Avenue, the Roth Building, is named for him.
Dr. Esther Clark
Dr. Esther Bridgeman Clark, sister of famed Palo Alto Architect Birge Clark, was one of the first female doctors in Palo Alto
and the first pediatrician in the Palo Alto area. Clark was born in 1900 and attended Stanford University and later Stanford
University Medical School (then located in San Francisco), receiving her M.D. in 1925. She began her pediatric practice in
Palo Alto after graduatiOll and joined tpe Palo Alto Clinic as a partner in 1927. She joined the clinical faculty of Stanford
Medical Schoo! in the 1930s and in 1953 established the Children's Health Council. Dr. Clark retired in 1972 at age 72.'°
'R. Hewlett Lee. M.D., "Historical Note," (11 September 1989), 2.
1 Various accounts exist about the formation and deveJopment of the Palo Alto Clinic and its founding members. Some list only four
founding members (Lee, Roth. Clark and Wilbur). lind some as many as nine. According to the «Historical Notes," written by Dr. R.
Hewlett Lee (Dr. Russel Lee', son), the grQUP formally established illlelf as the Palo Alto Clinic in 1929. A 1953 Palo Alto Times article
indicates that Palo Alto Clinic Ltd, incorporated in 1932, An August) 932 Palo Alro Times article entitled "Medical Staff In New Building"
identifies the physicians present at the time the building at 300 Homer Avenue was originally occupied as the foHowing: Lee, Roth, Clark,
Wilbur, Saier and Niobe), These six. physicians are also recognized as the founding members by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
(website) and in the publication entitled Palo Alto Medical Clinic: the FirSt 75 Years by Sara Katz O'Hara. A reproduction of another
formal partnership agreement, dated 1 October 1936, is shown ill the latter publication on page 20 (same six doctors) .
• Palo A,lto Thoe. (Palo Alto, CAl, "Redistribution of Stock Sta.r1ed by P.A. Clinic," 25 July 1953. Another early partnership agreement
was made in 1936. see: Sarah Katz O'Hara, Palo Alto Medical Clinic. the First 75 years. Dr. Francis A. Marzoni. Editor, (Palo Alto
Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, CA: n.d.), 20.
'The Palo Alto Clinic added the word "Medical" to its title in 1955 when. law passed by tile Californi.l..egislaturerequired it.
" Palo Alro Times (Palo Alto. CAl, "Esther Clark," 27 March 1972. Also Online Archive of California (http://oac.cdlib.org).Guide to the
Esther Bridgem.n Clark PHpers (accessed 22 October 2009. L
;
NPS Form 10·900-. (Rev. 812002) OMS No. 1024·0018 (Expires 5-31-2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park SeIViClil
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.~~_!!~~S.\~!.~S£.U.~ty!'.~.A." .. ,,_ ... __ ._ .... _ ... _ .. _ ..
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet .
Section number 8 Page 2of9
Dr • Blake C. WUbur
Born in San Francisco, Dr. Blake Wilbur, son of Stanford University president Ray Lyman Wilbur. attended Stanford and
Harvard medical schools. graduating from Harvard in 1925. He tnilned at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Minnesota and
practiced briefly in San Francisco before returning to Palo Alto in 1930. Dr. Wilbur joined the Palo Alto Medical Clinic that
same year and became renowned for his work as. surgeon. For many years, he was a clinical professor of surgery at Stanford
University Medical School and he practiced surgery up to the time of his death in 1974."
Dr. MUtOD H. Saler
Dr. Milton Saier joined the Palo Alto Clinic group practice in 1931. when the group wa, still operating out of an
overcrowded office in a two-story house at 60 I Bryant Street. Born in Presno. California in 1902. he earned a biochemistry
degree at Stanford University in 1924 and a medical degree from Stariford Medical School in 1928. Dr. Saier practiced
internal medicine and specialized in allergies. When he joined the clinic. he was the only allergist between San Francisco and
San Jose. and he created the first allergy department at the clink Dr. Saier retired in 1968."
Dr. Herbert Lee Niebel
An Ohio native, Dr. Herbert Niebel graduated from Stanford University with a degree in civil engineering in 1914, and
following graduation served for a period as an assistant instructor in bacteriology at Stanford. The latter experience led to an
interest in clean air and water as well as a decision to enter Stanford Medical School where he received his M.D. degree in
1923. Dr. Niebel entered into private practice in Palo Alto for a time before joining the Palo Alto Medical Clinic as n general
practitioner skilled in anesthesiology. He remained with the clinic until his retirement in 1956." '
THE EARLY YEARS
As common as it might seem today. group medical practices were relatively uncommon in 1932, when Dr. Lee and'the five
partners incorporated as Palo Alto Clinic Ltd." Group medical practices bad existed in the United States from Ihe late 1800.,
when the Mayo Clinic was founded in Rochester, Minnesota. As Mayo-trained physicians spread throughout the country,
some set up their own group practices. By 1932. there were approximately 125 group practices in the country, with nearly a
third of them located in the Midwest."
As medicine in the United States bad traditionally been practiced on an individualized, fee-for-service basis, the early group
practices that did exist were seen by many independent physicians as fonns of corporate or "socialized" medicine that
threatened their professional autonomy." At one point, a resolution was introduced in tbe Santa Clara County Medical
Society barring any Palo Alto Medical Cllnlc physician from membership. This was a reaction both to the clinic's growing
presence in the community. and to a 1946 agreement to provide pre-paid medical care to Stflllford University students -an
" Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Dr.Blake Wilbur dies: ,urgeon for 49 years." 11 March 1974; Palo Alto Times (Palo AIIO, CAl.
"Bloke Wilburs feted on Anniversary," 25 June 1973; Palo Allo Times (Palo Allo, CAl, "Scholarship for Surgeons established," 13
September 1972. Also see the Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "The Founding PhYSicians." accessed 22 October 2009.
1'1 Ftalo Alto Daily News (Palo Alto, CA). uD. Milton Saier, Founding Partner of Palo Alto Clinic!: 1 June 1996; San Francisco Chronicle
(San Francisco, CA), "Dr, Milton H. Saier." n,d.
" Palo Alto T!'mes (Palo Alto, CAl. "Dr. Herbel1 Lee Niebel." 26 February 1979. Also see the Palo Alto Medical Poundation web,ite, ''The
Founding Physicians," accessed 22 October 2009.
" Pa!c Alto Times (Palo Alto. CAl, "Redistribution of Stock Started By Palo Alto Clinic." 712511 953.
15 uA Brief History of Group Practice:-Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 2OOJ(accessed 17 November 2009),
http://www.pamf.orglaboutlparnfhi.torylgrouppractice.html.
16 "The J9308: Medicine And Health: Overview,-American Decades The Gale Group. Inc, 2001. Encyclopedia.com
http://www.encyclopedi •. comldoclIG2-3468301278 .htrnl (accessed 17 November 2009). Also, "The Boads of Brotherhood, Teamwork
and the Group Practice," Mayo Foundation for MedIcal Education and Research,''http://www.mayoclinic.org/tradition-heritagelgroup-
practice.html (accessed] 7 November 2009}.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8120(2) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5-31-2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 30f9
§_a.~.t.~S.!~!!:.~ll.!!tY.!..~~_._ ... _ ..... _ ........ ____ . __ .
uncommon arrangement at the time and one that many independent practitioners saw as unfairly exclusive. " The group
practice, however, became increasingly more common in the following decades and by 1969, it is estimated there were just
over 6.000 group medical practices in the United States; in 1999 there were approximately 20.000."
To accommodate the new Palo Alto Clinic's expanding operations, Palo Alto architect Birge Clark was contracted in 1931 to
draw up plans for a new office and clinic building." The new location was designed to accommodate twelve doctors, thereby
allowing for future growth. Notice of a building permit issued for the clinic was printed· on the front page of the February 10,
1932 issue of The Palo Alto Times," The building at 300 Homer A venue, which was at the outer edge of Palo Alto's
commercial district at the time, opened latertbat year." An article in the Palo Alto Times on August 4, 1932. described the
neW clinic as "a complete, self-contained unit, providing not only doctors' suites, but an X-ray department, an operating
room, clinicallaooral<lry, I<lgether with bookkeeping office and other facilities.""
The Palo Alto Clinic was the first group medical practice in Palo Alto, and one of the earlier group practices in California."
Not only was the clinic a diffurent type of medical practice than was common in those days, it was also innovative in its
application of that practice. Whereas the Mayo Clinic and most other clinics afthe time operated on a "referral" system, witb
patients referred by outside physicians far "secondary" carc by a clinic's specialists, the Palo Alto Clinic's primary care
physicians referred patients to specialists within the clinic if the need arose, thus providing both primary and secondary care
in a single setting."
The structure and operation of the organization itself was unique as well. The clinic was organized as a partnership and in the
. early years each partner was assigned whatever percent of income the individual deemed appropriate for his or her services.
Dr. Lee's philosophy was, "Give a guy What he wants and then make him earn it."" A separate corporation was also
establisho;d by the group, in which each partner held stock, owned the real estate, the medical equipment and office furniture.
Governing decisions were made as a group, with each physician's vote carrying equal weight."
Prior to Palo Alto Clinic's opening in 1932, Palo Altans' local healtb care options had consisted primarily of individual
physicians and a one hundred-bed hospital, which was built in 1929, owned by the City of Palo Alto, and operated by
Stanford Medical School. The opening of the Clinic widened the scope of medical care available in Palo Alto by having
specialists, a rare feature at tbe time, within the Clinic's practice. Further, the group practice setting made it possible for
primary doctors and specialists to easily interact with one another within the cUnic when making a diagnosis of a petient." It
also allowed for new technolngy to be mede available as it was developed, something that was often too expensive for
individual doctors to afford.
17 "A Brief History of Group Practice." Palo Alto Medical Foundalion, 2001 (accessed 17 November 2009).
http://www.pamf.orgiaboullpamfJ\istoryfgrouppractice.html.
.. Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Francis Marzoni, Ed.), Palo Allo Medical Clinic: The Firsl 75 Years 1930-2005, (Palo AlIo: Palo Alto Medical
Foundation).
" Architeclural Plans. Office Buiidingfi>r Doctors ue. Roth. Clark and Wilbur, by Birge Clark, 19 December 1931.
"Palo Allo Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Three Building Permit. Issued. Total $93,400," 2110/1932.
21 Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Medic.1 Staff In New Building," 8/411932.
21 Ibid.
" Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Franci. Marzoni, Ed.), Palo A 110 Medical Clinic: The Fim 75 Years 1930-2005, (Palo Alto: Palo All{> Medicol
Foundation).
2< Ibid Also: Palo Alia Times (Palo Alto. CAl, Medicat Insert Section, "Facility Seek' Complete Community Care." 9115/1959.
"Palo Allo Weekly (Palo Alto, CAl, "FA Medical Clinic Marks 50" Year," 311311980.
14 Sarah Katz O'Hara. Tile Firsl 75 Years, 13.
" Sarah Katz O'Ha .. (Dr. Franci. M3J'zoni. Ed.). Palo Alto Medical Clinic: Tile First 75 Years 1930-2005, (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Medical \
Fouadation). .
NPS Form 10·900-. (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Explr •• 5·31·2012)
United States Department oftlle Interior
National Park Stwice
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
I~~~~~~~~=-----I
Section number 8 Page 4of9
Palo Alto, like the re,t of the nation in the 1930., felt the burden of the Oreat Depression. Clinic physicians often waived
their fees -$3.00 for an office visit, $4.00 per daytime house call, and $10.00 per nighttime house call-since many patients
could not afford to pay. Some patients brought in food from their gardens to offer a. compensation. After the war however,
many patients returned to payoff old debts."
POSTWAR BOOM
Until 1946, the Palo Alto Clinic grew at a measured pace, adding doctors as they were needed. However, the large increase in
thePeninsula's population following World War II created an urgent need for more doctors and the office space to
accommodate them. In 1946 alone, 12 doctors joined the staff." The increased demand was mel by the 1947 opening of. U·
shaped addition, designed by Ihe firm of (Birge) Clark and Stromquist, which a!lached 10 Ihe rear oflhe 1932 building.'· The
rear addition lripled the clinic's capacity and was conslructed for an eslimaled $450.000."
The clinic continued to grow, increasing the variety of speeialists and services offered. A 1953 Palo Alto Times article nOled
that the Palo Alto Clinic had 1,000 patients a day filing through its doors, only one-fifth of thaI numher coming from Palo
Alto. The same article states that by 1953, the clinic had 58 doctors and new palients were being added ata rale of 1,200 per
month,n
By 1961, Palo Alto Medical Clinic (as it became in 1955 to conform to a law requiring that "medical" be added to its name)
had undergone further expansion into a new building on Ihe property, adjacent to Ihe original ROlhbuilding." The new
building was named the Lee building in ilonor of Dr. Russel V_Lee, and the original building at 300 Homer Avenue became
known as the Roth building after Dr. "Fritz" Roth." BOlh buildings provided medical offices and trealment rooms for clinic
doctors.
The Palo Allo Medical Clinic and the Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation were combined in 1981 to form the not-for·
profil Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF); the Palo Alto Medical Clinic continued 10 exist as a "separate for-profil
corporalion under the Foundation umbrella"." In 1993, the Foundation became an affiliate of Suller Heallh. Today the Palo
Alto Medical Foundation i. one of the largest multispecialty group practices in California."
ACHIEVEMENTS
From ils inception, innovalion and commitmenllo communilY health care were lenets of the Clinic's philosophy. In 1946, the
Palo Alto Clinic became one of the earliest medical groups 10 work with managed care insurance plans when il contracled
with Slanford University to care for sludenls under a prepaid medical plan. This was the first time in its hislory that Stanford
had offered a comprehensive health service to its students."
:28 Palo Alto Medica1 Foundation website, "Depression, War and a Population Explosion," http://parnf.org (accessed 1 October 2(08).
29 Ward Winslow and others, Palo Alto: A Centennial History, (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historica1 Association, 1 8t edition), 174,
'" Palo Alto Medical Foundation. A History oj Innovari"n: the Story oj the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 1987.
" Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto, CAl "Work!l:) begin on $450,000 Clinic Addition." 25 July 1946.
n Palo Alta Times (Palo Alto. CA) "P.A. Clinic major medical center," 30 July J953. Also. San Francisco Examiner (San FranciSCO. CAl,
"Palo Alto Clinic TrealS 1000 A Day," 712611953.
:» Palo Alto Medical Foundation, A History of lmwvalion: the Story of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 1987.
:H Conversation between Dr. Robert Roth and Beth Bunnenberg, Palo Alto, CA, June 2004.
" Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Francis Morzoni, Ed.), Palo Alto Medical Clinic: The Firsr 75 Years 1930-2005. (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Medical
Foundation).
X> Palo Alto Medleal Foundation, A History o/Innovation: the Story cj the Palo Alto Medicallfoundation, 1987.
J7 Palo Alto TImes (Palo Alto, CA) "Stanford now offers sfudents fun prepaid health program," 9 April 1946,
NPS Form 10·900'8 (Rev. 6/2002) OMS No. 1024·0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 5 ot9
(Expire. 5·31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
• .?.aD!~.f.I~!.~SE~~~!,_Sf.... .. _. __ ............. _ ........ _
Known initially as prepaid health care, managed care first manifested in South\ll11 California when the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power contracted with a local clinic to provide medical care for its workers at the rate of $2.69 per
month. Shortly thereafter, industrial baron Henry J. Kaiser made similar arrangements for workers at the Grand Coulee Dam
and in his shipyards and steel mills." Though a handful of similar plans were set up following those models, prepaid health
plans did not become common until the 1970's, when the Nixon Administration announced its plan (in 1971) to fund the
development of prepaid health maintenance organizations or HMOs."
The agreement between Stanford and tbe clinic was that the clinic would provide medical care for all university students for
an advance fee of $5.00 per semester, taken out of tuition. Tbis was the first prepaid medical care plan on tbe Peninsula and it
Initially caused a stir with the Santa Clara County Medical Society, promptingunsucce.sful efforts to remove the. clinic
doctors from the membersbip organization. A similar prepaid plan was developed by tbe Clinic In the 1950's for Stanford
faculty and staff."
In 1950, the Clinic became one of the first facilities in the country to offer radiation therapy for cancer patients in an
outpatient setting. In the same year the Clinic founded the Palo Alto Researcb Poundation, a separate legal entity, located in a
separate building." Originally conceived to provide Palo Alto Clinic doctors witb tbe opportunity to engage in medical
research, it instead developed into a facillty for scientists doing basic 'researcb; research tbat has produced a number of
medical advances." Clinic doctor Estber Clark establisbed the Children'S Health'Council, as a separate entity, to care for
disabled cbildren in 1953." Dr. Lee had long fostered an interest in care for tbe aged and in 1964, founded tbe retirement
community Channing House, providing llfetime medical care by Palo Allo Medical Cllnic's doctors. Botb the Cblldren's
Health Councll and Channing House were establisbed witb the help of the Palo Alto Clinic founded not-for-proflt Medical
Research Poundation.44
Dr. Russel V. Lee bed long supported pre-paid health care and was a national advocate for the development of group
practice. Tn ! 951, he was appointed to President Truman's Commission on Health Needs of tbe Nation, wbicb proposed a
plan that later became a basis for Medicare." .
The Clinic also "served as a model for otber nascent medical groups. Indeed, Dr. Lee claimed thaI the first partnersbip
agreement oflbe Permanente system -'was worked out in my living room right after tbe war':'" The desire to bring
innovative medical approaches and new technology to the community was an original goal of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic
that still continues today. Examples are: tbe first mammograpby machine on tbe West Coast purcbased in 1965, the
pioneering In the early .I970·s of outpatient surgery to reduce hospital stays, and. also in tbe 1970's, the establishment of one
of tbe fIrst stand alone Sports Medicine Departments in tbe United States." This department was rooted in the work and
interest of one of the Clinic's founders, Dr. UFritz" Roth.4S
" Palo Alto Medical Founrullion website. "Early Experiments With Managed Care." hltp:/Ipamf.org (accessed: 10.23.2009).
39 Ibid .
.., Palo Alto Medical Foundation website, "Early Experiments With Managed Care," http://pamf.org (accessed. 10.23.2009).
41 Ibid.
" Palo Alto Medical Foundation, A HislOry of innovation: the Siory of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 1987.
43 Ward Winslow and the Palo Aho Historica1 Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Pa10 Alto: Palo Alto Historical Association>
1993), 179.
"Sarah Katz O'Hara (Dr. Francis Marroni. Ed.), Palo Allo Medical Clinic: The FirsI75 Years 1930·2005, (Fillo Alto: Palo Alto Medical
Foundation).
4:1 Artic1e: "Dr, Russel V. Lee: A Radical or Simply Ahead of His Time," no date. Palo Alto Historicai Association files.
4(, Ibid .
• 7 "Timeline: 1930.2005." Palo Alto Medical Foundation (website). http://www.pamf.orglaboutlpamfhistoryltimeline.htrnl(accessed 17
November 2009).
"Pa/o ALia Times (Palo Alto, CAl, "Letterfrom Russell V. Lee. Dr. Roth Linked Two Medic.ll3r ..... 41611972.
NPS Form 10-900-. (Rev. 812002) OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 6 of9
(Expi'~. 5-31-2012)
, Palo Alto Medical Clinic
! ,?~_~t!l_9lir.!I __ c:.?1l.~ty!._~:A.: _______ ., .. _ .. _. __ ._ ....... _
Over the years, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation had expanded into variou.s neighboring buildings, A deCision was made to
consolidate these facilities, and in September 1999, most of the facilities had been moved to a new building and campus in
Palo Allo, approximately five blocks from its original home, The obsolete property of the Medical Foundation was sold,
including the Roth building, which the City of Palo Alto purchased in 2000,
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic's group medical practice, was a forerunner in the evolution of Palo Allo as a progl'e!'sive
medical center, In 1959, in conjunction with the construction of a new hospital owned jointly by Palo Alto and Stanford
University, Stanford moved the campus of its medical school in San Francisco 10 Stanford's main campus in Palo Alto. The
Stanford Lane Hospital was also movnd from San Francisco and to the new Palo Alto/Stanford Hospital at that time. The
Palo Alto Medical Clinic's long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship with Stanford University and its medical
school played a significant role in facilitating this move,
In the late 1960s, Stanford University bought out the City of Palo Alto's interest in the above-mentioned hospital and
subsequently embarked on an extensive medical expansion program that has continued into the 2000's. A number of other
medical facilities were subsequently developed. Among them were the Veteran Affairs Hospital, which opened on Stanford
land adjoining Palo Alto's border in 1960, the Peninsula Children's Center (1960), and the Community Association for the
Retarded (1963). Interplsst, Inc., providing free reconstructive surgery in third world countries, was founded in Palo Alto in
'the late 1960's." Today the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Stanford University Medical complex~ and groups ofindividual
physicians, form Palo Alto', heaith industry· an industry which auraets regional, and to some degree, national and
intemational patients.
PAW ALTO MEDICAL CLINIC BUILDING
The Palo Alto Medical Clinic building is an excellent example of the Spanish Eclectic style of architecture and retains many
interesting decorative and functional features from its original conception. Birge Clark, an architect of major local
importance, designed the building in 1931-32 in the architectural style for which he is best known. Victor Amauloff, a
depression era artist of note in the Bay Area, painted the frescos at the entryway. They are the only known exterior frescoes
visible to the public in Palo Alto.
Birge Clark
Birge Clark (I 893-J 989) was a significant Palo Alto architect whose work had a major impact on the City of Palo Alto.
Paula Boghosian, an architectural historian. in 1979 wrote in Hislorical and Archilectural Resources oj the City 01 Palo Alto
that Birge Clark's "Spanish Colonial Revival designs are largely responsible for the coherent Spanish Colonial Revival image
of much of Palo Alto and for the consistency between the downtown commercial area and the Spanish Colonial Revival
residential neighborhoods of the town.""
A lifelong resident of Palo Alto, Clark earned an undergraduate degree from Stanford University, graduating in 1914 with a
major in art and a minor in engineering. He earned his master's degree in architecture from Columbia University. Birge Clark
used many architectural styles for his commercial and residential buildings but is best known for the Spanish Eclectic style.
or what he called California Colonial." His three National Register listed buildings and all of his buildings in the National
Register-listed Ramona Street Architectural District were designed in this style." It is also in this same style that the Roth
building was designed at the height of Birge Clark's Spanish Eclectic period.
49 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Assodatiou, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historiclll Association,
1993).
!lU Paula Boghosian, Architectural Historian, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City oj Palo Alto (1979). 13.
51 San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, CA), "PeninsuJa Architect Birge Clark, 96," 3 May 1989,
52 The listed National Register properties designed by Bjrge Cl~rk are the Norris House. Dunker House and the U.S. Post Office building in
Palo Alto.
NPS Form 10·900-. (Rev. 812002) OMS No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Contlnua.tion Sheet
Section number L Page 7 of 9
(Expires 5-31-2012)
According to Birge Clark's memoirs, at the time they began planning the new clinic building in 193 1 , clinic physician
Russell Lee was in favor of using the Art Moderne style of architecrure, Though the architect made a numher of sketches for
a Modern. building, he advocated for a design in the California Colonial style that be felt more comfortable with. As stated
in bis memoirs, he felt that, "the 'moderne' was still in its infancy at best and would probably change a good deal as time
went on, while the California Colonial waS a developed, mature style with its tile roofs, thick wa)l', wrought iron, balconies
[and) arches." After much debate, the doctors settled on the "Califurnia Colonial" or Spanish Eclectic style promoted by
Birge Clark and the building was completed in 1932.
Birge Clark, and his architecture firm Clark & Stromquist, was employed by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic to design
nUIllerous projects over the years including a sman office building at 321 Channing and the two-story rear addition to the
Clinic building in 1946. They al.o finished the interiors on the second floor of the original clinic building in 1937. The last
large addition, added in 1969, was completed in a more modem style than the first portions of the building, as it was intend to
be the first three stories of a nine-story high rise."
As is evident today, the building combined a commercial use with a predominately residential-type exterior design,
Employing two single-story wings enclosing a courtyard with a mature oak tree, and using residential scale doors and
windows, and French doors opening onto a gallery on tlie front elevation afthe recessed second story, Birge Clark enabled
the Roth building to blend into its residential surroundings. Additionally, the familiar architectural.tyle made the building
c.amfonable and inviting to patients who had, up to that point in time, largely been treated by medical practitioners working
out of their own homes.
VIctor Amautoff
In 1931, Dr. Russell V. Lee commissioned Russian artist Victor Amautoff (1896 -1979) to painllb. fresco murals around
the front entry to the new Clinic building. Alfred Frankenstein, San Francisco Chronicle's long-time art critic, described
Am.utofrin 1955 as "one of the best mural painters in the United States"." Amautoff was born.in Russia in 1896 and
emigrated to Mexico in the early 20" Century where he studied mural painting and became an assistant to Diego Rivera in the
late I 920s: In 1931, the came to San Francisco and worked with Rivera on the mural commissioned for the San Francisco Art
Institute." Arnautoff also studied art at the California School afFine Arts in San Francisco.
His first solo commis,ion in California was for the Palo Alto Clinic, which was completed in 1932." In 1933-34 Amautoff
was chosen by the Works Progress Administration as one of the artists for the murals at Coit Tower in San Francisco. Some
ofhis other murals include the large fresco in the Maln Post Chapel in the Presidio (1935) as well as frescoes in high schools
aod other buildings in the Bay Area. Arnautoff taught art at Stanford University from 1939 until his retirement in 1963 after
which he returned to Russia, where he lived out his life," .
The Roth building's frescoes have a medical theme contrasting modem medicine with. earlier medical methods, There are
four fresco panels in color. Three of these panels depict the modem medical branches of pediatrics, surgery, and internal
medicine, and include three doctors whose contributions to modem medicine Dr. Lee felt were most important. The fourth
panel depicts mcdern technology.
Underneath each of the colored fresco panels is a smaller monochromatic panel depicting a contrasting primitive method of
treatment. Beginning on the left of the entrance wall, the first colored freseo is of Emmett Holt (1855-1924) a distinguished
" An Architect Grows up in Palo Alto: Memoirs of Birge Malcom Clark, F.A.l.A., (typescript: 1982),69.
54 Ibid, The nine~story addition was never constructed.
jj News and Notes-Medical Murals, Palo Alto Medl\:al Clinic, August 1959. Also, San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisc~ CA). "Artists
Can Do Better Than A Diek McSmear," 1 0/3/1955.
16 Stanford Historical Society. Memorial Resolution: Victor Arnauto!l(1896·1979)1 n,d.
~1 Ibid.
""The Chapel, Hallowed Ground" at: http;/lwww.interfaith-prc.idio.orWthe_chapel.html(accessedlO.19.2009).Also .. Vic!orAm.molT.
18%~ 1979." at' http://www.helfenfinearts.comibiogslarn.utoftFset.html(aecessed 10.19.2009).
,
') ,l
NPS Form 10·900·. (Rev, 812002) OMS No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number.JL Page 8 of 9
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic;
,~.!I~S.~~!~.S:':>'::!:Ity!..S'.\ ......... _ .................... .
American pediatrician and a pioneer in children's diseases. The monochromatic panel beneath him has a Flathead Indian
pressing a board against an infant's head to produce a sloping forehead, believed to be a sign of intelligence. The next color
panel. located between the window and door, is of Sir William Osler (1849-1919) a Canadian internist, highly regarded
teacher and writer on medicin~, His contrasting monochromatic panel depicts a witch dector exorcising evil spirits. The third
colored panel, to the right of the entmnce door, is of Harvey Cushing (1869-1939) a Boston neurosurgeon who refined the
use of the Albee saw. Beneath him the monochromatic fresco is of a wound being cauterized with. hot poker. The final color
panel, between the right window and far wall. shows an early form of x-ray, a fluoroscope, being used. This panel is in
contrast with the monochromatic fresco beneath depicting the use of horoscopes to diagnose illness.
Underneath each window on the entrance wall is a monochromatic fresco with a reclining man and woman. The left-hand
fresco depicts the woman holding." scythe and tbe man a set of scales; in the right-hand fresco the woman bolds a laurel
wreatb and the man a sword. Beneatb the windows on the two end walls of the entrance loggia are monochrome frescoes
depicting tbe modem microscope and Bunsen burner (left end) and the old remedies of herbs and roots (right end). Above the
entrance deor is a narrow monochromatic fresco with a skull.nd a snakc surrounded by books representing knowledge."
ArnaulOffs cohesive design integrated the frescoes with the wall's fenestration.nd door to produce. unified. rhythmic, and
forceful composition. The ptedominant colors in the murals echo the warm tones of the red clay tile roof, the blUe green
tones of the cornice molding, window and door trim, and the beige tones of the medallions. Similar colors appeared on tbe
interior in the original tile floors, warm Flexwood walls and the berge window sill tiles, His subject mailer emphasizing tbe
advancement of modern medicine and technology was appropriate for a newly opened medical building, and tbe depiction of
pediatrics, internal medicine, surgery, and x-ray technology focused on tbe broad range of medical care that was avanable at
the Palo Alto Clinic.
The murals caused a minor scandal when the cJ.inic building opened in 1932, due to depictions of several patients receiving
medical care in a state of partial undress. Palo Alto's reaction was so intense that the controversy was covered in San
Francisco newspapers. Under the title, "Murals and Morals: Palo Alto's Pulse Quickens," a San Francisco Chronicle reporter
wrote, "The builders, aided and abetted by the nationally known doctors who make up the staff, have gone in for art in a big
way. and the startling result has set this little college town by the ears!" The article continued to state that, "the consensus is
that a clinic ought to be a clinic, and not an art gaUery. Especially a modern art gallery!"'" On the first Sunday after the
murals were unveiled. the steady stream of townspeople driving along Homer Avenue to see the mural for themselves caused
• traffic jam and clinic surgeon Fritl Roth threatened to have the walls whitewashed hefore he would move in. In time. the
uproar faded away and the artwork became a fixture.'l
CONCLUSION
From its conception, the Palo Alto Clinic was a leader in advancing Palo Alto's health care resources, The early group
practice introduced new innovations in the practice of medicine and the use of new medical technology to both in Palo Alto
and the Bay Area. It drew patients not only from the immediate community but from throughout the Peninsula, featuted
specialists as part ofthe Clinic'. practice, and attracted accomplished physicians from around the nation that were interested
in the Clinic's facilities and its use of new technology. The legacy of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic is closely associated witb
the long pallern of events that helped to establish Palo Alto's health care industry as one of the leading medical networks in
the country,
59 News and Notes, Palo Alto Medical Clinic, 1959,
flO San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, CA), "Paintings of Seminudes In Clinic Stir Palo Alto", 21 Augusr 1932.
(>1 Palo Alto Medical Foundation website. "A Moral Dispute Over Murals," http://www.pamf.org/aboutfpamfhistory/moral.html(Accessed
10,20,2009).
NPS Form 10-900-9 (Rev. 812002) OMS No. 1024-0018
. United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 90f9
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
.~~.!l!~S!~:~~~~.!l'!_SJ.': .. ____ .~ ________ ._ ...... _._
300 Homer Avenue was constructed in 1932 to house the newly formed Palo Alto Medical Clinic. It served as a medical
building for this organization until Its sale to the City of Palo Alto in 2000. The Spanish Eclectic style was the architectural
style of choice in Palo Alto throughout the early part of the 2O~ century and the interior was specifically designed to form an
efficient medical clinic operation. The decorative features throughout the building.,:e of a high quality and design that is
atypical for modem medical facilities, imparting an overall welcoming character that exemplified the Clinic's mission and
dedication to the surrounding community of Palo Alto. Overall, the building retains a high degree of integrity despite years of
continued use .as a medical facility. The architectural design and historic character of the original clinic building is still intact,
despite removal of the later rear wings.
NPS Form 10-900-0 (Ray, B12002) OMS No, 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number.JL... Page 1 of 3
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
(Expires 5-31-2012)
Palo Alto Medical Oink
_s.~t.~g~!.~.S;~~p'!X!_~ .... __ .. __ ........ _ .. _,_ .. _,
i,
"An Architect Grows Up in Palo Alto", Memoirs of Birge M, Clark, P.AJ.A, Printed September 1982. (Document held in
the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Fortney, Mary T. "Palo Alto Medical Clinic,.t age 50, Celebrates a String ofPirsts," The Peninsula Times Tribune (Palo
Alto, Ca), 1J March 1980.
Gullard, Pamela and Nancy Lund. History'ofPalo Alto: The Early Years. San Prancisco: Scottwall Associates, 1989.
Hendricks, Rickey. A Model for National Healthcare: the History of Kaiser Pennonente. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press, 1993.
Lee. R. Hewlett, M.D. Historical Notes on the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. Presented to the
Partnership 911111989 and revised in part from notes of Russel V. Lee, M.D. (Document held in the Palo Alln Historical
Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
MacColI, William A .. M.D. Group Practice and Prepayment oj Medical Care. Washington D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1966.
Murray, Bruce. "Palo Alto Medical Clinic Marks 50~ Year," Palo Alto Weekly (Palo Alto, CA) 311311980, p, I J-12.
News Report, Palo Alto Medical Foundation 1127/1982. "Dr. Russell V.A. Lee Medical Pioneer Dies At Home At-Age 86
After Long Illness"
O'Hara, Sarah Katz, Dr. Francis A. Marzon;, ed. Palo Alto Medical Clinic. the First 75 years. Palo Alto: P.lo Alto Medical
Clinic, m.d. (Document held in the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Palo AIIO Daily News, (Palo Alto: CAl. "Dr. Millnn Saier, Founding Partner of Palo Alto Clinic," 1 June 1996.
Palo Alto Medical Clinic publication. News & Notes -Medical Murals: Aug. 1959. (Document held in the Palo Alto
Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Foundation Report: Winter 1990. 60f40 Anniversary Issue. (Document held in the Palo Alto
Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Palo Alto Medical Foundation. A History oj Innovation: Story oj the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto Medical
Foundation: Palo Alto, 1987.
Palo Alto Medic.1 Foundation: House Report. "Russ Lee -'He was the person with vision. ,n 29 January 1982. (Document
held in the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Main Library.)
Palo Alto Medical Foundation: News Report. "Dr. Russel V.A. Lee, Medical Pioneer, Dies at Home at Age 86 After Long
Illness" 2.7 January 1982.
Palo Alto Times, (Palo AIIn, CA). "Three Building Permits Issued: Physicians' Office Structure and Two Homes, Total
$93,400" 10 February 1932 .
• -_. "Medical Staff in New Building," 4 August 1932.
Attachment C
The mlssion of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide
access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust
responsibilities to tribes.
The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural
resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education,
and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Servite cooperates
with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource
conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.
This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative
agreement with the National Conference oi'State Historic Preservation Officers
and the U.S. Deparbnent of the Interior.
Date of publication: 1990; revised 1991, 1995, 1997. Revised for Internet 1995,
Cover
(Top Left) Criterion B -Frederick Douglllss Home, Washington, D.C. From 1877-
1899, this was the home of Frederick Douglass, the former slave who rose to become a
prominent author, abolitionist, editor, orator, and diplomat. (Walter Smalling, Jr,)
(Top Right) Criterion D -Frllncis Cllnyon Ruin, Blanco viCinity, Rio Arribo
County, New Mexico. A fortified village site composed of 40 masonry-walled rooms
arranged in a cluster of four house blocks. Constructed ca. 1716-1742 for protection
against raiding Utes and Comanches, the site has Information potential relllted to Na-
vRjo, Pueblo, and Spanish cultures. (Jon Samuelson)
(Bot/om Left) Criterion C -Bridge ill Cllmytree Townsllip, Vena So Counly,
Pennsylvania. Built in 1882, this Pratt through tru~~ bridge is significant for engi-
neering as a well preserved example of a type of bridge frequently used in northwestern
Pennsylvania;n the lale 19th century, (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation)
(Bol/om Right) Criterion A -Main Street/Market Square Historic District,
Houston, Hams County, Texas. Until well into the 20th century this district marked
the bounds of public and business life in Houston. Constructed between the 18706. and
1920., the district includes Houston's municipal and counly bui/dings, and served as
the city's wholesale, retail, andfinaneial center. (Paul Hesler)
PREFACE
Preserving historic properties as
important refloctions of our American
heritage became a national policy
through passage of the Antiquities
Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of
1935, and the National Historic Pres-
ervation Act of 1966, as amended.
The Historic Sites Act authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to identify
and recognize properties of national
significance (National Historic Land-
marks) in United States history and
archeology. The National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 authorized
the Secretary to expand this recogni-
tion to properties of local and State
significance in American history, ar-
chitecture, archeology, engineering,
and culture, and worthy of preserva-
tion. The National Register of His-
toric Places is the official list of these
recognized properties, and is main-
tained and expanded by the National
Park Service on behalf of the Secretary
of the Interior.J
The National Register of Historic
Places d()!;uments the appearance and
importance of districts, sites, build-
ings, structures, and objects signifi.
------..... ----
cant in Our prehistory and history.
These properties represent the major
patterns of our shared local, State,
and national experience. To gUide the
selection of properties included in the
National Register, the National Park
Service has developed the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation.
These criteria are standards by whi€h
every property that is nominated to
the National Register is judged. In
addition, the National Park Service
has developed criteria for the recogni-
tion of nationally significant proper-
ties, which are designated National
Historic Landmarks ·and prehistoric
and historic units of the National Park
System. Both these sets of criteria
were developed to be consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Stan-
dards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation, which are uni-
form, national standards for preserva-
tion activities.'
This publication explains how the
National Park Service applies these
criteria in evaluating the wide range
of properties that may be significant
in local, State, and national history.
It 'should be used by anyone who
must decide if a particular property
qualifies for the National Register of
Historic Places.
Listing properties in the National
Register is an important step in a na-
tionwide 'preservation process. The
responsibility for the identification,
initial evaluation, nomination, and
treatmen t of historic resources lies
with private individuals, State historic
preservation offices, and Federal pres-
ervation offices, local governments,
and Indian tribes. The final evalua-
tion and listing of properties in the
National Register is the responsibility
of the Keeper of the National Register.
This bulletin was prepared by staff
of the National Register Branch, inter-
agency Resources Division, National
Park Service, with the assistance of the
History Division. It was originally is-
sued in draft form in 1982. The draft
was revised into final form by Patrick
W. Andrus, Historian, National Regis··
ter, and edited by Rebecca H.
Shrimp ton, Consulting Historian.
Beth L. Savage, National Register
and Sarah Dillard Pope, National Reg-
ister, NCSHPO coordinated the latest
revision ofthis bulletin. Antionette J,
Lee, Tanya Gossett, and Kin Badamo
coordinated earJier revisions.
lPraperties listed in the National Register receive limited Federal protection and certain benefits. For mOre information concerning the effects of
Usting, and how the National Register may be used by the general public and Certified Local Governments, as well as by local, Slate, and FederaJ
agenciesr l'U1d for copies of National Register Bulletins, contactthe National Park Service, National Register, la49 C Streel, NW, NOmO, Washington,
D.Ct 20240. Information may also be obtained hy viSiting the National Register Web site at www.cr.nps.gov/nr or by contacting any o( ihe historiC
presetvationoIfices in the States and territories.
t'fhe Secretary of the ;nlel'ivr's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preliervation are found in the Federal Rcgisler, VoL 48, N<t 190
(Thursday, September 29, 1983). A copy can be obtained by writing the National Park Service. Herilage Preservation Services {at the address above)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ...... n ....................... \ ....... H ......... , .............•••• H ............................. ~ ....... H ••••• ' ............................. H ...................................... ~.l
I. I ntrod u cti on ., .. , , ................... "" .. ". "" .. "",, .. ,"" " .. " .. ,,''' .. , ........... ", ......... " ........ , .. " ........ " ... " "', .. " ......... "" .. , ........ ,' ,,,. "" ...... " ..... 1
II. . National Register Criteria for Evaluation ... " ... " .. " .. " .......................... ""." ....... """ ....... " ... " .... " .. " .... ,, ............................... 2
III. How to Use this Bulletln to Evaluate a Property " ...... " .. ,., ....... " .. " .... "" .... "" ........... " ......................... ,."" .. "" .... "., .... , ...... 3
IV. How to Define Categories of Historic Properties " ... ""."." ..... """ .. ,"'" .. """ .. ," ...... , .. "" ..... " ..... " .......... " .... ,, ........ ,,"" .. ,," 4
Buildi ng ........................................... ' .. , .... , .. " .... ,,,., ... " ... ", ......... " .. ", .. " .............. "" ......... , " ............... , ...... " ...... '''' ......... """.".",, .. 4
Struc ture ............. "" ... " " ......... "." ........ "," .,"" ..... " "'" ...... "." ..... " .... " .................. ",,, ................ " ......... ,," """"""'"'''''''''''''''' " .... 4
Object .. """ ......... ' " ........ " ........... ,,,,,. " ... """""."".""" ' ........... , ...................................... " .............. , ............................... ,,,,,,, ..... 5
Site ...... ",'" .. :"" ..... " ..... " , .... , .... ",' ............ "" .. "" .. ", ............. ""." "." .............. ", .. , " .. " .... ", ."." ........ "" ........ ,,,.,, ... , ........ " ....... 5
District ......... " .................. " .................... "." .. , ........... " .......... " .. ,,, ..................... " ............. "" .. , ,,,,, ......... " .... ", ...... " .... , .... " .... ", .. ,' 5
Concentration, Linkage, & Continuity of Features ... ",,, ......... ,,""", .. ,,, ..... ,,, ... ,, .......... ,, ........... ,', ......... " .............. , .. , ... ,' 5
Significance ................. " ......... " ............ " ....... , ........... , ............ , ..... " .... , ", .... " ..... " .. " ............. " ........... "" ...... " .. " .............. , .. " 5
Types of Features " .. ,'" .. ,",.,. , .. , .. ,,, ...... , .. ,, .. ''',''', .... ,,, .... ,, ............ , ... ,,., .... ,, ......... ,,,, ......... "', ....... " .. " .. , .. " ..... " ... , ........ ,, ...... 5
Geographical Bou ndaries .......... " " .. , " .... "., ....................... ',., .. ' ................. " ..... , .... " ...................................... " .... " ............ , 6
Discontiguous Districts ........ , ........ " ........... ". ,,, .. ,'" " ... ,,,., .... " ....... , ... " ... , ..... , ..... " ...... " .... " ... " ... " ", ..... " ........... ,," "" ....... ,. 6
V. How to Evaluate a Property Within its Historic Context ......... " .... " ...... " ....... , ..... """"." ............... "" .. """,, ....... ,, .. " .. " .... 7
Understanding Historic Contexts ........................... " .... , .... , ................... " ............. " " .......... "" ............... """"'''''''''' ".", '" "" ",. 7
How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context " ............... "" ........ " ..... "."" .. " ............... " ..... " .............. " ...... " ...... 7
Properties Significant Within More Than on Historic Context .... " ............ " ... " ...... "."" ........... """",, ........................ 9
Comparing Related Properties , ......... " ... " .......................................................................................................................... 9
Local, State, and National Historic Contexts ....... , ...... , ........................................................................................................... 9
VI. How to Identify the 1)rpe of Significance of a Property ............................................. " ............ "'; ........ ,,, ................ " ...... 11
Introduction .............. " .......................... , ......................................................... , .............................. , ............................................ 11
Criterion A: Event ......................................................................................... , ........................................................................... 12
. Understanding Criterion A ................................... , .................................................................... , ........ , ........................... 12
Applying Criterion A ............... , ..................... , ...... " ................................. , ....... " .............................................................. 12
Types of Events ........ , ............................... , ... , ............................................................................................................. 12
Association of the Property with the Events ........................................................................................................... 12
Significance of the Association .................................... " ........................... , ........................... , .. , ............................... 12
Traditional Cultural Values ..... , ...................... , ........................................................................................................ 13
Criterion B: Person ............................................................................................................. , .. " ..... , .. , ......................................... 14
~~~f;~::~;~~rf~~t~i~~.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~
Significance of the Individual ................................................... , .......... " .................................................................. 15
Association with the Property ................. , ....................... , ....................................................... , ............................... 15
Comparison to Related Properties .......................................... , ............. , .......................................................... , ...... 15
Association with Groups ................................................................................................... " ..................................... 15
AsSociation with Living Persons ............................................................................................................................. 16
Association with Architects! Artisans .................................................................................................................... 16
Native American Sites ......................................................................................................................................... , .... ' 16
Criterion C: Design!Construction ..................................... , ................................................................................................... 17
~~~f;~~~~;U~r~~t~i~~.:..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::.::: i~
ii
Distinctive Characteristics of Type, Period, and Method of Construction ....... "" ...... ·"· ................. "" .......... " ..... ,,.18
Historic 'Adaptation of the Original Property ................ " ........ , .. ", ............. " ..... " ............................. "; .. ,',, .......... , ...... , 19
Works of a Master .. " ....................... , .... , ...... " .... , ........... , .. , .. " .. , .... , .... , .. , .............. ·····" .. " ........ , .. "',· ...... "·,, ............... , .... ,,,.20
Properties Possessing High Artistic Values .. " .. " ......... ,.", .. , .. ", .. " ....... ,", .. ,,,.,,"",, ... , .... , .... , ..... , ............................... , ... 20
Criterion D: Information Potential " ....... " .. , ............ , ... ,"" .. ' ... " ........... ,', .. "."" ............ " .. " ........................ , ................. , .. " .... , 21
Understa nding Criterion D .... " ... , .... " " .. " ......... ,., ............................... , ....... , .. , .. ", .... ,. ,., .... , ....... ' ..... , ....... " ...... ,' ............... , .. ,21
APPI)~~~I~:~~;~~1 ~i·i~;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~
Buildings, Structures, and Objects ....... , ....... " .. ,", ... , .. , ...... , .... " .. , .. , .. ,., .. , .. , .. , ... , ...... " ... " .. "·, .. ,, .. ,··· .............. , ..... , ..... 21
Association with Human Activity ......... , ..... " ....... "" ............ , .. '., ................ , .. , .................................... , .. ,', .............. 22
Establishing a Historic Context .. , ................................. , ... ,., .. , .................................. , .................. , ........................... 22
Developing Research Questions .... " .. , .................... , .. , ..... " .................. , ... , .. ',., .......................... , .. , ... ' .. , .................... 22
Establishing the Presence of Adequate Data , ........................................ , ........ ' ......................... , ............................ 23
I ntegri ty .... , .. : ................... , .. , .................................... , ............................ ,., ................. " ..... " ..... , .. , ................. , ... , .. " ....... 23
Partly Excavated or Disturbed Properties .,., .... , .................... , .... ,.", .................. , ... ,,,., .. ',, .................. ,.,"', ............. 23
Completely Excavated Sites .............. ,", ............................... ' ...... ' ....................... " ..................... ' ... , ........ , ................ 24
VB. How to Apply tbe Criteria Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 25
, lntrod ucHon ...... , ........... " .................. , ............................. " ... ,'" ...... " ................ , ... , ........................ , ......... " ........ , .......... '., .. , .... , .... 25
Criteria Consideration A: Religious Properties ... , ............ , .................. , .... , ..................................................... ".,', .. , ............ 26
Understanding Criteria Consideration A .............................................. , ............................................... " ....... , .......... , ... 26
Applying Criteria Consideration A .. ,.,.' ............................................................ , .................................... , ... " ............ , .... 26
Eligibility for Historic Events ................................ ', .............................. , ... , .. , ........................... · ............. , ....... " .. , .... 26
Eligibility for Historic Persons ................................. , ......................... " ...... " ............................................. , .. ,., .. , .. " .. 27
Eligibility for Architectural or Artistic Distinction .............................................................................................. 28
Eligibility for Infonnation Potential ..... , ... , ........ , .... , .......... , ...... , ..................... ', ................................. " .. , ....... , ........ 28
Ability to Reflect HisWric Associations ...................... , ... , .................... , ........ , ............ , ............................... , ....... " ... 28
Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properti.es ......... , ...... ,.,., ............................................................ ,., .. , .............. , ............. " ... 29
Understanding Criteria Consideration B ........... " ...................... , ............... , ........ , ........................................ " .. " ........... 29
A pplying Criteria Consideration B ....................... ' ............. , ..... ', .... , ........ " ....................... , ...................... ,." ... , .............. 29
Eligibility for Architectural Value ., ....... " .... , ................ , ... ,', .. , ......................... " .................... , .......... ,., .. , .............. , .. 29
Eligibility for Historic Associations ., ....................................................... ,', ..................... , ...................... , .. , ......... , .. 30
Setting and Environment .. , ... , ..... , .......................... , ................... , ................. , .................... · ..... , ... · ............................. 30
Association Dependent on the Site ................ '.' ... , ................. , ......... , .. , ................................ , .............. , ..... , ... ,., ... , ... 30
Properties Designed to Be Moved ............... , ...... , ................................................................................... , ................ 31
Artificially Created Groupings ........ , ......... ' ................................................. , .. , ........................................ , ........ , ...... 31
Portions of Properties ........................ , ... "., ....................................... " .......... , ....................... , .... " ........... ,,, .. , .......... , .. 31
Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves ..... ", ........ " ............ , ......... , ............................. , ..... , ................................. 32
Understanding Criteria Consideration C ...... ' ............ "' .. , .. , .............. " ................................ ,, ........................................ 32
Applying Criteria Consideration C ............ "', .... , ..... " .................. ".,, ................ , ....... ,., .... , ............................. " .. " .......... 32
Persons of Outstanding Importance ........................... ,,, .... , ............................. ' ................ , ..................... ' ............... 32
Last Surviving Property Associated with a Person ............................................ ' ................................................. 32
Eligibility for Other Associations ................................ ' ....................... ,' ............................. , ................ , .............. , .... 33
Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries ...................................................... , ........................................................... ,., .............. 34
Understanding Criteria Consideration D .... , .. ' ............. , ............................. , .......... " .................... " .... ' ........................... 34
A pplying Criteria Consideration D ... " ............................... , .............................. , ............................... " .................. , ....... 34
Persons of Transcendent Importance ................. , ..... ', ................................................. , ...... , .................... ' ............. , 34
Eligibility on the Basis of Age ...................................................................................... , .................................... ,',., .. 35
Eligibility for Design , .... ,." .. , ..................................................... , ... , .......................... , ... , ............................... "., .... , .... 35
Eligibility for Association with Events .. , ............. "" .... ".""" ..... , ... "" .. , ........ , .. '",."',, ...................... " ................... " 35
Eligibility for Information Potential ... " ..... "" ............... ', ... ' ...... " ................ ', .... " ................ , ....................... " ......... , 35
Integrity ........ , ................................................................... ,,, .................. "." ... ", .. , .......................... " ......... , .............. ,." 36
National Cemeteries ........... , ... , .............................. , .. , ........................ "." ... , ............................ , ........... " ............. , ... " .. 36
Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties " ............. "."" .. "", .. , ... "" .. "" ........... ", ........ """ .. " ... ".,, ........ "." ........ 37
Understanding Criteria Consideration E .. """ ..... " ................... " ............. " ....... "".' .. ",, .................... " .... "" .... " .... , ....... 37
Applying Criteria Consideration E ...... , .. , .... """" ....... " ...... ,,, ....... ,, ........ ,,, ..... , .. , ... ,," ... ,, ............... ""., ..... :"" ............. ,,' 37
Accuracy of the Reconstruction .......................................... "" ............. " .... ,'" ...... " ..... " ..... " .... "".,,, .................... :.,, 37
Suitable Environment ........... ,.,., ... "." ............. ,,, ...... " ........ " ... , .. " .... ',." ... "."." .. , .... " ....... ,;,.",."'" ... ,, .............. , ......... 37
Restoration Master Plans " .. , ... , .... " ......... " .... " .................. "', .. ',', ....... , ............ ".,,, .................. ,, .. ,, ....... ,, .. , ... , .. ,, .. ,, .. ,, 38
Last Surviving Property of a Tftpe ............................................................................................................................... 38
Reconstructions Older than Fi Iy Years ....................................................................................................................... 38
Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties ...................................................................................................... 39
Understanding Criteria Consideration F .......................................................................................................................... 39
Applying Criteria Consideration F ................................................................................................................................... 39
Eligibility for Design ................................................................................................................................................. 39
Eligibility for Age, Tradition, or Symbolic Value ................................................................................................. 40
Ineligibility as the Last Representative of an Event or Person ......................................................................... ..40
Criteria Consideration G: Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years ........................ 41
Understanding Criteria Consideration G ......................................................................................................................... 41
Applying Criteria Consideration G ................................................................................................................................... 42
B1igibllity for Exceptional Importance ................................................................................................................... 42
Historical Perspective ................................................................................................................................................ 42
National Park Service Rustic Architecture ............................................................................................................ 42
Veterans Administration Hospitals ........................................................................................................................ 42
Comparison with Related Properties ..................................................................................................................... 42
. World War Il Properties ........................................................................................................................................... 42
Eligibility for Information Potential ....................................................................................................................... 43
Historic Districts ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
. Properties Over Fifty Years in Age, Under Fifty Years in Significance ............................................................ 43
Requirement to Meet the Criteria, Regardless of Age ............................................................................. : ........... 43
VIII. How to Evaluate the Intesrity of a Property .............................................................................................................. 44
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Understanding the Aspects of Integrity ........................................................................................................................ 44
Location ....................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Design .......................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Setting ....................................................................................................... · ............ ·· ............. · ..................... ; ................ 44
Ma terials ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Workmanship ............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Feeling .............................................................................................................. · ..... · .. · .................................................. 45
Association .................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Assessing Integrity in Properties .................................................................................................................................... 45
Defining the Essential Physical Features ............................................................................................................... 46
Visibility of the Physical Features ........................................................................................................................... 46
Comparing Similar Properties ............................. , ................................................................................................... 47
. Determining the Relevant Aspects of Integrity .................................................................................................... 48
IX. Summary of the National Historic Landmarks Criteria for Evaluation ............................................................... 50
X. Glossary .......................................... ~ ................................................................................................................................... 53
XI. List of National Register Bulletins ............................................................................................................................... 54
iv
I. INTRODUCTION
The National Register is the
nation's inventory of historic places
and the national repository of docu-
mentation on the variety of historic
property types, significance, abun-
dance, condition, ownerShip, needs,
and other information. It is the begin-
ning of a national census of historic
properties. The National Register Cri-
teria for Evaluation dellne the scope
of the National Register of Historic
Places; they identify the range of re-
sources and kinds of significance that
will qualify properties lor listing In
the National Register. The Criteria
are written broadly to recognize the
wide variety of historic properties as"
sociated with our prehistory and his-
tory.
Decisions concerning the signifi-
cance, historic integrity, docUIl1enta-
tion, and treatment of properties can
be made reliably only when the re-
source is evaluated within its historic
context. The historic context serves as
the framework within which the Na-
tional Register Criteria are applied to
specific properties or property types.
(See Pari V for a brief discussion of
historic contexts. Detailed guidance
for developing and applying historic
contexts is contained in National Reg-
ister Bulletin: How to Complete the Na-
tional Register RegistraUon Form and
National Register Bulletin: How to Com-
plete the National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form)
The guidelines provided here are
intended to help you understand the
National Park Service's use of the Cri-
teria for Evaluation, historic contexts,
integrity, and Criteria Considerations,
and how they apply toproperlies un-
der consideration for listing in the
National Register. Examples are pro-
vided throughout, illustrating specific
circumstances in which properties are
and are not eligible for the National
Register. This bulletin should be used
by anyone who is:
• Preparing to nominate a property
to the National Register,
• Seeking a determination of a
property's eligibility,
• Evaluating the comparable sig-
nificance of a property to those
listed in the National Register, or
• Expecting to nominate a property
as a National Historic Landmark
in addition to nomina ting it to
the National Register.
This bunetin also contains a sum-
mary of the National HistoriC Land-
marks Criteria for Evaluation (see
Pari IX). National Historic Land-
marks are those districts, sites, build"
ings, structures, and objects desig"
nated by the Secretary of the Interior
as possessing national significance in
American history, architecture, arche-
ology, engineering, and culture. Al-
though National Register documenta-
tion includes a recommendation
about whether a property is signifi"
cant at the local, State, or national
level, the only official designation of
national significance is as a result of
National HistoriC Landmark designa-
tion by the Secretary of the Interior,
National Monument designation by
the President of the United States, or
establishment as a unit of the National
Park System by Congress. These
properties are automatically listed in
the National Register.
II. THE NATIONAL
REGISTER CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION
CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION:3
The quality of significance in
American history, architecture, arche-
ology, engineering, and culture is
present in districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that possess in-
tegrity of location, design, setting, ma-
terials, workmanship, feeling, and as-
sociation, 'and:
A. That are associated with events that
have made a significant contribu-
tion to the broad patterns of our
history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values, or
that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual
distinctioni or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely
to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATIONS:
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces,
or graves of historical figures, proper-
ties owned by religious institutions or
used for religious purposes, structures
that have been moved from their
original locations, reconstructed his-
toric buildings, properties primarily
tommemorative in nature, and prop-
erties that have achieved significance
within the past 50 years shall not be
considered eligible for the National
Register. However, such properties
will qitalify if they are integral parts of
districts that do meet lhe criteria or if
they fall within the following catego-
ries:
a. A religiOUS property deriving
primpry Significance from archilec-
tural or artistic distinction or
hislorical importance; or
b. A building or structure removed
from its origin.llceation bul which
is significant primarily for architec-
tural value, or which is the surviv-
ing structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or
event; or
c. A birthplace or grave of a historical
figure of outstanding importance
if there is no appropriate site or
building directly associated with
his or her productive life; or
d. A cemelery which derives its
primary significance from graves
'of persons of transcendent impor-
tance, from age, from distinctive
design features, or from association
with historic even IS; or
e. A reconstructed building when
accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a
restoration master plan, and when
no other building or structure with
the same association has survivedi
or
f. A property primarily commemora-
tive in intent if design, age, tradi-
lion, or symbolic value hAS in-
vested it with its own exceptional
significance; or
g. A property achieving significance
within the past 50 years if it is of
exceptional importance.
jThe Criteria for Evaluation IHe found in the Code of Ft'dl"'fil R~~~It1RljOlIS, Titlr :>6, ParI 6ft ;lIld (lfe reprinted here in full.
2
III. HOW TO USE THIS
BULLETIN TO EVALUATE A
PROPERTY
For a property to qualify for the
Nationaf Register it must meet one of
the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation by:
• Being associated with an impor-
tant historic context and
• Retaining historic integrity of
those features necessary to con-
vey its significance,
Information about the property
based on physical examination and
documentary research is necessary to
evaluate a property's eligibility for the
National Register, Evaluation of a
property is most efficiently made
when following this sequence:
1. Categorize the property (Part IV).
A property must be classified as
a district, site, building, structure,
or object for inclusion in the
National Register,
2. Determine which prehistoric or
historic context(s) the property
represen.ts (Part V), A property
must possess significance in
American history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, or
culture when evaluated within
the historic context of >I relevant
geographic area.
3, Determine whether the property
is significant under the National
Register Criteria (Part VI), This
is done by identifying the links to
important events or persons,
design or construction features,
or information potential that
make the property important.
4, Determine if the property repre-
sents a type usually excluded from
the National Register (Part VII).
If so, determine if it meets any of
the Criteria Consi<\erations.
5. Determine whether the properly
retains integrity (Part VUl).
Evaluate the aspects of location,
deSign, setliflg, workmanship, ma-
terials, feeling, and association'
that the property must retain to
convey its historic Significance,
If, after completing these steps, the
property appears to qualify for the Na-
tional Register, the next step is topre·
pare a written nomination. (Refer to
National RegistliT Bulletin: How to
Complele the National Register Registra-
tion Form.)
\
I
3
IV. HOW TO DEFINE
CATEGORIES OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES
The National Reglsterof Historic
Places includes significant properties,
classified as "uildings, sites, districts,
structures, or objects. It is not used to
list intangible values, excepl in so far
as they are associated with or re-
flected by historic properties. The Na-
tional Register does not list cultural
events, or skilled or talented individu-
als, as is done in some countries,
Rather, the National Register is ori-
ented to recognizing physlcall y con-
crete properties that are relatively
fixed in location.
For purposes of National Register
nominations, slllall groups of proper-
ties are listed under a single category,
using the primary resource. For ex-
ample, a city hall and fountain would
be .categorized by the city hall (build-
ing), a farmhouse with two outbuild-
ings would be categorized by the
farmhouse (building), and a city park
with a gazebo would be categorized
by the park (site). Properties with
large acreage or a number of re-
sources are usually considered dis·
tricts. Common sense and reason
should dictate the selection of catego-
ries.
BUILDING
A building, such as a house, barn,
ch urch, hotel, or similar construc-
tion, is created principally to sheller
any form of human activity. "Build-
ing" may also be used to refer to a
historically and functionally related
unit, such as a courthouse and iail or
a house and bam.
Buildings eligible for the Nationa!
Register must include all of their basic
structural elements. Parts of build·
ings, such as interiors/ facades, or
wings. are not eligible independent of
the resl of the existing building. The
4
whole building must be considered,
and its significant features must be
identified.
If a building has lost any of its basic
structural elements, it is usua Ily con-
sidered a Hruin" and is categorized .as
a site.
Ex","ples of buildings inchuJ.:
administraiio/l blli/ding
carriage house
cllurell
city or lown hall
courthouse
delaelled kilchen. barn, and privy
dormitory
{orl
garage
hotel
hOLlse
library
mill building
office building
post office
school
social hall
shed
stobIe
slore
Iheater
train slation
STRUCTURE
The term "structure'~ is used to
distinguish from buildings those
functional constructions made usu-
ally for purposes other than creating
human shelter.
Structures nominated to the
National Regisler must include all 01
the extant basic structural elements.
Parts of structures can not be consid-
ered eligible if the whole structure
remains. For example. a truss bridge
is composed of the metal or wooden
truss, the abutments, and supporting
piers, all of which, if extant, must be
included when considering the
property for eligibility.
II a structure has lost its historic
configuration or pattern of organiza-
tion through deterioration or demolj-
tion; it is usually considered a "'ruin"
a nd is categOrized as a site.
Examples of structures inclllde:
aircraft
apiary
alltomobile
bandstand
boats and ships
bridge
cairn
canal
carousel
corncrib
dam
eariliwork
fence
gazebo
grain eleva/or
highway
irrigalion system
kiln
lighthouse
railroad grade
silo
trolley car
tunnel
windmill
OBJECT
The term "object" is used to
distinguish from b.uildinss and
structures those constructions that
ate primarily artistic in nature or are
relatively small in scale and simply
constructed. Although it may be, by
nature or deSign, movable, an object
is associated with a specific setting
or environment.
Small objects not designed for a
specific location are normally not
eligible .. Such works include trans-
portable sculpture, furniture, and
other decorative arts that, unlike a
fixed outdoor sculpture, do not
possess association with a speCific
place.
Objects should be in a setting
appropriate t6 their significant
historic use, roles, or character.
Objects relocaled to a museum are
inappropriate for listing in the Na-
tional Register.
Ex""'pfes of objects include:
boundary mark"r
founlai)!
milepost
monument
scupture
statuary
SITE
A site is the location of a signifi-
cant event, a prebistoric or historic
occupation Or activity, or a building
. or structure, whether standing,
ruined, or vanished, where the
location itself possesses historic,
cultural, or archeological value
regardless of the value of any exist-
ing structure.
A site can possess associative
significance Or information potential
or both, and can be significant under
any Or all of the four criteria. A site
need not be marked by physical
remains if it is the location of a
prehistoric or historic .event or pattern
of events and if no buildings, struc-
tures, or objects marked it at the time
of the events. However, when the
location of a prehistoric or historic
event cannot be conclusively deter-
mined because no other cultural
materials were present or survive,
documentation must be carefully
evaluated to determine whether the
traditionally recognized or identified
site is accurate.
A site may be a natural landmark
strongly associated with significant
prehistoric or historic events or
patterns of events, if the significance
of the natural feature is well docu-
mented through scholarly research.
Generally, though, the National
Register excludes from the defini lion
of "site" natural waterways or bodies
of water that served as determinants
in the location ·of communities or
were significant in the locality's
subsequent economic development.
While they may have been "avenues
of exploration," the features most
appropriate to document this signifi-
cance are the properties built in
association with the waterways.
Examples of sites I"clude:
balflefie1d
campsite
cemeteries significant for information
pote"tial or historic associal ion
ceremonial site
designed landscape
!rabitalion site
natllral feature (such as a rock formation)
having cultural significance
petroglyph
rock cq.rtJing
rock shelter
ruins of a building or structure
shipwreck
trail
vii/age site
DISTRICT
Adi,trict possesses a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity
of sites, buildinss, structures, or
objects united historically·or aes-
thetically by plan Or physical devel-
opment.
CONCENTRATION, LINKAGE, &;
CONTINUITY OF FEATURES
A district derives its importance
from being a unified entity, even
though it is often composed of a wide
variety of resources. The identity of a
district results from the interrelation-
ship of its resources, which can
convey a visual sense of Ihe overall
historic environment or be an ar-
rilngement of historically or illnction-
al.ly ,:"Jated properties. For "xample, a
d Istnct can reflect one principal
activity, such as a mill Or a ranch, or it
can encompass several interrelated
activities, such as an area that in-
cludes industrial, residential. or
commercial buildings, sites, struc-
tures, or objects. A district can also be
a grouping of archeological sites
related primarily by their common
components; these types of districts
often will not visually represent a
specific historic environment.
SIGNIFICANCE
A district must be significilnt, as
well as b.eing an identifiable entity. It
must be Important for hIstorical
architectural, archeological. engineer-
ing, or cultural values. Therefore,
districts thai are significa nl will
usually meet the last portion of
Criterion C plus Criterion A, Criterion
B, other portions of Criterion C or
Criterion D.
TYPES OFFEATURES
A district can comprise both
features that lack individual distinc.
tion and individually distinctive
features that serve as focal points. It
may even be considered eligible if all
of the components lack individual
distinction, provided that the group-
ing achieves significance as a whole
within its historic context. In either
case, the majority of the components
that add to the district's historic
cha,acter, even if they are individu-
ally u~distinguished, must possess
mtegnty, as must the district as a
whole.
A district can contain buildings,
structures, sites, objects, or open
spaces that do not contribute to the
significance of the district. The
nu~b~r of noncontribUting properties
a d,stnct can contain yet still convey
its sense of time and place and
historical development depends on
how these properties affect the
district's integrity. In archeologicaf
districts, the primary factor to be
considered is the effect of any distur-
bances on the information potential of
the district as a whole.
5
QISC0NTIGl{Ol!S DISTRICTS
A i&WdIJ tI!!U<illy a a\n~seogtAl'W~l\~~f ¢&tllIRl,I~·" .. wtil: :!,r(.'l~; howeYer~ a .dllltrict can
al&j ~~FBed of't.wo olUlate
.. u .... "t..'''',1ii~ . ft.' "'.' tila' ,51! ar~" """,,..,,,,,.. . g",,, a . .~ p. 11_
i?1noU$lQAi.llt 1I1Jlll9. A
dtlllJ0ntlguous district is most appro-
priatewnereJ
.. BI_tJ:lll! 1\~m1~tt\lJ1y Illlla~)
.. ~~bIItW~\tIe"'~l¥rents.js
.ntit·rehltell to'lhe 'SIgnificance of
the dlatrillt/ and
• VIllual ~tylJ>not II fa!ltot
. ~~~¢I!l.lte.
IU adam~, .11 ~r_h:;m be treated
a&;a.diSOJIIIJIu_4Is.trktwbl!n the
~~ro caI'l6Ji1t11'6f;@l)«mad!llllt!!lIlin\$
iif~int .. ~. ~lh l)e(1!/Oni GE
>river, ~JlCllttered a : . . " ,Ii .
. 'td:IJ~!e .wMJIi_·Qposlta 1II'1Uelatild to sach ot~ ~'b eldbuah£tilllltfQn,
~~tiJ'~fJf;lIl1t~.
V. HOW TO EVALUATE A
PROPERTY WITHIN ITS
HISTORIC CONTEXT
UNDERSTANDING
HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
To qualify for the National Regis>
ter, a property must be significant;
that is, it must represent a significant
part of the history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, or culture of
an area, and it must have tha charac-
teristics that make it a good represen-
tative of properties associated with
that aSpect of the past. This section
explains how to evaluate a property
within its historic context.'
The Significance of a historic
property can be judged and explained
only when it is evaluated within its
historic context. Historic contexts are
those patterns or trends in history by
which a specific occurrence, property,
or site is understood and its meaning
(and ultimately its significance)
within history or prehistory is made
dear. Historians, architectural
historians, folklorists, archeologists,
and anthropologists use different
words to describe this phenomena
such as trend, pattern, theme, or
cultural affiliation, but ultimately the
concept is the same,
The concept of historic context is
not a new one; it has been fundamen-
tal to the stud y of history since the
18th century and, arguably, earlier
than that. Its core premise. is that
resources, properties, or happenings
in history do not occur in a vacuum
but rather are part of larger trends or
patterns .
In order to decide whether a
property is significant within its
historic context, the following five
things must be'delermined:
• The facet of prehistory or history
of the local area, Stale, or the na-
tion tbat the property represents;
• Whether that facet of prehistory
or history is Significant;
• Whether it is a type of property
that has relevance and impor-
tance in illustrating the historic
context;
• How the property illustrates that
history; and finally
• .Whether the property possesses
the physical features necessary to
convey the aspect of prehistory
or history with which it is associ-
ated,
These five steps are discussed in
detail below, If the property being
evaluated does represent an impor-
tant aspect of the area's history or
prehistory and possesses the requisite
quality of integrity, then it qualifies
for the National Register.
HOW TO EVALUATE
A PROPERTY
WITHIN ITS
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Identify what the property repre-
sents: the theme(s), geographical
limits, and chronological period that
provide a perspective from which to
evaluale the property's Significance.
Historic contexts are historical
patterns.that can be identified through
consideralion of the history of the
property and the history of the sur-
rounding area, Historic contexts may
have already been defined in your area
by the State historic preservation office,
Federal agenciesror local governments.
In accordance with the National RegiS-
ter Criteria, the historic context may
relate to One of the following:
• An eventl a series of events or ac-
tivities, or patterns of an area's de-
velopment (Criterion A);
• Association with the life of an im-
portant person (Criterion B);
• A building form, architectural style,
engineering technique, or artistic
values, based on a stage of physical
development, or the use of a mate-
rial or method of construction thai
shaped the historic identity of an
area (Criterion C); Or
• A research topic (Criterion 0).
.. For a complete discussion of historic contexts, see NatioJla! Register Bilf/l'till: G!lidelilws lor Compfrtillg Nalional Register of Hislaric Places
Rl.'slstmtioll Forms.
7
Determine ho.w the theme of the
context is significant in the histo.ry o.f
the local area, the State, o.r the
nation.
A theme is a means of organizing
properties into coherent patterns
based Dn elements such as envirDn-
. ment, so.cial/ethnic grDups, transPo.r-
tation networks, technology,o.r
political developments that have
influenced the development ef an area
during ene er more perieds ef prehis-
tory or history. A theme is considered
significant if it can be demonstrated,
through scholarly research, to. be
important in American history .. Many
significant themes can be found in the
following list of Areas of Significance
used by the National Register.
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Agriculture
Architecture'
Archeology
Prehistoric
Historic-Aboriginal
Historic-No>l-Aboriginal
Art
Commerce
Communicatio>ls
Community Planning and Development
Conservation
Economics
Education
Engineering
Entertainment/Recreation
Ethnic Heritage
Asian
Black
European
Hispanic
Native American
Pacific Islander
Other
Exploration/Settlement
Health/Medicine
Industry
Invention
Landscape Architecture
Law
Literature
Maritime History
Military
Performing Arts
Philosophy
Pol itics/Governnrell t
Religion
Science
Social History
Transportation
Other
8
Determine what the property type
is and whether It is important in
Illustrating the'historic context.
A context rna y be represented by a
variety of important property types.
For example, the context ef "Civil
War Military Activity in Northern
Virginia" might be represented by
such properties as: a group of mid-
19th.century fortification structures;
an open field where a battle occurred;
a knoll from which a general directed
troop movements; a sunken transport
ship; the residences er public build-
ings that served as company head-
quarters; a railroad bridge that served
as a focal point for a battle; and
earthworks exhibiting particular
construction techniques.
Because a historic context for a
community can be based on a distinct
period of development, it might
include numerous property types.
For example, the context "Era of
Industrialization in Grand Bay.
Michigan, 1875 -1900" could be
represented by important property
types as diverse as sawmills, paper
mill sites, salt refining plants, flour
mills, grain elevators, furniture
factories, workers hOUSing, commer-
cial buildings, social halls, schools.
churches. and transportation facilities.
A historic context can also be based
on a Single important type of prop-
erty. The context "Development of
County Government in Georgia,
1717 -1861" might be represented
solely by courthouses. Similarly.
"Bridge Construction in Pittsburgh,
1870 -1920" would probably only
have one property type.
Determine haw the property
represents the context through
specific historic aSSOciations, archi-
tectural Or engineering values, Or
information potential HheCrlteria
for Evaluation).
For example, the context of county
government expansion is represented
under Criterion A by historic districts
or buildings that reflect popUlation
growth, development, patterns, the
role'of gevernment in that sodety,
and political events in the history of
the State, as well as the impact of
county government on the physical
development of county seats. Under
Criterion C, the context is represented
by properties whose architectural
tteatments reflect their governmental
functions, both practically and
symbolically. (See Part VI: How to
. ldetllify /I.e Type of Significance of a
Proper/y.) .
Determine what phYSical features
the property must possess in order
for it to reflect the significance of the
historic context.
These physical features can be
determined after identifying the
following:
• Which types of properties are as-
sociated with the historic context.
• The wa ys in which properties Ca n
represent the theme, and
• The applicable aspects of integ-
rity.
Properties that have the defined
characteristics are eligible for listing.
(See Pari vm: How /0 Evaluate the
Integrity of a Property.)
PROPERTIES SIGNIFICANT
WITHIN MORE THAN ONE
HISTORIC CONTEXT
A specific property can be signifi-
cant within one or more historic
contexts, and, if pOSSible, all of these
should be identified. For example, a
public building constructed in the
18305 that is related to the historic
context of Civil War campaigns in the
area might also be related to the
theme of political developments in the
community during the 188Os. A
property is onlv required, however. to
be documented as significant in one
context.
COMPARING RELATED
PROPERTIES
Properties listed in the National
Register must possess significance
when evaluated in the perspective of
their historic context. Once the
historic context is established and the
property type is determined, it is not
necessary to evaluate the property in
question against other properties If:
• It is the sole example of a prop-
erty type that is important in il-
·luslrating the historic context Or
• It clearly possesses the defined
characteristics required to
strongly represent the context.
If these two conditions do not
apply, then the propertywill have to
be evaluated agilinst olher examples
of the property type to determine its
eJjgibility. The geographic level
(local, Stale, or national) at which this
evaluation is made is the same as the
level of the historic context. (See Part
V: How 10 Evaluate a Properly Within
Its His/aric Context.)
LOCAL, STATE,
AND NATIONAL
HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
Historic.contexts are found at a
variety of geographical levels or
scales. The geographic scale selected
may relate to a pattern of historical
development, a political division, or a
cultural area. Regardless of the scale,
the historic context establishes the
framework from which decisions
about the significance of related
properties can be made.
LOCAL HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
A local historic context represents
an aspect of the history of a town,
dty, county, cultural area, or region,
or any portions thereof. lt is defined
by the importance of the property, not
necessarily the physical location of the
property. For instance, if a property
is of a type found throughout a State,
or its boundaries extend over two
States, but its importance relates only
to a particular county, the property
would be considered of local signifi-
cance,
The level of context of archeologi-
cal sites significant for their informa-
tionpotential depends on the scope of
the applicable research design .. For
example, a Late Mississippia n village
site may yield information in a
research design concerning one
settlement system on a regional scale,
while in another research design it
may reveal information of local
importance concerning a single
group's stone tool manufacturing
techniques or house forms. It is a
question of how the available infor-
mation potential is likely to be used.
STATE HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
Properlies are evaluated in a State
context when they represent an aspect
of the history of the State as a whole
(or American Samoa, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam,
Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands).
These properties do not necessarily
have to belong to property types
found throughout the entire State:
they can be located in only a portion
of the State's present political bound-
ary. 1I1s the property's historic
context that must be important
statewide. For example, the "cotton
belt" extends through only a portion
of Georgia, yet its historical develop-
ment in the antebellum period af-
fected the entire State. These State
historic contexts may have associated
properties thM are statewide Or
locally Significant representations. A
cotton gin in a small town might be a
locally, significant representa tion of
this context, While One of the largest
cotton producing plantations might
be of State significance.
A properly whose historic associa-
lions or information potential appears
to extend beyond a single local area
might be significant at the State level.
A property can be significant to more
than one community or local area,
however, without having achieved
State significance.
A property that overlaps several
State boundaries can possibly be
significant to the State Or local history
of each of the States. Such a property
is not necessarily of nationalsignifi.
cance, however, nor is it necessarily
significant to all of the States in which
it is located.
Prehistoric sites are not often
conSidered to have "State" signifi-
cance, per se, largely because States
are relatively recent political entities
and usually do not correspond closely
to Native American political territo-
ries or cultural areas. Numerous sites,
however, may be of significance to a
large region that might geographi-
cally encompass parts of one, Or
usually several, States. Prehistoric
resources that might be of State
Significance include regional sites that
provide a diagnostic assemblage of
artifacts for a particular cultural
group or time period or that provide
chronological control (specific dates
or relative order in time) for a series
of cullural groups.
9
NATIONAL HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
Properties are evaluated in a
national ~ontext when they represent
an aspect of the history of the United
States and its territories as a whole.
These national historic contexts may
have associated properties that are
locally or slatewide significant
representations, as well as those of
national significance.
Properties designated as nationaUy
signif!cant and listed in the National
Register are the prehistoric and
historic units of the National Park
System and those pr~perties.that. have
been designated Nahonal HIStone
Landmarks. The National Historic
Landmark criteria are the standards
for nationally significant properties;
they are focind in the Code of Federal
10
Regulations, Title 36, Part 65 and are
summarized in this bulletin in Part IX:
Summary ofNaliona/ Historic Land-
marks Criteria for EVII/Wltion. .
A property with national signifi-
cance helps us understand the history
of the nation by illustrating the
nationwide impact of events or
persons associated with the property,
ils architectural type or style, or
information potentiaL It must be of
exceptional value in representing or
illustrating an important theme in the
·history of the nation. .
Nationally significant properties
do not necessarily have to belong to a
property type found throughout th~ ....
entire country: they can be located m
only a portion of the present political
boundaries. It is \heir historic context
that must be important nationwide,
For example, the American Civil. War
was fought in only a portion of the
United States, yet its impact was
nationwide. The site of a small
military skirmish might be a locally
significant representation of this
. national context,while the capture of
the State's largest city might be a
stateWide significant representation
of the national context.
When evaluating properties at the
national level for designation as a .
National Historic Landmark, please
refer to the National Histork Land·
marks ol!tline, History and Prehistory
in the National Park System and the
Nationa1 Historic Landmarks Program
1987. (For mOre information about
the National Historic Landmarks
program, please write to the Depart-
ment of the Interior, National Park
SerVice, National Historic Land-
marks, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400,
Washington, DC 20240.)
VI. HOW TO IDENTIFY THE
TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A
PROPERTY
INTRODUCTION
When evaluated within its historic
context, 0 property must be shown to
be significant for one <" more of Ihe four
Criteria for Evaluation -A, B, C, or D
(listed earlier in PartllJ. The Criteria
describe how properties are signifi-
cant for their association withimpor-
tant events Or persons, for their
importance in design or construction,
or for their information potential.
The basis for judging a property's
significance and, ultimately, its
eligibility under the Criteria is Iristoric
con/exl. The use of historic context
allows a property to be properly
evaluated in a nearly infinite number
of capacities. For instance, Criterion
C: Design/Construction can accom-
modate properties representing
construction types that are unusual or
widely practiced, that are innovative
or traditional, that are "high style" or
vernacular, tho t are the work of a
famous architect or an unknown
master craftsman. TlIe key to de/ermin-
ing whether the characterislics or associa-
/ions of a partiCHlnr property are signifi-
can/ is /0 consider tile property wit"in i/s
historic cOil/ext.
Alter identifying the ·relevant
historic context(s) with which the
property is associated, the four
Criteria are applied to the property.
Within the scope of the historic
context, the National Register Criteria
define the kind 01 significance that the
properties represent.
For example, within the context of
"19th Century Gunpowder Produc-
tion in the Brandywine Valley,"
Criterion A would apply to those
properties associated with important
events in the founding and develop-
ment 01 the industry. Criterion B
would apply to those properties
associated with persons who are
significant in the founding of the
industry or associated with important
inventiol1s related to gunpowder
manufacturing. Criterion C would
apply to those buildings, structures,
o.r objects whose architectural form or
style reflect important design qualities
integral to the industry. And Crite-
rion D would apply to properties that
can convey information important in
our understanding of this industrial
process. If a preperty guallfies under
more than one of the Criteria, its
Significance under each should be
considered, if possible, in order to
identify all aspects of its historical
value.
NATIONAL REGISTER
CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION'
The Natienal Register Criteria
recognize different types of values
embodied in districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects. These values
fan into the following categories:
Associative value (Criteria A and
B): Properties significant for their
association or linkage to events
(Criterion A) or persons (Criterien B)
impertant in the past.
Design or Construction value
(Criterion 0: Properties significant
as representatives of the manmade
expression of culture or teChnology.
Information value (Criterion D):
Properties significant for their ability
to yield important information about
prehistory er history.
·FOT i'I comple!e llstlng or the Crlh .. 'yj", for
Evaluation, refer 10 Part II of this bulletin,
11
CRITERION A: EVENT
Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERION A:
EVENT
To be considered for listing under
Criterion A, a property must be
associated with one or more events
important in the defined historic
context. Criterion A recognizes
properties associated with single
events, such as the founding of a
town, or with a pattern of events,
repeated activities, or historic trends,
such as the gradual rise of a port city's
prominence in trade and commerce.
The event or trends, however, must
clearly be important within the
associated context: settlement, in the
case 0 I the town, or development of a
maritime economy, in the Case of the
port city. Moreover, the property
must have an important association
with the event or historic trends, and
it must retain historic integrity. (See
Pari V: How to Eva/llate a Property
Within its Historic Context.)
Several steps are involved in
determining whether a property is
significant lor its associative values:
12
• Determine the nature and origin
ofthe property,
• Identify the historic context with
which it is associated, and
• Evaluate the property's history to
determine whether it is associ-
ated with the historic context in
any important way.
APPLYING
CRITERION A:
EVENT
TYPES OF EVENTS
A property can be associated with
either (or both) of two types of events:
• A specific event marking an im-
portant moment in American pre-
history or history and
• A paltern of events or a historic
trend that made a significant con-
tribution to the development of a
community, a State, or the nation.
Refer to the sidebar on the right for
a list of specific examples.
ASSOCIATION OF THE
PROPERTY WITH THE
EVENTS
The property you are evaluating
must be documented, through ac-
cepted means of historical or archeo-
logical research (including oral
history), to have existed at the time of
the event or pattern of events and to
have been associated with those
events. A property is not eligible if its
associations are speculative. For
archeological sites, well reasoned
inferences drawn from data recovered
at the site can be used to establish the
association between the site and the
events.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
ASSOCIATION
Mere association with historic
events or trends is not enough, in and
of itself, to qualify under Criterion A:
the property's specific association
must be considered important as well.
For example, a building historically in
commercial use must be shown to
have been significant in commercial
history.
EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS
Properties associated wilh specific events:
• The site of a bailie.
• Ti,e building in which an important
inventioll was devetoped.
• A foc/ory district where a significant
strike occlirred.
• All archeological site at whicll a ma-
jor new aspect of prehistory was dis-
covered, sl/ell as t Ite first evidence of
IIIall a lid extinct Pleistocene animals
being cOlltemporarleous.
• A site where an importanl facet of
European exploration occurred.
Properties associated Wit/I a pattern of
events:
• A trail associated willI western mi-
gmUon.
• A railroad station tilat served as the
. fOClis of a community's transporta-
tion system and commerce.
• A mill district reflecting the impor-
tance of textile manufacturing dur-
ing a given period.
• A building Iised by an important 10-
m/ social organization.
• A site wllere prehistoric Na tive
Americalls annually gathered for
seasonally available resources and
for social inleraction.
• A dOU'ntown district representing a
town's growth as tile commercial fo-
cus of tne surrou·nding agricultural
area.
TRAotnoNA1. CUt:ltlRA.L
VALUES
13
·ca·" ·;1"1("£; , ·R1'··O·'· . 'N; ,'" B' "., """·'10'/' ·N'·· .. '.' " .. ' .... ' .. ' ........ '.'. ',' :. " rmA> ". '.
Proputl_ maY'fte6plliemr tltalllatiDlll1ke&laIer Ii the" anias:.m!llmd ~.tltdiYI/SJ)fp.et!llIn&sll/l1'lifit'ant in our
paiiti-
• tl1l1hllmeoJ an ,~porllWt mllrchun f
.ot1libur 1811ilef,
• The ,'Stm1i& of USIgn/flCflnl art/Sf,
• Tlurlmsiness4eudq'Uarlrm of an im-
'permit! i)Ji/u!iIt1uu!a(.
. -! .'\ ..
·'For further informati:on 9f\ properties eligjble under Criterion S, refer wNationa{ RCS,'$ter Bulie-tiJl: GlddeJiucs Jor EVll/lUlli"g-and DCicutm:nting
Propertie$ Assol'ii:"ed with Sign;fictmf Per$otu.
]4
APPLYING
CRITERION B:
PERSON
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL
The persons assodated with the
property must be individually signifi-
Cil nt within a historic context. A
property is not eligible jf its only
justification for significance is that it
was owned or used by a person who
is a member of an identifiable profes-
sion, class, or social or ethnic group.
It must be shown that the person
gained importance within his or her
profession or group.
Eligible
• The residence of a doctor, a
mayor, or a merchant is eli-
gible under Criter.ion B if the
person was significant in the
field of medidmi, politics, or
commerce, respectively.
Not Eligible
• A property is not eligible un-
der Criterion B if it is associ-
ated with an individual about
whom no scholarly judgement
can be made because either re-
search has not revealed spe-
dfic information about the
person's activities and their
impact, or there is insufficient
perspeclive 10 determine
whether those activities or
contributions were historically
important.
ASSOCIATION WIlli THE
PROPERTY
Properties eligible under Criterion
B are usually those associated with a
person's productive life, reflecting the
time period when he Or she ac hieved
Significance. In some instances this
may be the person's home; in other
cases, a person's business .. office,
laboralory, or studio may best repre-
sent his or her contribution. Proper-
ties thatpre-or post-date an
individual's significant accomplish-
ments.are usually not eligible. (See
COll/parison 10 Related Properties, below,
for exceptions to this rule.)
The individual's assodation with
the property must be documented by
accepted methods of historical or
archeological research, induding
written or oral history. Speculative
associations are not acceptable. For
archeological sites, well reasoned
inferences drawn from data recovered
at the site are acceptable.
COMPARISON TO RELATED
PROPERTIES
Each property associated wi.th an
important indiVidual should be
compared to other associated proper-
ties to identify Ihose that best repre-
sent the person's historic contribu-
tions. The best representatives
usually are properties associated with
the person's adult or productive life.
Properties associated with an
individual's formative Or later years
may alSo qualify if it can be demon-
strated that the person's activities
during this period were historically
significa nt or if no properties from the
person's productive years survives.
Length of association is an imporlant
factor when assessing several proper-
ties with similar assodations.
A community or State may contain
several properties eligible for assoda-
tions with thE! same important person,
if each represents a different aspect of
the person's.productive life. A
property can also be eligible if it has
brief but consequential associations
with an important individual. (Such
associations are often related to
specific events that occurred at the
property and, therefore, it may also be
eligible under Criterion A)
ASSOCIA TlON WITH
GROUPS
For properties associated with
several community leaders or with a
prominent family, it is necessary to
identify specific individuals and to
explain their Significant accomplish-
ments.
Eligible
• A residential districl in which a
large number of prominent·or
inlluential merchants, profes-
sionals, civic leaders, politi-
cians, etc., lived will be eligible
under Criterion B if the signifi-
cance of one or more specific
individual residents is expliC-
itly justified.
• A building that served as the
seat of an important family is
eligible under Criterion B if the
significant accomplishments of
one or more individual family
members is explicitly justilied.
Not Eligible
• A residential district in which a
large number of influential per-
sons lived is not eligible uncler
Criterion B if the accomplish-
ments of a specific indivi-
duaJ(s) cannot be documented.
If the significance of the district
rests in the cumulative impor-
tance of prominent reSidents,
however, then the district
might still be eligible under
Criterion A. Eligibility, in this
case, would be based on the
broad pattern of community
development, through which
the neighborhood evolved into
the primary residential <lrea for
this class of citizens.
• A building that served as the
seat of an important family will
not be eligible under Criterion
B if the significant accomplish-
ments of individual family
members cannot be docu-
mented. In cases where a suc-
cession of family members
have lived in a house and col-
lectively have had a demon-
strably significant impact on
the community, as a family, the
house is more likely 10 be sig-
nificant under Criterion A for
association with a pattern of
events,
15
ASSOCIATION WITH
LIVING PERSONS
Properties associated with living
persons are usually not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register.
Sufficient time must have elapsed to
aSsess both the person's field of
endeavor and his/her conlril:iution to
that field. Generally, the person's
active participation in the endeavor
must be finished for this historic
perspective to emerge. (See Criteria
Considerations C and G in Pari Vll:
How to Apply the Criteria Consider-
ations.)
ASSOCIATION WITH
ARCHITECTS/AR;'nSANS
Architects, artisans, artists, and
engineers are often represented by
their works, which are eligible under
Criterion C. Their homes and studios,
however, can be eligible for consider-
ation under Criterion B, because these
usually are the properties with which
they are most personally associated.
NATIVE AMERICAN SITES
. Th~ known ~ajor Villages of ,
mdlvldualNahve Americans who
were important during the contact
period or later can qualify under
Criterion B. As with all Criterion B
properties, the individual associated
with the property must have made
some specific important contributlon
to history., Examples include sites
significantly associated with Chief
Joseph and Geronimo!
r For more-information, refer to Nutionol R,'gi5f('r 811/{{'lill: C"idt'lilit'S for Em/uating find D1X/l1Ilt'lIfillg TradiJiotJo} Cullllra/ Propcrtit's.
16
;
C· . D'I'TERION' C ...• '-.t. .................. ' .'.: .. .
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
ilNDll..STANDING
CBlTBBION C:
'l:JBSlGNI
CONSTRUCTION
. 'n1i~.~n 'IIP1Ol!/lIll'O p~p<!l'ties
lIignlfi!!aIlI'fortllli!fr'pb)TSitlll design or
!JQUlIID:!ctlon,,'\nctudIn1l5u.ch elements
Ill\ ~re, land~(I3pe ilr4.hllllc-
~ (\t'igb:~J:I"S, and arlWgdt. To be ~ple .under Criterion C, II pIoperty
muSt rnee!alleasl on~ of Ine following
requirernenla:
• Embody distinctive characteris-
tice of a type, period, or method
of cons.lructlon.
• Represent the work of a master.
• POS$e5S high artislic value.
·.R~erlI a slgniftl:ant and dis-
till.lJllisha'tile enfity'Wl\Q$e 1Wm-
~I.$.l'l\liy tltflk \ndi~\'1'l1 dis-
fin<ll'loll.
,. The first fe!iub;ement,that .pr.oper-
l"~ '''lI'rIII>odytbe distlMUv~~l1r!ta",.
t;n1j~tic. of " ~ ,mod,ormethod £If consll'ulltlont" 1'e£e1'9>1o Ure way In
. ~i¢h I!lfJ:!plit'Y was co.m:e.I~,
d~~$ ,f>' ia'totlCl\ted \!y .. ~ple or
lJUltune ItlpaS.t periods ofltislory.
"ThlitWOl'k f)fa master" ferer, 10 the
tilcllni.!:lil ~r 1Il!$lh'~c !ld'lI.evE!A\en,ts of
MlI~MtectorCNalll\1al'l. "Hi$h
It:tis'tii:: v.aluEIII': wncernatheex(lre9-
/ljl);fI 01 ae&tlie!i.c'ii:leall>OT preflmmees
~I'IXI ilppUH .j .. ~~ adlle'il'~m~nt.
R_mas "thai tepIesem .. slgnif.-
cantllml dlstin.8Uisltabll! en!lty Whos.
<W!l!Ipone.n1s 1t'IlIr.llld: indiyid.t.lal dis-
Im~lion" Me cal ad "districts." In tm-
Crileriafor Evalua!lon (as published
In .the Code of Federal Regulations and
reprinted here in Part ill, districts are
(iM/it Jlamlc,: s-e, /1ai»Qiclmt,y,
Y~rk~~~t,.~JlP$ .
~~'lIil1~ 4i'tJ$dt> t1IIril.elt(~1
Crltm'irmC thr.eJlghtfte lXprJfSil1n at
fles!hefil: Illeals 11I'p"efr.rt!ntes .. The Crant
PRfflillla~#IIII, ~ ~. F~"al $lyle
rMId~~, 1$ $/gn\li.allf for'llS temaik4.bly
'W1I1I.prli~eroed $tendle4 WIllI aecoratroe
treatment in Ihe en1ryhatl and parlof.
Pamt"d !lynn unk>lOWiI alliat ca. 1825,
lliis!s n fine eXIIlI/ple of 19th cenl"1iI New
Ens/and regicmal artlS/ie e~res5ion,
(Phelo by Kirk F. Mohney).
17
EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN!
CONSTRUCTION
Properties associated with design and
cOils/ruction:
o A house or commercia' building rep-
resenting a significant style of arelli-
tee/lire.
o A designed park or gardeu associated
with a particular landscape design
philosophy.
• A lIIouie IheateT embodying high ar-
UsUc vallie in its decorative feat liTes.
• A bridge or dam representing tecllllO' .
logical advances.
APPLYING
CRITERION C:
DESIGN!
CONSTRUCTION
DISTINCTIVE
CHARACTERISTICS OF
TYPE, PERIOD, AND
METHOD OF
CONSTRUCTION
This is the portion of Criterion C
under which most properties are
eligible, for it encompasses all archi·
tectural styles and construction
practices. To be eligible under this
portion of the Criterion, a property
must dearly illustrate, through
"distinctive characteristics," the
following:
18
• The pattern of features common
to a particular class of resources,
• The individuality or variation of
features that occurs within the
class,
• The evolution of that class, or
• The tr.ansi tion between classes of
resources.
Distinctive Characteristics: "Dis-
tinctive characteristics" are the physi-
cal features or traits that commonly
recur in individual types, periods, or
methods of construction. To be
eligible, a property must clearly
contain enough of those characteristics
to be considered a true representative
of a particular type, period, or method
of construction.
Characteristics can be expressed in
terms such as form, proportion, struc-
ture, plan, style, or materials. They
can be general, referring to ideas of
design and construction such as basic
plan or form, or they can be specific,
referring to precise ways of combining
particular kinds of matedals.
----~
Eligible
oA building eligible under the
theme of Gothic Revival archi·
tecture mUst have the distinc-
tive characteristics that make
up the vertical and picturesque
qualities of the style, such as
pOinted gables, steep roof
pitch, board and batten siding,
and ornamental bargeboard
and veranda trim.
o A late Mississippian village
that illustrates the important
concepts in prehistoric
community design and plan-
ning will qualify.
• A designed historic landscape
will qualify if it reflects a his-
toric trend or school of theory
and practice, such as the City
Beautiful Movement, evidenc-
ingdistinguished deSign, lay·
out, and the work of skilled
craftsmanship.
Not Eligible
• A commercial building with
some Art Deco detailing is not
eligible under Criterion C if the
detailing was added merely as
an afterthought, rather than
fully integrated with overall
lines and massing typical of the
Art Deco style or the trans.ition
between that and another style.
• A designed landscape that has
had major changes to its his-
toric deSign, vegetation, origi-
nal boundary, topography I
grading, architectural features,
and circulation system will not
qualify.
Type, Period, and Method of
Construction: "Type, period, or
method of construction" refers to the
way certain properties are related to
one another by cultural tradition or
function, by dates of construction or
style, or by choice or availability of
materials and technology.
A structure is eligible as a speci-
men of its type or period of construc-
tion if it is an important example
(within its context) of building
practices of a particular time in
history. For properties that represent
the variation, evolution, or transition
of construction types, it must be
demonstrated that the variation, etc.,
waS an important phase of the archi-
tectura! development of the area or
community in that it had an impact as
evidenced by later bUildings. A
property is not eligible, however,
simply because it has been identified
as the only such property ever fabri-
cated; it must be demonstrated to be
significant as well.
Eligible
• A building that has some char-
acteristics of the Romanesque
Revival style and some charac·
teristics of the Commercial
style can qualify if it illustrates
the transition of architectural
design and the transition itsel{
is considered an important ar-
chitectural development.
• A Hopewellian mound, if it is
an important example of
mound building construction
techniques, would qualify as a
method or type of construc-
tion.
• A building which illustrates
the early or the developing
technology of particular
structural systems, such as
skeletal steel framing, is eli~
gible as an example of a
particular method of construe,.
tion.
tllill'mJf iHD:fBAlr AtilUvlflewJ~filSty. m. am, Cau»il1, A.'IliIlmua •. EXamplJ$!If
1111W(1.~I/ir 'IV~ f/! (Jr(!&IJcl:tt!/1I ~D~ITWIlifI1'ItIlllErcm,,:1l1nC. BullJ~ .. 1818. she
Ii:wI'Ui'Jr H~"slll$. slH:fUj'II$tlt~f PO$~tbi$t lhe .!ftlltt"$ Illa"tq;lI1!1t JWII"~tory lJ~gh'j,1 type
of dwel11ng .. ''1Jh~ dllftlli'ngIlJ1llIl.;j~tm' 1J/J~1II1ge. o!1lil1tflialt1]t '!/IllS II regllmltl bllilding
respqnsc /0 the south61'll ~limate. (Ph%hy Ctlrotyn Scolf).
19
WORKS OF A MASTER
A master is a figure of generally
recognized greatness in a field, a
known craftsman of consummate.
skill, or an anenymQus craftsman
whose work is distinguishable from
others by its characteristic style and
quality, The property must express a
particular phase in the development
of the master's career, an aspect of his
or her work, or a particular idea or
theme in'his or.her craft. .
A property is not eligible as the
work of a master, however, simply
because it was designed by a promi-
nent architect. For example, not every
build ing designed by FrankLloyd
Wright is eligible under this portion
of Criterion C, although it might meet
other portions of the Criterion, for
instance asa representative of the
Prairie style.
The work of an unidentified
craftsman is eligible if it rises above
the level of workmanship of the other
properties encompassed by the
historic context.
20
PROPERTIES POSSESSING
HIGH AitTISTIC V AWES
High artistic values may be ex-.
pressedjnll\any ways, incl~ding .
areas as diverse as COmmUnIty des'gn
or 'plartning, engineering. and sculp-
ture. A property is eUgible fnrHs
high artistic vidues if it so fully
arti~ulates a particular concept of
design that it expresses a.n. a.!(sthetic
ideal. A property is not eligible,
however; if it does not express
aesthetic ideals or design contepts
more· fully than other properties of its
type.
Eligible
• A SCUlpture in a town square
that "pitomil'es the design
prindples of the Art Deco style
is eligible.
• A building that is a classic ex-
preSSion of the design theories
of the Craftsman' Style, such as
carefully detailed handwork,
is eligible.
• A landscaped park that syn-
thesizes early 20th century
principles of landscape archi-
tecture and expresses an aes-
thetic ideal of environment Can
be eligible.
• Properties that are important
representatives of the aesthetic
values of a cultural group,
suchaspetroglyphs and
. :ground. drawings by Native
Americans, are e!igible~
Not Eligible
.• A sctHpture in a town square
thans a typical example of
sculpture design during its pe-
riod WO!lld not qualify for
high artistic value, although it
might be eligible if it were Sig-
nificant for other reasons.
• A building that is a modest ex-
ample (within its historic con-
text) of the Craftsman Style of
architecture, or a landscaped
park that is characteristic of
turn of the century landscape
design would not qualify for
high artistic value.
A Significant ~nd l)istinglJi6haple
EnHty Who~e COll)Pol'lents May Lack
Individual Distinclioll. Thispor\iol)
of Criterion C refers to districts. For
detailed information on distriCts, tefer
to P~rt IV of this bulletin. .
CRITERION D: INFORMATION
POTENTIAL
Properties may be eligible for Ihe National Register if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information im-
portant in prehistory or history. .
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERION D:
INFORMATION
POTENTIAL
Certain important research ques-
tions about human history can only be
answered by the actual physical
material of cultural resources. Crite-
rion 0 encompasses the properties
that have the potential to answer, in
whole or in part, those types of
research questions. The most com-
man. type of property nominated
under this Criterion is the archeologi-
cal site (or a district comprised of
archeological sites). Buildings,
objects, a nd structures (or districts
comprised of these property types),
however, can also be eligible for their
information potential.
Criterion D has two requirements,
which must bolh be met for a property
to qualify:
• The property must have, or have
had, information to contribute to
our understanding of human his-
tory or prehistory, and
• The information must be consid-
ered important.
Under the first of these require-
ments, a property is eligible if it has
been used as a source of data and
contains more, as yet unretrieved
data. A property is also eligible if it
has not yet yielded information but,
through testing or research, is deter-
mined II likely source of data.
Under the second requirement, the
information must be carefully evalu-
ated within an appropriate context to
determine its importance. Informa-
tion is considered "important" when
it is shown to have a significant
bearing on a research design that
addresses such areas as' l) current
data gaps or alternative theories tnat
challenge eXisting ones or 2) priority
areas identified under a State or
Federal agency management plan.
APPLYING
CRITERION D:
INFORMATION
POTENTIAL
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
Criterion D most commonly
applies to'properties that contain or
are likely to contain information
bearing on an important archeological
research question. The property must
have characteristics suggesting the
likelihood that it possesses configura-
tions of artifacts, soil strata, structural
remains, or other natural or cultural
features that make it possible to do
the following:
• Test II hypotheSis or hypotheses
about events, groups, or pro-
cesses in the past that bear on im-
portant research questions in the
sodal or natural sciences or the
humanities; or
• Corroborate Or amplify currently
available information suggesting
that a hypothesis is either true or
false; or
• Reconstruct the sequence of ar-
cheological cultures for the pur-
pose of identifying and explain-
ing continuities and discontinu-
ities in the archeological record
for a particular area. .
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES,
ANDOBJECI'S
While most often applied to
archeological districts and sites,
Criterion D can also apply to build-
ings, structures, and Objects that
contain important informa lion. In
order for these types of properties 10
be eligible under Criterion D, they
themselves must be, or must have
been, the principal source of the
important information.
Eligible
• A building exhibiting a local
variation on n standard design
or construction technique can
be eligible if study could yield
important information, such as
how local availability of mate-
rials or construction expertise
affected the evolution of local
building development.
Nol Eligible
• The ruins of a haciend a once
contained murals/hat have
since been destroyed. Histori-
cal documentation, however,
indicates that the murals were
significant for their highly un-
usual design. The ruins can
not be eligible under Criterion
D for the importance of the de-
stroyed murals if the informa-
tion is contained only in the
documentation.
21
ASSOClATIONWIUl
BUM"-)l ACl1VITY
22
ESTAlJUSHlNG A HISTORIC
CONtIXl'
~ infOffi13fil'll,\ tbIIllipropetty yleids,.tit' wiD ~, mUst be /lvalu-
a .•• t.iI!!' wlthin)ilnappl'Op:jatehi$tI:>rJ~ ,¢Qn~ Th\$ Wlll@l\Ill!l\ilNUlt1l\g
the llod:rUflnfllrmllfioo.alteady
~1~tq:&om",lmttat'.properttes or
«bef p.Ml~ ~I'$l~ In~ll1g
modern lIrui histor!cw.riltel'l<reoords.
th.litxeseal'clter must 1!e able to
;<\f.tfi(Sp!11d1ilM MWtl\iil PQte~lIAl
,inti>1tlfatlOJl Will iafftilf tbtIdefinlfi!i)11
oftileamlel{l. Theint_donllkely
,t~he Qbl\l1ne4 ~m a parttculllT
:pro~fy. ,mustamflrm,;reEute, or
$lpplen!e1:'tjnanJmpDttanI-way
aldliU.\li MJlrmati1in-
Apl1OJI'dy Is lIIItell8flile if it
.:.annbl: be'1elabld to II partlculal' time
'~:dod iilt<!dfbl;tl.d S"oIlFHlnd; as a ~ull, lal1~ IUlYhllltork ~Jl!~t
wifhln whiehto ~alUate lhe Impor-
t3l\Ce of ,the IntQfmil.fl.on 10 begali!led.
I;)BVIiWPING RE5EARCll
OUESnONS
Ha:ring established theimpor1:ance of~ b'lfln'ttulli<l.II tl'uu mil)' be
~red, ;11$ ~~ 10 be I!l<plidt
in demONtmflng the connection
between the important information
aOOa IIpecifj;c propetty. One liP-
proach is to determtne if specific
Important research questions can be
answered by the data contained in the
ESTABUSHING THE
PRESENCE OF ADEQUATE
DATA
To su pport the assertion that ~
property has the data necessary. to
provide the important l~forll1atJon,
the property should be investIgated
with techniques sufficient to establish
the presence of relevant d~t~ catego-
ries. What constitutes appropriate
investigation techniques would
depend upon specific ~ircumstances
including the property s Itlcatl0n,
condition, and the research tjuestions
being addressed, and could range
from surface survey (or photographic
survey for buildings), to the applica-
tion of remote sensing techniques or
intensive subsurface testing. Justifica-
tion of the research potential of a
property may be based on anal~gy to
another better known property If
sufficient similarities exist to establish
the appropriateness of the analogy.
Eligible
• Data requirements depend on
the specific research topics and
questions to be ilddressed. To
continue the example in "De-
veloping Research Questions"
a bove, we might want to Mcer-
tain the following with refer-
enee to questions A, B, and C:
A) The site contains Ceramic
Type X in one or more occupa-
tion levels and we expect to be
able to document the local
evaluatloll of the type or its in-
trusi.ve nature. B) The hearths
contain datable carbon deposits
and are associated with more
than one occupation. C) The
midden deposits show good
floral/faunal preservation, and
we know enough about the
physical evolution of food
plants to interp~et ~igns that
suggest domestlcatlOn.
Not Eligible
• Generally, if the applicable re-
search design requires clearly
stratified deposits, then subsur-
face investigation techniques
must be applied. A site com-
posed only of surface materials
cim not be eligible for its poten-
tial to yield information that
could only be found in strati-
fied deposits.
INTEGRITY
The assessment of integrity for
properties considered for information
potential depends on the data require-
ments of the applicable research
design. A property possessing
information potential does not need to
recall <,jsllallv an event, person,
process, or c'onstructi~n t~chnique. 1t
is important that the slgmfIcant. data
contained in the property remam
sufficiently intact to yield the ex-
pected important information, if the
appropriate study techniques ore
employed.
Eligible
• An irrigation system-signifi-
cant for the information it will
yield on early engineering
practices Can still be eligible
even though it is now filled in
and no longer retains the ap-
pearance of an open canal.
Not Eligible
• A plowed archeological site
contains several superimposed
components that have been
mixed to the extent that arti-
fact assemblages cannot be re'
constructed. The site cannot
be eligible if the da ta reqUire-
ments of the research design
call for the study of artifacts
specific to one component.
'---.------------
PARTL YEXCA VATED OR
DISTURBED PROPERTIES
The current existence of appropri-
ate physical remains musl be ascer-
tained in considering a property's
ability to yield important information.
Properties that have been partly
excavated or otherwise disturbed and
that are being considered for their
potential to yield additional impor-
tant information must be shown to
retain that potential in their remaining
portions.
Eligible
• A site that has been partially
excavated but still retllins sub·
stantial intact depOSits (or a
site in which the remaining de-
posits are small but contain
critical information on a topic
that is not well known) is eli-
gible.
Not Eligible
• A totally collected surface site
or a completely excavated bur-
ied site is not eligible since the
physical remains capllble of
yielding important informa-
tion no longer exist at the site.
(See Completely Excavatea Sites,
on page 24, for exception.)
Likewise, a site tha t has been
looted or otherwise disturbed
10 the e,tenl that the remain-
ing cultural materials have lost
their important depositional
context (horizontal or vertical
location of deposits) is not eli-
gible.
• A reconstructed mound or
other reconstructed site will
generally not be considered
eligible, because original cui·
tural materials Or context or
both have been lost.
23
COMPLETELY EXCAVATED
SITES
Properties that have yielded
important information in the past and
that no longer relain additional
research potential (such as completely
exca vated archeological sites) must be
assessed essentially as historic sites
under Criterion A. Such sites must be
significant for associative values
related to: 1) the importance of the
data gained or 2) the impact of the
property's role in the history of the
development of anthropology /
archeology or other relevant disci-
plines. likE! other historic properties,
the site must retain the ability to
convey its association as the former
repository of important information,
the location of historiC events, or the
representative of important trends.
24
EligibJe
• A property that has been exca-
vated is eligible if the data re-
covered was of such impor-
tance that it influenced the di-
rection of research in the disci-
pline, as in a site that clearly
es ta blished the antiquity of the
human occupation of the New
World. (See Criterion A in
Pari VI: How lo1denfify lite
Type Of Significance of a Properly
and Criteria Consideration G
in Pari VII: How to Apply tile
Criferia Consideratio11s.)
Not Eligible
• A totally excavated site that at
one time yielded important in-
formation but that no longer
can convey either its histOric/
prehistoric utilization or sig-
nificant modern investigation
is not eli gi ble.
VII. HOW TO APPLY THE
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Certain kinds of properties are not
usually considered for listing in the
National Register: religious proper-
ties, moved properties, birthplaces
and graves/ cemeteries, reconstructed
properties, commemorative proper-
ties, and properti.es achieving signifi-
cance within the past fifty years,
These properties can be eligible for
listing, however, if they meet spedal
requirements, called. Criteria Consid-
erations/ in addition to meeting the
regulilf requirements (that is, being
eligible under one or more of the four
Criteria and possessing integrity),
Pari VII provides gUidelines for
determining which properties must
meet these special requirements and
for applying each Criteria Consider-
ation,
The Criteria Considerations need to
be applied only to individual proper-
ties, Components of eligible districts
do not have (0 meet the special
req uirements unless they mn ke up the
majority of the district Or are the focal
pOint of the district. These are the
genera I steps to follow when applying
the Criteria Considerations to your
property:
• Before looking at the Criteria
Considerations, make sure your
property meets one or more of
the four Criteria for Evaluation
and possesses integrity,
• If it does, check the Criteria Con-
siderations (next column) to see if
the property is of a type that is
usually excluded from the Na-
tional Register, The sections that
follow also list specific examples
of properties of each type, If
your property clearly does 110/ fit
one of these types, then it does
not need 10 meet any special re-
quirements,
• If your property does fit one of
these types, then it must meet the
special requirements stipulated
for that type in the Criteria Con-
siderations.
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATIONS*
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces,
or graves of historical figures, proper-
ties owned. by religious institutions or
used for religious purposes, structures
that have been moved from their
original locations, reconstructed
historic buildings, properties prima-
rily commemorative in nature, and
properties that have achieved signifi-
cance within the past fifty years shall
not be consid~red eligible for the
National Register, However, such
properties will qualify if they are
integral parts of districts that do meet
the criteria or if they fall within the
following categories:
a, a religious property deriving pri-
mary significance from architec-
tural or artistic distinction or his-
torical importance; or
b. a building or structure removed
from its original location but
which is significant primarily for
architectural value, or which is
the surviving structure most im-
portantly associated with a his-
toric person or event; or
c, a birthplace or grave of a histori-
cal figure of outstanding impor-
tance if there is no appropriate
site or building directly associ-
ated with his or her productive
life; or
d, a cemetery which derives its pri-
mary significance from graves of
persons of transcendent impor-
tance, from age, from distinctive
design features, from association
with historic events; or
e, a reconstructed building when
accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a res-
toration master plan, and when
no other building or structure
with the same association has
survived; or
f. a property primarily commemo-
rative in intent if design, age, tra-
dition, or symbolic value has in-
vested it with its 'own exceptional
significance; Of,
g, a property achieving significance
within the past SO years if it is of
exceptional importance.
*The Criteria Considerations are taken from
the Criteria (or Evaluation, found in the Coot' of
federal Reg.tiatioIfS. Tille 36, Part 6V,
25
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION.A:
RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES
A religious property is eligible if it derives its priti1my significance from nrchitecturnl or artistic distinction or historical
importance.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
A: RELIGIOUS
PROPERTIES
A religious property requires
justification on architectur~1, artistic,
or· historic grounds to avoid any
appearance of judgment by govern-
ment about the validity of any reli-
gion or belief. Historic significance
for a religious property cannot be
established on the merits of a reli-
gious doctrine, but rather, for archi-
tectural or artistic values or for
important historic or cultural forces
that the property represents. A
religious property's significance
under Criterion A, B, C, or D must be
judged in purely secular terms. A
religious group may, in some cases,
be considered a cultural group whose
activities are significant in areas
broader than religious history.
Criteria Consideration for Reli-
gious Properties applies:
26
• If the resource was constructed
by a religious institu tion.
• If the resource is presently
owned by a religious institution
or is used for religious purposes.
• If the resource was owned by a
religious institution or used for
religious purposes during its Pe-
riod of Significance.
• If Religion is seJected as an Area
of Significance,
EXllmples of Properties Hlat MUST
Meet Criteria C01lsideratio1l A; Reli-
giotts Properties
• A historic cilllrcil wilere all ill1l'01'-
fnnf.HOJl-rcligioHs ('ilt'lIl occurred,
Sllcil as a sp"cch 1>.'/ Plltrick H"lIr)l,
• A historic $.vllt1g0~'iIi(, tlmt is sigtlifi~
calli for archilecture.
• A private! rl.'sidtlllCt.' is file sift' of n
111eetil18, imporlal1! to rl'l(r;:ioltS his-
lor.v·
• A cOllllllcrcillllJlock lI,al is cllrrmlly
oWllcd as all illt'eMllle,,1 properlyl>y
t1 re1i~iotts illStitlifiOlL
• A historic district ill 'wlliclt rd/~,,?ioN
was eillier a predon/hllllll or siglllfi-
enllt {ullcfioll dllrillg Ihe period of
slgllifim"ce.
Example of Properties tlrilt DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria COl/sideratiolt
A; Religiolls Properties
• A residential or cOlllmercial distriel
tllat currently cOlltai"s II small 1111111-
ber of cilllrcl;es lital are HO/ a pre-
dOlllillall1 featil re of tire distriel.
• A towlIlITeelillg hall thai Sewes as
tlte cellter of cOll1l1amil.v aClivily and
ilOuses a wide variety of public
and primte meelings, including re/i'
Sious service. Tbe resource is sig-
Ilificant for archilectllre and poli/ics,
and tlte religious fwlttloll is incidell-
tal.
• A lown ltall, significanl {or politics
frol1l1875 to 1925, Ihal housed
religious services duritiS the 19.105,
Since the religiolls fUllctiol1 occurred
afler tlte Period of Slgllificallce, Ihe
Criteria COl/siaeratioll does /lot ap-
ply.
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
A: . RELIGIOUS
PROPERTIES
ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC
EVENTS
A religious property can be eligible
under Criterion A for any of three rea-
sons:
• It is significant under a theme in
the history of religion having
secular scholarly recognition; or
• It is Significant under another his-
torical theme, such as explora-
tion, settlement, sodal philan-
thropy, or education; or
• It is significantly associated with
traditional cultural values.
RELIGIOUS HISTORY
A religious property can be eligible
if it is directly associated with either a
specific event or a broad pattern in the
history of religion.
Eligible
• The site of a convention at
which.a signifleant denomina-.
tional split occurred meets the
requirements of Criteria Con-
sideration A. Also eligible is a
property that illustrates the
broad impact of a religious in-
stitution on the history of a lo-
cal area.
Not Eligible
• kreligious property cannot be
eligible simply because was
the place of religious services
for a community, or was the
oldest structure used by a reli-
gious group in a local area,
ornER HISTORICAL
THEMES
A religious property can be eligible
if it is directly associated with either a
specific event or a broad pa ttern that
is significant in another historic
context. A religious property would
also qualify if it were significant for
its associations that illustrate the
importance of a particular religious
group in the soda I, cultural, eco-
nomic, or political history of the area.
Eligibility depends on the importance
of the event or broad pattern and the
role of the specific property.
Eligible
• A religious property can
qualify for its important role
as a t~mporary hospital during
the Revolutionary War, or if its
school was significant in the
history of education in the
community.
Not Eligible
• A religious property is not sig-
nificant in the history of edu-
cation in a community simply
because it had occasionally
served as a school.
TRADITIONAL CULTURAL
VALUES
When evaluating properties
associated with traditional cultures, it
is important to recognize that often
these cultures do not make clear
distinctions between what is secular
and what is sacred. Criteria Consider-
ation A is not intended to.exclude
traditionaLcultural resources merely
because they have religious uses or
are considered sacred. A property or
natural feature important to a tradi-
tional culture's religion and mythol-
ogy is eligible if its importance has
been ethnohistorically documented
and if the site can be dearly defined.
It is critical, however, that the activi-
ties be documented and that the
associations not be so diffuse that the
physical resource cannot be ad-
equately defined.'
Eligible
• A specific location or natural
feature that an Indian tribe be-
lieves to be its place of origin
and that is adequately docu-
mented qualifies under Crite-
ria Consideration A.
ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC
PERSONS
A religious property can be eligible
for association with a person impor-
tant in religious history, if that
significance has scholarly, secular
recognition or is important in other
historic contexts. Individuals who
would likely be considered significant
are those who fonned or significantly
influenced an important religious
institution or movement, or who were
important in the ~ocial, economic~ or
politiCal history of the area. Proper-
ties associated with individuals .
important only within the context of a
single congregation and lacking
importance in any other historic
context would not be eligible under
Criterion B.
Eligible
• A religious property strongly
associated with a religious
leader, such as George
Whitefield or Joseph Smith, is·
eligible.
\
&For more inform!'ltion On applying Criteria Considerl'lHon A to traditional cultural properties,
refer to National R{!gls/~r BlllI('till: Glliddiues for E.llallloting alia DCCUtrlt'lItillg Trnditicmal Culturat
Propertit's.
27
EUGUnbI'fY FOR
Alt(;MI'mCTURAL QR
ARTISTIC DISTINCTION
ELiGIBILllY fOR . ABILITY TO REFLBCT
lNFORMAnON POTENTIAL HlSTORICASSOCIATIONS
el!:glll!!
~ A, .. l!ltlt01'. t.~ "'. lI\I:1,p m.· ~.ling.giS,ti':u:t {hIlJ~i\I·tbI1re:q\llre'
:mlm'!s:·ofCrilWion Cfor ibl siS-
:nlfi!!llIllreAS,al:ype pfrons.l1'l,lc-
illllll!!.(!11glble.
.• A~e)j~s p~oPl!lty, wheth~ it dl~td~J" $Jtll, bwn.n~g. Sltu~re, Or ob~, :ls1!lIaMl! 1m ~u yield \mpot-
.tant ir<formationalmut Ihe.rel~llils
praclicesoi acultural$1'Oup orolher
l\l$,tPtk: thet!iel!. This'ldnd ofptoperty
should \luvllllla~ 'lI$ are other
,p"~tleB'lUlderCrnerlon 0, in
xelailon 1D iSimllll!" p"Jlf'ertLes, other
ioiotlrtat:ioh'iiO:ulO1S, aild e)tlsting dill!>
/}4p$·
OffnlQ Crmsld_tJIffl )t -R.l~uslfmpn'6" . .4 r:il~s properly mnqlflllify
115 ilft~!f~~:tfJ fhl. Cf;iterlit if 11lf!/!!'~r41ly $lglll!i(fl!nf. '!'he ChI/I'IIh of tile ~1I'ltt.tg Itt R()ud)Qt',IbIlrt)tlle Par/sll, LouY$/Pitit, fJlI411fiirli tiMtareexalllpie in Ihe Stale
.of a l!!th century small frame Gothic RMval sfyle chapel. (Rober! Ol>ier)
28
E¥IJ!'
• Achwch built in the 18th ceo-
(<<1o/1I,!(llJlterl!d~Oild recog-
nition mII\1l1!il.tn c-en'tUrr is
l!llgiMeunty If the additions
~ 11l'1po11lll'ltjl'lth.ll'nllelve\l ,as
111\ _pit! of Iale 19th l:Em-
~:Y' .afclitli!~~:o.r 4s,a .r<!flee-.li.lmW;l!nol~Il~tru:t1 p!!l'Io/l of r~~~a'tion'$ tr<>wth.
Notm~glble
• 1\ ayWiSogue built in the 1920s ~m 'I1j 1l1igtJ1i!lfl:>r th!ll:m-
k'0~tant4lcflvrtt~oOftfscp11gre
gi!.(tOfi in the lllth aM 19th
<!$)b.lJ.'I..i It IiWLllI;'(ly b;! I'll-
gib1e .tor &\~nlf!CRnCl! obtained
«fler ,~S j;9I1struellon datt\-
o A 1Ut.a11l/!/1 t!¢ntlll'}'·ll'aiJi.e
chur;:h :ret;entlysttealhedin
briek III nohlislbJebecausa it 1m~ lo§t 115 cbaracreristic liP-
p:ta.l'lj~ and tl1l!m(ol# C!UI nQ
~rconvey 1ta 1I!thceniury
IIIgriliicanCl\. either for ar.chl-~1:YI'i\llla:lite 9f hi~tQricasso
etitfion.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B:
MOVED PROPERTIES
A properly removed from its original or historically,significant location can be eligible if il is significanl primarily
. for archiledural value or it is Ihe surviving property most imporlantly associated with a historic person or event.'
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
B:MOVED
PROPERTIES
The National Register criteria limit
the consideration of moved properties
because significance is embodied in
locations and settings as well as in the
properties themselves, Moving a
property destroys the relationships
between the property and its sur-
roundings and destroys associations
with historic events and persons. A
move may also cause the loss of
historic features such as landscaping.
fou nda lions, and chimneys, as well as
loss of the potential for associated
archeological deposits. Properties
that were moved before their period of
significance do not need to meet the
special requirements of Criteria
Consideration B.
One of the basic purposes of the
National Register is to encourage the
preservation of historic properties as
, living parts of their communities. In
keeping with this purpose, it is not
usual to list artificial groupings of
buildings that have been created for
purpos"s of interpretation, protection.
or maintenance, Moving buildings to
such a grouping destroys the integrity
of location and setting, and can create
a false sense of historic development
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
B: MOVED
PROPERTIES
ELIGIBILITY FOR
ARCHITECTURAL VALUE
A moved property significa nt
under Criterion C must retain enough
historic features to convey its architec-
tural values and retain integrity of
design, materials, workmanship,
feeling, a.nd association.
Examples of Properties tllat MUST
Meet Criteria COllsideratioll B:
Moved Properties
• A reSOllrce IJIOl!1!d from one {OcatiOIl
Oil its origillll' sile /0 allOlher loca-
lion 011 tl,e properly, during or afler
ils Period of Siglllfica lice. '
• A dlslricl ill widell a slgllificalli
nllmber of resollrce:; lIave bee"
lIIoved from tlleir originallocalion.
• A dlslricl wlliel. "as aile moved
bllilding Ilia/ makes an especia/It;
sigllificalll con/ribu/io,. to Ihe dis-
tricl.
• A portable resource, Sliell as" slrip or
railroad car, Ihat is relocaled 10 a
"lllce iI/compatible wit II its origilla/
f"nclion. <
• A portable resource, such as n ship or
railroad car, wllose imporlallce is
critienlly linked to ils historic loca-
tioll or roule and thai is moved.
Examples of Properties tIlt, t DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
B: Moved Properties
• A property that is moved prior tO'ils
Period of Significa,.ce.
.• A dislrict in which only a small per-
celffage of typical bui/dings in n dis-
trict are moved.
• A moved building that is pari of a
complex but Is of less sigllificance
Illan the remaining (unmoved)
buildings. .
• A portable resource, such as a ship or
railroad car, that is eligible under .
Criterion C and is moved within its
natural setting (water, rails, etc.).
• A property 1/101 is raised or lowered
all its foundations.
29
ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC
ASSOCIATIONS
A moved property significant
under Criteria A or B must be demon·
strated to be the surviving property
most importantly associated with a
particular historic event or an impor·
tant aspect of a historic persol1's life.
The phrase "most importantly associ-
ated" means that it must be the single
surviving property that is most
closely associated with the event or
with the part of the person's life for
which he or she is significant.
30
Eligible
• A moved building occupied by
a 11 business woman during the
majority of her productive ca-
reer would be eligible if the
other extant properties are a
house she briefly inhabited
prior to her period of signifi-
cance and a commercial build-
ing she owned after her retire-
ment.
Not Eligible
• A moved building associated
with the beginning of rail
transportation in a community
is not eligible if the original
railroad station and ware·
house remained intact on their
original sites.
SETTING AND
ENVIRONMENT
In addition to the requirements
above, moved properties must still
have an orientation, setting, and
generaf'etwironment that nre compa-
rable to those of the historic location
and tha tare compnlible with the
property's significance,
Eligible
• A property signifiamt as an
example of mid·19th century
rural house type can be eli·
gible after a move, proVided
that it is placed On it lot that is
sufficient in si;ze and character
to recall the bi\sic qualities of
the historic environment and
setting, and provided tl"1t the
building is sHed appropriately
in relation to natural and
manmade surroundings.
Not Eligible
• A rural house that is moved
into an urban area and it
bridge that is no longer situ-
ated over a waterway are not
eligible.
ASSOCIATION DEPENDENT
ON THE SITE
For a property whose design values
or historical associ.ations are directly
dependent on its location, any Inove
will cause the property to lose its
integrity and prevent it from convey-
ing its significance.
Eligible
• A farm structure significant
only as an example of'a
method of construction pecu-
liar to the local area is still eli·
gibleif it is moved within that
local area and the new setting
is similar to that of the original
location.
Not Eligible
• A 19th century rural residence
that was designed around par-
ticular topographic features,
reflecting that time period's
ideals of environment, is not
eligible if moved .
\
\
PROPERTIES DESIGNED TO
BE MOVED
A property designed to move or a
property frequently moved during its
historic use must be located in a
historically appropriate setting in
order to 'jualify, retaining its integrity
of setting, design, feeling, and assoda-
tion. Such properties indude automo-
biles, railroad cars and engines! and
ships.
Eligible
• A ship docked in a harbor, a
locomotive on tracks or in a
rnilyard, and a bridge relo-
cated from Olle body of water
to another are eligible.
Not Eligible
• A ship on land in a park, a
bridge placed in a pasture, or a
locomotive displayed in an in-
door museum are not eligible.
ARTIFICIALLY CREATED
G~OUPINGS
An artificially created grouping of
buildings, structures, or objects is not
eligible unless !thas achieved signifI-
cance since the time of its assemblage.
It cannot be considered as a reflection
of the time period when the indi-
vidual buildings were constructed.
Eligible
• A grou ping of moved historic
build ings whose crealion
lharked the beginning of a ma-
jor concern with past lifestyles
can qualify as an early attempt
al historic preservation and as
an ilIustralion of that genera-
Han's values,
Not Eligible
• Arural district composed of a
farmhouse on its origina I site
and a grouping 01 historic
barns recently moved onto the
property is not eligible.
PORTlONS OF PROPERTIES
A moved portiDn of a building,
structure, or object is not eligible
because, as a fragment of a larger
resource, it has lost integrity of
design, setting, materials, workman-'
ship, and location.
,
\
31
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C:
BIRTHPLACES OR GRAVES
A birthplace or grave of a historical figure is eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and if there is no
other appropriate site or building directly assoda'ted with his or her productive life.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
C: BIRTHPLACES
AND GRAVES
Birthplaces and graves oflen attain
importance as reflections of the origins
of important persons or as lasting
memorials to them. The lives of
persons significant in OUr past nor-
mally are recognized by the National
Register through listing of properties
illustrative of or associated with that
person's productive life's work.
Birthplaces and graves, as properties
that represent the beginning and the
end of the life of distinguished indi-
Viduals, may be temporally and
geographically far removed from the
person's significant activities, and
therefore are not usually considered
eligible.
Examples of Properties tlwt MUST
Meet Criteria Cons/deratioll C: Birtll-
places and Graves
• The birrhplace Of a significant person
wlro lived elsewhere during Iris or her
Period of Significance.
• A grave that is nominated for its as-
sociation with the significant person
buried in iI.
• A grave that is 1I0minated for illfor-
mation potential.
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideratiotl
C: Birthplaces and Graves
32
• A house that was inhabited by a sig-
nificant person for his or lIfT mtire
lifetime.
• A grave locn ted on the grol/nds of the
house where a significant perSall
spent his or her productive years.
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
C: BIRTHPLACES
AND GRAVES
PERSONS OF
OUTSTANDING
IMPORTANCE
The phrase "a historical figure of
outstanding importance" means tbat
in order for a birthplace or grave to
qualify, it cannot be'simply the
birthplace or grave of a person
significant in our past (Criterion B). It
must be the birthplace or grave of an
individual who was of outstanding
importance in the history of the local
area, State, or nation. The birthplace
. or grave of an individual who was
one of several people active in some
aspect of the history of a community,
a siate, or the Nation would not be
eligible.
LAST SURVIVING
PROPERTY ASSOCIATED
WITH A PERSON
When an geographical area
strongly associated with a person of
outstanding importance has lost all
oth,;,r properties directly associated
with his or her formative years or
productive life, a birthplaQe or grave
mny be eligible.
ELlGlJUL1l"'f:POROTHER
AStIOQ'A,1.1ONS
:n
C.' ·n"TE'.·· '··RI.··· ·A'· ,C.····,Q.·· '·N·· '5·'.1·' .D· ". ED 4r-r1: .0' 'N.· .... D· • .lU .' " . '. .. ..... ~.l..... . .•
CEME'ItERIES
Acentelillf ille"&i~1e iHtdedws]t$ ;1tnr10/ s'lgruticanilefr.om ,..,1\'68 of per .sons of. triUllit'endent impottMo:e, from
lIS<l,..~~1Il !UlItllld,lYe d~tll'\ featllrlll, lir (tQIt) v$odathlll wUh.hliltl'irI( eYIll\ts.. .
&ll'mp~80rp'lJpertlI18fhttt.MUST
Meet :fJrlteriR C.onHiJfJu4.tio:sD.
Cflfwl~s
EmmplelJ Ii! P-mpm:tIlS thlltDONOT
NIfI1Il tpMl!et ·O<lterlll.Cllnsi4emtilm
D, C,mll!tm~
• Acemefewthat is 1IIJmimteiJ a!olll
wl.th its ll~tQ'J.ild ~1Ju(cJ,i, but the
lihilteli i.!i.lh~mlll!ft'~·1J/)mi·
IfI(leti.
• A~m:ntf8J1l ihal ~./ll!1/Ilnated UJltler
CtiJetirm D for /ji!flrmlJfiim pillen-
till!.
• A ~met6'Y tb4lls I1Dmina/eti nit 1Mrl
oj Q.dlslrl~lbul f~ n.Ql tllii /IJINI! point
olthe dl!tr.icl. .'
'C~C,,#9Jlfl!ratloll D· Cll/lltteries. The HallQ(Jck C'fflllt,"1I, Quincy, Ncrfolk
\4;l1!t.\ltl MflWlC/rulfctts melfls tlJe ex.ception /() the Cr/ler!!! because it IierlWl> its
prlm4ry~nte from ils great age (the carUe.ql burials dale #_16401 and fr0111
the dl5f..Plcliuedesign features found in its riel! collection of late 171h and early 18th
century fUlwrary art. (N. Hobart Holly)
. 34
APPLYING
CllITBB:tA
CONSIDIUtATlON
D:CEMETmUEB.
PlUlSQNS,QP
TRANSCBNDENT
IMltOltTANCE
. A cemalery··rontalnltlg. the graves
01 petsOO1~ cl tlanacend1a.nt nnp.<'lltance
mlly~,!iI'g""l~cTIi! ~ oh~!lPsc.~Eirit
impnrlatme l11e per,sons lllUlit .hav"
beiin :dl',great eminemle in lheirfield.s
qf 11¥rd.~jjYO'f(fr Aad", gr(t<l13~~Il.j)t
upotr tnal1l!ltory of lheir..wnllllunlty.,
s.t'a~ PUIIIJiQn, 1A $illite grave &&1
is l!jt 1.'llldill p1l\.~ Of jI'I\ U\lp01\tlmt
personarrdJalli!mtteii la a fllra"]'
ee~y Old dl'lf!!l.nllhlull.lltr undli'T tliI. Cfl:tti~laC()rtetd'lir.tit.il'i).'t $h!)Wd be
trJ!ll\ed' under Crit~ria CQnsideration
C;· Bli'(hpla~es 'ana Glmves.)
i!Jlgtb)e
·lb.hl~(!PC Gemellii}' ¢Dn!'ilinll1g
the. gtaves of ell !lumber 'Of per-
1;1'105 whQ _re.ellceptlt!l'la~1Y
.t!gmilCil'l\11n qeter.!Ul:i'lmg the
~t\tlli!.~fa fitattfs peJltielll or
'OOQllOnuc:· hl!lwrydunng a par-
lkula1 perloe:! Iseligitilll.
NQtlll~ble
• ""<i.I)m.et!!rycon~il)ing $ra~s
of !;rta'fe lealslalors Is no! eli-
Wb1!!'ihhl!Y slmplypetfurmed ~be dally bu:sltiess (jt$lAte gov-
ernment aI)(! <lid nJilthaYe an
out!itand!ng Impact upon the
natureilnd direction of the
Slate's history.
ELIGIBILITY ON THE BASIS
OF AGE
Cemeteries can be eligible if they
have achieved historic significance for
their relative great age in a particular
geographic or cultural context.
Eligible
• A cemetery dating from a
community's original 1830s
settlement can aitain signifi-
cance from its association with
tha t very early period.
ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN
Cemeteries can qualify on the basis
of distinctive design values. These
values refer to the same design values
addressed in Criterion C and can
include aesthetic or technological
achievement in the fields of city
planning, architecture, landscape
architecture, engineering, mortuary
art, and sculpture. As for all other
nominated properties, a cemetery
must clearly express its design values
and be able to convey its historic
appearance.
Eligible
• A ViCtorian cemetery is eli-
gible if it clearly expresses the
aesthetic principles related to
funerary design for that pe-
riod, through such features as
the overall plan, landscaping,
statuary, sculpture, fencing,
buildings, and grave markers.
Not Eligible
• A cemetery cannot be eligible
for design values if it no
longer conveys its historic ap-
pearance because of the intro-
duction of new grave markers.
ELIGIBILITY FOR
ASSOCIATION WITH
EVENTS
Cemeteries may be associated with
historic events induding specific
important events or general events
that illustrate broad patterns.
Eligible
• A cemetery associated with an
important Civil War battle is
eligible.
• A cemetery associated with the
settlement of an area by an
ethnic or cultural group is eli-
gible if the movement of the
group into the area had an im-
portant impact, if other prop-
erties associated with that
group are rare, and if few
documentary sources have
survived to provide informa-
tion about the group's
history.
Not Eligible
• A cemetery associated with a
battle in the Civil War does
not qualify if the battle was
not important in the history of
the war. ' ,
• A cemetery aSSOciated with an
area's settlement by an ethnic
or cultural group is not eli-
gible if the impact 01 the group
on the area cannot be estab-
lished, if other extant historic
properties better convey asso-
ciation with the group, or if
the information that the cem-
etery can impart is available in
documentary sources.
ELIGIBILITY FOR
INFORMATION POTENTIAL
Cemeteries, both historic and
prehistoric, can be eligible if they
have the potential to yield important
information. The information must be
important within a specifk context
and the potential to yield information
must bedemonstrated~
A cemetery can qualify if it has.
potential to yield importarit informa-
tion provided that the information it
contains is not available in extant
documentary evidence.
Eligible
• A cemetery associated with the
settlement of a particular cul-
tural group will qualify if it
has the potential to yield im-
portant information about sub-
jects such as demography,
variations in mortuary prac-
tices, or the study of the cause
of dea th correlated wi th nutri-
tion or other variables.
35
INTEGRITY
Assessing the integrity of a historic
cemetery entails evaluating principal
design features such as plan, grave
markers, and any related elements
(such as fencing). Only that portion
of a historic cemetery that retains its
historicintegrity can be eligible. If the
overall< integrity has been lost because
of the number and size of recent grave
markers, some features such as
buildings, structures, or objects that
retain integrity may be considered as
individual properties if they are of
such historic Or artistic importance
that they individually meet one or
more of the requirements Hsted
above.
36
NATIONAL CEMETERIES
National Cemeteries administered
by the Veterans Administration are
eligible because they have been
designated by Congress as primary
memorials to the militMY history of
the United States. Those areas within
a deSignated national cemetery that
have been used or prepared for the
reception of the remains of veterans
and their dependents, as well as any
landscaped areas that immediately
surround the graves may qualify.
Because these cemeteries draw their
significance from the presence of the
remains of military personnel who
have served the country throughout
its history, the age of the cemetery is
not a factor in judging eligibility,
although integrity must be prl'sent.
A national cemetery or a portion of
a national cemetery that has only been
set aside for use in the fu lure is not
eligible,
\
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E:
RECONTRUCfED PROPERTIES
A reconstructed property <is eligible when it is accurately executed in a suitable environment aud presented in a dig-
nified manner as part of a restoration master plan aud when no other building or structure with the same associations
has survived_ All three of these requirements must be met.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION E:
RECONSTRUCTED
PROPERTIES
)'Reconstruction" is defined as the
rep rod uction of the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, struc-
ture, object, or a part thereof, as it
appeared at a specific period of time.
Reconstructed buildings fall into two
categories: buildings wholly con-
str<ucted of new materials and build-
ings reassembled from some ~istoric
and some neW materials. Bot!ycatego-
ries of properties present proolems in
meeting the integrity requirements of
the National Register criteria.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration E: Recon-
structed Properties
• A property in which most or all of the
fabric is not original.
• A district in which an important re-
sOl/rce or a significant nllmber of re-
sources are reconsJructions.
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration E:
Reconstructed Properties
• A property that is remodeled or reno-
vated arid still has Jhe majority of lis
original fal>rlc.
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION E:
RECONSTRUCTED
PROPERTIES
ACCURACY OF THE
RECONSTRUCTION
The phdse "accurately executed"
means that the reconstruction must be
bas<!d upon sound archeological,
architectural, and his tor/(; data con-
cerning the historic construction and
a ppearance of the resource. That
documentation should include both
analYSis of any above Or below ground
material and research in written and
other records.
SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT
The phrase "suitable environment"
refers to: 1) the physical context
provid<!d by ihe historic district and
2) any interpretive scheme, if the
historic district is used for interpretive
purposes. This mellns .thal the
reconstruct<!d property must be
located at the Same site as the original.
It must also be situated in its original
grou'ping of buildings, structures, and
objects <as many as are extant), and
that grouping must retain integrity.
In addition, the reconstruction must
not be misrepresented as an authentic
historic property.
Eligible
• A reconstruct<!d plantation
manager's office building is
considered eligible because it
is located at its historic site,
grouped with the remaining
historic plantation buildings
and structures, and the planta-
tion as a whole retains integ-
rity. Interpretation of the
plantation district includes an
. explanation that the manager's
office is notlhe original build-
ing, but a reconstruction.
Not Eligible
• The same reconstructed plan-
tation manager'S office build-
ing would not qualify if it
were rebuilt at a location dif-
ferent from that of the original
building, or if the district as"
whole no longer reflect<!d the
period for which it is signifi-
cant, or if a misleading inter-
pretive scheme were us<!d for
the district or lor the reCOn-
struction itself.
37
RESTQRA TION MASTER
PLANS
Being presented "as part of a
restoration master plan" means that:
1) a reconstructed property is an
essential component in a historic
district and 2) the reconstruction is
part of an overall restoration plan for
an: entire district. "Restoration" is
defined as accurately recovering the
fonnand details of a property and its
setting as it appeared at a particular
period by removing later work or by
replacing missing earlier work <as
opposed to completely rebuilding the
properly). The master plan for the
entire property must emphasize
restoration, not reconstruction. In
other words, the master plan for the
entire resource would not be accept-
able under this conSideration If it
calle<;\ for reconstruction of a majority
of the resource.
Eligible
• A reconstructed plantation
rna nager's office is eligible if
the office were an Important
component of the plantation
and if the reconstruction is one
element in an overall plan for
restoring the plantation and if'
no other building or structure
with the same associations has
survived .
• The reconstruction of the plan-
tation managers office build-
ing can be eligible only if the
majority of buildings, struc-
tures, and objects that com-
prised the plantation ar,e ex-
tant and are being restored.
For guidance regarding resto-
ration see the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Historic
Preservation Projects.
~' .. --------
38
LAST SURVIVING
PROPERTY OF A TYPE
This consideration also stipulates
that a reconstruction can qualify if, in
addition to the other requu:ements, no
other building, object, or structure
with the same association has sur-
vived. A reconstruction that is part of
a restoration master plan is appropri-
ate only if: 1) the property is the only
one in the district with which a
particular important activity or event
has been historically associated or
2) no other property with"the same
associative values has survived.
RECONSTRUCtIONS
OLDER THAN FIFTY YEARS
After the passage of fifty years, a
reconstruction may attain its own
significance for what it reveals about
the period in which it was built, "
rather than the historic period it was
intended to depict. On that basis, a
reconstruction can possibly qualify
under any of the Criteria.
\
\
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F:
COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES
A property primarily commemorative in intent can be eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested
it with its own historical Significance.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION F:
COMMEMORATIVE
PROPERTIES
Commemorative properties are
designed or constructed after the
OCcurrence of an important historic
event or after the life of an important
person. They are not directly associ-
ated with the event or with the
person's productive life, but serve as
evidence of a later generation's assessw
ment of t he past. Their significance
comes from their value as cultural
expressions at the date of their cre-
ation. Therefore, a commemorative
property generally must be over fifty
years old and must possess signifi-
cance based on its own value, not on
the value of the event or person being
memorialized.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria ConsiderMio" F:
Conmremora tive Properties
• A property whose sole or primary
fUllction is commemorative or in
whiciJ the commemorative function
is of primary significance.
Examples of Properties tlwt DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
F: Commemorative Properties
• A resotlrce IIwl ',as a nOIl-
comlllenroralive primary function
or significance.
• A single marker that is a component
of a district (wlrether contribltting or
/lo/l-con f ribut i IIg).
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION F:
COMMEMORATIVE
PROPERTIES
ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN
A commemorative property derives
its design from the aesthetic values of
the period of its creation. A com-
memorative property, therefore, may
be significant for the architectural,
artistic, or other design qualities of its
own period in prehistory or history.
Eligible
• A commemorative statue situ-
ated in a park Or square is eli-
gible if it expresses the aesthet-
ics or craftsmanship of the pe-
riod when it was made, meet-
ing Criterion C.
• A late 19th century sta tue
erected on a courthouse square
to commemorate Civil War vet-
erans would qualify if it reflects
that era's shared perception of
the noble character and valor of
the veterans and their cause.
This was commonly conveyed
by portraying idealized soldiers
or allegorical figures of battle,
victory, or sacrifice.
39
ELIGIBILITY FOR AGE,
TRADITION, OR SYMBOLIC
VALUE
A commemorative property cannot
qualify for associa tion with the event
or person it memorializes. A com-
memorative property may, however,
acquire significance after the time of
its creation through age, traditio/!, or
symbolic value. This significance must
be documented by accepted methods
of historical research, including
written or oral history, and must meet
one or more of the Criteria.
40
Eligible
• A commemorative marker
erected by a cultural group
that believed the place was the
site of its origins is eligible if,
for subsequent generations of
the group, the marker itself be-
came the focus of traditional
association with the group's
historic identity.
" A building erected as a monu-
ment to an important histori-
· cal figure will qualify if
through the passage of time
the property itself has come to
symbolize the value placed
upon the individual and is
, widely recognized as a re-
minder of enduring principles
or contributions valued by the
generation that erected the
monument.
• A commemorative marker
erected early in the settlement
or development of an area wHl
qualify if it is demonstrated
that, because of its relative
great age, the property has
long been a part of the historic
identity of the area.
No! Eligible
• A commemorative marker
erected in the past by a cul-
tural group at the site of an
event in its history would not
be eligible if the marker were
significant only for association
with the event, and it had not
become significant itself
through tradition.
• A building erected as a monu-'
ment to an important, histori-
cal figure would not be eligible
if its only value lay in its asso-
dation with the individual,
and it has not come to symbol-
ize values, ideas, or contribu-
tions valued by the generation
that erected the monument.
• A commemorative marker
erected to memorialize an
event in the community's '
history would not qualify sim-
ply for its associa tion with the
event it memoria1jzed.
INELIGIBILITY AS THE
LAST REPRESENTATIVE OF
AN EVENT OR PERSON
The loss of properties directly
associated with a significant event or
person does not strengthen the case
for consideration of a commemorative
property. Unlike birthplaces and
graves, a commemora tive property
usually has no direct historic associa-
lion. The commemorative property
can qualify for historic association
only if it is clearly significant in its
own right, as stipulated above.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONG:
PROPERTIES THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE
WITHIN THE LAST FIFil'y YEARS9
A property achieving significance within the last fifty years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
G: PROPERTIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
. SIGNIFICANCE
WITHIN THE LAST
FIFTY YEARS
The National Register Criteria for
Evaluation exclude properties that
achieved Significance within the last
fifty years unless they are of excep-
tional importance. Fifty years is a
general estimate of the time needed to
develop historical perspective and to
evaluate significance. This consider-
ation guards against the listing of
properties of passing contemporary
interest and ensures that the National
Register is a list of truly historic
places.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration G: Prop-
erties that Have Achieved Signifi-
cance Within the Last Fifty Years
• A property that is less than fifty
years old.
• A property that continues to achieve
significance into a period less than
fifty y,,,,rs before the nomination,
• A property that has non-contiguous
Periods of Significance. one of which
is less than fifty years before the
nomination.
• A property t hI! t is more than fifty
years old and had no significance
until II period less than fifty years
before the nom ina tion,
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Critena Consideration
G: Properties that Have Achieved
Significance Within the Last Fifty
Years
• A resource whose construction be-
gan over fifty years ago, but the
completion overlaps the fifty year pe-
riod Vy a few years Or less,
• A resource that is significant for its
plan or design. which is over fifty
years old, but the actual completion
of the project overlaps the fifty year
period by a few years.
• A historic district in which a few
properties are newer than fifty years
old, but the majority of properties
and the most important Period Of
Significance are grea ter than fifly
years old,
~ For more Information on Criteria Consideration G. refer to Nait'olUll Rt'gis/u BI/lldi,,: Guidelincs for Ellafuarillg ewd Nrmdrwlillg Properties/hal Haile
Achit'lled S£~tlificalla Withm the Last rip!! Years.
41
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
G: PROPERTIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHIN THE PAST
FIFTY YEARS
ELIGIBILITY FOR
EXCEPTIONAL
IMPORTANCE
The phrase "exceptional impor-
tance" may be applied to the extraor-
dinary importance of an event or to
an entire category of resources so
fragile that survivors of any age are
unusual. Properties listed that had
attained significance in less than fifty
years include: the launch pad at Cape
Canaveral from which men first
trave led to the moon, the home of
nationally prominent playwright
EugeneO'Neill, and the Chrysler
. Building (New York) Significant as the
epitome of the "Style Moderne"
architecture.
Properties less than fiftr years old
tha t qualify as exceptiona because the
entire category of resources is fragile
include a recent example of a tradi-
tional salling canoe in the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, where
because of rapid deterioration of
ma terials, no working Micronesian
canoes exist that are more than twenty
years old. Properties that by their
na tu re can last more than fifty years
cannot be considered exceptionally
important because of the fragility of
the class of resources.
42
The phrase "exceptional impor-
tance" does not require that the
property be of national Significance.
It is a meaSure of a property's impor-
tance within the appropriate historic
context, whether the scale of that
context is local, State, or national.
Eligible
• The General Laundry Building
in New Orleans, one of the few
remaining Art Deco Style
buildings in that city, was
listed in the National Register
when it was forty years old be-
cause of its exceptional impor-
tance as an example of that ar-
chitectural style.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
A property that has achieved
significance within the past fifty years
can be evaluated only when sufficient
historical perspective exists to deter-
mine that the property is exception-
ally important. The necessary per-
spective can be provided by scholarly
research and evaluation, and must
consider both the historic context and
the specific property's role in that
context.
In many communities, properties
such as apartment buildings built in
the 1950s cannot be evaluated because
there is no scholarly research avail-
able to provide an overview of the
nature, role, and impact of that
building type within the context of.
historical and architectural develop-
ments of the 1950s. .
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
RUSTIC ARCHITECfURE
Properties such as structures built
in a rustic style by the National Park
Service during the 19305 and 19405
can be evaluated because a broad
study, National Park Service Rustic
Architecture (1977), provides the
context for evaluating properties of
this type and style, Specific examples
were listed in the National Register
prior to reaching fifty years of age
when documentation concerning the
individual properties established their
significance within the historical and
architectural context of the type and
style.
VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION
HOSPITALS
Hospitals less than fifty years old
that were constructed by the Veterans
Bureau and Veterans Administration
can be evaluated because the collec-
tion of forty-eight facilities buill be-
tween 1920 and 1946 has been ana-
lyzed in a study prepared by the
agency. The study provided a historic
and architectural context for develop-
ment of veteran's Care within which
hospitals could be evaluated. The ex-
ceptional importance of specific indi-
vidual facilities constructed within the
past fifty years could therefore be de-
termined based on their role and their
present integrity.
COMPARISON WITH
RELATED PROPERTIES
In j~stifying exceptional imp or-,
tance, It,lS ne.cessary to identify other
properlJes wlthm the geographical
area that refiect the same significance
or historic associations and to deter-
mine which properties best represent
the historic context in question.
Several properties in the area could
become eligible with the passage of
time, but few will qualify now as
exceptionally important.
POST·WORLD WAR II
PROPERTIES
Properties associated with the post-
World War II era must be identified
and evaluated to determine which
ones in an area could be judged
exceptionally important. For eX-
ample, a publk housing complex may
be eligible as an outstanding expres-
sion of the nation's post-war urban
policy. A military installation could
be judged exceptionally important
because of its contribution to the Cold
War arms race. A church building in
a Southern city may have served as
the pivotal rallying point for the city's
most famous civil rights pro test. A
post-war suburban subdivision may
be the best reflection of contemporary
siting and design tenets in a metro-
politan area. In each case, the nomi-
nation preparer must justify the
excepliollal importance of the property
relative to similar properties in the
community, State, or nation. .
ELIGIBILITY FOR
INFORMA TION POTENTIAL
A property that has achieved
significance within the past fifty years
can qualify under Criterion D only if
it can be· demonstrated that the
information is of exceptional impor-
tance within the appropriate context
and that the property contains data
superior to Or different from those
obtainable from other sources, includ-
ing other cl.llturally relaled sites. An
archeological site less than fifty years
old may be eligible if the former
inhabitants are so poorly documented
that information about their lifeways
is best obtained from examination of
the material remains.
Eligible
• Da ta such as the rate of adop-
tion of modern technological
innovations by rural tenant
farmers in the 1950s may not
be obtainable through inter-
views with living persons but
could be gained by examina-
tion of homesites.
Not Eligible
• A recent arCheological site
such as the remains of a
Navajo sheep corral used in
the 1950s would not be consid-
ered exceptionally significant
for its information potential on
animal husbandry if better in-
formation on the same topic is
available through ethno-
graphic studies or living infor-
mants.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Properties which have achieved
significance within the past fifty years
can be eligible for the National.
Register if they are an integral part of
a district which qualifies for National
Register listing. This is demonstra ted
by docl.lmenting that the property
dates from within the district's
defined Period of Significance and
that it is associated with one Or more
of the district's defined Areas of
Significance.
Properties less than fifty years old
may be an integral part of a district
when there is sufficient perspective to
consider the proper ties as historic.
This is accomplished by demonstrat-
ing that: 1} the district's Period of
Significance is justified as a discrete
period with a defined beginning and
end, 2) the character of the district's
historic resources is dearly defined
and assessed, 3) specific resources in
the district are demonstrated to date
from that discrete era, and 4) the
majority of district properties are over
fifty years old. In these instances, it is
not necessary to prove exceptional
importance of either the district itself
or the less-than-fHty-year-old proper-
ties. Exceptional importance still
must be demonstrated for district
where the majority of properties or
the major Period of Significance is less
than fifty years old, and for less-than-
fifty-year-old properties which are
nominated individually.
PROPERTIES MORE THAN
FIFTY YEARS IN AGE, LESS
THAN FIFTY YEARS IN
SIGNIFICANCE
Properties that are more than fifty
years old, but whose significant
associations or qualities are less than
fifty years old, must be treated under
the fifty year consideration.
Eligible
• A building constructed early
in the twentieth century (and
having no architectural impor-
tance), but that Was associated
with an important person
during the 19505, must be
evaluated under Criteria Con-
sideration G because the Pe-
riod of Significance is within
the past fifty yea rs. Such a
property would qualify if the
person was of exceptional im-
portance.
'i' L-~ ______________ __
REQUIREMENT TO MEET
THE CRITERIA~
REGARDLESS OF AGE
Properties that are less than fifty
years old and are not exceptionally
important will 1101 au toma tica lIy
qualify for the National Register once
they are fifty years old. In order to be
listed in the National Register, all
properties, regardless of age, must be
demonstrated to meet the Cri teria for
Evaluation.
43
VIII. HOW TO EVALUATE THE
INTEGRITY OF A PROPERTY
INTRODUCTION
Integrity is the ability of a prop-
erty to convey its significance. To be
listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, a property must not
only be shown to be significant under
the National Register criteria, but it
a Iso must have integrity. The evalua-
tion of integrity is sometimes a
subjective judgment. but it must
always be grounded in an under-
standing ofa property's physical
features and how they relate to its
significance.
Historic properties either retain
integrity (this is, convey their signifi-
cance) or they do not. Within the
concept of integrity, the National
Register criteria recognizes seven
aspects or qualities that, in various
combinations, define integrity. ,
To retain historic integrity a
property will always possess several,
and usually most, of the aspects. The
retention of specific aspects of integ-
rity is paramount for a property to
convey its significance. Determining
which of these aspects are most
important to a particular property
requires knowing why, where, and
when the property is significant. The
following sections define the seven
aspects and explain how they com-
bine to produce integrity.
44
$EVEN ASPECTS OF
INTEGRITY
• Location
• Design
• Setting
• Materials
• Workmanship
• Feeling
• Association
UNDERSTANDING
THE ASPECTS OF
INTEGRITY
LOCATION
Location is the place where the
historic property was constructed Or
the place where the historic event
occurred. The relationship between
the property and its location is often
important to understanding why the
property was created or why some-
thing happened, The actual location
of a historic property, complemented
by its setting, is particularly important
in recapturing the sense of historic
events and persons. Except in rare
cases, the relationship between a
property and its historic associations
is destroyed if the property is moved.
(See Criteria Consideration B in Part
VII: How to Apply Ille Criteria Consider-
aliotls, for the conditions under which
a moved property can be eligible.)
DESIGN
Design. is the combination of
elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a
property. It results from conscious
decisions mflde during the original
conception and planning of a prop-
erty (or its Significant alteration) and
a pplies to activities as diverse as
community planning, engineering,
architecture, and landscape architec-
ture. Design includes such elements
as organization of space, proportion,
scale, technology, ornamentation, and
materials.
A property's design reflects historic
Eu nctions and technologies as well as
aesthetics. It includes such consider-
ations as the structural system;
massing; arrangement of spaces;
pattern of fenestration; textures and
colors of surface materia 15; type,
amount, and style of ornamental
detailing; and arrangement and type
of plantings in a designed landscape.
Design can also apply to districts,
whether they are important primarily
for historic association, architectural
value, information potential, or a
combination thereof. For districts
significant primarily for historic
association or architectural value,
design concerns more than just the
individual buildings or structures
located within the boundaries. It also
applies to the way in which buildings,
sites, or structures are related: for
example, spatial relationships be-
tween major features; visual rhythms
in a streetscape or landscape
plantings; the layout and materials of
walkways and roads; and the relation-
ship of other features, such as statues,
water fountains, and archeological
sites.
\
SETTING
Setting is the physical environ-
ment of a historic property. Whereas
loeation refers to the specific place
w here a property was built or an event
occurred, setting refers to the clraracler
of the place in which the property
played its historical role. It involves
how, nol just where, the property is
situated and its relationship to sur-
rounding features and open space.
Setting often reflects the basic
physical conditions under which a
property WaS built and the functions it
was intended to serve. In addition,
the way in which a property is posi-
tioned in its environment can reflect
the.designer's concept of nature and
aesthetic preferences.
The physical features that constitute
the set ting of a historic property can
be either natural or manmade, includ-
ing such elements as:
• Topographic features (a gorge or
the crest of a hill);
• Vegetation;
• Simple manmade features (paths
or fences); and
• Relationships between buildings
and other features or open space.
These features and their relation-
ships should be examined not only
within the exact boundaries of the
property, but also between the prop-
erty and its surroundings. This is
particularly important for districts.
MATERIALS
Materials are the physical ele-
ments that were combined or depos-
ited during a particular period of
time and in a particular pattern Or
configuration to form a historic
property. The choice and combination
of materials reveal the preferences of
those who created the property and
indicate the availability of particular
types of materials and technologies.
Indigenous materials are often the
focus of regional building traditions
and thereby help define an area's
sense of time and place.
A property must retain the key
exterior materials dating from the
period of its historic Significance. If
the properly has been rehabilitated,
the historic materials and significant
features must have been preserved.
The property must also be an actual
historic resource, not a recreationi it
recent structure fabricated to look
historic is not eligible. Likewise, a
property whose historic fea tures and
materials have been lost and then
reconstructed is usually not eligible.
(See Criteria Consideration E in Pari
V/l: How 10 Apply lite Criteria Consider-
atiolls for the conditions under which.
a reconstructed property Can be
eligible.)
WORKMANSHIP
Workmanship is the physical
evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory. It is
the evidence of artisans' labor and
skill in constructing or altering a
building, structure, object, or site.
Workmanship can apply to the
property as a whole or to Its indi-
vidual components. It can be ex-
pressed in vernacular methods of
construction and plain finishes or in
highly sophisticated configurations
and ornamental detailing. It can be
based On common traditions or
innovative period techniques.
Workmanship is important because
it can furnish evidence of the technol-
ogy of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic
principles of a historic or prehistoric
period, and reveal individual, local,
regional, or national applications of
both technological practices and
aesthetic principles. Examples of
workmanship in historic buildings
indude tooling, carving, painting,
graining, turning, and jOinery. Ex-
amples of workmanship in prehistoric
contexts include Paleo-Indian clovis
prOjectile points; Archaic period
beveled adzes; Hopewellian birdstone
pipes; copper earspools and worked
bone pendants; and lroquoian effigy
pipes.
FEELING
Feeling is a property's expression
of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular period of time. It results
from the presence of physical features
that, taken together, convey the
property's historic character. For
example, a tural historic district
retaining original design, materials,
workmanship, and setting will relate
the feeling of agricultural life in the
19th century. A grouping of prehis-
toric petroglyphs, unmarred by
graffiti and intrusions and located On
its original isolated bluff, can evoke a
sense of tribal spiritual life.
ASSOCIATION
Association is the direct link'
between an important historic event
or person and a historic property. A
property retains association if it is the
place where the event or activity
occurred and is sllfficiently intact to
convey that relationship to an ob-
server. Like feeling, association
requires the presence of physical
features that convey a property's
historic character. For example, a
Revolutionary War battlefield whose
natural and manmade elements have
remained intact since the 1 St h century
will retain its quality of association
with the battle.
Because feeling and association
depend on individual perceptions,
their retention a/olle is never suffiCient
to support eligibility of a property for
the National Register.
ASSESSING
INTEGRITY IN
PROPERTIES
Integrity is based on Significance:
why, where, and when a property is
important. Only after significance is
fully established Can you proceed to
the issue of integrity.
The steps in assessing integrity are:
• Define the essential physical fea-
tures that must be present for a
property to represent its signifi-
cance.
• Determine whether the essential
physical features are visible
enough to convey their signifi-
cance.
• Determine whether the property
needs to be compared with simi-
lar properties. And,
• Determine, based on the signifi-
cance and essential physical fea-
tures, which aspects of integrity
are particularly vital to the prop-
erty being nominated and if they
are present.
Ultimately, the question of integ-
rity is answered by whether or not the
property retains the identity for
which it is significant.
45
DEFINING THE ESSENTIAL
PHYSICAL FEATURES
All properties change over time. It
is not necessary for a property to
retain all its historic physical fealures
or characteristics. The property must
retain, however, the essential physical
features that enable it to convey its
historic identity. The essential
physical features are those features
that define both why a property is
significant (A pplicable Criteria and
Areas of Significance) and whell it was
significant (Periods of Significance).
They are the features without which a
property can no longer be identified
as, for instance, a late 19th century
dairy barn or an early 20th century
commercial district.
CRITERIA A AND B
A property that is significant fOr its
historic association is eligible if it
retains the essential physical features
that made up its character or appear-
ance during the period of its associa-
lion with the important event, histori-
cal pattern, or person(s). If the
property is a site (such as a treaty site)
where there are no material cultural
remains, the setting must be intact.
Archeological sites eligible under
Criteria A and B must be in overall
good condition with excellent preser-
vation of features, artifacts, and
spatial relationships to the extent that
these remains are able to convey
important associations with events or
persons.
CRITERIONC
A property important for ill ustrat-
ing a particular architectural style or
construction technique must retain
most of the physical features that
constitute that style or technique. A
property that has lost some ~i~tork .
materials or detaIls can be ehglble if It
retains the majority of the features
that illustrate its style in terms ofthe
massing, spatial relationships, propor-
tion, pattern of windows and doors,
texture of materials, and ornamenta-
tion. The'property is not eligible,
however, if it retains some basic
features conveying massing but has
lost the majority of the features that
once characterized its style.
Archeological sites eligible under
Criterion C must be in overall good
condition with excellent preservation
46
of features, artifacts, and spatial
relationships to the extent that these
remains are able to illustrate a site
type, time period, method of construc-
tion, or work of a master.
CRITERIOND
For properties eligible under
Criterion D, including archeological
sites and standing structures studied
for their information potential, less
attention is given to their overall
condition,than it they were being
considered under Criteria A, B, or C.
Archeological sites, in particular, do
not exist today exactl y as they were
formed. There are always cultural
and natural processes that alter the
deposited materials and their spatial
relationships.
For properties eligible under
Criterion D, integrity is based upon
the property's potential to yield
specific data that addresses important.
research questions, such as those
identified in the historic context
documentation in the Statewide
Comprehensive Preserv~tion PI~n or
in the rese~rch design for projects
meeting the Seeretory.of the Illterior's
StOl1d.rd, for tlrc/le%gieai Doclllllell/o"
lion.
INTERIORS
Some historic build'ings ~re virtu-
ally defined by their exteriors; and
their contribution to the built environ-
ment can be appreciated even'if their
interiors are not accessible. Examples
of this would include e~rly examples
of steel-framed skyscraper construc-
tion. The great advance in American
technology and engineering made by
these buildings can be read from the
outside. The change in American
popular taste during the 19th century,
from the symmetry and simplicit~ of
architectural styles based on claSSIcal
precedents, to the expressions of High
Victorian styles, with .their combma-
tion of textures, colors, and asym-
metrical forms, is readily apparent
from the exteriors of these buildings.
Other buildings "are" interiors.
The Cleveland Arcade, that soaring
19th century glass-covered shopping
area, can only be appreciated from the
inside. Other buildings in this
category would be the great covered
train sheds of the 19th century.
In some cases the loss of an interior
will disqualify properties from listing
in the National Register-a historic
concert hall noted for the beauty of its
auditorium and its fine acoustic
qualities would be the type of prop-
erty that if it were to lose its interior,
it would lose its value as a historic
resource. In other cases, the over-
arching significance of a property's
exterior can overcome the adverse
effect of the loss of an interior.
In borderline cases particular
attention is paid to the significance of
the property and the remaining
historic fe~tures.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS
For a district to retain integrity as a
whole, the m~jority of the compo;
nents that make up the district's
historic character must possess
integrity even if they Ille individually
undistinguished. In addition, the
relationships among the district's
components must be substantially
unchanged since the period of signifi-
Cance.
When evaluating the impact of
intrusions upon the district's integ-
rity, take into consideration the
relative number} size, scale, design,
and location of the components that
do ,not contribute to the significance.
A district is not eligible if it contains
so many alterations or new intrusions
that it no longer conveys the sense of
a historic environment.
A component of a district cannot
contribute to the significance if:
• it has been substantially altered
since the period of the district's
significance or
• it does not share the historic asso-
ciations of the district.
VISIBILITY OF PHYSICAL
FEATURES
Properties eligible under Criteria
A, B, and C must not only retain their
essential physical features, but the
features must be visible enough to
convey their significance. This means
that even if a property is physically
intact, its integrity is questionable if
its significant features are concealed
under modern construction. Archeo-
logical properties are often the
exception to this; by nature they
usually do not require visible features .
to convey their significance. .. \ .
NON-HISTORIC EXTERIORS
If the historic exterior building
material is covered by non-historic
material (such as modern siding), the
property can still be eligible if the
significant form, features, and detail·
ing are not obscured. J( a property's
exterior is covered by a non-historic
false-front or curtain wall, the prop-
erty wit! not qualify under Criteria A,
B, or C, because it does not retain the
visual quality necessary to convey
historiC or architectural significance.
Such a property also cannot be
considered a contributing element in a
historic district, because it does not
add to the distrid's sense of time and
place. If the false front, curtain wall,
or non-historic siding is removed and
the original building materials are
intact, then the property's integrity
can be re-evaluated,
PROPERTY CONTAINED
WITHIN ANOTHER
PROPERTY
Some properties contain an earlier
structure tha t formed the nucleus for
later construction. The exterior
property, if not eligible in its own
right, can qualify on the basis of the
interior property only if the interior
property can yield significant infor-
mation about a specific construction
technique or material, such as
rammed earth or tabby. The interior
property cannot be used as the basis
for eligibility If it has been so altered
that it no longer contains the features
that could provide important infor-
mation, or if the presence of impor-
tant information cannot be demon-
strated.
SUNKEN VESSELS
A sunken vessel can be eligible
under Criterion C as embodying the
distinctive characteristics of a method
of construction if it is structurally
intact. A deteriorated sunken vessel,
no longer structurally intact, can be
eligible under Criterion D if the
remains of either the vessel or its
contents is capable of yielding signifi-
cant information. For further infor-
mation, refer to National Register
Bulletin: Nominating Historic Vessels
and Shipwrecks to the National Regisler
Of Historic Places.
Natural Features
A natural feature that is aSSOciated
with a historic event or trend, such as
a rock formation that served as a trail
marker during westward expansion,
must retain its historic appearance,
unobscured by modern construction
or landfill. Otherwise it is not eli-
gible, even though it remains intact.
COMPARING SIMILAR
PROPERTIES
For some properties, comparison
with similar. properties should be
considered during the evaluation of
integrity. Such comparison may be
important in deciding what physical
features are essential to properties of
that type. In instances where it has
not been determined what physical
features a property mUst possess in
order for it to reflect the significance
of a historic context, comparison with
similar properties should be under-
taken during the evaluation of integ-
rity, This situation arises when
scholarly work has not been done on a
particular property type or when
surviving examples of a property type
are extremely rare. (See Comparing
Related Properties in Part V: HIJW to
Evaluate a Property within its Historic
Context.)
RARE EXAMPLES OF A
PROPERTY TYPE
Comparative information is
particularly im portant to consider
when evaluating the integrity of a
property that is a rare surviving
example of its type, The property
must have the essential physical
features that enable it to convey its
historic character or information. The
rarity and poor condition, however, of
other extant examples of the type may
justify accepting a greater degree of
alteration or fewer features, provided
that enough of the property survives
for it to be a Significant resource.
Eligible.
• A one-room schoolhouse thai
has had all original exterior
siding replaced and a replace-
ment roof that does not exactly
replicate the original roof pro-
file can be eligible if the olher
extant rare examples have re-
ceived an even greater degree
of alteration, such as the sub-
division of the original one-
room plan.
Not Eligible
• A mill site contains informa-
tion on how site pa tterning re-
flects historic functional re-
quirements, but parts of the
site have been destroyed. The
site is not eligible for its infor-
mation potential if a compari-
son of other mill sites reveals
more intact properties with
complete information.
47
DETERMINING THE
RELEVANT ASPECTS OF
INTEGRITY
Each type of property depends on
certain aspects of integrity, more than
others, to express its historic signifi-
cance. Determining which of the
aspects is mostimportant to a particu-
lar property requires an understand-
ing of the property's significance and
its essential physical features.
CRITERIA A AND B
A property important for associa-
tion with an event, historical pattern,
or person(s) ideally might retain some
features of all seven aspects of integ-
rity; location, design, setting, materi-
als, workmanship, feeling, and
association. Integrity of design and
workmanship, however, might not be
as important to the signifiea nee, and
would not be relevan.t if the property
were a site. A basic integrity test for a
property assodated with an important
event or person is whether a historical
contemporary would recognize the
property as it exists today.
For archeological sites that are
eligible under Criteria A and B, the
seven aspects of integrity can be
applied in much the same way as they
are to buildings, structures, or objects.
It is important to note, however, that
the site must ha ve demonstrated its
ability to convey its significance, as
opposed to sites eligible under Crite-
rion D where only the potential to
yield infonnalion is required.
Eligible
A mid-19th century waterpowered
mill important for its association .
with an area's industrial develop-
ment is eligible if;
• it is still on its original site
(Location), and
• the important fealures of its
setting are intact (Setting), and
• it retains most of its historic
materials (Materials), and
• it has the basic features expres-
sive of its design and function,
such as configuration.. propor-
tions, and window pattern
(Design).
48
Not Eligible
A mid-19th century water-
powered mill important for its
association with an area's indus-
trial development is not eligible
if:
• it has been moved (Location,
Setting, Feeling, and Associa-
tion)"or
• substantial amounts of new
materials have been incorpo-
rated (Materials, Workman-
ship, and Feeling), or
• it no longer retains !xlSIe de-
sign fea tures that convey its
historic appearance or
function (DeSign, Workman-
ship, and Feeling).
CRITERION C
A property significant under
Criterion C must retain those physi-
cal features that characterize the type,
period, or method of construction that
the property represents. Retention of
design, workmanship, and materials
will usually be mbre important than
location, setting, feeling, and associa-
tion. Location and setting will be
important, however, for those proper-
ties whose design is a reflection of
their immediate environment (such as
designed landscapes and bridges).
For archeological sites that are
eligible under Criterion C, the seven
aspects of integrity can be applied in
much the same way as they are to
buildings, structures, or objects. It is
important to note, however, tha t the
site must have demonstrated its ability
to convey its significance, as opposed'
to sites eligible under Criterion D
where only the pote"tial to yield
information is required.
Eligible
A 19th century wooden covered
bridge, im~ortant for illustrating
a constructlon type, is eligible if;
• the essential features of its de-
sign are intact, such as abut-
ments, piers, roof configura-
tion, and trusses (Design,
Workmanship, and Feeling),
and
• most of the historic materials
are present (Materials, Work-
manship, and Feeling), and
• evidence of the craft of
wooden bridge technology re-
mains, such as the form and
assembly technique of the
trusses (Workmanship).
• Since the design of a bridge re-
lates directly to. its function as
a transportation crossing, it is
also important that the bridge
still be situated over a water-
way (Setting, Location, Feel-
ing, and Association).
Not Eligible
For a 19th century wooden cov-
ered bridge, important for its
construction type, replacement
of some materials of the flooring,
Siding, and roofing would not
necessarily damage its integrity.
Integrity would be lost, however,
if:
• the abutments, piers, or trusses
were substantially altered (De-
Sign, Workmanship, and Feel-
ing) or
• considerable amounts of new
materials were incorporated
(Materials, Workmanship,
and Feeling).
• Because environment is a
strong factor in the design of
this property type, the bridge
. would also be ineligible if it no
longer stood in a place that
conveyed its function as a
crOSSing (Setting, Location,
Feeling, and Association).
CRITERION D
For properties eligible under
Criterion D, setting and feeling may
not h"ve direct bearing on the
property's ability to yield important
inform<ttion. Evaluation of integrity
probably will focus primarily on the
location, design, materials, and
perhaps workmanship . .
Eligible
A multicomponent prehistoric
site important for yielding data
on changing subsistence pdtterns
can be eligible if:
• floral or faunal remains are
found in dear association with
cuHural rna terial (Materials
and Association) and
• the site exhibits stratigraphic
separation of cultural compo-
nents (Location).
Not Eligible
A multicomponent prehistoric
site important for yielding data
on changing subsistence patterns
would not be eligible if:
• floral Or faunal remains were
so badly decomposed as to
make identification impossible
(Materials), or
• floral or faunal remains were
disturbed in such a manner as
to make their association with
cultural remains ambiguous
(Association), or
• the site has lost its strati-
graphiC context due to subse-
quent la nd alterations
( Location).
i
Eligible
A lithic sea tter site important for
yielding data on lithic technology
during the Late Archaic period
can be eligible if:
• the site contains lithic
debitage, finished stone tools,
hammers tones, or antler '
flakers (Material ilnd Design),
and
• the site contains datable mate-
rial (Association).
Not Eligible
A lithic scatter site important for
yielding data on lithic technology
during the Late Archaic period
would not be eligible if:
• the site contains naturill de-
posits of lithic materials that
are impossible to distinguish
from culturally modified lithic
material (Design) or
• the site does not contain any
temporal diagnostic evidence
that could link the site to the
Late Archaic period (Associa-
tion).
\
\
49
IX. SUMMARY OF THE
NATIONAL HISTORIC
LANDMARKS CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION
. A property being nominated to the
National Register may also merit
consideration for potential designa-
tion as a National Historic Landmark.
Such consideration is dependent upon
the stringent application of the
following distinct set of criteria
(found in the Code of Federal Regula-
tions, TiIle:36, Pari 65).
NATIONAL
HISTORIC
LANDMARKS
CRITERIA
The qualily of national significance
is ascribed to districts, siles, buildings,
structures, and objects thai possess
exceptional value or quality in illus-
trating or interpreting the heritage of
the United States in history, architec-
ture, archeology, engineering, and
culture and thai possess a high degree
of inlegrity of localion, design,
setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and:
50
1. That are associated with events
. that have made a significant con-
tribution to, and are identified
with, or that outslandingly repre-
sent, the broad national patterns
of United States history and from
which an understanding and ap-
preciation of those patterns may
be gained; or
2. That are associated importantly
with the lives of persons nation-
ally significant in the history of
the United States; or
3. That represent some great idea
or ideal of the American people;
or
4. That embody Ihe dislinguishing
characteristics of an architectural
type specimen exceptionally
valuable for a study of a period,
style or method of construction,
or that represent a significant,
distinctive and exceptional entity
w~ose components may lack in-
dividual distinction; or
5. That are composed of integral
parts of the environment not suf-
ficiently significant by reason of
historical association or artistic
merit to warrant individual rec-
ognition but collectively compose
an entity of exceptional historical
or artistic significance, or out-
standingly commemorate or il-
lustrate a way of life or culture;
or
6. That have yielded or may be
likely to yield information of ma-
jor scientific importance by re-
vealing new cultures, or by shed-
ding light upon periods of occu-
pation over large areas of the
United States. Such sites are
those which have yielded, or
which may reasonably be ex-
pected to yield, dala affecting
theories, concepts and ideas to a
major degree.
NATIONAL
HISTORIC
LANDMARK
EXCLUSIONS
Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces,
graves of historical figures, properties
owned by religiOUS institutions or
used for religious purposes, structures
tha t have been moved from their .
original locations, reconstructed his-
toric buildings and properties that
have achieved significance within the
past fifty years are not eligible for des-
ignation. If such properties fall
within the following categories they
may, nevertheless, be found to
qualify:
1. A religious property deriving its
primary national significance
from architectura I or artistic dis-
tinction or historical importa nee;
or
2. A build ing or structure removed
from its original location but
which is nationally significant
primarily for its architectural
merit, or for. associ a tion with per-
sons or events of transcendent
importance in the nation's his-
tory and the association conse-
quential; or
3. A site of a building or structure
no longer slanding but the per-
son or event associa ted with it is
of transcendent importance in the
nalions's history and the associa-
tion consequential; or
4, A birthplace, g~a ve or burial if it
is of a historical figure of tran·
scendent national significance
and no other appropriate site,
building, or structure directly as·
sociated with the productive life
of t hat person exists; Or
5, A cemetery that derives its pri·
mary national significance from
gr" VI'S of persons of transcendent
im portance, Or from an exception·
ally distinctive design or an ex-
ceptionally significant event; or
6, A reconstructed building or en-
semble of buildings of extraordi-
nary national significance when
accurately executed in a suitable
en vironment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a res-
toration master plan, and when
no other buildings or structures
wi th the same association have
s ut."vived; or
7, A property primarily commemo-
rative in intent if design, age, tra·
dition, or symbolic value has in·
vested it with its own national
historical significance; or
8. A property achieving national
significance within the past 50
years if it is of extraordinary na·
tional importance,
COMPARING THE
NATIONAL
HISTORIC
LANDMARKS
CRITERIA AND THE
NATIONAL
REGISTER
CRITERIA
ln general, the instructions for
preparing a National Register nomina-
tion and the guidelines stated in this
bulletin for applying the National
Register Criteria also apply to Land-
mark nominations and the use of the
Landmark criteria. While there are
specific distinctions discussed below,
ParIs IV and Vof this bulletin apply
equally to National Register listings
and Landmark nominations, That is,
the categories of historic properties are
defined the same way; historic con-
texts are identified Similarly; and
comparative evaluation is carried out
on the same principles enumerated in
Pari V.
ihere are Some differences between
National Register and National
Historic Landmarks Criteria, The
following is an explanation of how
each Landmark Criterion compares
with its National Register Criteria
counterpart:
CRITERION 1
This Criterion relates to National
Register Criterion A. Both cover
properties associated with events,
The Landmark Criterion, however,
requires that the events associated
with the property be OUlstandingly
represented by that property and that
the property be related to the broad
national patterns of U.S. history.
Thus, the quality of the property to
convey and interpret its meaning
must be of a higher order and must
relate to national themes rather than
the narrower context of State Or local
themes,
CRITERION 2
Tl1is Criterion relates to National
Register Criterion B, Both cover
properties associated with Significant
people, The Landmark Criterion
differs in that it specifies that the
association of "a person to the property
in question be an important one and
that the person assodated with the
property be of ,mliona! Significance.
CRITERION 3
This Criterion has no counterpart
among the National Register Criteria.
It is rarely, if ever, used alone, While
not a landmark at present, the Liberty
Bell is an object that might be consid-
ered under this Criterion. The appJi-
cation of this Criterion obviously
requires the most careful scrutiny and
would apply only in rare instances
involving ideas and ideals of the
highest order.
CRITERION 4
This Criterion relates to National
Register Criterion C. Its intent is to
qualify exceptionally important works
of architecture or collective elements
of architecture extraordinarily signifi·
cant as an ensemble, such as a historic
district. Note that the language is
more restrictive than that of the
National Register Criterion in requir-
ing that a candidate in architecture be
"a specimen exceptionally valuable for
the study of a period, style, or method
of construction" rather than simply
embodying distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of con.
struction, With regard to historic
districts, the Landmarks Criterion
requires an entity that is distinctiVe
and exceptional. Unlike National
Register Criterion C, Ihis Criterion will
not qualify the works of a master, per
so, but only such works which are
exceptional or extraordinary, Artistic
value is considered only in the context
of history's judgement in order to
avoid current conflicts of taste,
CRITERION 5
This Criterion does not have a strict
counterpart among the National
Register Criteria, It may seem redun-
dant of the latter part of Landmark
Criterion 4, It is meant to cover
collective entities such as Greenfield
Village and historic districts like New
Bedford, Massachusetts, which qualify
for their collective association with a
nationally Significant event, move·
ment, or broad pattern of national
development.
CRITERION 6
The National Register counterpart
of this is Criterion D, Criterion 6 WaS
developed specifically to recognize
archeological sites, All such sites must
address this Criterion, The following
are the qualifications thai distinguish
this Criterion from its National Regis-
ter counterpart: the information
yielded or likely to be yielded must be
of major scientific importance by
revealing new cultures, or by shedding
light upon periods of occupation OVer
large areas of the United States. Such
sites should be expected to yield data
affecting theories, concepts, a'ld ideas to a
major degree,
The data recovered or expected to
be recovered must make a major
contribution to the eXisting corpus of
information. Potentially ,recoverable
data must be likely to revolutionize or
substantially modify a major theme in
history Or prehistory, resolve a sub-
stantial historical or anthropological .
debate, or close a serious gap in a
major theme of U. S, history or prehis-
tory.
51
EXCLUSIONS AND
EXCEPTIONS TO
THE EXCLUSIONS
This section of the National His-
toric Landmarks Criteria has its
counterpart in the National Register's
"Criteria Considerations." The most
abundant difference between them is
the addition. of the qualifiers "na-
tional," I'exceptional," or lIextraordi ..
nary" before the word significance.
Other than this, the following are the
most notable distinctions:
EXCLUSION 2
Buildings moved from their
original location, qualify only if one of
two conditions are met: 1) the build-
ing is nationally Significant for
52
architecture, or 2) the persons or
events with which they are associated
are of transcendent national signifi-
cance and the association is conse-
quential.
Transcendent significance means
an order of importance higher than
that which would ordinarily qualify a
. person or event to be nationally
signifiean t. A consequential associa-
tion is a relationship to II building that
had an ev ident impact on events,
rather than a connection that was
incidental and passing.
EXCLUSION 3
This pertains to the site of a struc-
ture no longer standing. There is no
counterpart to this exclusion in the
National Register Criteria.' In order
for such a property to qualify for
Landmark designation it must meet
the second condition cited for Exclu-
sion 2.
EXCLUSION 4
This exclusion relates to Criteria
Consideration C of the National
Register Criteria. The only difference
is that a burial place qualifies for
Landmark designation only if, in
addition to other factors,. the person
buried is of transcenden t na tional
importance.
When evaluating properties at the
national level for designation as a
National HistoriC Landmark, please
refer to the National Historic Land-
marks outline, History and Prehistory
in the National Park System and the
National Historic Landmarks Program,
1987. (For more information about
the National Historic Landmarks
program, please write to Department
of the' Interior, NaHonal Park Service,
National Historic Landmarks, 1849 C
Street, NW, NC400', WaShington, DC
20240.)
\
x. GLOSSARY
Associative Qualities -An aspect of a
property's history that links it with
historic events, actjvities~ or
persons.
Code of Federal Regulations-
Commonly referred to as "CFR."
The part containing the National
Register Criteria is usually referred
to a536 CPR 60, and is available
from the National Park Service.
etC -Certified Local Government.
Culture -A group of people linked
together by shared values, beliefs,
and historical associations, together
with the group's social institutions
and physical objects necessary to
the operation of the institution.
Cullural Resource -See Historic
Resource.
Evaluation -Process by which the
significance and integrity 01 a
historic property are judged and
eligibility for Na tiona I Register
listing is determined.
Historic Context -An organizing
structure for interpreting history
that groups information about
historic properties that share a
common theme, common geo-
graphical area, and a common time
period. The development of
historic contexts is a foundation for
decisions about the planning,
identification, evaluation, registra-
tion, and treatment of historic
properties, based upon compara-
tive historic significance.
Historic Integrity -The unimpaired
a bility of a property to convey its
historical Significance.
Historic Property -See Historic
Resource.
Historic Resource -Building, site,
districi, Object, or structure evalu-
ated as historically significant.
Identification -Process through
which information is gathered
about historic properties.
Listing -Ti,e formal entry of a prop-
erty in the National Register of .
Historic Places. See also, Registra-
tion.
Nomination -Official recommenda-
tion for listing a property in the
National Register of Historic
Places.
Property Type - A grouping of .
properties defined by common
physical and associative a\tributes.
negistration -Process by which a
historic property is documented
and nominated or determined
eligible for listing in the National
Register.
nesearch Design - A statement of
proposed identifica tion, documen-
tation, investigation, or other
treatment of a historic property
that identifies the project's goals,
methods and techniques, expected
resuits, and the relationship 01 the
expected results to other proposed
activities or treatments.
XI. LIST OF NATIONAL
REGISTER BULLETINS
The Basics
How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation'
Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form
Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form •
Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form *
Researching a Historic Property'
Property Types
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation'
Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields'
Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties
Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Plares
How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes'
Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites
How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices *
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Assodated with Significant Persons
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years •
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes'
Guidelines for Evaluaiing and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties'
Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places
Technical Assistance
Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties'
Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning'
How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nomina tions
National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation' " .
Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites
To order these publications, write to; National Register of Historic Places, National Park Servi<:e, 1849 est., NC 400, NW ( Washington, D,C, 20240, or
e-mail at: ncreference@nps,gov, Publications marked with an asterisk {Of) are also available in e\e(!tronic form at www.cr.nps.gov/nr.
54 US Govf::RNM£NT PRINTING OFFICE: 2005--1i7-7S8
Attachment D
ITATE SF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNO,D SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
::lFFlceOF.HISTORIC PRESERVATION
lEPAR'tMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
). BOX 9428911
,CRAMeNTO, CA 94296·0001
9H') 1153-6624 F",,: (916) 563·9824
;alshpO@lOhp.plItks.ca.gov
vww.ohp,parks.ca,golJ
December 14,2009
Kathy Marx
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
l"~\, ;--.
:~('-"
RE: Pillo Alto Medical Clinic Nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places
Dear Ms. Marx:
The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has received a nomination package to consider the
above referenced property for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The
National Register is the official list of the Nation's cultural resources worthy of recognition and
preservation. The nomination identifies you as the property's owner of record.
•
A copy of the nomination is enclosed for your information. OHP will review the nomination for
accuracy and completeness. The current nomination is a preliminary draft subject to change upon
completion of the OHP review. The property will be reviewed In accordance with the eligibility
criteria for the National Register program. If the nomination is complete and the property meets
the National Register criteria, OHP will schedule the nomination for hearing by the State Historical
Resources Commission (Commission). The Commission is a nine member body appointed by the
Governor to evaluate the eligibility of properties for listing on registration programs. The
Commission meets four times a year.
Please review the draft nomination. If you are opposed to the nomination, you are requested to
submit a notarized tetier of objection to the above address. Please see the enclosed instructions
on how to support or oppose designation. If the nomination is presented to the Commission for
hearing, this office will notify you of the date and location of the meeting. The meetings are open
to the public and you may attend to present commEints. Or, you may wish to submit written
comments directly to OHP fifteen days before the Commission meeting.
Time, date, and lcoatlon of scheduled Commission meetings are also posted on the OHP website
at www.ohp.parks.ca.gov. Information on the National Register program is also posted on the
website. .
Please do not hesitate to contact the Registration Unit at (916) 653-6624 should you have further
questions on the nomination or the National Register program.
Sincerely,
~~,~~
Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosures: Nomination and How to ObjectlSupport
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.o. BOX 94~896
SACRAMENTO. CA 94296·0001
(916) 6S 3-6624 Fax: (916) 653'9824
catshpo@ohp.par'ks.ca.gov
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
HOW TO SUPPORT OR OBJECT TO USTING
Arnold Schwarzenegger, i
Under federal law, a privately owned property may not be listed in the National Register
ovar the objection of Its owner or, in the case of a property with multiple owners, over
• tI:le objection of a majority of owners. A district may not be listed in the National Register
over the objection of a majority of owners of private property within the proposed district.
Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless of what part of
the property that person owns; Within a district, each owner has one vote regardless of
how many buildings he or she oWns.
If a majority of private property owners should object, the property or district will not be
listed. Howevar, in such cases, the State Historic Preservation Officer Is required to
submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a determination of
ellglbHlty for the National Register. If the property or district is determined eligible for
listing, although not formally listed, it will be given the same protection as a listed.
property in the federal environmental review process. A property determined eligible for
listing is not eligible for federal tax benefits until the objections are withdrawn and the
property is actually listed. The laws and regulations regarding this process are covered
In the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and In 36 CFR (Code of
Federal Regulations), Part 60.
Supporting a National Register Nomination:
Private owners who seek National Register listing for their properties are not required to
submit statements of concurrence. However, letters of support, from owners or any
others, are welcomed and become a permanent part of the nomination file.
Objecting to a National Register Nomination:
If you object to the listing of your property, you will need to submit a notarized statement
certifying that you are the -sole or partial owner of the property, as appropriate, and that
you object to the listing. Owners who wish to object are encouraged to submit
statements of objection prior to the meeting of the State Historical Resources
Commission at which the nomination is being considered. However, statements of
objection may be submitted and will be counted up until the actual date of listing. Listing
usually takes place 45 days after the nomination is mailed to the Keeper of the National
Register follOWing the State Historical Resources Commission meeting.
Send letters of support or objection to:
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Revl,ed March 8, 2006
::>FFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
::lEPARTMENTOF PARKS AND RECREATION
',0, QI"'\X 942896
'ill: :NTO. CA 94296·0001
91 VI , .. 3-6624 Fax: {916} 653·9824
alshpo@ohp.parks,ca.goV'
February 24.2010
Dennis Backlund
Planning Department
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303-0862
RE: Historic Preservation Commission Review and Comment on the Nomination of
Palo Alto Medical Clinic to the National Register of Historic Places
. Dear Mr. Backlund:
Pursuant to the Certified Local Government Agreement between the Office of Historic Preservation
(OHP) and your governmental entity, we are providing your historic preservation commission with a
sixty (60) day review and comment period before the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC)
takes action on the above-stated National Register of Historic Places (National Register) nomination
at its next meeting. Details on the meeting are enclosed.
As a Certified Local Government under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
your commission may prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its opinion, meets the
criteria for the National Register. Your commission's report should be presented to the Chief Elected
Local Official for transmission, along with their comments, to California State Parks, Attn: Office of
Historic Preservation, Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, State Historic Preservation Officer, P.O. Box
94286, Sacramento, California 94296-0001. So that the SHRC may have adequate time to consider
the comments, it is requested, but not required, that OHP receives written comments fifteen (15) days.
before the SHRC's meeting. If you have questions or require further information, please contact the
Registration Unit at (916) 653-6624. .
As of January 1. 1993, all National Register properties are automatically included in the California
Register of Historical Resources and afforded consideration in accordance with state and local
environmental review procedures.
Supplemental information on the National Register is available at our website at the following
address: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov.
Milford Wayne Donal son, FAIA
State Historic Prese ation Officer
Enclosures: Nomination, Meeting Notice
NR_ClG Commission_Finatdoc
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
",.. BOX 94,896
'<AMENTO, CA 94296·0001
,. ,J) 653-6624 fax: (916) 653·9824
<:arsnpo@pad;s.(a.gov
February 24,2010
Kathy Marx
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Arnold
RE: National Register of Historic Places Nomination for Palo Medical Clinic
Dear Ms. Marx:
I am pleased to inform you that the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) intends to
consider and take action on the nomination of the above named property to the National
Register of Historic Places (National Register). Details regarding the meeting are enclosed.
The National Register is the United States' official list of historic properties worthy of
preservation. Listing in the National Register provides recognition and assists in preserving
California's heritage. Listing in the National Register assures review of federal projects that
might adversely affect the character of the historic property, I n addition, as of January 1, 1993,
all National Register properties are now automatically listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources (California Register) and afforded consideration during the State (CEQA)
environmental review process, This includes properties formally determined eligible for the
National Register. Listing in the National Register does not mean that the federal or state
government will attacn restrictive covenants to the property or try to acquire it. Public visitation
rights are not required of owners, National Register listed properties may qualify for state and
federal benefits. Additional information may be found at our website at www.ohp.parks.ca.gov.
You are invited to attend the SHRC meeting at which the nomination will be considered and
acted upon by the SHRC, Written comments regarding the nomination may be submitted to
California State Parks, Attn: Office of Historic PreserVation, Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA,
State Historic Preservation Officer, P.O. Box 94296, Sacramento, California 94296-0001, So
that the $HRC may have adequate time to consider the comments, it is requested, but not
required, that written comments be received by the Office of Historic Preservation fifteen (15)
days in advance of the SHRC's meeting,
An electronic copy of the nomination is available in PDF format on our website at
http://www.ohp.parks.ca.govl?page id=24368, Should you require a hard copy or have
questions, please contact the Registration Unit at (916) 653-6624.
JO LlL
Milford Wayne Dona dson, FAIA
State Historic Prese ation Officer
Enclosure: Mealing Notice, Fact Sheet How to ObjecVSupport
SHPO L TR.doe
STATE OF AGENCY
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P .u. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO, cA 94296~OO01
(916) 853~8824 Fax: {SiS) 65.3~9824
calshpo@parks.ca.gov
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
FOR:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
MEETING NOTICE
State Historical Resources Commission Quarterly Meeting
April 30, 2010
9:00 A.M,
Historic City Hall
Historic Hearin~ Room
915 I Street, 2n Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
This room is accessible to people with disabilities, Questions regarding the meeting
should be directed to the Registration Unit (916) 653-6624
April 13, 2010
Milford Wayne Donaldson
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
P,O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Attachment E
RE: Palo Alto Medical Clinic, Roth Building, 300
National Register of Historic Places Nomination
Dear Mr, Donaldson,
The Palo Alto City Council, acting in the
the ptoperty owner, finds the above nominated
listing on the National Register of Historic Places
Preservation Act of 1966, as amen<fil
Resources Conunission:
1) The property known as the Roth 4atl.Onlll Register under
events important to the
first multi-specialty group
be(:anl~ a model within the healthcare
Criterion A at the its
development of Palo
medical practi(~~
industry . natiorivvic
community ~~1th(:are
local
Clark,
Constructed
remains for the
Victor Arnautoff
primitive medical
Sincerely,
Patrick Burt
Mayor
conunitment to iffilovative
!It\!tt1o'n for the progressive healthcare
i!JIllding is eligible for the National Register at the
~sellta1:ive of the work of a master architect, Birge
autc)U: and as a resource displaying high artistic value.
:lec)tic style, the concrete structure with a terra cotta roof
since constructed in 1932, Exterior frescoes created by
contrasts between modern medical practices of the era and
are of high artistic value to the conununity,
"
I 1= ==::=::::!\
X X
,
/
\Vli'Vu ,'" ,..
APPROX 7.S PI!llTFROM
BU1LDlNO TO LEAse I..JNll
'1,~r.;:r--'~ ,,, .. ,I'PPROXIMA'11l 8,3 FTFROM :J BUlL DING TO l'SASE
park
Attachment F
j/ "
park
• •
/
• •
park
/
~ .' •
ROTH BUILDING i>\JI\Ln; NTS
Attachment E
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MINUTES
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON C',oVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearings
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
REGULAR MEETING -8:00 AM
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 9430 I
I. 300 Homer Avenue (Roth Building): Request by the Department of Planning and
Community Environment on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Historic Resources
Board review and recommendation to the City Council authorizing staff to send a letter of
support for the nomination of the Category 2 Roth Building to the National Register of
Historie Places.
Beth Bunnenberg recused herself.
Steven Tumer, Advance Planning Manager: Good morning, Chair Bower and HRB
members. I'd like to introduce Kathy Marx, Projeet Planner for this project. Kathy is our
CDBG Coordinator for the City, but she also has extensive experience with historie
projects in other jurisdictions and she will be making the staff presentation this morning.
Chair Bower: Welcome, Kathy.
Kathy Marx, Project Planner: Thank you. Good morning, respected Chair and members
of the Board. As you know, in your partieular order you read the Staff recommendation
first, so I want to let you know that Staff recommends the Historic Resource Board
recommend to the City Council support for the nomination of the Roth Building to the
National Register of Historic Places, and authorize Staff to prepare a letter of support to
send from the Mayor to the State Historic Resources Commission prior to the April 30,
20 I 0 meeting date.
With that said, I'd like to give you a brief summary of my Staff report. The first is a
background portion. Staff received a letter on December 17t~ from the Office of Historic
Preservation, and I'm going to use OHP after this time just to make it a little faster,
requesting review of a National Register nomination for the category two building
located at 300 Homer Avenue, and it's known locally as the Roth Building, for historic
significance at the local level. The applicant was the Palo Alto History Museum, and the
City of Palo Alia
I1RB -March 3. 2010
Page J
application was prepared by Garvalia Architecture. The City is the property owner, and
as a certified local government, the HRB is required to recommend to the City Council
either opposition or approval of a National Register Nomination. A letter indicating the
recommendation needs to be sent to the OHP from the chief elected local official, which
would be our Mayor, prior to the schedule of the review, which I've indicated was April
30'". So, we're trying to move forward with that and we will go to Council with either
your approval or lack of support for this nomination.
Two letters have been received to by City Staff after the distribution of your packets.
You all had those sitting at places. Both of those letters are from the OHP. The letter
addressed to Mr. Backlund regards the CLG status of the City, and as a representative of
that certified local government status, that you all need to have a copy of that letter. It
indicates that the HRB may prepare a report as to whether or not the property, in its
opinion, meets the criteria for the National Register. In discussion with Jai Correa, and
he's the Supervisor of the Registration Unit at OHP, I spoke with him about this and he
said really a letter indicating the criterion for approval, if that was the decision of the
HRB, is an adequate report. They really don't need a lengthy report; they already have
the nomination with a lot of detail. So, if the City objects to the nomination, it is
necessary to send a notarized letter of objection. So, that would be the way that would
happen.
Now r d like to just give a brief description of this project. It was a health care clinic, as
far as the building was utilized as a health care clinic. It was the first group medical
praetice in Palo Alto, and it was designed by an architect, who is certainly not only
locally familiar and has a lot of notoriety, but also nationally, and that's Birge Clark. The
date of construction was 1932. The period of significance is important here; it's 1932 to
1999. That represents the building's timeframe in use as a medical clinic, so that's the
timeframe we're discussing in this nomination. Alterations did occur to the actual
structure; in 1947 there was an addition of two wings to the south and rear fayade. There
were also interior renovations to remodel and change things around slightly during all of
the period of significance, and that just reflects an attempt by an operating clinic to
maintain some since of modem layout necessary for that type of use. The rear fayade
was removed in 2003, but it retained the spine of the addition that included the central
corridor, and that portion has been seismically retrofitted and it's been left unfinished
pending a new use for the building.
The areas of significance that are applicable to this nomination is criterion A, and that's
where property associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of history, so that's one thing we need to remember. And criterion C, and
that's a distinctive arehite<.,'tural type, or method of construction, or work of a master, or
possessing high artistic values. So, those are the two criterion that the nomination
includes. So, it's thc task of the HRB, by utilizing the methodology included in the
National Register Bulletin on how to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation of
a historic property to either support or refute the above criteria that I just mentioned.
That bulletin is in your packet as Attachment C.
The following points are points that I gleaned from the nomination (there may be more)
as highlights of this nomination. The first is it was the fIrst multi-specialty group practice
in the community, and it served as a model for health care practices nationwide. It was
City ojPalo Alto
HRB -March 3. 20 J 0
Page 2
highly innovative to have a mUlti-group practice at that time; it was quite controversial
actually. It was a leader in advancing Palo Alto in health care resources, research and
new technology in the practice of medicine, and consequently it really did provide a
foundation for this unbelievably progressive health care network we have in Palo Alto
today. The building is a work of a master architect, Birge Clark. The frescos at the
entrance of the building are the work of a highly recognized aItist, Victor Amautoff, with
very high artistic value in the community, and not duplicated elsewhere in the
community. The building is a Spanish, eclectic style, kind of coined by Mr. Clark. The
interior features, some are still intact in their entirety, some of the examination rooms,
physician's offices, etc. relating to the function of a medical clinic, not all but some. So,
that's certainly positive.
With that, in determining the significance of the property the HRB will look at the criteria
of ho,w to determine a register, and that includes identifying events and people,
architectural design and construction methods that make the property important, and then
the other aspect is determining whether that property actually maintains integrity. That's
to evaluate in a larger context location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feelings,
and association. And if those elemen~ are retained, in order to convey significance, then
that's considered the goal. That concludes my Staff report. I certainly am open to any
questions.
Martin Bernstein: If for some reason this building, through its processing, does not be
placed on the National Register, does that put the building more at risk for any
unapproved changes or demolitions?
Kathy Marx: It is a category two building already here on our register, so it has certainly
an element of review associated with any change t11at would go forward, whether it was
on the register or not. The register just basically, as you all know, gives the propelty, it
deems it its value at a, I don't even want to say a higher level, but certainly a broader
leveL Also, lays a foundation for ooy group to move forward with changes to that
structure, they can receive tax credits, there's certainly benefits to a nomination that are
kind of beyond the scope of just what we all value as the historic presence of that
property.
Chair Bower: Do we have an applicant presentation? I guess you're the applicant. I
meoo we are the applicoot.
Kathy Marx: Actually, this is in the process, the applicaIlt to the Office of Historic
Preservation is the Palo Alto History Building. They brought forward the application. In
this review process the City is basically the applicant, so you're correct.
Chair Bower: I think then that I'd like to hear from the public. We have one person,
Steve Staiger. Will you come up? Please tell us your name when you get there.
Steve Staiger: Steve Staiger. I'm the President of the Palo Alto History Museum. The
one thing I wooted to make clear ood sort of answer [unintelligible] question was one of
the reasons for this application is that it makes the building eligible for investment tax
credits, which will help with the renovation of the building. So it's not so much that it
presents negatively if we don't do it, it's a positive if we do do it. 111ank you.
City oj Palo Alta
HRB -March 3. 2010
Page 3
1
Chair Bower: Can I ask you a question, Steve? Of coU(se walking by the building I
notice there's a sign prominently displayed saying that it's the future home of the Palo
Alto History Museum.
Steve Staiger: Yes.
Chair Bower: So there are plans to develop it for that purpose?
Steve Staiger: Yes. We are working with the architect, we're working attempting to
raise the funds that the City ... we have an option to lease with the City for the building,
and should we, when we raise the sufficient amount of funds, presumably that will
change into an option, I mean a lease, and then we will then go forward with making it
Palo Alto's History Museum.
Chair Bower: Thank you. So do you have a timetable for that, even though it's not firm,
when you'll move forward with the constructipn or reconstruction?
Steve Staiger: It's all contingent upon when we raise the funds, and it's not the greatest
time of the century or the decade to try to do that, but we're working hard on that and
we're over halfway there, but we're not all the way there.
Chair Bower: Thank you. I don't have any other public questions. Michael, you have a
question?
Michael Makinen: The only question I have is really not a question, but when you camc
up with the period significance 1932 to 1999, was it any rationale you can give for that?
I guess I was looking at the period of significance might be associated when the original
was still intact, 1932 to 1946. The wings were added in 1947 and then removed in 2003.
Just a little of yoU( thought process when you came up with the period of significance.
Kathv Marx: I understand your question and that's a thoughtful question. The 1932 to
1999 obviously is the use of the building as a medical clinic. So, that would address one
of the criterion that talks about the use. So it's not talking about the architecture, it's
talking about the use and its significance to the community. Though obviously the other
criterion does talk about, which is C, criterion C, does talk about the architecture. So we
have kind of two separate criterion and I can't really speak on behalf of the architects that
produced this nomination, but I believe they were trying to look at the significance of not
just the structure but the overall use and integrity of that use to this community, and so
consequently chose the broader date. Concluding 1999 was when it no longer functioned
as a medical clinic and was closed.
Michael Makinen: For criterion C you have like one year of significance, 1932, rather
than a continual.
Kathy Marx: No, the period of significance is 1932 to 1999; that is the period of
significance.
Michael Makinen: Then I look at the second line and it says C 1932.
Kathy Marx: Oh, okay, let me take a look.
City of Palo Alto
HRB -March 3, 20 iO
Page 4
Michael Makinen: Look at the nomination form.
Chair Bower: That's Attachment B. Is that what you're looking at?
Kathy Marx: Oh, I do see what you'rc saying. Yes, you are correct.
Michael Makinen: I would think: it would be a period of time whatever you ...
Kathy Marx: Rather than a date. You have the discretion to ask for modifications to this
nomination. Is that a suggestion?
Michael Makinen: That's a suggestion.
Kathy Marx: So you'd like to sec 1932 to 1946 or 417
Michael Makinen: That would be a personal suggestion, but it's up to the board.
Kathy Marx: Okay.
Roger Kohler: The present building is the 1932 building plus a portion of the 1947
addition. The two wings ... if you think: of the original building as beirlg a U and then the
1947 was another U with the two bottom parts put together, one upside down from the
other, then the two legs of the second addition, the '47 addition, were removed but the
spine from '47 remains there as part of the building today. So you really want to include
that; that's part of what's trying to be protected.
Chair Bower: Any other discussion while we're in open, before we close the hearing? I
don't see any, so let's close the public hearing and then let's have a discussion by the
board members. Natalie?
Natalie Loukianoff, Vice-Chair: . Just addressing the comment about period of
significance, I actually think: we should leave it as it is. The majority of this is really
focusing on the use of the building and it was used until '99 in the medical capacity. The
reason it says C 1932 there is '32 actually applies to criterion C, which if that were the
sole criterion would be the period of significance. But since A is use, I really think: that
period of significance should stay as it is. Other than that I think: this nomination is good
to go and we support this ... I support it wholeheartedly.
Patricia DiCicco: I agree with Natalie that the application should remain unchanged. I think: it
should just sayeriterion C 1932.
???: I guess I'm just having a little confusion. It says period of significance, so is one year
considered a period?
???: Yes, it is.
???: It is? Okay.
Chair Bower: It's a short period. Michael?
City of Palo Allo
HRB ~ March 3, 2010
Page 5
Michael Makinen: It's probably not going to affect anything in the end, it's just a question of
how you look at this. I guess I've looked at a number of these nomination forms and they
usually have some interval of years rather than just a year.
<:;:hair Bower: Martin, any comments? I would agree with Pat and Natalie that I think we should
leave this application as it's presented to us, because I think it's the entire duration of the use of
the building that is the appropriate issue. Any other discussion? So, do I hear a motion?
Natalie Loukianoff, Vice-Chait1???): I motion that we recommend to the City Council to write
the approval letter for support on the nomination of the category two Roth Building to the
National Register ofllistoric Places.
Martin Bernstein: I second that motion.
Chair Bower: Okay. Do we want to discuss this further? So the motion is to approve the
application as it was presented?
???: Yes.
???: I think it makes perfect sense. I've been by that building for many years. I think it's fine to
leave it as is. It is a little confusing to me. Over ,he years we've looked at that and I don't think
I've ever seen it where it said there was one year as a,period of significance, but if everyone who
has much more experience with these is fine with that, that's fine. So, I support the motion.
???: Kathy, I have one quick question for you, Who actually filled out the application? Did the
state fill this out?
[unintelligible]
Chair Bower: I think it was fascinating reading and I leamed a lot about the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation, or Medieal Clinic as it was then called. Esther Clark was my pediatrician; I did not
realize that she was the first woman doctor and that there was a gender issue when she joined.
It's pretty interesting to hear about that in this era when gender, of course, is not supposed to be
considered at alL So I'm actually quite pleased that this has come up for nomination and I would
wholeheartedly support this recommendation. .
Martin Bernstein: The reason I supported the motion, or seconded the motion, was to also say
that I think this will be a real gem and a real jewel in the City of Palo Alto to receive this
recognition, and look forward to having it to serve as a real educational resource to what good
architecture can do, what good thoughts can do, and what good public art can do.
Chair Bower: I second that. Also, I'm thrilled that the Palo Alto History Society is going to
move in there. It's totally appropriate that a building of this &'ignificance in the community will
have the community history located in it. Ifthere is no other discussion, I would call for a vote.
Any other discussion? I don't see any, so all in favor?
Motion unanimously passed.
City of Palo Alto
HRB -March 3, 2010
Page 6
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: APRIL 12,2010 CMR: 207:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Water Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance in the
Amount of $117,000 and Approval of Amendment No.3 to Contract
C07120333 with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. in the Amount of
$372,000 fora Total Not to Exceed Amount of $674,700 for
Completion of Environmental Documents for Capital Improvement
Program Project WS-07001, (Recycled Water Distribution System
Extension)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $117,000 transferring
$117,000 from the Water Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve to existing Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) WS-07001, (Recycled Water Distribution System Extension);
and
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a third amendment to the
existing contract with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of
$372,000 for planning and engineering design services for the Recycled Water Expansion
Capital Improvement Program Project.
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2007, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager to execute a
contract with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. (RMC) for preparation of a Recycled Water
Facility Plan and associated environmental documents for Capital Improvement Program Project
WS-07001 (CMR:191:07). The original contract included $220,700 for professional services
and reimbursable expenses, plus a contingency of $22,000, for a total not to exceed amount of
$242,700.
The original scope of work focused primarily on preparation of a Recycled Water Facility Plan
and associated environmental documents that would position the project to compete for State and
Federal grant funding and low interest loans. This generally included analyses of all of the
essential components of a potential expanded recycled water system to serve additional users in
the City of Palo Alto.
CMR: 207:10 Page 1 of8
On June 2, 2008, the City Council approved Amendment One to the contract with RMC (CMR
255:08). The amendment added an additional $25,000 to the original contract to complete
various unforeseen activities that were largely driven by external state requirements for both the
Facility Plan and the Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
On November 8, 2008, the City Council approved Amendment Two to the contract (CMR
431 :08). The Amendment added an additional $35,000 to the original contract to complete a
financial cash flow model for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and to
complete unforeseen activities related to preparation of the Recycled Water Draft NIND. In
particular, it was determined that the environmental documents needed to address potential
impacts of using recycled water on existing landscapes and trees, notably redwoods. A staff
working group was formed to create an Adaptive Management Plan that was included in the
Recycled Water Draft MND. This additional effort was a primary driver for both the schedule
delays and additional funding needs.
The Final Recycled Water Facility Plan was completed in December 2008 and was provided to
the Utilities Advisory Commission in March 2009. The plan was provided to the Council on
April 27, 2009 (CMR: 203:09). The Recycled Water Facility Plan develops a preferred project,
estimated to cost $33.5 million, to expand the use of recycled water in Palo Alto. The estimated
recycled water use for this expansion is 900 acre-feet per year, or about 6% of the City's current
potable water usage. The conclusions from the Facility Plan were that the project was expensive,
but could be feasible if funding from outside the City could be received. There are many
possible sources for this funding, including State and Federal grants and low-interest loans. To
be eligible for such funds, the environmental documents for the projects, as well as the Facility
Plan, must be complete.
On March 18, 2009, the City circulated the Draft MND for public comment. On April 6, 2009,
staff held a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the Draft MND. The notice for
the meeting was published in the Palo Alto Daily News on March 13,2009 and was also noticed
on the City'S webpage. There was one attendee (Attachment C) at the meeting and no coniments
were made on the record.
The City received seven comment letters from the following stakeholders qn the Draft MND
after the close of the CEQA public comment period: .
• Canopy
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• State of California (Department of Transportation, Department of Toxic Substances
Control, and State Water Resources Control Board)
• Stanford University Real Estate Office (Stanford REO)
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(
The commenters provided input on numerous issues related to Biological Resources, Water
Quality, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Traffic and Cultural Resources. Potential tree and
vegetation issues associated with using recycled water for irrigation purposes was the subject of
concern for Canopy and the Stanford REO. The concerns were focused on the water quality of
the recycled water, particularly the "salinity" content of the recycled water. The City responded
to comments with adjustments to the language in the Final MND when the comments warranted
such a change.
CMR: 207:10 Page 2 of8
In May 2009, the City finalized the MND, including the response to comments on the Draft
MND. However, staff opted to seek additional independent validation of potential impacts of
recycled water on landscaping before presenting the document to Council. The FinallVIND was
never considered by Council apd was never approved. Since that time, staff met with
stakeholders and decided to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to fully analyze the
issue of whether and how the recycled water could safely. be used on landscaping.
DISCUSSION
Amendment Three to the existing contract with RMC will allow the City to complete all federal
and state environmental reviews and progress towards project approval. The amendment also
includes funding to re-evaluate the current pipeline alignment to ensure the lowest cost route has
been selected. The tasks to be completed under Amendment Three are summarized here and
included in detail in the scope of work, which is an exhibit to the amendment (Attachment B).
Task I: California Environmental Quality Act Requirements
Preparation of an EIR will afford the City some latitude to properly evaluate the remaining issue,
broaden the alternatives to be analyzed, assess potential significant impacts and weigh the
benefits of the project against any program mitigation costs. Since the main issue of concern is
the quality of the recycled water for irrigation purposes, the City will prepare a single-issue EIR.
While the single-issue EIR focuses on one major issue of concern, the preparer is still obligated
to fulfill the CEQA obligations for the other sections of the EIR. Since much of the material and
content of the MND is still relevant, its analysis will provide background material for the other
sections of the EIR. Preparation of a single-issue EIR is less expensive and takes less time than a
full EIR.
The single-issue EIR will evaluate water quality impacts on plant species that exist on target
sites, with particular emphasis on Redwood trees. The single-issue EIR will be based on the
same pipeline alignments and pump station sites that were evaluated in the Draft MND published
by the City in March 2009, though this amendment contemplates additional services that provide
the City the flexibility to evaluate other alignments that could lower the project's cost.
Task II: National Environmental Policy Act Requirements
The City is applying for numerous grants and low interest loans from various State and Federal
sources for the project. Two likely sources include the SWRCB and the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR). Both agencies typically closely scrutinize the environmental process and,
specifically, the cultural and biological resources sections. The EIR will provide the necessary
coverage to satisfY the SWRCB, but the USBR is a Federal agency and has obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) to review the project. The USBR will be the federal
Lead Agency under NEP A for the project. As the project proponent, the City is required to assist
the USBR in preparing the necessary NEP A documents. Staff was aware this activity would be
required as part of any grant award, but did not request NEP A review from the USBR while the
City awaited confirmation that the City's grant application was progressing towards eventual
approval. In December 2009, the City's grant application received authorization from the House
of Representatives under H.R. 2442. There are still numerous milestones that need to be reached
prior to any grant award, but at this time, it is prudent to begin NEP A review.
Task III -Project Management I Meetings
The Project Team will coordinate with the SWRCB, USBR, and internal staff on all CEQA and
NEPA items related to the project. This task also includes attendance at up to four, 4-hour
CMR: 207:10 Page 3 of8
j
I meetings with the City andlor USBRto discuss CEQA and NEPA issues at key junctures of the
process. This task also covers preparation of monthly invoices and progress reports.
Task IV -Additional Services
The City evaluated several potential project alignments and chose a project route that would
result in the lowest construction costs and the highest recycled water yields. This analysis was
discussed in detail in the Recycled Water Facility Plan (CMR 203:09). Subsequent CEQ A
review analyzed this preferred route. Considering the time that has lapsed since the original
analysis and selection of the preferred route, Staff will re-evaluate the preferred project route to
determine if another route may be more appropriate. Since the CEQA and NEPA review
requires the City to select and analyze a preferred route, the City will make a determination on
the appropriate route soon to ensure there is no delay in the environmental review process.
Table 1 below summarizes the subtasks under each task and provides the estimated cost to
complete each task. The total estimated cost for all tasks is $338,034. The total not-to-exceed
amount for the contract amendment is $372,000 including a 10% contingency.
a e -T: bl 1 A men d men o. as tN 3T: kD 'f escnpl10ns an sima e os dEf tdC t
; ;. . ,c . •• (:'/;' ........' ...... ·····<?F~· •........ , i~~t!m~'ted
. .........•.• rrasKand$llbtasl{P~~"ipti~J1'· ...... ...... :' ,Cc<. ..·...(,.: •. Qo§t .•• , ... '· . ',.' ....
1: California Envir9mllen!~IQuality Act Reqtlire~ents .... .. , . ...
.'
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting $12,578
• Prepare of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) based on the existing Project
Description in the ISIMND
• Distribute the ~9P and one public scoping meeting for interested parties
Draft EIR Preparation $111,825
• The Draft EIR will focus on the water quality analysis of impacts of irrigation on
landscape plants in the project area, with particular emphasis on redwood trees.
• The EIR will also update biological resource and cultural resource sections to
ensure most recent data is captured.
• Perform vertical soils analysis in the primary target areas to assess the suitability
of the area for irrigation with recycl~9 water
Ipublic Review of Draft EIR $7,284
• Publish the Draft EIR for public comments pursuant to the CEQA guidelines.
• Conduct one public meeting during the public comment period to answer
questions on the Draft EIR.
Final EIR and Associated Documents $30,908
• Incorporate comments on the Draft EIR and prepare a Final EIR to be submitted
for City Council approval.
Task I Total $162,595
lraskII:National EnvironmentalPoUcy A~t Requirements. .....
;. ...... ' . , ." ...
Administrative Draft EA $56,459
• Prepare an Administrative Draft EA to submit to the USBR.· It is assumed that
the EA can use a similar format to the Initial Study Checklist, with the inclusion
of additional topical analysis required by NEP A, including socioeconomics and
environm.ental justice.
Public Review of Draft EAlFONSI $8,069
• Prepare a draft environmental document for public review
CMR: 207:10 Page 4 of8
I
•. Meet with the USBR to coordinate responses to comments on the environmental
document.
• Prepare an Administrative Final environmental document for submittal to the
USBR and make revisions as required.
• Submit final co ies of the environmental document to the USBR.
Task II Total
Task Ill-Pro' ecf:Man~ emerit/:M~etins
• Coordinate with the SWRCB, USBR, and internal staff on all CEQA and NEP A
items related to the project.
• Attendance at up to four 4-hour meetings with the City andlor USBR to discuss
CEQA I NEP A issues at key junctures of the process.
• Pre are monthly ro ress re orts.
Task TV,.. AdditionalServices .
Iternative Project Components
• Review alternative routes that could result in lower construction costs, including
routes that minimize street cut fees or employ less disturbing construction
technologies than traditional trenching.
Update Biological and Cultural Studies
• If the initial analysis identifies an alternative route that is superior to the current
preferred route, update the Biological and Cultural studies for the CEQA and
$44,737
NEP A environmental reviews and evaluate the new route. ~~~~~~------~----------------~----~ $67,933
·,$318;034
Contin enc $33,968
Total fotAm~ndl11.entNo.: 3
In addition to the RMC contract, the CIP project includes funds for staff costs. Currently, the
CIP project includes $12,300 for staff costs. Additional costs for staff time are needed for the
remaining work required to complete this phase of the project. An additional $10,000 for staff
time for this project is requested to be included in the total CIP costs.
CMR: 207:10 Page 5 of
1
j
The total costs for the project are summarized in Table 2 below:
Table 2 -Recycled Water CIP Costs
..•.... >.. . ..•...•... ...... '.
.. '
.' .. ".-: .• Apt:l1:oved .< ........ ' Total Costs '. .. .
Original RMC Contract Amount April 16, 2007 (CMR: 191:07) $242,700
Amendment No, 1 June 2, 2008(CMR: 255:08) $25,000
Amendment No.2 Nov. 8, 2008 (CMR: 431 :08) $35,000
Amendment No.3 Proposed $372,000
. TQtalRMC Contract with all amendments' .. ................... >
. " . .$(j74,700 ......
Staff costs included in request April 16, 2007 (CM~: 191:07) $7,300
June 2,2008 (CMR: 255:08) $5,000
2009 Mid-year Budget Change $20,000
Additional staff costs Proposed $10,000
T qtalstaffco~tsin~ll1ded in.CIP ... ••
.. ..
. '" . ··.$42,30:0 .
Total approved CIP costs -RMC contract plus staff costs $335,000
Total proposed new CIP costs-RMC contract plus staff costs $382,000
Total CIP Costs RMC contract plus· staff costs $717,000
The total budgeted and proposed new funds for the project are summarized in Table 3 below:
T bl 3 R a e -I d W t CIP b d t d d ecyc e a er u Ige use an 'I bl aval a e
Original CIP Budget $250,000
~'l.ldget adjustment for Amendment No.1 $30,000
Budget adjustment for Amel1dment No.2' $35,000
Budget Adjustment from 2009 Mid-year Budget Change $20,000
Total Prior Years Budget $335,000
FY 2010 CIP budget -$265,000
Total Approved Budget $600,000
Proposed BAO request for new Amendment 3 $117,000
New Proposed Budget including BAO $717,000
staff recognizes that this is a large amendment to the City's contract with RMC. The change will
. bring the total not to exceed amount to $674,700 for the contract that was originally for a not to
exceed amount of $242,700. As discussed above, the additional $372,000 requested now for the
RMC contract includes the following additional services that were not envisioned at the
beginning of the project:
CEQA Single Issue EIR
National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A)
Additional Services
Project Management/Meetings
Contingency
Total
$162,595
$ 84,731
$ 67,933
$ 22,775
$ 33,968
$372,000
The single-issue EIR was determined to be required as the concerns raised in the review of the
project's draft MND needed further examination for the project to go forward. The NEPA work
is needed since the City is seeking a federal grant of $8 million for the project. Projects seeking
CMR: 207: 10 Page 6 of
federal grants or loans must complete NEP A requirements. Staff advises getting all the required
reviews complete for the project to best position it for all state and federal financial assistance
that it may qualify for. The "additional services" includes estimates of additional costs'related to
evaluating alternative pipeline alignments that could result in lower construction costs for the
project. These services include engineering and right of way assistance, in addition to additional
biological and cultural studies that may be required for those alignments. Some of these costs
may not be realized if the original route alignment remains the preferred choice.
The original RMC contract's scope of work included preparation of a Recycled Water Facility
Plan and associated environmental documents. However, an EIR was not anticipated at that
time. Staff recommends adding these expanded services to the existing contract with RMC as
they have the background on the project and are .kr!owledgeable of the concerns that arose from
the public review of the MND. Staff believes that RMC is the best choice to continue with this
project as it would require even more money to start over with a new consultant to complete the
EIR at this stage in the project.
NEXT STEPS
After the environmental documents are complete, staff will pursue potential grant funding
opportunities and develop a recommendation on whether to proceed towards construction of the
required facilities. The recommendation will then be submitted to City Council for
consideration.
RESOURCE IMPACT
With the addition of the $382,000, the amended budget for the CIP project increases to $717,000
with $674,700 for the contract with RMC and $42,300 for staff costs. To fund this amendment,
$265,000 is available in the FY 2010 budget for the project. A BAO is required in the amount of
$117,000 to add funds to the existing recycled water CIP (WS-07001). The additional $117,000
will be transferred from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (WRSR). The remaining balance
of the WRSR after deducting $117,000 is $15,888,791, above the maximum reserve guideline
level of $8,660,000. The requested contract amendment and BAO will have a very small impact
on budgeted reserve level, and will not result in reserve levels falling to below the minimum
guideline level of $4,330,000. This project's expenses have no impact on the General Fund.
Staff is currently tracking stimulus related opportunities to help offset some of the cost of
preparing the EIR for the project. Any award would offset project and environmental document
preparation costs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Amending the contract is consistent with Council policy. This project is consistent with the
Council-adopted Water Integrated Resource Plan Guideline 3: "Actively participate in
development of cost effective regional recycled water plans." The project is also consistent with
Council direction to seek to reduce imported water supplies and limit or reduce diversions from
the Tuolumne River.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As part of this project, the City is preparing an Environmental Impact Report.
CMR: 207:10 Page 7 of8
ATTACHMENTS
A: Budget Amendment Ordinance
B: Amendment No. Three to Contract No. C07120333
C: Recycled Water MND public meeting sign in sheet
D: CIP Budget in FY 2010-2011 Capital Budget for Water Recycling Facilities (WS-7001)
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
1,,# NICOLAS PROCOS 'f" Senior Resource Planner
~ANE O. RATCHYE
'(' Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 207:10 Page 8 of8
'A~TACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION
OF $117,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) WS-07001, RECYCLED
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXTENSION
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2009
did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2010; and
B. From fiscal year 2007 through 2010, the Council appropriated
a total amount of $600,000 to CIP Project WS-07001, Recycled Water
Distribution System Extension (Project); and
C. On April 16, 2007, council approved a contract with RMC
Water and Environment, Inc. (RMC) to prepare a recycled water
facili ty plan and the associated environmental documents.
Subsequently, two amendments to the contract were made to incluue to
complete various unforeseen activities that were driven both by the
Facility Plan and the Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and complete financial cash flow model for the State
Water Resources Board; and
D. Amendment three to the contract is needed for the City of
Palo Alto to complete all federal and state environmental reviews.
The tasks of amendment three to the contract are outlined in detail
in CMR:207:10; and
E. The existing appropriation balance of the Project is not
sufficient to cover the added costs identified in Section D of this
ordinance. An additional appropriation of $117,000 is needed to cover
the costs; and
F. The total additional appropriation of $117,000 for the
Project will be funded by the Water Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve;
and
G. Council authorization is needed to amend the 2010 budget to
make available the funds required for CIP Project WS-0700l, Recycled
Water Distribution System Extension.
SECTION 2. The sum of One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars
($117,000) hereby appropriated to CIP Project WS-07001, Recycled
Water Distribution System Extension.
SECTION 3. The Water Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby
decreased by One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($117,000) with a
remaining balance of Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Eighty Eight
Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety One Dollars ($15,888,791).
SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the Council is required to adopt
this ordinance.
SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 6. As part of this Project, the City of Palo Alto is
preparing an Environmental Impact Report:
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty Manager
Deputy ty Attorney Director of Utilities Department
Director of Administrative Services
I
I
I
I
I,
AHENDDN'l' NO. THREE' TO CONTRACT NO. C07120333
BETwEEN THE CI'l'Y OF PALO ALTO AND
RHC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.
ATTACHMENTB
This Amendment No. Three to Contract No. C07120333
("Contractll ) is entered into April 12, 2010, by and between the
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of
the State of California ("CITYI') I and RMC Water and Environment I
Inc'l a California corporation, located at 2290 North First Street
Suite 212, San Jose, cA. 95131 ("CONSULTANT") .
R E CIT A L Ss
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the
parties for the provision of Recycled Water Facility Plan and
Preparation of Environmental Documents; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to
increase the compensation by an additional $372,000 for provision
of completion of environmental reports, and project management;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions I and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 2 entitled "TERM" is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"TERM"; The services and/or materials furnished under
the Agreement shall commence 'on April 17 I 2007 and shall ,be
completed before June 15, 2011.
SECTION 2. Section 4 entitled "NOT TO EXCEED
COMPENSATION" is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 4. NOT '1'0 EXCEED COMPENSATION". The compensation to be
paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in
Exhibit "All, including both payment for professional 'services and
reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Six Hundred Seventy Four
Thousand Seven Hundred dollars ($674 /'700), In the event Additional
S~rvices are authori'zed, the total compensation for services and
reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Sixty Seven Thousand Four
Hundred Seventy dollars ($67,470). The applicabie'rates and
schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "CII, entitled
"COMPENSATION," which is attached to and made a part of this
agreement,
Additional Services, if any I shall be authorized in
accordance with and subject, to the provisions of Exhibit "CII •
1
100326 sm 010
I
I
i
J
I
CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional
Services'performed without the prior written authorization of CITY.
Addit~onal Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY
to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but 'which
is not included within the Scope of Servioes describe~ in Exhibit
"Al'.
SECTION 3. Exhibit "A" to the Agreement is hereby
amended to include additional work required for financial planning,
revisions to the mitigated negative declaration, ,preparation of·
reports, a~d project management.
SECTION '4. Except as herein modified,. all other
provisions of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent
amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by, their duly
authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date
first above ·written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deputy City At~orney
Attaohments:
Exhibit A -Scope of Services
Exhibit B -Project Schedule
Exhibit C -Compensation
100315 am 010
2
RMC WATER AND ElNIRONMENT I
INC.
By: -"",f, ·~lJI
Name: _ ..... +1.1::41"""'1 q......,I\t.= ... ::..........LLG=vo:;....;;b~I-""v:.:;..;., __
Ti tle : --.,...\I;..III.UI,u. __ ~P ..... C"'e...-&.~ \.;...:4_fArc;..' :..;.-t __
Scope of Services Exhibit A
RMC will prepare a single-issue EIR to address water quality
impacts of irrigation of.redwood trees with recycled water. Th~
EIR will be based on the same pipeline alignments and pump
station sites as evaluated in the Initial'Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) published by the City in March
2009. ~C will, in consultation with the City, determine the
alternatives to be analyzed following completion of the water
quality impact analysis. RMC will evaluate the No Project
Alternative, Proposed Project, and one other alternative. (e.g.
additional treatment). This approach is preliminary; the scope of
the CBQA alternatives analysis would be confirmed and may require
revision following the public scoping period and conclusion of
the water quality impact evaluation. Each task is described
below.
Environmental Impact Report
Not1ce of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
RMC will prepare a.Notice of Preparation (NOP) based on the
existing Project Description as detailed in the IS/MND. RMC will
submit a draft NOP to the City for review. RMC will incorpora.te
the City's comments and provide a screencheck version for review'
before publishing the NOP. It is assumed that City staff will
develop a distribution list for the NOP.
RMC will as~ist the City in conducting a single public scoping
meeting, which is assumed to occur at the middle of the NOP
review period, at a location to be determined by the City.
Deliverables: ~C will sUbmit a draft and screenclleck version of
the NOP to the City. City staff will have up to one (~) week to
review the draft and provide comments. Following receipt of
comments on the Draft NOP from the City, RMCwill incorporate
comments and Bubmi t the screencheck version wi thin one (1) week.
Following receipt of comments from ebe City on the screencbeck
versJ.on, RMC will· incorporate comments and submit the NOP to the;
city for publication within' two (2) days.
At the end of the NOP review period, RMC will review comments
received and determine if additional review and analysis is
required to address agency or public comments. RMC will meet
with the City to summarize and evaluate comments, and discuss the
adequacy of the project scope to address public and agency
concerns ..
3
100315 8m 010
I
j
1
I.
Draft BIR. Preparat:ton
The Draft EIR will focus on the water quality analysis of impacts
of irrigation on landscape plants in the project area, with
particular emphasis on redwood trees. The Initial Study (IS)
Checklist, which includes the analysis for the remaining
environmental topic areas, will be included as an appendix.
Other D~aft EIR-related sections not specific to an environmental .
resource area, including.the Summary, Introduction, Project
Description, and Alternatives will be presented in the upfront
sections of theBIR. Tasks for completion of the EIR are
described below.
Admdnistrative Draft mIR
Project Description
Based on the evaluation of water quality impacts,' it may be
necessary to update the project description. If necessary, the
Adaptive Management Program that was included in the original
project description will be modified to include any
recommendations developed' as part of the water quality analysis.
RMC will update the project description that is included in the
EIR.
Water Quality Analysis
The Water Quality section will focus only on the salinity issue
as it relates to effects on redwood trees/vegetation. Other
topics relating to hydrology and water quality have already been
addressed in the IS, which will be included as. an appendix. The
EIR will describe the existing environmental and regulatory
setting relevant to evaluation of salinity impacts, state where
relevant the impact significance criteria, describe the impacts
of the proposed project, assess their significance, and develop
feasible mitigation measures as applicable to reduce or eliminate.
identified impacts. The EIR wil.l identify any cumulative and
unavoidable impacts associated with use of recycled water for
irrigation. RMC will contract with Hortcience, Inc. to evaluate
impacts on plants of irrigation with recycled water. Hortscience
will complete the following tasks (also see Exhibit C) :
• Review existing site information including USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service soil maps and other available
site data.
• Identify approximately 12 sample site locations representing
the range of conditions among the 134 properties, and perform
the following assessments: .
4
100315 sm010
j
j
o Inventory the plant species present and rate· their
appearance.
o Inspect and describe soil profiles within root :or:ones.
o Collect and analyze 2 -3 soil samples at each sampling
location from surface and subsurface (up to 32· samples).
• pH, ECe, Ca, Mg, Bf Cl, Na,SAR, mechanical
analysis (texture).
o Map locations of samples collected.
• Per~orm a survey-level soil landscape evaluation to identify
problem areas or areas that may need further evaluation. before
irrigation decisions are made •. Soils will be examined within
the root area without making full descriptions or collecting
sampl~s for analysis.
• Identify any constraints the plant palette, current plant
condition, and/or soil characteristics may have on successful
use of recycled water for irrigation .
•. . Describe the short-and long-term effects irrigation with
recycled "water across the site are likely to have on landscape
appearance, health, and function.
• Prepare a summary report of methods, findings, and.
recommendations.
• Attend ~etings are requested by the RMC (4 hours included).
Initial Study Update
RMC will update the I$/MND to,reflect comments made during public
review of the March 2009 IS/MND, and to meet new Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements for
quantification of 'construction-period emissions. In addition, a
new CNDDB search and a new NWIC search will be conducted to
determine if new, sensitive biological and cultural resources
occur in the project area. The biological and cultural resources
reports previously prepared for SWRCB will 'be updated as
necessary for submittal to the SWRCB.
Please refer to Exhibits D and E regarding the scope and budget
for the biological and cultural resources tasks conducted by
Christopher Joseph and Associates and William Self Associates,
r{!aspectively.
ClQA Required Analyses
·Most of the CEQArequired analyses can be based on the analysis
contained in the IS/MND. This section will include evaluation of
growth inducing impacts and , cumulative impacts, and
identification of any significant irreversible environmental
changes or significant unavoidable adverse impacts. The EIR will
5
I0031SsmOlO
I.
also include a·summary and evaluation of alternatives, including
identification of the environmentally superior alternative. With
the exception of t~e cumulative analysis, the other sections will
be integrated in the upfront portion of the EIR. The cumulative
analysis will be included in the IS Checklist.
Document Preparation
RMC will prepare a concise, clearly written, and easily
understandable Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) summarizing the
information developed in the above ·tasks. !me will prepare all
CEQA Mandated Sections. RMC will include tangible (i.e.,
quantifiable) performance objectives for all identified
. mitigation to the extent feasible, identification of
appropriateiy timed monitoring, identification of agency or staff
responsible for monitoringl and mitigation or measures to be
implemented should the performance objectives not be met.
RMC will sUbmit the ADEIR to the City for internal review and
. comment.
Screenoheok Draft mIR
The City will provide comments on a s.ingle annotated comment copy
of the ADEIR th~t provides clear direction for revisions. upon
receipt of comments from the City, RMC will hold a meeting to
review comments and discuss the approach for revising the
document. RMC will prepare a Screencheck Draft EIR incorporating
necessary revisions and refinements based upon comments received
from the City on the ADEIR. RMC will ensure that all City
comments are addressed thoroughly.
Del:lverables: !We will submit an ADEIR to the City. City sta:ff
will have up. to three (3] weeks to review-the ADBIR and provide
comments. Following receipt of comments from the City, RMC will
submi t a Screen check Draft wi thin three (3) weeks. The Ci ty will
have up to one (1) week to review the Screen check Dra.ft EIR.
Public Review of Draft SIR .
RMC will prepare a Draft EIRJ incorporating necessary revisions
and refinements based upon the City1s final edits on the
Screencheck Draft EIR. RMC will submit the Draft EIR in hard
copy (40 bound copies and one unbound copy) and electronic . format'
ready for posting on the City's website. RMC will also submit a
draft Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion (NOe) to
the City so that the eity can advertise in the local newspaper
and file the Noe at the State Clearinghouse (along with 15 copies
of the Draft EIR) , respectively. RMC will submit 8 hard copies
of the Draft EIR and supporting documentation to the SWRCB. RMC
will work with the City to refine the NOP distribution list to
produce a distribution list for the EIR.
RMC'will work with the City to plan and conduot a public meeting
6
100315 smOIO
j
to answer questions regarding the Draft EtR. The public meeting'
may include an open house format to allow the maximum opportunity
for the public to ask questions and get information about the
project.
Deliverables: DC will prepare a D~aft EIR within one (1) week
of receipt of comments from the City on tbe Sareencheck Draft
BIR. RMC will submit a NOA and NOC to the City. RMC will assist
·the Ci ty in preparing for and conducting a public review meeting
during the EIR public comment period.
'inal SIR and Assooiated Doaumeats
RMC will meet with the City at the close of the comment period
during the final BIR phase to identify and. develop approaches for
key issues raised. If appropriate, RMC may use master responses
for topics of greatest interest to local agencies ,and the
surrounding community_ The scope of work assumes 74 hours of
staff time to determine with the City the approach to respond to
public comments, bracket'the comments, and provide written
response to the comments; should the estimated level of effort
for preparing responses exceed the hours assumed, additional work
would need to be authorized through a contract modification.
Draft Pinal BIR (Response to Camments document), MMRP, and
Findings
The Final EIR will consist of the Response to Comments (RTC)
document and Public Draft BIR. RMC will prepare an a RTC document
that includes:'!) all letters received on the Draft EIR and
summaries of all substantive comments made on the Draft EIR at
the public meeting, 2) responses to each comment, and 3) text
revisions to the Draft EIR shown in errata format. RMC will also
prepare a Draft MMRP, which,will consolidate all required and
recommended mitigation measures into one, table. In addition, RMC
will prepare draft Findings. RMC will submit the Draft Response
to Comments document, Draft ~RP, and Draft Firidings to the City
for review.
Sareenaheak Final ElK (RTC doaument)I HNRP, and Pindings
RMC will revise the Draft RTC document, Draft MMRP, and Draft
Findings per City recommendations and a screencheck will be
submitted for review.
Final SIR (RTC doaument), MHRP, and Findings
RMC will submi~ the Final Response to Comments document, MMRP,
and Findings to the City in electronic format. RMC will provide
20 bound copies and one unbound copy of the final Response to
Comments document. RMC will attend the certification hearing and
will 'be prepared to answer questions from the City Council. RMC
will prepare a Notice of Determination for the City to file with
7
lO0315smOlO
the State Clearinghouse.
Dellverables: RMC will prepare a Draft Response to Comments
document, draft and Final MMRP, and draft and Final Findings.
RMC will also prepare a Notice of Determination. The City wil'l
have up to two (2) weeks to review and provide comments.
Following receipt of comments, RMC will submit a Screencheck
. Response to Comments Document, MMRP, and Findings to the City
within one (1) week. .The City will have one (1) week to review
and provide comments. Following receipt of comments,.RMC will
submit the Final EIR, MMRP, and Findings within one week.
NBPA Dooumentation
RMC will assist the City in obtaining NEPA clearance from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), so that the project can
qualify for federal funding,· It is assumed that USBR will
require an Environmental Assessment (EA), leading to a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI), RMC will conduct the NEPA process
in parallel with the CBQA process. However, the publication of
the BA will be timed to occur several week,s after publication of
the EIR. The scope of work assumes 280 hours of staff time to
prepare the Administrative Draft BA and Screencheck BA; should
the estimated level.of effort exceed the hours assumed,
additional work would need to be authorized through a contract
modification. RMC will complete the tasks identified below.
Please refer to Bxhibits D and E regarding the scope and budget
for the biological and cultural resources tasks conducted by
Christopher Joseph and Associates and William Self Associates,
respectively.
Administrative Dra£t SA
RMC will repackage the'Draft EIR and prepare an Administrative
Draft SA to submit to USBR. It is 'assumed that the EA can use a
similar format to the Initial Study Checklist, with the inclusion
of additional topical analysis required by NEPA, including
socioeconomic~ and environmental justice. .
Del:J.verables: RMC will submit an Administrative Draft EA to
USBR. It is assumed that USBR staff will require·up to four (4)
weeks to review the Administrative Draft EA and provide comments •.
Screeucneck Draft BA
USBR will provide comments on a single annotated comment copy of
the Administrative Draft EA'that provides clear direction for
revisions. Upon receipt of comments from USBR, RMC will hpld a
meeting to review comments and discuss the approach for revising
the document. RMC will prepare a Screencheck Draft EAt
8
100315 smOIO
I
1
J
; ,
i
J
incorporating necessary revisions 'and refinements based upon
comments received from USSR on the Administrative Draft EA. RMC
will ensure that all USSR comments are addressed thoroughly.
DelJ.verables: Followi.ng receipt of comments from USBR, RMC will
submit a ,Screencheck Dra.ft within three (3) o/eeks. USBR wi.ll
have up to one (1) week to review the Screencbeck Dra.ft EA •
.Public RevJ.ew of Draft EA/1I0NBI
RMC will prepare a Draft EA/FONSI, incorporating necessary
revisions and refinements based upon USSR final edits on the
Screencheck Draft EA. RMC will submit the Draft EA in hard copy
(20 bound copies and one unbound copy) and electronic format. '
DelJ.verables: RMC will prepare a Draft EA wi thin one (1) week of
receipt of comments from USBR· on t1;te Sareenabeak Draft EA.
FJ.nal EA and AssoaJ.ated Documents
RMC will meet with USB~ at the close of the comment period to
~dentify and develop approaches for key issues raised. RMC will
develop a comment database to facilitate tracking and ensure an
effici.ent'response effort. If appropriate, RMC may use master
responses for topics of greatest interest to local agencies and
the surrounding community. The scope of work assumes 48 hours of
staff time to provide written response to public comments; should
the estimated level of effort for preparing responses exceed the
hours assu~ed, additional work would need to be authorized
through a ,contract modification.
Administrative Final EA/FONSX
RMC will prepare an Administrative Final EA that includes: 1) all
letters received on the Draft EA 2) responses to each comment,
and 3) text revisions to the Draft EA shown in errata format.
RMC.will submit the Administrative Final EA to USBa for review.
In a~dition, RMC will prepare a Administrative Draft FONSI.
Sareenoheok Final EA
RMC will revise the Administrative Final EA/FONSI, and a
screencheck will be submitted for review.
Final BA Puhli9~tion
RMC will submit 'the Final EA/FONSI to USBRfor publication in
hard copy (20 bound copies and one unbound copy) and electronic
format. '
De11verableS: RMC will prepare an Administrative Final l
Screencheck and Final EA!FONSI. USSR will have up to two (2)
weeks to review and provide comments. Following receipt of
comments, RMC will submi t a Screencheck Final EA, MMRP, and FONSI
9
100315 8m 010
I
I within one (1) week. ·The City will have one (1) week to review
and provide comments. Following receipt of comments, RMC will
submi t the. Final BA, MMRP, and FONSI wi thin one week.
Project Management. I Meetings
RMC will coordinate with the City, USER, RMC's subconsu1tants and
internal staff on all CEQA and NEPA items related to the project.
This task also includes attendance at up to four 4-hour meetings
with the City and/or USER to discuss CEQA / NEPA issues at key
junctures of the process. This task also cover preparation of
monthly invoices and prog~ess reports.
Deliverables: RMC will submit monthly status reports to the
City.
Optional Service.
The following tasks are optional tasks that will require
authorization by the City before can be initiated.
Alternative ~roject Components
If the City determines to add an alternative pipeline alignment
along Matadero Creek and an alternative pump station location
near Lambert Lane in the EIR, then RMC will conduct the necessary
engineering investigation to provide details for inclusion in the
EIR Project Description. RMC will conduct an evaluation of
biological and cultural resources for the new alignment and pump
station site.' The Initial Study will be updated to include
evaluation of the new locations. Please refer to Exhibits D and
E regarding· the scope and budget for the biological and cultural
resources tasks conducted by Christopher Joseph and Associates
and William Self Associates, respectively.
NB~A Documentation
USBR may have additional consultation requirements related to
Section 7 and Section 106 consultation. The need for and level of
consultation have not been determined and will be'determined
based on discussions with USBR. The opt'ional tasks includes both
Sections 7 and 106 consultations. Please refer to Exhibits D and,
E regarding the scope and budget for the biological and cultural
resources tasks conducted by Christopher Joseph and Associates
and William Self Associates, respectively.
10
l0031Ssmoro
Assumptions
• Additional outreach beyond the'EIR preparation is not assumed
in this scope of work/ budget •
• We assume no new issues' (beyond those the City has already
encountered during the public 'comment phase of, the IS/MND)
will come up.
• The NOP and Scoping Meeting task assumes preparation of the
NOP, and support and attendance at a Scoping Meeting (4 hours
each by Helene and Sue); no scoping summary report will be
prepared upon receipt of public comments at the 'end of the
seoping period. The City willfaeilitate the seoping meeting
and present on the Project at the meeting. Tpe City will also
coordinate 'the, meeting planning. Graphics in the NOP will be
printed in black and white. '
• The Project Description is assumed to be generally the same as
provided in the IS/MND, with no modifications to the proposed
project components, construction techniques, or the operation
(unless the City determines the new alignment and pump station
will be included, in which case the optional tasks would be
authorized by the City). However, some additional details in'
the Project Description ,will, be added as warranted (e.g'l
elaboration of the construction techniques). The Adaptive
Management Plan may be modified based,on the findings of the
soils investigation.
• Other sections of the EIR that will be developed include:
Summary, Introductiori, Alternatives, and CUmulative Impacts.
With the exception of the Cumulative Impacts,the other
sections will be included in the upfront portion of the EIR.
• one public meet"ing is assumed during the public comment period
for the Public Draft EIR. RMC will provide support
(presentation preparation) and attend the Public Meeting (4
hours for two staff members). The City will coordinate the
meeting planning, and present at and facilitate the meeting.
• ODCs for the NOP'covers printing, mailing, and travel expens~.
Graphics in the document will be printed in black and white
only. A maximum of 50 hard copies will be printed. The City
will be responsible for ptiQlishing in the local newspaper.
• ODCs for the Public Draft EIR 'covers printing, mailing, and
travel expense. Graphics in the document will be printed in
blaok and white 'only. A maximum of 40 hard copies will be
printed (which includes 15 copies for the seH and 8 copies for
SWRCB), a maximum of 50 copies of a CD will be burned, and a
maximum of 100 notices (NOA) will be printed. The City will be
responsible for publishing the notice ,in the local newspaper
and/or posting the notice at the project sites.
11
l00315smOl0
• Preparation of the Response to Comments document is based on
hours, which may increase depending on the number 'of comments
received. Should the estimated level of effort exceed the
hours assumed, additional work would need to be authorized
through, a contract modification.
• The City will prepare and send response letters to responsible'
agencies commenting on the EIR.
• The Draft EIR and the Response to Comments constitutes the
Final EIR document; RMC will not print an Integrated EIR.
• For all deliverables, only one administrative draft and one
screencheck are proposed. If additional deliverables are
included, then the work effort will increase.
• For all CEQA-related deliverables, we assume, one set of
consolidated, non-conflicting comments from th~ Utilities and
Planning Departments.
• For all NEPA-related deliverables, we assume they will be
. reviewed by the USBR only (not the City). Thus, the hours,
identified for preparation of NEPA deliverables, are based on
one round of comments from usaR only, and not additional
comments from the City.
• For NEPA deliverables, we assume one set of consolidated, non·
conflicting comments from the USBR.
• Preparation of the NEPA EA is based on hours, which may
increase dependi~g on the number of comments received; should
the estimated level of effort exceed the hours assumed,'
additional work would need to be authorized through a contract
~odification.
• USSR will be responsible for all noticing of NEPA documents.
• The City will file the Notice of Determination with the State
Clearinghouse. '
• It is assumed that the NEPA ~ would be published after the.
publication of the EIR, such 'that information developed as
part of the EIR could be incorporated directly into the BA to
increase efficiency.
• The engineering task associated with the new pipeline
alignment and pump' station is based on hours; should the
estimated level of effort exceed the hours assumed, additional
work' would need to be authorized through a contract
modificat:lon.
• If the City determines that the alternative pipeline alignment
and pump station will be added to the project, it will inform
RMC of this decision as soon as possible, prior to the
publication of the NOP for inclusion into that document, and
12
100315 8m 010
'so that, the engineering work can be initiated to support
developmeQ.t of the EIR. A delay ,in the engineering
investigation can delay the publication of the EIR and EA.
• Project management includes coordination with the City, USSR,
and the internal team. A maximum of three meetings (3 hours
each) ,are included'in this task (excluding the public scoping
meeting and the public meeting during the EIR public comment
period). These meetings could be for the following: discussion
of City comments on the Screencheck BIR and discussion of
public comments on the Public Draft EIR with t;he Ci1::Y" and
discussions of puplic comments on the NBPA EA with USBR,
• It is possible that the schedule as shown will be delayed if
the optional tasks are initiated later than anticipated in the
process.
• We assume that protocol-level surveys for special'-status
plants or animal species or formal delineation of waters and
wetlands will not be conducted. The CAJA biological team can
condu~t such studies if required and requested; however, an
expanded scope and cost estimate would be required for such
services. '
• We assume that a jurisdictional deli'neation'study that may be
necessary to adequately evaluate impacts to wetland and water
resources that may be subject to U.S. Army Corps (USACE),
CDFG,and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will
,not be conducted. CAJA's wetland biologists, can conduct this
study if required and requested; however, an expanded scope
and cost estimate would be required.
• Please also refer to Exhibits, C, 'D, and E for specific
assumptions regarding the subconsultant scope of work.
13
100315 sm 010
J
j Palo Alto RW Project Single-Issue EIR Schedule-exhibit B
Task Name DuratIon Tlmellne
1 City Issues NTP 1 day .. 4/19/2010
2 1.1 NOP and Seoplng Meeting
3 RMC prepares Draft NOP 10 days 4/20 -5/3/10
4 City reviews Draft NOP 5 days 5/4 -5/10/10
5 RMC prepares Sereencheck NOP 5 days 5/11 -5/17/10
6 City reviews Screencheck NOP 2 days 5/18· 5/19/10
7 RMC prepares NOP for publication 2 days 5/20 -5/21/10
8 NOP Publication o day 5/21/2010
9 NOP Seoping Period . 30 days 5/21-6/21/10
10 Scoplng Meeting Oday· 6/4/2010
11 1.2 DEJR Preparpation
. 12 RMC prepares ADEIR 30 days 5/24 -7/2/10
13 City reviews ADEIR 15 days 7/5 -7/23/10
14 RMC prepares Screencheck DEIR 15 days 7/26 -8/13/10
15 City reviews Screencheck DEIR 10 days 8/16 -8/27/10
Meeting with City ot discuss City comments
16 on Screencheck EIR 1 day 8/30/2010
17 1.3 Public Review of DEIR
18 RMC prepares Draft EIR, NOA, and NOC 5 days 8/31 -9/6/10
19 DEIR Publication o days 9/6/2010
20 DEIR public review period 45 days 9/6 -10/21/10
21 PubHc Meeting o day ·10/1/2010
22 1.4 Final EIR and Associated Documents
Meeting with City to discuss public comments
23 on DEIR 1 day 10/22/2010
24 RMC prepares Draft RTC, MMRP, Findings 20 days 10/25 -11/19/10
25 City reviews Draft RTC, MMRP, Findings 10 days 11/22 -12/3/10
RMC prepares SereencheckRTC, MMRP, and
26 Findings 5 days 12/6 -12/10/10
City reviews Screencheck RTC, MMRP, and
27 Findings 10 days 12/13 -12/24/10
28 RMC prepares Final RTC, MMRP, and Findings 5 days 12/27 -12/31/10
EIR certification / Project Approval (2nd and
29 last Weds of the month) 1 day 1/12/2011
30 File NOD 1 day 1/13/2011
Updated: 3/15/10
L:omoen,sation
:!date ProJect Description
r Quality/Odors
imulatlve Impacts
rdrology/Water Qualltv
'owth
)(fate Biological Resources
)date "Cultural Resources
Immary, Alternatives and CEQA Secttons
n:ument Strategy and Preparation
l.2
I.l DrDjt FEIR (RTC document), MMRP,
'11ft RTC document
'sftMMRP
aft Findings
U Screen check FEIR (RTC document), MMRP;
Jdfngs
t..3 FEfR publication (RTCdocumenr), MMRP,
U Administrative Final EA
1.2 Scr~encheck Final EA
Final Ell.
I Alternative Project Components
glne.,rlns· Alternative components
Idate 8101081<:11 R~$Qurces
ldate Cultural Resources
aluatlon of alternative project components In I;IR
r NEPA Suppgrtlnl1 Documentat/gn
Idate Blolollcal Resources
Resources
100315 sroOm
18
18
12
66
4
1
1
120
130
74
14,
9
4S
48
34
$2,940
$3,830
$1,840 '
$11,290
$780
$195
$195
$20,650
$17,595 "
$1~,900
$2,370
$1,770
$7,350
$13,250
$7,640
$0
$8,850
$5.690
$22,52D
$390
$390
$lg,a§O
$0
$780
$34,550
$0
$0
$0
$34,550
$0
$2,000 $1,601 $3,601
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
,$0
$0
$0
$3,650 $3,650
$4,395 $4,395
'$0
$0
$0,
$0
$1,728
$0
$180
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
' $0
$0
$183
$220
$0
Exhibit c
$88
S115
$55
$339
$23
$6
$6"
$620 "
$528
$387
$71
$53
$221
$398
$229
$0
$266
$171
$676
$12
$12
$200
$3,02B
$3,945
$1,895
$47,907
$803
$3,982
$201
"$21,270
$18,1211
$13,287
$2,441
$1,823
$7,571
$13,648
$S,069
$9,116
$5,861
$23,196
$4,135
$5,017
$19,972
;ATTACHMENT C
--
, I
Description: The City of Palo Alto is investigating an expansion of the
existing recycled water delivery system to serve customers in the City.
The pipeline will primarily access the Stanford Research Parkand provide
an alternative supply source of 1,000 AFY (acre feet per year).
Justification: Palo Alto is aggressively pursuing all options to meet
future water supply needs. Recycled water provides a stable, drought-
proof supply of water that replaces the need to use Hetch Hetch potable
supplies for irrigation purposes.
Consultant Services Scope: RMC Environmental is preparing the
environmental report and facility plan for the project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $335,000
Actuals as of 4/06/2010 $322,617
Design Costs
'ATTACHMENT D
CIP •
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2007-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 92.17%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Board/Commission Review: UAC
• Environmental: Project will require environ-
mental review.
• Design Elements: Any above ground struc-
tures will go through the appropriate review pro-
cess.
• Operating: Project will increase utilities operat-
ing costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Construction Costs $382,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,150,000 $4,782,000
Other
$382,000 $500,000 $750,000 $2,000,000 $1,150,000 $4,782,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds: Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2010-2011
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 7
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES
DATE: April 12, 2010 CMR:140:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of Two Resolutions to Incorporate a Side .Letter
Agreement with the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association (PAPOA) to '
Provide a Supplemental Military Leave Benefit to Pay for the
Differential Between Regular Salary and Military Pay to PAPOA
Members Called to Involuntary Active Duty Amending: (1) Section 1601
of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the 2007-2010
Memorandum of-Agreement and (2) the Compensation Plan for Police
Non-Management Personnel (PAPOA) Adopted by Resolution No. 8779
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions to incorporate a side
letter agreement with the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association (PAPOA) to provide a
supplemental military leave benefit for full-time regular police officers who are enlisted in a
Military Reserve Program and are called to involuntary active duty as part of ongoing
military operations prior to June 30, 20 I 0_
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto provides military leave benefits pursuantto the California Military and
Veterans Code, Section 389, et seq_ Pursuant to this Code, the City is required to pay
employees the difference between their military pay and their regular salary for the first 30
calendar days of active military service. Historically, the City has also maintained all
available benefits for reservists on military leave during the first 30 days, although this
additional provision is not required in all cases by state law _ In addition, during past
operations the Council has approved the voluntary continuation of salary and benefits for II
months beyond the 30 day requirement. This extension is expressly authorized by state law.
CMR:140:10 Page 1 of5
Approval of the side letter agreement would allow payment of the salary differential to one
reservist in P APOA who was unexpectedly called to involuntary active duty, but who would
not qualify under existing policies. This agreement is less costly to the City than prior
military leave provisions because it does not include extending benefits or vacation and sick
leave accruals during deployment.
The payment of the salary differential to employees called to active military duty for
extended periods is consistent with the benefits provided by other local agencies. The Police
Chief and Human Resources staff strongly support the continuation of the City's past
practice of providing this salary differential. Particularly during this economic climate, it is
in the interests of the City of Palo Alto and its workforce to ensure that employee reservists
called to duty are able to serve with the knowledge that their families will not lose financial
stability.
DISCUSSION
Currently, the City of Palo Alto has a Supplemental Military Leave Benefit which covers all
employees who enlisted in the Military Reserves prior to February 18,2003 and have been
called to active duty as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This side letter agreement will
allow the City to extend partial benefits of this policy to an employee who is a full-time
police officer and a reservist in the U.S. Coast Guard, and who was unexpectedly deployed to
Iraq on November 9, 2009 for a ten-month tour of duty. This employee does not qualify
under the current policy because his enlistment date was after February 18, 2003. Currently,
this employee is the only active reservist in P APOA. However, it is possible that additional
P APOA members will be eligible for this benefit in the future.
Under the proposed agreement, the salary differential between military pay and the
employee's regular salary may be extended for up to eleven additional months after the first
30 days' pay. Additional pay after the first 30 days is authorized under Military and Veterans
Code Section 395.03. Further, there is a provision in the City's Merit Rules and Regulations
that provides for the City Council to offer supplemental benefits for up to one year "for
reasons the Council, in its sole discretion, considers adequate and in the best interest of the
City." (City of Palo Alto Merit Rules and Regulations, Chapter 8, Section 808.)
Under these provisions, the City is permitted, but not required to offer supplemental pay after
the first 30 days of military deployment. However, the extension of the pay differential for
the full term of deployment has been the long-standing past practice of the City. In 2001,
Council approved extension of salary and benefits to employees called to active duty "in
CMR:140:10 Page 2 of5
recognition of the sacrifices made by employees called to serve their country." (CMR
440:01).
Merit Rule No. 708 simply provides that the City will follow State and Federal law; however,
the past practice of the City has been to provide both extended salary and benefits. Specific
authorization for the extension of pay and benefits has been provided for individual military
operations on a case-by-case basis. In this case, due to the current budget situation, the
Police Chief and P APOA are not requesting an extension of benefits or accruals.
According to State and Federal law, the City must hold the position of any deployed
employee open for a least one year. The police department will backfill this position by
paying overtime when necessary according to past practice when covering other types of
absences such as disability leave, vacation, etc. Backfilling this position will likely result in
minimal overtime costs (approximately SI5,000).
If approved, this side letter agreement would provide the following:
1. The City would pay the differential between an employee's current regular pay (less
accruals) and military pay received by the employee while on active military for nine
months.
2. The City would provide this benefit retroactive to December 1,2009.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is currently one employee who will benefit from this agreement. At this time, there are
no other PAPOA members enlisted in the Military Reserve programs. This employee is
expected to be on military leave for a total of ten months. As such, under the agreement, the
City will pay the employee nine months of regular salary less nine months of accruals (sick,
vacation and holidays) and less nine months of military pay. Benefits such as health care and
retirement will not be paid.
The City will realize a savings of S79, 062 compared to the budgeted total compensation for
this employee over nine months. Salary will be reduced by military pay ($21,014) and the
employee will not accrue benefits such as vacation, sick time or holidays ($10,723) for nine
months. Finally, the City will not pay for benefits such as medical care, retirement, et al
($47,325). Total savings are calculated as follows:
---....... -~ ---....... -~ ..... -----....... ~.---....... --
CY!R:140:10 Page 3 or5
Total Budgeted Compensation -nine
months
Including salary, accruals, and benefits
Less
Military pay for nine months
Accruals for nine months
Benefits for nine months
Total Reduction (savings)
Net Pay
$ 21,014
10,723
47,325
$ 79,062
$ 120,583
$ 41,521
Savings could potentially be offset by minimal overtime or backfilling the department may be
required to make as a result of the employee's absence (approximately $15,000). Inadditioll,
the savings should be viewed in the context of potentially lower service levels. However, the
Chief of Police states that there will be minimal impact or cost in this case, and those costs
can be recovered by the estimated savings shown above.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Merit Rules require only that the City comply with both State and Federal law, but the
past practice of the City has been to go beyond those minimal requirements. This agreement
provides a continuation of that past practice, but at a reduced financial cost. Any future
expansion of the current policies would require City Council approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This is not a project under the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations
Regarding the 2007-20 I 0 Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Palo Alto
and the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association, to Provide a Supplemental Military
Leave Benefit for Members Called to Involuntary Active Duty
------........... _ ..... _-----........... -..... --------------
CMR:140:10 Page 4 of5
2. Resolution Amending the 2007-20 I 0 Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management
Personnel (Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association) Adopted by Resolution No. 8779
to Incorporate a Side Letter Agreement to the 2007-20 I 0 Memorandum of Agreement
with the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association, to Provide a Supplemental Military
Leave Benefit for Members Called to Involuntary Active Duty
3. Side Letter to the 2007-2010 Memorandum of Agreement Between the Palo Alto
Peace Officers' Association and the City of Palo Alto
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
RUSSELL CARLSEN
Director, Human Resources
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ---,''-+-~''-'-~"-+---'''F-----
CMR:140:10
JA
Ci
Page 5 of5
**NOT YET APPROVED**
Resolution No. --Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and
Regulations Regarding the 2007-2010 Memorandum of
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Peace Officers' Association, to Provide a Supplemental Military
Leave Benefit for Members Called to Involuntary
Active Duty
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1.
amended to read as follows:
Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations is hereby
"1601. Memorandum of agreement incorporated by reference. That certain
memorandum of agreement by and between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto
Peace Officers' Association, consisting of a Preamble and Sections I through 50
and Appendix A, for a telm commencing lu1y 1, 2007, and expiring June 30,
2010, as amended to provide a supplemental military leave benefit to pay the
differential between regular salary and military pay to P APOA members called
to involuntary active duty, is hereby incorporated into these Merit System Ru1es
and Regulations by reference as though fully set forth herein. Said
memorandum, as amended, shall apply to all employees in classifications of
police officer trainee, poliee officer, poliee agent, and police sergeant, except
where specifically provided otherwise herein.
In the case of conflict with this chapter and any other provisions of the Merit
System Ru1es and Regulations, this chapter will prevail over such other
p:ovisions as to employees represented by said Palo Alto Peace Officers'
Association."
SECTIO)! 2. The Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") incorporated into the Merit
System Ru1es and Regulations by Section 1 of this Resolution amends the MOA incorporated into
the Merit Rules by Resolution No.8778 by incorporating the side letter set forth in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The changes provided for in this resolution shall not affect any right
established or accrued, or any offense or act committed, or any penalty of forfeiture incurred, or any
prosecution, suit, or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this
resolution.
II
II
1/
100202 sh 8261249 1
I I
I **NOT YET APPROVED**
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED k'ID PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Director of Administrative Services
Director ofHurnan Resources
lO0202 sh 8261249 2
**NOT YET APPROVED**
EXHmIT "A"
Side Letter to the 2007-2010 Memorandum of Agreement
100202 sh 8261249
SIDE LETTER TO THE 2007·2010
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE PALO ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
AND
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
WHEREAS, the Council of tire City of Palo Alto values the contributions made
by its employee reservists called to serve their country; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the City of Palo Alto and its workforce to
ensure that employee reservists called to duty are able to serve with the knowledge that
their families will not lose salary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto has authorized supplemental military leave pay
for eleven additional months at the time of prior U.S. engagements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, P APOA and the City agree as follows:
Section 1. The following provision is hereby added to the MOA as Appendix
"A" to read as follows:
Appendix" A"
Supplemental Military Leave Benefit
Effective December 1, 2009, any military reservist who is a member of
PAPOA and is called to involuntary active duty prior to June 30, 2010
shall be eligible to receive a supplemental military leave benefit, paid by
the City after the first 30 days of paid military leave, of the differential
between the employee's current regular pay and all military pay received
by the employee while on active military duty for up to eleven additional
months.
Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association City of Palo Alto,
Subject to City Council Approval
BY:~9Jy By: ________ _
Date: ________ _
Approved as to Form:
By: ________ _
100202 ,h 8261248
** NOT YET APPROVED **
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the 2007-2010 Compensation Plan for Police Non-
Management Personnel (Palo Alto Peace Officers'
Association) Adopted by Resolution No. 8779 to Incorporate
a Side Letter Agreement to the 2007-2010 Memorandum of
Agreement with the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association, to
Provide a Supplemental Military Leave Benefit for Members
Called to Involuntary Active Duty
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management Personnel,
adopted by Resolution No. 8779, is hereby amended to provide a supplemental military leave
benefit to pay the differential betwcen regular salary and military pay to P APOA members ealled
to involuntary active duty as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTIOK 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to
implement the amended compensation plan 'as set forth in Section 1.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1/
II
II
II
100202 ,h 8261250 1
** NOT YET APPROVED **
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environment~ 1 Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
P.'ITRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk . Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Human Resources
100202 sh 8261250 2
** NOT YET APPROVED **
EXHIBIT "A"
Side Letter to the 2007-2010 Memorandum of Agreement
100202 sh 8261250 3
SIDE LETTER TO THE 2007-2010
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE PALO ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
AND
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
\VHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palo Alto values the contributions made
by its employee reservists called to serve their country; and .
WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the City of Palo Alto and its workforce to
ensure that employee reservists called to duty are able to serve with the knowledge that
their families ""ill not lose salary; and
\VHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto has authorized supplentental military leave pay
for eleven additional months at the time of prior U.S. engagements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, P APOA and the City agree as follows:
Section I. The following provision is hereby added to the MOA as Appendix
"A" to read as follows:
Appendix "A"
Supplemental Military Leave Benefit .
Effective December I, 2009, any military reservist who is a member of
PAPOA and is called to involuntary active duty prior to June 30, 2010
shall be eligible to receive a supplemental military leave benefit, paid by
the City after the first 30 days of paid military leave, of the differential
between the employee's current regular pay and all military pay reeeived
by the employee while on active military duty for up to eleven additional
months.
Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association City of Palo Alto,
Subject to City Council Approval
BY:~\Uy By: _________ _
Date: '-\. -!., 1-0 Date:, _________ _
Approved as to Form:
By: ___ ~. _____ _
100202 sh 8261248
10
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: APRIL 12, 2010 CMR:185:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract With
the Avogadro Group, LLC for a Period of Three Years for
Incinerator Emission Testing at the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant With Funding for the First Year Approved in the Not to Exceed
Amountof $89,175 and a Total Contract Amount of $280,000
RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff recommends that Council direct the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached contract with The Avogadro Group, LLC (Avogadro) for a period of three years
with funding in the amount not to exceed $89',175 in the first year, not to exceed amount of
$80,340 for the second year, and a not to exceed amount of $83,570 in the third year for
provision of services to conduct Incinerator Emissions Testing at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (Attachment A).
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Avogadro, for related, additional but unforeseen work which may
develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $9,825 in the first year,
$8,660 in the second year, and $8,430 in the third year.
Project Description
The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) has operated two sludge incinerators since
1972 to incinerate biosolids. The RWQCP is required annually to measure air emissions in order
to ensure compliance with the permit issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
In addition to the permit compliance parameters, staff requested that the incinerators be
monitored for a wide variety of parameters including but not limited to metals, greenhouse gases,
dioxins, furans and aldehydes. The results from these tests will be used during the development
of the master plan of the wastewater treatment plant and in future greenhouse gas calculations.
Summary of Solicitation Process
A request for quotation for the project was posted at City Hall and sent to ten air emission testing
firms. The solicitation period was 28 days. Solicitations were received from two qualified
contractors on February 16, 2010. Staff has reviewed all solicitations submitted; two firms,
Avogadro Group and TRC Environmental Corporation submitted proposals. More responses
CMR:185:10 Page 1 of3
were not received because of the highly specialized nature of the work, which requires
specialized knowledge and experience in emission testing for biosolid incinerators.
Solicitation NamelNumber Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators RFP# 13 5189
Proposed Length of Project 3 years
Number of Proposals Mailed 10
Total Days to Respond to Solicitation 28
Number of Solicitations Received: 2
An evaluation committee of three Public Works Environmental Compliance Division staff was
utilized to review the proposals. The committee carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications
and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The proposal evaluations resulted
in The Avogadro Group, LLC's selection. In general, the evaluations gave TRC Environmental
Corporation better scores in the "Cost to the city" category, but The Avogadro Group, LLC
scored higher in the "Proposers experience" and "Proposers prior record of performance with
city or others" categories. The Avogadro Group, LLC's record of performance with Palo Alto
and its experience in testing biosolids incinerators, including Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District's biosolids incinerator, were key factors in the decision.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for the first year of the contract have been appropriated in the FY 2009-2010 Wastewater
Enterprise Funds. The cost for the first year is greater than the second and third year, because
Avogadro will conduct additional testing in the first year. In the second and third year, the
testing is the same but there is a small increase due to a nominal price increase. Fund for years
two and three are contingent upon Council approval of the budget for each subsequent year.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (b), which exempts negligible expansion of an
existing use including operation of publicly-owned sewerage services, structures, facilities,
mechanical equipment, or topographical features.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
CMR:185:1O Page 2 of3
PREPARED BY:
DEPARMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:185:10
~£?rffi-
KARIN NORTH
Associate Engineer
tLJRA-
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135189
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
THE AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(EMISSION TESTING OF SLUDGE INCINERATORS)
This AGREEMENT is entered into on this __ day of April, 2010, by and between
the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and THE
AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, located at 2825 Verne Roberts Circle,
Antioch, CA 94509 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to analyze incinerator emissions ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant
to conduct annual incinerator emission testing in connection with the Project ("Services'').
B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this
Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM. The term ofthis Agreement shall be from the date ofits full execution by
CITY, and shall expire three years from the commencement date, subject to CITY Council's annual
approval of each current year's budget and appropriation of funds unless terminated earlier pursuant
to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term ofthis
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part
ofthis Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement
shall be commenced and completed by CONSULT ANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner
Professional Services
Rev. January 2q09
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposa1s\RFP\RFP 13 51 89 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract Cl 0 135189
A VOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: ClO135189
based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's
agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses for each of the three years, shall not exceed
Eighty-nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($89,175.00) for 2010. In the event
Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses
shall not exceed Ninety-nine Thousand Dollars ($99,000.00) for 2010; shall not exceed Eighty
Thousand Three Hundred Forty Dollars ($80,340.00) for 20 11 year. In the event Additional Services
are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
Eighty-nine Thousand Dollars ($89,000.00) for 2011, and shall not exceed Eighty-three Thousand
Five Hundred Seventy Dollars ($83,570.00) for 2012. In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Ninety-
two Thousand Dollars ($92,000.00) for 2012. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set
out in Exhibit "C", entitled "COMPENSATION," which is attached to and made a part of this
Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subj ect to the provisions of
Exhibit "C" . CONSULT ANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification 0 f personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable
expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C"). If applicable, the
invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in
CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY . CONSULTANT shall
send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City
will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULT ANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
2
Professional Services
. Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOCISAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract Cl 0135189
AVOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135189
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinfonned of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perfonn
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all pennits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the perfonnance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULT ANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSUL T ANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction ofthe Project.
This obligation shall survive tennination ofthe Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. lfthe total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%)
of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY
for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations,
and revise the design to meet the Project budget,at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT. and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor andlor materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the perfonnance of any of CONSUL T ANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
ofthe city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the
Services. The sub consultants authorized by CITY to perfonn work on this Project are labs:
1. Curtis and Tomkins, Ltd
2. Vista Analytical Laboratory
3. Air Toxics Ltd.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to sub consultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
3
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\cc· TERRA \jalTeoI\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 135189 Emission Testing of Sludge 1ncinerators\Contract C I 0135189
AVOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135189
compensation. CONSULT ANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULT ANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Erick Mirabella as
the proj ect director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of
the Services and John Pascale as the project coordinator to represent CONSULT ANT during the day-
to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, proj ect
coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project
director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior
written approval ofthe CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly
remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are
uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion ofthe Project or a threat to
the safety of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Karin North, Public Works Department, Environmental Compliance
Division, at 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-494-7629. The project
manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and
execution of the Services .. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULT ANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation ofthe work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. N either CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of
the City Manager or designee. CONSULT ANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULT ANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during
the term ofthis Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULT ANT further agrees to maintain and retain such
records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
O[Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section
2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed
professional land surveyors. ] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law , CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnifY, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
4
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 135189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract C I 0135189
A VOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
i25J[Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as dermed
in Civil Code Section 2782.8.1 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law , CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or
nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right ofindemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision ofthis Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "DII.
CONSULT ANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general1iability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:vn or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution ofthis Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
5
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreo\\PURCHDOClSAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract CI 0135.189
A VOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification,
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance
are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULT ANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The city manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in
part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its perfonnance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its perfonnance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a
substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to
CONSULTANT or its contractors, ifany, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such detennination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
6
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOc\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract CI 0 135189
AVOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: ClO135189
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULT ANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENT ALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING. The City of Palo Alto
is a green business and works to purchase and provide products in an environmentally sustainable
manner. CONSULT ANT will use production methods that reduce waste and environmentally toxic
products, as well as have less packaging. CONSULTANT will adhere to the standard that printed
materials will be, at a minimum, printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper with vegetable based
ink. The designer will check with the project manager to discuss the maximum recycled content
paper available for each project. FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper that is "process
free" is preferred. CONSULTANT will use methods that reduce energy use and thus the carbon
7
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009 .
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposais\RFP\RFPI35189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract C1 0135189
A VOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135189
footprint for the development, production and delivery of products. CONSULT ANT shall adhere to
the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies as may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 24 .. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
24.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
24.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
24.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions ofthis
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
24.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
24.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions ofthis Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
24.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
24.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
24.8. This Agreement is subj ect to the fiscal provisions ofthe Charter ofthe City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at anytime within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 24.8 shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision ofthis
Agreement.
24.9. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have
the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
8
Professional SelVices
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135189 Emission Testing of Sludge incinerators\Contract Cl 0135189
AVOGADRO. doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
24.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
. representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above wrltten.
CITY OF PALO ALTO . .
CONSULTANT:
THE AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC
_City Manager (Required for contracts over
$85,000) By: .q;;;-~ .
_Purchasing Manager Name: '-;;ha~4 5~ 4/1 ap;;~ '.
Tit1e:.----'_-.!.,~Ht%,~L~/:.....;L2=o::...-------
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT ''B'':
EXHIBIT "C":
EXHIBIT "C-l":
EXHIBIT ''DtI: .
'.,
SCOPE OF SERVICE
SCHEl)ULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
SCHEDULE OF Rt\TES
INSURANCE REQUIREMBNTs
. 9
Professional Services
Rev. Janu!IrY 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP13S189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract CIOl35189
AVOOADRO.dllC .
1. Summary of Work
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
Scope of services
a. This contract involves 3 years of annual emission testing of sludge incinerators at
the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) to show
compliance with the emission limits of Condition No. 16107, Item Number 11 of
Application No. 6797 and Condition No. 24496, Item Number 2 of Application
20506 issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BMQMD).
Compliance tests will be performed in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
b. In conjunction with the annual compliance tests in 2010, 2011 and 2012, this
contract involves annual testing and reporting (under separate cover) for metals,
carbon dioxide (C02), and nitrous oxide (N20). All work will proceed after
issuance of a task order.
c. This contract also involves emissions data collection for aeration basins and
trickling filters exhaust system at the PARWQCP for methane, nitrous oxide
(N20). and carbon dioxide (C02). The emission testing is to be performed in
2010.
2. Quality Control
a. The Avogadro Group must maintain their listing as an approved independent
contractor listed with the California Air Resources Board as qualified to perform
those tests required by the work herein.
b. The Avogadro Group r shall comply with federal, state, and local safety laws.
c. The Avogadro Group assigned project manager must provide proof of QSTI
certification. In addition, the Group 4 (metals) certification is desired but not
required.
d. Prior experience for each of the listed test methods in Section 5 is required and
references may be requested.
3. Background Data
a. Source Owner/Location:
b. Project Manager:
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Karin North
c. Sources: S-1 Sludge Incinerator #1
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 1 OF 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
S-2 Sludge Incinerator #2
Aeration Basins
Trickling Filters exhaust system
d. Abatement Devices: A-20 Afterburner #1 & A-22 Scrubber #1
A-21 Afterburner #2 & A-23 Scrubber #2
e. Plant Number: 617
f. Application Number: 6797
g. Condition Number: A0617
h. Sampling Locations: 1. At the outlet of the two abatement devices, there are
two sampling ports accessible on the outlet stack at the
incinerator building rooftop.
2. Aeration Basins
3. Trickling Filter Tower Exhaust
4. Task 1 : Annual Compliance Test
a. A compliance test is to be performed on one incinerator per year. A compliance
test will be performed on S-2 Incinerator No.2 prior to May 11,2010. Thereafter,
an annual compliance test shall be performed no sooner than 9 months and no
later than 12 months after the previous test on the incinerator that is in operation
at the time of the test.
b. Per the permit conditions, the emission testing firm shall be responsible for
submitting an approved testing protocol to the BAAQMD Source Test Section as
well as providing the BAAQMD Source Test Section the required advanced
notification of the date of the compliance test.
c. The emission testing firm shall conduct tests on the following emission
parameters:
i. Concentration (dry basis) of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) in
the landfill gas;
ii. Exhaust gas flow rate from each afterburner (dry basis);
iii. Concentrations (dry basis) of NMOC, NOx and 02 in the flare stack gas;
and
iv. The NMOC destruction efficiency achieved by each afterburner.
d. The plant shall provide the following parameters:
i. Landfill gas flow rate to each afterburner (dry basis); and
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 2 OF 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
ii. The average combustion temperature in each afterburner during the test
period.
e. Within 25 days of the compliance test, the Avogadro Group shall prepare, for
owner review, two copies of a draft report. Within five days of receipt of any
comments, the emission testing firm shall prepare five copies of the final report.
f. The report shall include a summary of emission results, source location
information, test conditions, test procedures, standard measurement procedures,
quality assurance, detailed results for individual test runs, and supporting data
including CEMS data, calibrations, field data sheets, calculations, and
spreadsheets.
g. The final report will be under separate cover from any other report required in this
specification. The owner will submit a copy of the final report to the BAAQMD.
h. Under certain circumstances when an incinerator malfunction occurs and steady
state operations have not been reached, the City may need to postpone the
emissions testing. In its cost estimate for this task, Avogadro Group shall provide
a separate daily standby rate that shall be applicable in the event that testing
must be postponed.
5. Task 2: 2010,2011, and 2012 emission data collection
a. Upon request by the City of Palo Alto, in 2010, 2011, and 2012 the Avogadro
Group shall conduct tests on the following emission parameters or a subset
requested by the City for the following timed test runs:
i. Perform triplicate 1-hourtest runs using test method EPA 320 Fourier
Transform Infared Spectroscopy (FTIR), for N20, CH4, and TNMHC
ii. Perform triplicate 6-hour test runs, using test method EPA 29 and
analytical method ICP/MS, for the following metals: antimony (Sb), arsenic
(As), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), cobalt
(Co), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), mercury (Hg), nickel
(Ni), phosphorous (P), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn).
iii. Perform triplicate 1-hourtest runs using test method EPA 30B, for mercury
(Hg).
iv. Perform triplicate 6-hour test runs, using test method CARB 425, for
hexavalent chromium.
v. Perform triplicate 3-hour test runs, using test method CARB 430, for
aldehydes: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein.
vi. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs, using test method TO-15, for BTEX.
vii. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs, using test method EPA 10, for carbon
monoxide (CO)
viii. Perform triplicate 4-:-hour test runs, using test CARB 429, for speciated
PAH compounds
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 3 OF 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
ix. Perform triplicate 1 ~hour test runs, using test method EPA 3A, for 02/C02
x. Perform triplicate 4~hour test runs, using test method EPA 23, for dioxins
and furans (PCDDI PCDF)
xi. Perform triplicate 2~hour test runs, using test method EPA 26A, for
hydrogen chloride (HCI) and hydrogen fluoride (HF)
xii. Perform triplicate 1 ~hour test runs, using test method EPA 6C, for sulfur
dioxide (S02)
xiii. Perform triplicate 6 minute averages using test method EPA 9, for opacity
xiv. Perform triplicate test runs, 4~hour test runs using test method EPA OTM-
27 (may need to be modified by heating cyclone) and OTM-28, for PM2.5,
and PM (condensable) and test method EPA 5 for filterable PM.
xv. Perform triplicate test runs, 2-hour test runs using test method EPA 5 for
filterable PM.
b. The plant shall provide the following data:
i. The average combustion temperature in each afterburner during the test
period.
c. Within 35 days of the test, the emission testing firm shall prepare, for owner
review, an electronic version of a draft report. Within five days of receipt of any
comments, the emission testing firm shall prepare one (1) hard copy of the final
report and one (1) electronic copy of the final report.
d. The report shall include a summary of emission results, source location
information, test conditions, test procedures, standard measurement procedures,
quality assurance, detailed results for individual test runs, and supporting data
including CEMS data, calibrations, field data sheets, calculations, and
spreadsheets.
e. The final report will be under separate cover from any other report required in this
specification.
f. Under certain circumstances when an incinerator malfunction occurs and steady
state operations have not been reached, the City may need to postpone the
emissions testing. In its cost estimate for this task, the Avogadro Group shall
provide a separate daily standby rate that shall be applicable in the event that
testing must be postponed.
6. Task 3: 2010 emission data collection from trickling filters tower exhaust and aeration
basins .
a. In 2010, the emission testing firm shall conduct tests on the trickling tower
exhaust on the following emission parameters for the following timed test runs:
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 40F 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
LPerform triplicate 30-minute runs, using test method for EPA 320 FTiR for
·N20 and CH4
iLPerform triplicate 30-minute runs, using test method EPA 18 for TNMHC
iiLPerform triplicate 30-minute runs, using test method EPA 4 for stack
moisture
iV.Perform triplicate 30-minute runs, using test method EPA 1,2 for stack
velocity and for capturing average flow of trickling filter exhaust system.
v.Perform triplicate 30-minute runs, to capture the average now of the
trickling filters.
b. In 2010, the Avogadro Group shall conduct tests on the aeration basins on the
following emission parameters for the following timed test runs:
L Perform triplicate 30-minute runs, using test method for EPA 320 for N20,
CH4, and TNMHC, using an EPA Surface Isolation Flux Chamber
c. The plant shall provide the following data:
i. The area of the aeration basins.
d. Within 35 days of the test, the Avogadro Group shall prepare, for owner review,
an electronic version of a draft report. Within five days of receipt of any
comments, the emission testing firm shall prepare one (1) hard copy of the final
report and one (1) electronic copy of the final report.
e. The report shall include a summary of emission results, source location
information, test conditions, test procedures, standard measurement procedures,
quality assurance, detailed results for individual test runs, and supporting data
including CEMS data, calibrations, field data sheets, calculations, and
spreadsheets.
f. The final report will be under separate cover from any other report required in this
specification.
9. Authorized Subconsultants
a. Labs shall be qualified to perform the tests required.
b. Subcontracting labs must be approved in advance by the City of Palo Alto project
manager.
10. Additional terms and conditions
a. Facility requirements
L Operation of the incinerators at the required test conditions according
to an agreed-upon testing schedule
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 5 OF 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
ii. Clear, safe access to the sampling site and a safe work platform in the
form of catwalks
iii. Minimum of two 4 inch i.d. standard pipe test couplings with caps
removed in condition to accept a standard 1 to 3-inch diameter
sampling probes.
iv. A minimum of four 11 O-volt 20-amp electrical outlets will b available
within 50 feet of the area designated for the mobile laboratory. Three
additional 20-amp outlets will be available within 100 feet of each stack
sampling location.
v. An area will be designated and cleared for location of the mobile lab,
prior to Avogadro arriving on site. The area will be within 100 feet of
the base of the sampling site.
vi. All operation data necessary to show load conditions and calculate
results will be available
vii. All plant emergency and evacuation procedures, including necessary
site contact numbers will be available. Avogadro will have full access
to the facility's Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
b. Process Information. Unless the test team includes an Avogadro employee
responsible for collecting unit data, the City shall provide accurate information in
a manner acceptable to the regulatory agency and in sufficient detail to perform
the necessary test calculations
c. Postponement or Cancellation. If the City postpones, reschedules, or cancels a
test, all expenses incurred for the preparation and travel that must be repeated
prior to the actual test will be invoiced. If the postponement or cancellation is
made less than two weeks prior to a scheduled test, Avogadro will charge the
City a fee of 10% of the estimated project price.
d. Standby Fees: If the test team arrives on site and cannot test due to causes
beyond Avogadro's control (i.e. City process or equipment problems, inclement
weather, etc.) standby fees will be charged at Avogadro's normal manpower
rates.
e. Inclement Weather. Inclement weather is defined as lightning, thunderstorms,
strong winds, icing, or other atmospheric conditions that may endanger or cause
damage to Avogadro personnel and/or equipment or otherwise adversely affect
the test results. The decision to conduct or postpone sampling operations will be
at the discretion of the Avogadro test team leader. If weather conditions preclude
safe testing during the scheduled hours and days the City will be invoiced at the
per-man, per-day standby rate.
f. Limitations of Liability. Avogadro shall not be responsible for an unsuccessful
test to compliance failure, malfunction, or improper operation of the facility's
process and/or control equipment. The City is responsible for having the process
and/or control equipment operating in a representative manner.
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 60F 14
BAY AREA
AJRQ!JAUTY'
MANkO EMENT
DISTRICT
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Rob.eda aooR~r
Soott t-Iagge'riy
jChalrperstln)
Nate Miley
Shelia Yount)
CONTRA COSTA coilNTY
Malt OeSaulnler Mark Ross
Gayle u'iI~ema .lSBcr,I.,,:!,)
MARIN CO.UNTY
HarOld-C. Brown. Jr.
WiPA'(\OONTY
Bille;! Wagenknecht
SAN FRllNCllico COUNTY
.f Chris 'Oaly
, Napaot)
{~~ilt)
SAN MATEO COUNTY Jerry Hili M,ar!~nd Town.I!.Qnd (IJIc~alrpeoslin)
SAN.TA C.L:ARA cOUNTY
LflKnlll$
Juila Miller
Dena Mossar
(vacant)
SolANO COUNTY jOhn F. Sliva
SQNO.W~.CQUNTY
TimSmilh
Pamela Tori/att
William C. Nerlon
:xecuthie Officer/Plpeo
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
February 04. 2003
Pllio Alto ltfi!gionai Water Quality Control Plant
2561 El;lJbarcjldero Way
Palp Alto. CA 94303
Attention: William Miks
Dear Applicailt:
Application NUI1lber:
Plant Number:
Equipment Location:
6191
617
Same as above
Thi~ l~ttl!r is t.oadvise you that your applicaJion for changes in permit cQnditjQrts for the following equipment
has been approved:
S-1 SLUDGE INCINERATOR #1. Abated by A-20Attel'buru~r and A-22 Serubb~r
8-2 SLUDGE INCINERATOR #2, Abated by A-Zl Afterburner and' A-23 Scrubber.
Operation ofthi$ equipment Will bellubject to the attached condition:16101
Plellsemclu,de your appli138,tionnumbet with anycottespondeilce witli th¢ District. Jfyoubave any
questions 0)1 this matter, plasse call TlId .Hull; Air Q:Uality Engineer n at (41S) 749-4919.
RTHlVCh
Attachment
Vetytru!y yQui:$,
William C. Nort()Il
Executive OKti9~/ APCO
by~ F'S~ emilt . erylces IVlSlOD
939 ELLIs STREET· SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 • 415.771.6000·/IlIt!w.l}(wqmd.got)
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 70F 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
y-' GOND# r61 07 -------. -------. --. ---• -----.. ----.. ------.. ------
I'
The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality. Control Plant
(PARWQCP)
District PJ.ant #617
Sources S-1 and S-2 Sludge Incinerators
1. The combineq sludge throughput at 8-1 and 8-2 shall
not exceed 32 dtpd (dry ton per day) averaged over any
rolling 30 daY period. [basis: OUl)lulat~lJe increase]
2. The combined sludge throughput at 8-1 and S-2 shall
not exoeed 55 dtpd (dry ton per day) averaged over any
1'0 11ing24 hour period. [basis: cumulatiVe increase]
3. The combined incineration of cQntrQUed su(;)stance
waste .atS-1 or S-2snall not exceed 57 kg .per hour
andsha.ll be limited to the following materials:
[basis: toxics] .
a. confiscated drugs and contro1.led substances,
including containers
b. drug paraphernalia
c. storage bags made of non-dhlorinated plastio
d. paper and cardboard
4. Emissions from 8'-1 Incinerator shall be abated by.A-20
AfterbUrner and A·22 Scrubber during all periods of·
()peration. [basis: cumulative increase. and toxics]
5. Eiliissions from S-2 Incinerator shall be abated by A-21
Afterburner and A·23 Scrubber dur.ing all periods of
operation. [basis: oumulative increaSe and toxinsJ
6. nie destruction efficiency of A-20i:tnd A-21
Afterburner's shall not be less than tbe following
percentage by weight or outlet concentration shall not
be .greater than the following: [basis: dumulative
increase and toxics]
VOG
Dioxin
. Formaldehyde
Furans
Percentage
98%
30%
98%
98%
Concentration
20 ppmvd (3% 02)
90 P!!Jlm!3 (7% 02)
1.2 ppmvd (3% 02) .
373 pg/m3 (7% 02)
7. TDe capture efficiency of A-22 and A-23 Scrubbers
shall not be less than the following percentage by
weight or outlet concentration shall not be greater
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE80F 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
than the following: [basis: cumulative inorease and
toxios]
Hel
ArseniQ
Beryllium
CadmiUm
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Se.1enium
Unc
percentage
50%
98%
94.5%
98%
99%
98%
99%
10%
9U%
90%
90%
Concentration
0.5 ppmvd ~3% 02)
17 uglm3 (7% 02)
0.03 ug/ rna (7~ 02)
5"9 ug{ 1ri3 (7% 02)
0.65 ugl lila (7% og)
265 ugl m3 (7% 02)
35 ug/ m3 (7% 02)
140 U91 m3 (7% (2)
15 ugJ rna (7% 02)
32 u91 rn3 (1% 02)
2513 ugl rn3 (7% 02)
8. The Afterburners A-20 and A-21 are permitted to fire
natural gas; landfill gas, or a combination thereof.
Wb.en landfill gas ;is fired, the non-methan.e organio
oompouogs (l\IMOC)' in the gas shall be reduoed by at
least 98% (wt) or have an emission less than 120 p.pm
by 'volume at the outlet (dry basis, expressed as
m.sthane ,corrected to 3% oxygen.) .The minimum
combustion zone temperature for A-20 andA-21 shall be
eqIJal to tbe average combustion zone temperature
determined during the most recent oomplying source
test minus 50 degrees F, provided that the minimum
com.Dustion zone temperature is not less than 1300
degree$ F. {basis: Toxic Risk Management Policy and
RegUlation B-~4-301.3} .
9. To determine compliance with above Part 8, each A·20
and A·21 Aft'~rburner shall be eqUipped with continuous
temperatur~' me!;lS'uring and recording instrumentation
oonsist:ing Qf at least 1 temperature probe and at
If!ast one rec.otding device, which will continuously
record temperature. [basis: Regulation 8~34"509,
clllDulative inorease and tOX10S]
10. The temp.erature measuring and recording
instrumenta:tion to be installed and the speoific
placement within the afterburner of each of the
temperature probes specified in Part 9 shall be .
subject to the prior approval of the Source Test
Section of the District's Technical Division. [basis:
oumulative increase and toxics]
11. In order, to demonstrate compliance with Regulation 8,
Rub 34, Sections 301.3 and 412, the Permit Holder
shall ensure that a District approved source test is
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE90F 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
conducted annually on the Afterburners A-20 and A-21
(--) while firing landfill gas. As a minimum, the annual
\ source test shall determine the following:
a. landfill gas flow rate to ea.ch afterburner (dry
basis);
b. concentration (dry bas,is) of total non-methane
organic colli pounds (NMOC) in the landfill gas;
c. exhaust gas flow rata from a.ach afterburner (dry
basis);
d. concentrations (dry basis) of NMQC, and 02 in the
flal"'estack gas;
e. the NMOC destruction efficiency achieved by each
afterpurner;and
f. tJ'Ie average combustion temperature in each
afterburner during the test period.
the first SOtlrce test shall be conducted no later than
~o days after landfill gas firing commences.
Subsequent source tests shall be eo.nductad no sooner
than S months and no later than 12 months after the
previous source test. The Source Test Secti()n of the
Dis1:rict shall be contacted to obtain approval of the
source tast procedures at least 14 days in advance of
ea:ch $OUrce test. The SOurce rest Section shall be
notified of the soheduled test date at lea'st 7 days in
advance of eaCh source test. The source test re@ort
shall be submitted to the Compliance and Enforcement
Div1$ion and to the Source Te.stSection within 45 days
of the test date. {basis:· RegUlations 8-34-301.3 and
8-34-412)
12. A·22 and A-'23 Scrubbers shall be properly maintained
a.mlkept in goodwor'king condition at all times. Each
A-lf2 and A-23 Scrubber .shall be equipp.ed with a
f16wlJ1.eter which will continuously r.eoOrd in units of
gpm and a pressLlre gal;lge whioh will cpntinuously
record in units of pSi. The flow rate and pressure at
eaCh scrubber shall be maintained within the
acceptable ranges established by the manufacturer.
[basis: cumu.lative incre<:tse and taxies]
13. The operator oT S-1 and 8-2 shall maintain the
following records for eaoh day of operation:
a. the hOur'S and time of operation,
b. The throughput of Sludge at each S-l and 8-2,
c. Date.1 time, and duration of. each controlled
substance incineration and the type and amount (kg)
of each material incinerated
d. The temperature data collected from the temperature
recorder at A-20 and A-21 ,
City of Palo Alto -CON"rRACT C10135189 PAGE 100F 14
I \' .
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
a. The flowrate and pressure data collected at A-22
and A-23,
f. Each emission test or analY!3:is result lo.gged in for
the day of operation they were taken.
These records shall be retained for at least two five
years from the date .of entry and be made available to
the BAACllM.D upon request. [pasis: Regulation 8-34-509 J
cumulative increase,snd tox:i;cs1
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 11 OF 14
BAY AREA
AIRQgALlTY
MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
SINCE 1955
Required
Action
Authorization
of Limited Use
Contact
Information
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
November 18,2009
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attention: Rick Wetzel
Authority to Construct for Permit Application No. 20506, Plant No. 617
Your Authority to Construct is enclosed. This Authority to Construct is not a PelTIlit to
Operate. To receive your Permit to Operate you must:
1. Complete the Start-up Notification portion of the Authority to Construct.
2. Send the Start-up Notification to the assigned PelTIlit Engineer via e-mail, fax or
mail at least seven days prior to operating your equipment.
Note: Operation of equipment without sending the Start-up Notification to the District may
result in enforcement action.
The Authority to Construct authorizes operation during the start-up period from the date of
initial operation indicated in your Start-up Notification until the PelTIlit to Operate is issu~d,
up to a maximum of90 days. All conditions (specific or implied) included in this Authority
to Construct will be in effect during the start-up period.
If you have any questions, please contact your assigned PelTIlit Engineer:
Eric Y Chan, Air Quality Engineer II
Tel: (415) 749-4685 Fax: (415) 749-5030 Email: echan@baaqmd.gov
The Air District is a Cer,rified Green Business
Printed using soy-based inks on 100% post-consumer recycled conren! paper
939 ELLIs STREET' SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 • 415.771.6000 • www.BAAQMD.GOV
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 12 OF 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
Plant Name: Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
S-4641 Emergency Standby Diesel Generator Set
Condition No. 24496 Plant No. 617 Application No. 20506
1. The owner/operator of Plant #617 shall not emit
more than 35 tons of NOx in any consecutive 12-
month period. (basis: Offsets Trigger)
2. At least once every 12 months, the
owner/operator shall perform a source test to
measure the NOx emissions from the incinerators
(S-1 and S-2) and the afterburners (A-20 and A-
21). These NOx emissions shall be added with
the NOx emissions from the plant's other NOx
emitting sources. If the NOx emissions exceeds
35 tpy, the owner/operator shall notify the
District's Permit Services Division and provide
NOx offsets according-to Regulation 2-2-302.
The NOx emissions from the backup diesel
engines shall use the following emission
factors and engines' last 12-month's hours of
operation data:.
10.44 lb/hr for S-4614
27.47 Ib/hr for S-4621, 4622, 4638, 4639
33.65 lb/hr for S-4640
8.92 lb/hr for S-4641
{basis: Offsets Trigger}
. End of Conditions
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 130F 14
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135189
EXHIBIT A
Plant Name: Palo Alto Regional Water QuaUty Control Plant
S-4641 Emergency Standby Diesel Generator Set
Condition No. 12850 Plant No. 617 Application No. 20506
The owner/operator shall not exceed 50 hours per year per engine for reliability-related testing.
[Basis: "Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM" section 93115, title 17, CA Code of Regulations, subsection
(e)(2XA)(3) or (e)(2)(B)(3)]
The owner/operator shall operate each emergency standby engine only for the following purposes: to mitigate
emergency conditions, for emission testing to demonstrate compliance with a District, State or Federal
emission limit, or for reliability-related activities (maintenance and other testing, but excluding emission
testing). Operating while mitigating emergency conditions or while emission testing to show compliance with
District, State or Federal emission limits is not limited.
[Basis: "Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM" section 93115, title 17, CA Code of Regulations, subsection
(e)(2XA)(3) or (e)(2)(B)(3»)
The oWner/operator shall operate each emergency standby engine only when a non-resettable totalizing meter
(with a minimum display capability of9,999 hours) that measures the hours of operation for the engine is
installed, operated and properly maintained.
[Basis: "Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM" section 93115, title 17, CA Code of Regulations,
subsection(e )(4)(G)(I)]
Records: The owner/operator shall maintain the following monthly records in a District-approved log for at
least 36 months from the date of entry (60 months if the facility has been issued a Title V Major Facility
Review Permit or a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit). Log entries shall be retained on-site, either at a central
location or at the engine's location, and made immediately available to the District staff upon request.
a. Hours of operation for reliability-related activities (maintenance and testing).
b. Hours of operation for emission testing to show compliance with emission limits.
c. Hours of operation (emergency).
d. For each emergency, the nature of the emergency condition.
e. Fuel usage for each engine(s).
[Basis: "Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM" section 93115, title 17, CA Code of Regulations, subsection
(e)(4)(1), (or, Regulation 2-6-501)]
At School and Near-School Operation:
If the emergency standby engine is located on school grounds or within 500 feet of any school grounds, the
following requirements shall apply:
The owner/operator shall not operate each stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled engine for non-
emergency use, including maintenance and testing, during the following periods:
a. Whenever there is a school sponsored activity (if the engine is located on school grounds)
. b. Between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on days when school is in session.
"School" or "School Grounds" means any public or private school used for the purposes of the education of
more than 12 children in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but does not include any private
school in which education is primarily conducted in a private home(s). "School" or "School Grounds"
includes any building or structure, playground, athletic field, or other areas of school property but does not
include unimproved school property.
[Basis: "Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM" section 93115, title 17, CA Code of Regulations, subsection
(e)(2)(A)(1)] or (e)(2)(B)(2)]
City of Palo Alto -CONTRACT C10135189 PAGE 140F 14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: ClO135189
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perfonn the Services so as to complete each milestone within the time
specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual
written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is
completed within the tenn of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule
of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt ofthe notice to proceed.
Milestones
1. Completion of Task 1 -2010
2. Completion of Task 2 and 3 -2010
3. Completion of Task 1 -2011
4. Completion of Task 2 -2011
5. Completion of Task 1 -2012
6. Completion of Task 2 -2012
1
Completion
fromNTP
June 15,2010
September 1,2010
July 1, 2011
December 31, 2011
July 1, 2012
December 31,2012
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135189 Emission Testing of Sludge incinerators\Contract CI0135189
AVOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135189
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULT ANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-l up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the
total for each year. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including
reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional
Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed the amount listed for each year. Any
work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the
maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below within each service year provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed the
total for each year.
Year Bud!!et Schedule
2010 Task 1-Annual Compliance Testing
2010 Task 2-Emission Data Collectionl
Incinerator
2010 Task 3-Emission Data Collection
(Aeration Basin and Trickling Towers)
Subtotal for Basic Services 2010
Additional Services
Total for 2010
2011 Task 1-Annual Compliance Testing
2011 Task 2-Emission Data Collection,
Incinerator
Subtotal for Basic Services for 2011
Additional Services
al for 2011
1 Task 1-Annual Compliance Testing
1 Task 2-Emission Data Collection,
Incinerator
Subtotal for Basic Services for 2012
Additional Services
Total for 2012
1
Not To Exceed
$6,635
"$69,850
$12,690
$89,175
$9,825
$99,000
$6,970
$73,370
$80,340
$8 1 660
$89,000
$7,250
$76,230
$83,570
$8,430
$92,000
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\Cc-TBRRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposa1s\RFP\RFP 135189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract C 10135189
AVOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135189
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in~house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C~ 1. The additional services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by
the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement.
Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be
considered as additional services:
• Charges for extra days on site over and above the schedule will be an additional
$1,695 (equipment and per diem only) plus Avogadro's normal manpower rates."
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOOSAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 1351 89 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract C 10135189
A VOGADRO.doc
vogadro
Field Testing Personnel
EXHIBIT "C· 1 "
THE A VOGADRO GROUP, LLC
FEE SCHEDULE FOR SOURCE TESTING
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2010 TO DECEMBER 31, 2010
Hourlv Rate ($)
Consultant. ................................................................................................................................................... 185
Senior Project Manager ............................................................................................................................... 145
Project Manager .......................................................................................................................................... 125
Test Team Leader ........................................................................................................................................ 110
Senior Technician ........................................................................................................................................ 100
Field Technician ............................................................................................................................................ 85
Support Personnel Hourly Rate ($)
Senior Office Worker .................................................................................................................................. 125
Office Worker ............................................................................................................................................... 85
Overtime Rate for Hourly Employees Hourly Rate ($)
Over 8 hours per day or between 40 and 60 hours per week .............................................. Standard Rate x 1.5
Over 12 hours per day or over 60 hours per week .............................................................. Standard Rate x 2.0
Note: Avogadro also accounts/or oVertime meeting the "consecutive day" rules.
Overhead Direct Costs Unit Rate ($)
Per Diem ............................................................................................................................................... 145/day
Mobile Lab Vehicle Mileage .............................................................................................................. 1.50/mile
Other Overhead Direct Costs, including analytical costs ........................................................... Cost Plus 15%
Testing Equipment Fees Daily Rate ($)
Mobile Laboratory, no CEMS -less mileage .............................................................................................. 350
Mobile Laboratory with CEMS (02, CO2, NOx, CO) -less mileage ...... : .................................................... 700
Portable Sampling System ........................................................................................................................... 200
Data Acquisition System ............................................................................................................................. 100
Strip Chart Recorders ................................................................................. ; ................................................ 100
O2 Analyzer ................................................................................................................................................. 125
CO2 Analyzer .............................................................................................................................................. 125
CO Analyzer ................................................................................................................................................ 175
NOx Analyzer .............................................................................................................................................. 175
S02 Analyzer ............................................................................................................................................... 200
THC Analyzer ............................................................................................................................................. 300
FTIR Analyzer (on site) .............................................................................................................................. 750
Gas Chromatograph (on site) ....................................................................................................................... 750
Heated sample line, 50 or 100 Ft. ................................................................................................................ 100
Isokinetic Sampling System -Complete ...................................................................................................... 250
Non-Isokinetic Pump & Meter ........................................................................................ : ........................... 175
VOST Meter Box ........................................................................................................................................ 225
20 I A I OTM-027 Cyclone I Cascade Impactor .............................................................................. : ............ 125
Impinger Set ........................................................................... '" .................................................................. 100
Midget Impinger Assembly ......................................................................................................................... 150
Lung Sampler .............................................................................................................................................. 100
Tedlar Bags (each) .......................................................................................................................................... 35
0111112010" This fee schedule supersedes all previous fee schedules.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: ClO135189
EXHIBIT "D"
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY),AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN
AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM
BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR IDGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
MINIMUM LIM:tTS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S UABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
LIABILITY COMBINED.
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE, COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPliCABLE),
AND NEGliGENT PERFORMANCE All DAMAGES $1,000,000
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALLOBTAINANDMAINTAIN,INFULLFORCEANDEFFECTTHROUGHOUTTHEENTIRETERMOFANYRESULTANTAGREEMENT,
THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT .
AS ADDmONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
ALSO, wrm TIlE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABIlITY AND PRQFESS"NALINSlJRANCE, NAMING I
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITIEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICA TES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS"
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
1
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreo!\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI 3 5189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract Cl 0 135189
A VOGADRO.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135189
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-P A YMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY
WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP 135189 Emission Testing of Sludge Incinerators\Contract C 10135189
AVOGADRO.doc
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 184:10
DATE: APRIL 12, 2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Change the Classification of Property located at 1700 Embarcadero
Road from PC Planned Community 2378 and PC Planned
Community 2491 to Service Commercial (CS) and Site and Design (D)
Review; and Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Site and
Design Review and Variance for the Construction of a Four-Story
Hotel and Restaurant at 1700 Embarcadero Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposal before the City Council is to permit planning entitlements to allow the construction
of a 4-story building which would include a 147-room hotel and a 5,600 square foot restaurant.
Approvals are requested for a zone change from Planned Community (PC) to Commercial
Service with Design Review Combining District (CS(D)), site and design review and a variance
fronl the CS zone "build-to" lines for the development, and environmental review for the entire
project. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and Architectural Review Board
(ARB) have unanimously recommended this Baylands gateway project. The proposed CS(D)
zone is consistent with the property's Comprehensive Plan land use designation, Service
Commercial, and the proposed building would meet the 50 foot height limit and Floor Area Ratio
criteria for hotels in the CS zone. The development also includes replacement of 25 existing trees
with 94 new trees.
RECO·MMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), Architectural Review Board (ARB), and
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the requested
zone change to Service Commercial with a Site and Design Review combining district (CS)(D),
and approve the Site and Design and Variance application for development of a four-story hotel
and restaurant on the property located at 1700 Embarcadero Road, subject to approval findings in
the Draft Ordinance (Attachnlent A) and Findings and ,Conditions of Approval in the Draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). The order of Council action requested is as
follows:
(1) Review and approve the environmental document for the entire project;
(2) Adopt the Ordinance for the rezoning, with a second reading in two weeks; and
CMR: 184:10 Page 10f7
(3) Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the development project, encompassing the
application for the Site and Design Review and Variance.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing Site and Context
The project site is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The
project site is approximately 2.5 acres and contains a single· 15,180 square foot restaurant
occupied by Ming's Chinese Cuisine & Bar with associated parking and landscaping. Most of
the existing site is paved or occupied by the 25 trees on the site. The site is surroundeq. by office
properties on all sides and across Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. All surrounding
properties are zoned ROLM(E)(D)(AD), except for one adjacent Planned Community (PC;) to the
east. The project site was rezoned from LM(D) to Planned Community (PC Ordinance 2378) in
1967 and revised by resolution number 2491 in 1969. The Comprehensive Plan designation for
the site is Service Commercial.
Project Description
The proposed four story restaurant and hotel project would include a new 117,814 square foot
building with 147 guest rooms, a restaurant of approximately 5,602 square feet, a small amount
of retail (87 square feet), a small gym (541 square feet), one level of underground parking, and a
new surface parking lot and landscaping. The maximum height of the building would be 50 feet,
with a design that steps up and back from the corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore
Road. The proposed parking facilities would include 166 parking spaces, 90 of which will be
within the one level of underground parking, and the remaining 76 surface parking spaces would
be located in front of and around the sides of the building. The project inclUdes removal of the
existing building and 25 existing trees, as well as replacement of existing street trees, per city
staff recommendation.
The proposed project includes a reorientation of the property with the main entrance off of East
Bayshore Road which guides guests to the rear of the building where the main entrance to the
hotel is located under a cantilevered porte-cochere. If visitors take a left when entering the site
they will travel back toward Embarcadero Road and come to parking near the new restaurant
entrance at the building corner. closest to the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East
Bayshore Road. This building corner will open into the central pool courtyard as the building
height steps up and back with garden terraces above the second and third floors.
The applicant's project description is provided in Attachment E.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Conformance
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Commercial. Prior to the original PC
zone, implemented in 1967, the property was zoned LMD which was a zone that is now replaced
on adjacent properties with ROLM(E)(D) which generally allows for research and office uses.
The proposed Service Commercial (CS) zoning would conform to the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the property and the Site and Design Review (D) Combining District would be
consistent with the adjacent properties. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B)
provides a list of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies for this project. The proposed project
CMR: 184:10 Page 2 of7
would take advantage of the greater allowed floor area (up to 2.0 FAR) for hotels in the CS zone.
A table comparing the proposed project with the zoning requirements of the CS(D) district is
included as Attachment F. '
Height
The height and massing of the proposed building were among the significant concerns expressed
in previous reviews of this project. The project design has been revised since the preliminary
reviews, so that the proposal now meets the 50 foot height limit set forth in the CS zone
regulations. The revised design uses horizontal lines and shading devices to emphasize the
hOlizontality of the Baylands environment.
Airport Avigation Easement
The proposed project is within the Airport Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. Though the
project is not directly below the line of approach for incoming aircraft, it was reviewed by the
County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission on September 24, 2008. This review
resulted in a requirenlent that the land owner grant an avigation easement for Palo Alto Airport,
setting forth acceptance of elevation limits and aircraft noise inlpacts, prior to issuance of
building permits. This is included in the conditions of approval outlined in the draft Record of
Land Use Action, Attachment B.
Trees/Landscaping
All of the 25 existing on site trees are proposed to be removed and replaced with 94 new trees.
None of these trees are protected trees and their removal and replacement is supported by the
Planning Arborist due to excessive topping, and inappropriate species for this Baylat).ds area. Ten
publicly owned trees originating in the right-of-way have been topped and disfigured repeatedly
for power line clearance above, and are recommended to be replaced by this project as part of a
comprehensive landscape and urban forest renewal measure. The proposed tree and 'shrub
palette has been reviewed by the Planning Arborist for 'compatibility with Sunset Zone 3 area
that will tolerate the predominant fill and 'bay mud' underlay soil horizon. Zone 3 is a transition
zone that incorporates indigenous and salt marsh (Zone 1) and ornamental planting (Zone 4). The
proposed planting will include an area at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East
Bayshore Road with a Baylands theme in plant species, layout, and signage. Overall, the project
landscape theme is consistent with the 2008 Baylands Master Plan, emphasizing:
The Baylands is a distinctive landscape character notable for its openness and
low profile. Because of shallow soils, brackish water, and persistent winds,
the landscape is flat and treeless, defined by the expansive horizon with a big
sky, flat water, and waving grasses. The natural color palette is a study in
muted tones. The landscape design intent should be simple serene and not
complicated.
While all of these elements cannot be achieved due to urban constraints such as the PG&E
transmission towers and traffic proximity, landscape design efforts have been successful to
diminish their apparent presence, such as thoughtful mounding and planting passing through the
tower legs, allowing grasses to soften the edge of formal curving walkways and providing stone
and bench seating for pas~ive relaxation. The more formal character of landscaping in other areas
of the site is blended with the Baylands corner through winding paths, and phasing of plant
materials (Sheet LD1.1). Internal planting on the parking structure has a cultural plant theme
CMR: 184:10 Page 3 of7
that should realize long lived timeframe. If the City Council approves removal of the 10 street
trees along East Bayshore Road they would also be replaced with equal numbers of trees that can
be appropriately spaced and correctly pruned to grow to an optimum height to avoid contlict and
topping from power lines above. This urban renewal of public trees is consistent with the City of
Palo Alto's Street Tree Management Plan strategy.
Parking/Traffic
The project, as proposed, will provide 166 parking spaces (90 in one level of undergrpund
parking), subject to approval of the requested 41 % reduction in the number of parking spaces
required for hotel rooms (87 provided where 147 are required), as shown in Attachment F. This
reduction is requested based on Section 18.52.040 Table 2 which allows for a reduction of up to
"75% of the spaces required for guest rooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking
study of parking generated by the mix of uses." Parking facilities for 26 bicycles are proposed,
situated at grade at multiple locations around the proposed building.
Baylands
The proposed project is within the Baylands Master Plan area. The ,property functions as a
primary gateway to the Baylands recreation and commercial area, and is designated as a scenic
route, a primary entry point and a major view corridor to the Baylands, as listed in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Map L-4. The major impacts of the master plan on the proposed project
will be in the areas of signage, nlaterials, and landscaping. The project design has incorporated
context sensitive design elements that were created within the landscape and right-of-way
frontage of the property on the west side of East Bayshore. The newly completed (2008) project
located at 2540 Watson Court (2300 East Bayshore) incorporated iconic elements and strong
visual character defining elements of the Baylands and Bixby Park, such as hillock mounding,
grasses, trails, waterway, passive use and observation deck elements (Sheet LD1.3). At staff's
request, the applicant has also creatively introduced several unique interpretive signs that to
achieve reflective interest of pedestrians, patrons and cyclists who will use both frontages of
Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. The proposed project contains elements consistent with
the Site Assessment & Design Guidelines of the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Catalyst
2005.) Examples of the unique interpretive signage are shown on plan sheet Sl. Functioning in
concert with the 2450 Watson Court project across the street, it is staff's opinion that a world-
class Baylands gateway will have been created, achieving the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Program Goals L-71, Program T-57 and Map L-4.
Green Building
The project is subject to meeting the City's green building ordinance (Chapter 18.44) at the
LEED silver level. The applicant has, provided the required LEED checklist and the project
includes green elements in its design as shown on project plans, (Attachment K). Furthermore,
sustainable best practices for site planning are integrated for compliance with the city's parking
lot shading and pervious sUlface goals and water reduction policy.
Variance
The proposed project does not meet the 50% "build-to" requirements as the design includes a 30
foot setback along Embarcadero Road rather than the 0-10 foot setback required to create a 10-
12 foot sidewalk in the CS zone. The "build-to" lines required in the CS zone are consistent with
areas such as EI Camino Real or pedestrian oriented streets, rather than the project area where
buildings have significant setbacks and the general design is more consistent with the open feel
of the Baylands. The proposed project includes a design which brings the building closer to the
CMR: 184:10 Page 4 of7
street than other buildings in the area, and provides some presence on the street, which is the
goal of the "build-to" lines. The proposed building would span 50% of the frontage, but would
be but it is located 20 feet farther back from Embarcadero Road than is required by the code, in
order to work with the open context of other buildings near the Baylands. In addition, the site
includes an easenlent that prevents any building within 80 feet of the East Bayshore Road
property line because of existing PG&E power lines which run over the property in that location
constraining the site layout. A variance is indicated as the process for this exception, rather than
a Design Enhancement Exception, due to the extent of the setback discrepancy (20 feet). Draft
findings are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
Site and Design
The proposed zoning for this site includes the Site and Design Combining District (D), as is the
pattern for the area east of Highway 101 and in proximity to the Palo Alto Baylands. Staff has
prepared draft findings, included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B), which
describe how the proposed project is compatible with adjacent uses and the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation, and is designed to upgrade the existing property through sound
principles of environmental design and ecological balance, as well as a respect for the adjacent
Palo Alto Baylands.
BOARD/COlVIMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
The P&TC reviewed the proposed project at a public hearing on November 18, 2009. At this
hearing they unanimously recommended approval of the proposed project and negative
declaration, finding that the zoning is appropriate to this location, the project meets the Site and
Design Objectives, and the variance findings can be made. The P&TC also provided comments
and recommendations to the applicant, as well as requests of items that be prepared prior to ARB
review. These items included:
• Wayfinding and signage for all users (including bicyclists);
• Landscape materials should conform with Baylands list, or be supported by City arborist; .
,. . Massing of open comer of building;
• Design of primary entrance; and
• Impact to visibility of neighbor's signage with increased landscaping along Embarcadero
Road.
The applicant has responded to all of these issues in their revised plan set, and will show studies
that they have prepared of the visual impact on the signage of the Audi Dealership next door,
showing that the replacement of street trees, and relocation of Ming's signage will actually
increase visibility.
The project originally included a req~est for rezoning to a new Planned Community (PC) zone,
and had a preliminary review by the Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) on
September 10, 2008. The project at that time included 162 rooms in the proposed hotel. In
response to comments from the P&TC, the proposal was changed to include a rezoning to
Service Commercial (CS) rather than PC.
CMR: 184:10 PageS of?
Architectural Review Board
The project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board at two public hearings. The first
ARB hearing was a preliminary review on January 15,2009. The ARB expressed concerns
about over-parking and emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant palette
and resolution of massing issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone. A
formal ARB hearing on the project was held on February 4,2010. One member of the public
spoke and expressed concern about parking. The ARB was supportive of the project and offered
minor design comments to be followed up as subcon1mittee items. The ARB found that the
project was consistent with the design guidelines. The ARB voted unanimously to recommend
that the City Council approve the project, subject to the condition that the proj(1ct return to ARB
subcommittee with consideration of the following items:
1. Colors shall be refined to address grayness, and lack of contrast;
2. Consider a modest increase in emphasis at the main entry to the hotel;
3. Review design integrity .of the signage such that the new signs will better integrate with
the building and each other; -
4. Provide some modulation of the east elevation of the building;
5. Refine how trash and service entrance will be dealt with; and
6. Move bike lockers away from the front entry.
RESOlTRCE IMPACT
This project is the second hotel project considered by Council since the zoning ordinance
amendment of 2005 which allowed additional FAR for hotels. The proposed hotel will comply
with the requirements of PAMC 18.16.060 (d) including recently adopted provisions by Council
to regulate extended stay hotels.
The project's addition of a 117,814 square-foot hotel with 147 guest rooms, along with its
demolition of the existing restaurant, will yield the City additional net annual revenues in the·
form of property taxes, sales taxes, utility user taxes, and transient occupancy taxes, estimated in
the $570,000 to $697,000 range. One-time revenues would include impact fees of
$2,203,978.25.
On the expenditure side, the project's additional hotel patrons will create additional demand for
City services, but these will be offset by the developer impact fees mentioned above.
POLICY IlVIPLICATIONS
The proposed project includes a new hotel and restaurant that will support the Comprehensive
Plan goals which encourage private property owners to upgrade commercial properties in ways
that will support the City's economic base.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQ A requirements. Issues
discussed include concerns about aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less than significant with standard conditions of approval and state and local
requirements. The public comment period for this document closed on November 26,2009. To
date, no comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration.
CMR: 184:10 Page 6 of7
/
ATTACHMENT A
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No. ---
Ordinance of the COlU1cil of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The
Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located
at 1700 Embarcadero Road from PC Planned Community
2378 and PC Plalu1ed Community 2491 to Service
Commercial (CS) and Site and Design (D) Review
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
(a) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing onNovember 18, 2009, has recommended the City Council rezone the property at 1700
Embarcadero Road from PC-2378 and PC-2491 to "CS(D) Service Commercial with Site and
Design Review Combining District";
(b) The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented
at the public hearing" including public testimony and reports and reconunendations from the
director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff;
( c) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel to
Service Commercial with Site and Design Review Combining District (CS(D)) zoning is in
accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation
of the site is Service Commercial; and
(d) The Palo Alto City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the mater
on April 12, 2010, and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and
all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral,
presented on the matter.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare
would be furthered by an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in
Section 3,
SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo
Alto to place 1700 Embarcadero Road, 2.5 acres of land, within the "CS(D) Service Commercial
with Site and Design Review Combining District."
SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to
environmental review under provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An
environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that,
no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the
proj ect would have no significant impact on the environment.
100311 jb 0120431 1
Not Yet Approved
SECTION 5. Indemnification
To the extent pennitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties")from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties
and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any·
such action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 6.
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVBD AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
100311 jb 0120431
This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
2
All ACHMENl B
APPROVAL NO. 2010-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL
FOR 1700 EMBARCADERO ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE
(09PLN-00175) (Stoecker & Northway Architect, Inc, APPLICANT)
On [Date], the Council approved Site and Design Review and
a Variance for a new four-story hotel and restaurant, making the
following findings, determination and declarations: -
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Al to ("Ci ty Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On July 29, 2009, Stoe,cker & Northway Archi tects,
Inc., on behalf of Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, applied for Site
and Design Review and Variance to "build-toil requirements for
construction of a .four-story hotel and restaurant with one level of-
underground parking and associated surface parking and landscaping
("The Proj ect ") .
B. On November 18, 2009, the Planning and Transportation
Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval of the
Site and Design Review and Variance applications;
C. On February 4, 2010, the Architectural Review Board
reviewed the project and recommended approval of the Site and
Design Review application.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project
is subject to environmental review under prOV1Slons of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with the
CEQA requirements, an Initial Study was circulated for 30 days for
public comments, and a Draft Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project. Issues discussed include concerns about
aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less than significant with standard conditions of
approval and state and local requirements.
SECTION 3. Variance Findings
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography,
location, or surroundings, the strict application of the
requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject
property, in that:
(a) Though the proposed proj ect is in the Service Commercial
designation in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not surrounded by
1
other properties within the same zoning designation. The "build-
to" lines required in the CS zone are not consistent with the site
placement of the surrounding buildings in the area or with the open
feel of the Baylands,. but are more consistent with areas such as EI
Camino Real or pedestrian oriented streets. The proposed design
brings the building closer to the street than other buildings in
the area, and provides the presence on the street which is the goal
of the "build-to" lines, while plac'ing that building farther back
to work with the open cohtext of other buildings near the Baylands.
(b) The site includes an easement that prevents any building within
80 feet of the East Bayshore RQad property line because of existing
PG&E power lines which run over the property in that location,
constraining the site layout.
2. The granting of the application shall not feet
substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant
of special .:privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning.district as the
subject property, in that the proposed proj'ect is in an area
dominated by office buildings and auto dealerships in the ROLM(E)
zoning district where the required front setback is 20 feet, and
there is no "build-to" requirement. The proposed zoning will comply
with the Comprehensive Plan .designation for the site, and approval
of this variance would allow the design to meet all other the
requirements of the new zoning designation, while presenting a
design which also works with the context of other buildings in the
vicinity.
3. The granting of the application consistent with the
Palo Alto· Comprehensive ·Plan and the purposes of this title
(Zo~ing) in that the proposed setback is appropriate to the type of
environment in and around the Palo Alto Baylands as described in
the Baylands Master Plan. The . openness of' the Baylands is a
significantly different environment than other areas of the city
within the CS zone such as EI Camino Real or other pedestrian
oriented streets.
4.· The granting of the application will ~ot be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity,will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience in that the proposed building setback and site design
would be more in keeping with the surrounding area than a project
meeting the "build-to" regulations, and the increased setback
would help ensure visibility of the adjacent automobile dealership.
2
with the Palo to Baylands. Green building features would be
incorporated to achieve LEED Silver compliance.
4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Service Commercial per
the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehens plan. The proposed project
for rezoning from Planned Communi ty to Service Commercial, and
construction of a new hotel and restaurant is consistent with the
land use designation. The proj also consistent with The Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace
existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are
more competitive and better serve the community. The commercial
properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting
for pedestrians. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are
below:
Goal L-l: A well designed, compact city providing residents and
visi tors wi th attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping
districts, public facilities and open spaces .
. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas.
Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new
mixed use development.
Policy Make land use decisions that encourage walking~
bicycling, and public transit use.
Policy Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as
sidewalks, street trees! on-site parking, public spaces, gardens,
outdoor furniture! art, and interesting architectural details.
Policy Support a strong interdependence between existing
commerc centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of
encouraging economic vitality.
Goal : New businesses that provide needed local services and
municipal revenues! contribute to economic vi ty, and enhance
the city's physical environment.
SECTION 6. Site and Design Approval Granted. Site and
Design Approval is granted for the project by the City Council
under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070, subject to the
conditions of approval in Section 9 of this Record.
SECTION 7 . Archi tectural Review. The design and
architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers
the goals and purposes of Architectural Review as it complies with
4
corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, as well as
more controlled landscaping for areas 'proximate with the
restaurant, and rooftop gardens the enjoyment of future
hotel users;
(i) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main
functions of the project in that the proposal includes parking,
open space, and refuse facili ties required for this type of
development;
(j) Access to the property and circulation thereon are and
convenient for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles in that the
proposed development located on a street that has sidewalks
and bicycle lanes and lities are provided onsite for sa
access and parking of bicycles and automobiles;
(k)' Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated
with the project in that the current site contains plantings
that are not in keeping with the Baylands area and so would be
replaced with species better aligned with the future goals for
. properties proximate to the Baylands;
(1) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and
plant m~terial are appropriate expressions of the design and
function in that the proposed design uses colors meant to blend
with the Baylands and the landscape plan designed to combine
the formal features of Chinese gardens and the horizontal
.dispersion of Baylands landscapes;
(m) The landscape design concept for the si te, as shown by the
relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
and foliage textures and .colors creates a desirable and
functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an
appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in
that the primary landscaping is focused around 'the street
corner with Baylands plantings that transition as they approach
the proposed building;
(n) Plant material suitable and adaptable to the site, capable
of being properly maintained on the site, . and is of a variety
which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance;
(0) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that
is energy efficient, water, conserving, durable and nontoxic,
with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials.
The following considerations should be utilized in determining
sustainable site and building design:
6
The plans submi tted for Building pei-mi t shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Stoecker &
Northway Architects, Inc. titled A New Hotel at 1700 Embarcadero
Road, consisting of 33 pages, dated December 18, 2009, and received
January 5, 2010, except as modified to incorporate the conditions
of approval in Section 8. A copy of these plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of
approval in Section 9 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 9. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning « Community Environment
Planning & Transportation Division
1. rrhe plans submitted for Building Permi t shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received and date
stamped January 5, 2010, except as modified to incorporate
these conditions of approval.
2. The project is subject to meeting all the requirements of
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.44, the City's Green
Building Ordinance.
3 . The owner shall be responsible for a shared' parking
agreement with adjacent property owners and valet parking
plan to accommodate at least 38 parking spaces. during high
use time periods. A copy of this agreement shall be
submitted prior to building final & occupancy.
4. The proposed project shall return to ARB subcommittee with
consideration of the following items:
a. Colors shall be refined to address grayness, and lack of
contrast;
b. Consider a modest increase in emphasis at the main entry
to the hotel;
c. Review ·design integrity o~ the signage such that the new
signs will better integrate with the building and each
other;
d. Provide some modulation of the east elevation of the
building; \
e. Refine how trash and service entrance will be dealt with;
and
f. Move bike lockers away fro~ the front entry.
5. Details of design and wording of interpretive signage shall
be reviewed and approved by city staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
6 . The grades and transi tion areas on the ramp to the
underground parking should be shown/dimensioned. A 10'
transition should be provided at each end of the ramp, and
a 5' buffer is needed at the top of the ramp. Refer to PAMC
18.54.070 Figure 5 for more details.
8
7. The bike racks should be inverted-U type, or other approved
by Transportation staff (wave racks not allowed) .
8. This project is subject to Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal
Code and payment of a housing in-lieu fee based on 149,593
square feet of net new commercial floor area will be
required. The rate as of May 8, 2009 is $17. net
new square feet for a total estimated fee of $2,631,340.87.
The total is due and payable in full at building
permit issuance. The actual, final fee amount will be
calculated based on the net increase in commercial square
footage as shown on the final building permit plans and the
fee rate in fect as of the date of building permi t
issuance. The rate is adjusted annually as of May 8th.
9 ~ Development Impact fees (including Parkland Dedication,
Community lities, Library, Housing, and Citywide
Transportation Impact Area fees) with an estimated total of
$2,203,978 must be paid prior to building permit issuance,
incl uding described in condi tion 6. This is an
estimate and the final total may change based on date of
building permit submittal.
10. An Avigation Easement is required prior to building permit
issuance.
11. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall
indemni and hold harmless the City, its City Council,
officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties)
from against any claim,action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the
appl to attack, set aside or void, any permit or
approval authorized hereby the Project, including
(without limitation) reimbursing the City' its actual
attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of
litigation. The City may, in i sole discretion, elect to
defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
Building Di on
Architectural Comments:
12. List the following project data information on the plans:
a. lding Occupancy Group: A-2, R-l, B, S-2
b. Type of Construction:
c. Sprinklered: (YIN)
13. fy if the underground parking structure will us
Construction Type I-A for the S-2 Occupancy with a 3-hour
horizontal separation assembly to be considered as a podium
building under CBC 509.2.
14. Provide an Allowable Area calculation 'for the mixed
occupancy use building ed on either Non-separated
occupancies per CBC 508.3.2 or by Separated occupancies
using CBC 508.3.3.
15. For the 1st Floor/ Ground , provide an exiting analysis
the (N) building i include the area for each room,
occupant load, required number of exits and the separations
9
of required exits. Include the existing analysis for the
Ground Flo,or Courtyard and Pool Area. It appears that two
(2) exits may be required from the fenced pool area (based
on the occupant load factors from CBC Table 1004.1.1and if
the occupant load is 50 or more per CBC 1015.1). Clari
if the fenced pool area is part of the exit discharge or is
a separate area.
16. On sheet A7: First Floor Plan: provide a minimum plumbing'
fixture count for the proposed restaurant based on the 2007
CA Plumbing Code, CPC Table 4-1.
17. For hotel guest rooms and suites, provide five (5) ly
accessible quest rooms and 2 with roll-showers as
required by CBC Table I1B-3.
18. The accessible guest rooms shall be dispersed among the
various classes of sl.eeping accommodations and range of
options applicable to room sizes, amenities and number of
beds. (CBC IlllB.4.1)
19. The accessible guest rooms shall be provided with the
'following accessible features:
a. Kitchens and kitchenettes per CBC IlllB.4.4
b. Visual alarms and telephones for hearing impaired per CBC
IlllB.4.5
c. Bathrooms per CBC 111 .4.6.
20. On the upper level floors, 2nd, -4th floors: show that
maximum travel distance from the most remote point is
than 250 ft for a sprinklered, R-l occupancy per CBC
1016.1.
21. On sheet A111 Roof Plan: potential photovoltaic panels are
shown. Please note on the plans that a separate permit is
required for the PV panels.
Structural Comments:
22. A geotechnical report is required for the construction of
the{N) Mixed Use Commercial building.
General Comments:
23. The completed plan submittal package should be sent to an
approved Outside plan Check Consultant plan review.
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
24. SIDEWALK, PLANTER STRIP I CURB & GUTTER: As part of this
project, the applicant must replace the sidewalks, curbs,
gutters and driveway approaches in the publ right-of-way
along the frontages of the property per Public Works I
standards, which include: a 5-ft wide sidewalk at the back-
of-curb and a planter strip between the sidewalk and the
property line along East Bayshore Roadi and a 5-wide
sidewalk and a minimum 4.5-ft wide planter strip between
the curb and sidewalk along Embarcadero Road.
10
25. STREET RESURFACING: The developer will be, required to
resurface the entire frontage of each street adjacent to
the property out to the centerline or center median of the
streets upon completion of onsite construction. The
resurfacing will consist of a slurry seal or grinding 2" of
the existing asphalt and overlaying 2" asphalt pavement per
Public Works' standards. Public Works will make the
determination between slurry seal and grind/ overlay by
inspecting the condition of the road and estimating the
construction impacts at the time of construction.
Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will be required
after resurfacing.
26. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace
existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-
of-way along the property's frontages. Call the Public
Works' arborist at 496-6905 to arrange a site visit so he
can determine what street tree work, if any, will be
required for this project, and then show this work on the
site plan in the building permit plan set. .
27. UTILITY EASEMENTS: There are various public utility
easements (PUE'S) that run across the East Bayshore
frontage of this si te. Typically, you cannot build a
structure on a PUE. The footprint of the structure appears
to abut the storm drain easement. This may be acceptable,
but the developer will need to demonstrate to Public Works
that the excavation and shoring for the parking garage will
not adversely impact the storm drain or permanently
encroach into the PUE. This particularly true as the
plans, if accurate, show the storm drain not centered in
the PUE, but offset a foot or so towards the proposed
building. Public Works recommends staying 5 feet away from,
the storm drain with any structure, including t4e shoring.
Another option is to relocate the storm drain and the PUE
towards East Bayshore Road per Public Works' approval.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
28. FLOOD ZONE: The proposed improvements are located within a
Special Flood Hazard Area. Accordingly, the proposed
construction must meet all of the City's and Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for
construction within a flood zone. See Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our
website for more information. The plans must show the BFE
on all applicable elevations, sections and details. If the
strategy is to floodproof the building by allowing no water
to enter the building and having the ramp to the below-
grade parking structure above the BFE, then a FEMA
Floodproofing Certi cate will be required prior to
building permit issuance.
11
existing and proposed elevations, drainage flow arrows1 and
the onsite storm drain system.
34. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one
acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required
to comply wi t,h the State of California's General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply
,(NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing
a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-
construction BMP's for storm water quality protection. The
applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and
the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of the building permi t.
Also, include the City's standard ~Pollution Prevention
It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan
set. Copies are available from Public Works' at the
Development Center.
35. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public
right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of
street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within
10 feet of street trees must be approved by p~blicWorks'
arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear
on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees
per City requirements.
36. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate
any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such
as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility
laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must
be done per City standards and that the contractor
performing this work must first obtain a Permit for
Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the
Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different
location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk
associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a
thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick)
section. Additionally, curb cuts for abandoned driveways
must be replaced with new curb and gutter.
37. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface.
Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of
the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the
building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet
for Land Developments form and instructions are available
at the Development Center or on our website
38. C. 3: This project will trigger the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board's revised provision C.3 for
storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land
development projects that create or replace 10,000 square
13
REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS
43. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans
must be included with all building permit applications
involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included
with the preliminary submittal.
44. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow
sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and
Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering
fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric
service requested.
45. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
46. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location
of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and
approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural
Review Board. The transformer shall have three (3) feet
clearance on all sides except the front where it will have
eight (8) feet of clearance. All distances measured from
the pad. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16.
47. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing
padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and
interrupters) and associated substructure as required by
the City. In addition, the owner shali grant a Public
Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private
property as required by the City.
48. The customer shall install all electrical substructures
(conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point
to the customer1s switchgear. The design and installation
shall be according to the Ci ty s,tandards and shown on
plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
49. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown
on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review
Board and Utilities Department.
50. All utili ty meters, lines I transformers I backflow
preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown
on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that
no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape
materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be
screened in a manner that is consistent with the building
design and setback requirements.
51. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be
required to provide a transition cabinet as the
interconnection point between the utility/s padmount
trans former and the cus tomer's main swi tchgear . The
cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric
Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
52. The customer is responsible for sizing the service
conductors and other required equipment according to the
National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
15
53.
54.
55.
Water
56.
57.
58.
59'.
60.
61.
If the customer's total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall
be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the
cus tomer shall provide the high vol tage swi tchgear and
transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3.
Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary
distribution lines or reinforcement of offsi te electric
facilities will be at the/customer's expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric-Utility.
·Any additional facilities and services requested by the
Applicant that are beyond what the ·utility deems standard
facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges.
The Special Facilities charges inc~ude the cost of
installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of
ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
Quality Control Plant Division
The proposed proj ect shall comply wi th all applicable
sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) ,
specifically:
PAMC 16.12.035 (b) Recycled water use for toilet and urinal
flushing and floor trap priming. New construction in non-
designated area. Where the building square footage total,
including both the original square footage and any
addition, is greater than 100,000 square feet or where
installation of 100 or more toilets and urinals is
proposed, shall incorporate dual plumbing in the design of
the facility to allow the use of recycled water, wheJ it
becomes available, for flushing toilets and urinals and
priming floor traps.
PAMC 16.12.030 (b) Recycled water use for irrigation. New
construction in non-designated area. Where the total
landscape area exceeds 1500 square feet include the
following:
a. Plans demonstrating that recycled water will be used,
when available, for all irrigation
b. Consideration of plants sui table for irrigation wi th
recycled water and
c. The installation of on-site infrastructure necessary to
connect the site's irrigation system to the City's
recycled water supply-when it becomes available.
PAMC 16.09.032(B) (17) Covered parking. Drain plumbing for
parking garage floor drains must be connected to an
oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons,·
and to the sanitary sewer system
PAMC 16.09.10.6 (e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities. New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area
shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and
run-off from the area.
PAMC 16.09.032(b) (8) Condensate from HVAC. Condensate lines
shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm
drain system.
16
62. PAMC 16.09.032(15) Swimming Pools. Swimming pool discharge
drains shall not be connected directly to the storm drain
system or to the sewer system. When draining is necessary,
a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a
sewer (not storm drain system) clean out. A sewer clean out
shall be installed in a readily acce~sible area.
For Restaurant Facili es:
63. PAMC Section 16.09.103(a) Grease Control Devices for Food
Service Facilities. A grease control device (GCD) shall be
installed with a.minimum capacity of 750.gallons. The GCD
must be sized in accordance with the 2007 California
Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted
with the plans. All grease generating drainage fixtures
shall be connected to the GCD. The connection of any
dishwashers or pasta cookers to a GCD is prohibited. All
large·, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three
manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baf
(divider) piping and outlet piping to ensure accessibility
for inspection, cleaning and removal. of all contents. The
plans shall clearly indicate the number of manholes on the
GCD and a list of all drainage fixtures connecting to the
GCD.
64. PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Covered Dumpsters for Food Service
Facilities. New buildings constructed to house food service
facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster.
The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the
area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed
.wi thin the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters
and tallow bins (used oil containers) serving food service
facilities are optional. Any such drain. installed shall be
connected to a GCD and the sanitary sewer. If tallow is to
be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated
space for ~ tallow bin shall be included in the covered
area.
65. PAMC 16.09~103(e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals.
The installation of a garbage grinder at any food service
facility is prohibited after January I, 2003. The kitchen
cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to
the sahitary sewer.
66. PAMC 16.09. 032b(16) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food
Service Facilities. Food service facilities shall have a
sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and
equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and
the sanitary sewer.
Fire Department
67. Install a NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler, NFPA 14 Standpipe and
NFPA 72 Fire Alarm system under separate permit.
17
and agents (the "indemni fied parties) from against any claim,
action, or proceeding -brought by a third party against the
indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void,
any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including
(without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees
and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in
its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys
of its own choice. "
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared by Stoecker and Northway Archi t"ects, Inc.
titled "A New Hotel at 1700 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto,
California", consisting of 33 pages, dated December 18, 2009, and
received January 5, 2010.
19
ATTACHMENT E
Submitted by Applicant
Project Description December 18; 2009
1,700 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto
The proposed project is the development of a new four-story, 154,684 s.f. hotel
with a restaurant, small mee1'ing room and one level of underground parking.
The project would also entail the merging of two parcels and a zone change
from PC to CS{D).
The intent of the building design is to use natural colors and materials and to give
the building a low and horizontal feel that would be compatible with the spirit of
the Saylands. The lower two floors of the building serve as the base with natural,
buff colored stone as the cladding. The upper two floors step back to help
emphasize the horizontal base and would be finished with an exterior insulation
finish system (EIFS) in colors that also draw from the natural tones of the Saylands.
A horizontal element at the roof not only serves as a mechanical equipment
screen but also helps provide shading to the building.
The upper two floors step back to create opportunities for usable planted
terraces. The upper roof will provide space for photovoltaic panels. The
building will be submitted to the USGSC for LEED Silver cerl"ifica!ion.
The building massing is arranged such that the four-story portions sit along the
rear and side setback lines. The building forms then step down to two stories at
the Embarcadero Road/East Sayshore Road corner of the property, with the
restaurant and outdoor seating area anchoring this corner. A planting palette
drawing inspiration from the S'aylands, low berming and information signage
about native plants and species of the Saylands will help enhance the corner of
the property, where a PG&E electrical tower sits. An interior courtyard will house
a swimming pool, gazebo and outdoor seating areas for hotel guests.
The project will require a Variance to allow the building to be set back from the
East Sayshore property line 80 feet to avoid a PG&E easement and drainage
easement that run parall.el to the property line. It will also require a Design
Enhancement Exception to allow for the building frontage along Embarcadero
Road to be set 10 feet back from the setback, rather than having 50% of the
frontage built to the setback line.
than PC. This new proposal had preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on
January 15, 2009, and formal review by the P&TC on November 18, 2009. The ARB expressed
concerns about over-parking and emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant
palette and resolution of massing issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone.
Since the ARB meeting, the applicant has refined the design by reducing the size and number of guest
rooms to 143 guest rooms. The P&TC has recommended approval of this revised design and
provided comments and suggestions listed in the Planning & Transportation Commission Review
section below.
The project includes a rezoning of the property from PC to CS(D), a Variarice to the "Build-to"
requirement, and Site and Design Review which would be required under the new zoning. The
ARB review is to ensure that the ARB findings, PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), can be made.
Project Description
The proposed four story restaurant and hotel project would include a new 117,814 square foot
building with 147 guest rObms, a restaurant of approximately 5,602 square feet, a small amount of
retail (87 square feet), a small gym (541 square feet), one level of underground parking, and a new
surface parking lot and landscaping. The maximum height of the building would be 50 feet, with a
design that steps up and back from the corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The
proposed parking facilities would include 166 parking 'spaces, 90 of which will be within the one
level of underground parking, and the remaining 76 surface parking spaces would be located in
front of and around the sides of the building. The project includes removal of the existing building
and 25 existing trees, as well as replacement of existing street trees, per city staff
recommendation.
The applicant's project description is provided in Attachment D.
DISCUSSION
Planning & Transportation Commission Review
The Planning & Transportation Commission reviewed the proposed project at a public hearing. on
November 18,2009. At this hearing they recommended approval of the proposed project, finding that
the project meets the Site and Design Objectives. The P&TC also provided comments and
recommendations to the applicant, as well as requests of items that be prepared prior to ARB review.
These items included:
• Wayfinding and signage for all users (including bicyclists);
• Landscape materials should conform with Baylands list, or be supported by City arborist;
• Massing of open comer of building;
• Design of primary entrance; and
• Impact to visibility of neighbor'S signage with increased landscaping along Embarcadero
Road.
The applicant has responded to all of these issues in their revised plan set, and will show studies that
they have prepared of the visual impact on the signage of the Audi Dealership next door.
Preliminary ARB Review .
In their preliminary review of this project on January 15, 2009, the ARB expressed concerns about
over-parking and emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant palette and
09PLN-OO] 75 Page 2
2
resolution of massing issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Conformance
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Commercial. Prior to the original PC
zone, implemented in 1967, the property was zoned LMD which was a zone that is now replaced on
adjacent properties with ROLM(E)(D)(AD). The proposed Service Commercial (CS) zoning would
conform to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property and the Site and Design Review (D)
Combining District would be consistent with the adjacent properties. The Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A) and Attachment G both provide a list of applicable policies for this project. The
proposed project would take advantage of the greater allowed floor area (up t02.0 FAR) for hotels in
the CS zone. A table comparing the proposed project with the zoning requirements of the CS(D)
district is included as Attachment F. '
Airport A vigation Easement
The proposed project is within the Airport Land Use Plan for'the Palo Alto Airport. Though the
project is not directly below the line of approach for incoming aircraft, it was reviewed by the County
of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission on September 24,2008. This review resulted in a
requirement that the land owner grant an avigation easement for Palo Alto Airport, setting forth
acceptance of elevation limits and aircraft noise impacts, prior to issuance of building permits. This is
included in the conditions of approval outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action, Attachment
A.
Traffic/Parking
The project, as proposed, will provide 166 parking spaces (90 in one level of underground parking),
subject to approval of the requested 41 % reduction in the number of parking spaces required for hotel
rooms (87 provided where 147 are required), as shown in Attachment F. This reduction is requested
based on Section 18.52.040 Table 2 which allows for a reduction of up to "75% of the spaces required
for guest rooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking study of parking generated by the
mix of uses." Parking facilities for 26 bicycles are proposed, situated at grade at multiple locations
around the proposed building.
Trees/Landscape Plan
All of the 25 existing on site trees are proposed to b~ remov~d and replaced with 94 new trees. None
of these trees are protected trees and their removal and replacement is supported by the Planning
Arborist due to excessive topping, and inappropriate species for this Baylands area. 10 publicly owned
trees originating in the right-of-way have been topped and disfigured repeatedly for power line
clearance above, and are recommended to be replaced by this project as part of a comprehensive
,landscape and urban forest renewal measure. The proposed tree and shrub palette has been reviewed
by the Planning Arborist for compatibility with Sunset Zone 3 area that will tolerate the predominant
fill and 'bay mud' underlay soil horizon. Zone 3 is a transition zone that incorporates indigenous and
salt marsh (Zone 1) and qmamental planting (Zone 4). The proposed planting will include an area at
the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road with a Baylands theme in plant
species, layout, and signage. Overall, the project landscape theme is consistent with the 2008
Baylands Master Plan emphasizing:
The Baylands is a distinctive landscape character notable for its openness and low profile.
Because of shallow soils, brackish water, and persistent winds, the landscape is flat and
09PLN-00175 Page 3
3
treeless, defined by the expansive horizon with a big sky, flat water, and waving grasses. The
natural color palette is a study in muted tones. The landscape design intent should be simple
serene and not complicated
While all of these elements cannot be achieved due to urban constraints such as the P G & E
transmission towers and traffic proximity, landscape design efforts have been successful to diminish
their apparent presence, such as thoughtful mounding and planting passing through the tower legs,
allowing grasses to soften the edge of fonnal curving walkways and providing stone and bench
seating for passive relaxation. The more fonnal character of landscaping in other areas of the site is
blended with the Baylands comer through winding paths, and phasing of plant materials (Sheet
LD 1.1). Internal planting on the parking structure has a cultural plant theme that should realize long
lived timeframe. If the City Council approves removal of the 10 street trees along East Bayshore Road
they would also be replaced with equal numbers of trees that can be appropriately spaced and
correctly pruned to grow to an optimum height to avoid conflict and topping from power lines above.
This urban renewal of public trees is consistent with the City of Palo Alto's Street Tree Management
Plan strategy.
Height & Mass
The height and massing of the proposed building were among the significant concerns expressed in
previous reviews of this project. The project design has been revised since the prelimi~ary reviews, so
that the proposal now meets the 50 foot height limit set forth in the CS zone regulations. The revised
design uses horizontal lines and shading devices to emphasize the horizontality of the Baylands
environment.
Baylands
The proposed project is within the Baylands Master Plan area. The property functions as a primary
gateway to the Baylands recreation and commercial area, and is designated as a scenic route, a
primary entry point and a major view corridor to the Baylands, as listed in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Map L-4. The major impacts of the master plan on the proposed project will be
in the areas of signage, materials, and landscaping. The project design has incorporated context
sensitive design elements that were created within the landscape and right-of-way frontage of the
property on the west side of East Bayshore. The newly completed (2008) project located at 2540
Watson Court (2300 East Bayshore) incorporated iconic elements and strong visual character defming
elements of the Baylands and Bixby Park, such as hillock mounding, grasses, trails, waterway, passive
use and observation deck elements (Sheet LD 1.3). At staff s request, the applicant has also creatively
introduced several unique interpretive signs that to achieve reflective interest of pedestrians, patrons
and cyclists who will use both frontages of Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. The proposed
project contains elements consistent with the Site Assessment & Design Guidelines ofr the Palo Alto
Baylands Nature Preserve (Catalyst 2005.) Examples of the unique interpretive signage are available
in the project file (Sheet SI). Functioning in concert with the 2450 Watson Court project across the
street, it is staff s opinion that a world-class Baylands gateway will have been created, achieving the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program Goals L-71, Program T-57 and Map L-4.
Green Building
The project is subject to meeting the City's green building ordinance (Chapter 18.44) at the LEED
silver level. The applicant has provided the required LEED checklist (Attachment H) ·and the project
includes green elements in its design as shown on project plans, Attachment I). Furthennore,
sustainable best practices for site planning are integrated for compliance with the city's parking lot
09PLN-OO] 75 Page 4
4
shading and pervious surface goals and water reduction policy.
Next Steps
Once the project-receives a recommendation from the ARB based on the Site and Design Review and
ARB fmdings, the City Council will review the project and make a decision on the Variance and Site
and Design Review application.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has b~en completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. Issues
discussed include concerns about aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less Plan significant with standard conditions of approval and state and local
requirements. The public comment period for this document closed on November 26,2009. To
date, no ,comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
. Draft Record of Land Use Action
Draft ARB Findings
Location Map
Project Description Letter*
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Zoning Compliance Table
Comprehensive Plan Table
LEED checklist
Project Plans (ARB members only)*
Jennifer Cutler, Planner
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
COURTESY COPIES
Cynthia Munoz, Stoecker & Northway Architects, applicant
Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, owners
09PLN-00175 Page 5
5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Minutes of January 7,2010 and September 3, 2009.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. 1700 Embarcadero Road [09PLN-00175]: Request by Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc.,
on behalf of Wu-chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, for rezoning to Service Commercial with a Site
and Design Review Combining District (CS(D)), approval of a variance, and approval of site and
design review for demolition of an existing restaurant, and construction of a four-story hotel and
restaurant. Environmental Assessment: An Initial StudylN egative Declaration has been prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project, based upon the draft conditions of approval
in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) and the draft ARB findings in Attachment B.
Public Testimony:
Dick 'Perry, . Palo Alto: Stated his was the owner of a neighboring property and had concerns
regarding the noise, traffic, and parking.
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the project, (4-0-1-0, Board member Wasserman moved,
seconded by Board member Lee, Board member Malone Prichard absent due to conflict of interest)
with an additional condition to return to the ARB Subcommittee to review revised plans addressing
the following:
A. Colors shall be refined to address grayness, and lack of contrast;
B. Consider a modest increase in emphasis at the main entry to the hotel;
C. Review design integrity of the signage such that the new signs will better integrate with the
building and each other;
D. Provide some modulation of the east elevation of the building;
E. Refine how trash and service entrance will be dealt with; and
F. Move bike lockers away from the front entry.
2. 910 Charleston Road: request by ACS Architects" on behalf of Ai Yueh Lee, for a Minor
Architectural Review· for the addition of approximately 95 sq. ft, exterior improvements, new
signage, landscape' and parking lot improvements for an existing restaurant. A Design
Enhancement Exception is requested to allow less building frontage at the Charleston Rd.
frontage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt fronl the provisions of CEQA, 15301 (Existing
Facilities). Zone District: CS.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recon1mends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning
and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the Architectural Review and
-Development Enhancement Exception Findings (Attachment A) and subject to the conditions of
approval (Attachment B).
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the following project, (5-0-0-0 Board member Wasserman
moved, seconded by Board member Young) with an additional condition that the following items
return to the ARB on the Consent Calendar for further review:
A. Provide landscaping at the front of the property;
B. Add trees between the drive through aisle and the eastern property boundary;
C. Delete the expression panels and arches; provide a planting area adj acent to the building between
the north side doors to install trellises and vines;
D. Extend the stone to the towers and wrap stone around the building at base, adjusting as needed to
continue underneath windows;
E. Provide details to show how the stone materials will meet the other materials;
F. The main building color shall be changed to a more neutral color (not orange);
G. Reconsider the proportions of the tower, especially the top, and simplify to remove bell curve (a
simple curve or flat profile would be acceptable);
H. Provide a darker tri,m color at the top of the tower;
1. Revise sign color so that the signs are all purple;
J. Revise site furnishings and other elements shall be painted/finished in a neutral color to match the
building;
K. Modify the railing for the ramp and specify the color; using frieze design for railing is
acceptable;and
L; Specify the color and type of paving at ramp area.
STUDY SESSION: the following items were discussed with the applicant.
3,' 801 Center Drive (Eleanor Pardee Park): Request by the Utilities Department, on behalf of the
City of Palo Alto, for a Study Session for comments on the preliminary design for an emergency
water well and other landscape improvements in Eleanor Pardee Park.
Subcommittee Action:
This item was not heard.
4. Stanford University Medical Center-Overview of design adjustments to the Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital.
Subcommittee Action:
This item was discussed with the applicant.
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
SUBCOMMITTEE:
EI Camino Real and Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvements.
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:
Project Description: Approval for renovation of the bobcat enclosure, new fencing, new
colored rubber paving within the zoo area, and other minor inlprovements.
Applicant: Palo Alto Museum & Zoon
Address:1451 Middlefield Road
Approval Date: January 21,2010
Requestfor hearing deadline: February 4, 2010
Project Description: Review of new exterior stair to replace the existing stair on the rear wall
of the existing commercial building.
Applicant: Simon Cintz
Address: 3565 EI Camino Real
Approval Date: January 19,2010
Requestfor hearing deadline :February 2,2010
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City's
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City's ADA Coordinator at .
650.329.2550 (voice) or bye-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org.
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section
54956. Recordings. An audiotape of the proceedings may be obtained/reviewed by contacting the Planning Division at
(650) 329-2440. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (650)
329-2571.
Materials related: to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during
normal business hours.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The site is surrounded by office properties on all sides and across Embarcadero Road and East
Bayshore Road, with the exception of the car dealerships to the east side. All surrounding
properties are zoned ROLM(E)(D)(AD), except for one adjacent Planned Community (PC) to the
east. The project site was rezoned from LM(D) to Planned Community (PC Ordinance 237S) in I
1967 and revised by resolution number 2491 in 1969 (Attachment H). The site has a
Comprehensive Plan designation' of Service Commercial and is located within the East Bayshore
Employment District, which is -intended for diverse business and light industrial uses.
The project, which originally included a request for rezoning to a new Planned Community (PC)
zone, had a preliminary review by the Planning & Transportation Commission on September 10,
200S. The project at that time included 162 rooms in the proposed hotel. In response to
comment from the P&TC the proposal was changed to include a rezoning to Service Commercial
(CS) rather than PC. This new proposal had preliminary review by the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) on January 15,2009. The ARB expressed concerns about over-parking and
emphasized the importance of working with the Baylands plant palette and resolution'ofmassing
issues, but expressed support for the change from PC to CS zone. Since the ARB meeting, the
applicant has refined the design by reducing the size and number of guest rooms to 143 guest
rooms. Further ar~hitectural details and landscape plans will be presented to the ARB in response
to their preliminary comments at the formal ARB review of the project.
Zone Change Process
The project includes a request for a rezoning of the site from the existing PC to Service
Commercial (CS) with the Site and Design (D) combining district as previously indicated. A
zone change is required in order to permit the proposed new building and use that would replace
those described in the existing PC zone and land use. Rezoning follows a unique set of
procedures and standards, which are described in Chapter lS.S0 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code:
If, from the facts presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and
reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community
environment or other appropriate city staff, the commission finds that a change of
district boundaries would be in accord with the purposes of this title and in accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the commission may recon1ll1end such
change as it deems appropliate to the council.
The recommendation of the planning commission will be forwarded to city council for final
action.
Site and Design Review Process
The proposed zoning designation includes the Site and Design Review (D) combining district, so
any development plans will need to proceed through the process of site and design. This process
is described in P AMC Section lS.30(G).055 and includes the following steps:
(a) The applicant seeking site and design approval . shall initially submit to the planning
commission a site plan and elevations as described in Section lS.30(G).050. The plans
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and elevations may be preliminary in nature but must show all pertinent information
requested by the director.
(b) If the planning commission recommends denial, a detailed site plan and elevations
consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded directly to
the city council.
(c) If the planning commission recommends approval, a detailed site plan and elevations
consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the
architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family and accessory
uses. The architectural review board shall nlake a reconlffiendation on the plans and
elevations based on the findings for architectural review in Section 18.76.020(d).
(d) The plans and elevations, as approved by the planning commission and the architectural
review board, are submitted with recommendations to council for final action.
To recommend approval of the Site and Design application the P&TC must find that the project
meets the following objectives:
(a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
hannonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
(b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the sanle or adjacent areas.
(c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed.
(d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Variance Process
The proj ect includes a request for a v:ariance from the proposed development requirements
requiring that the building be built to the required front setback for 50% of the property frontage
on Embarcadero Road.
To recommend a variance the P &TC must find that:
(1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not
limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the
requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as
the· subject property. Special circumstances. that are expressly excluded from
consideration are:
(A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
(B) Ally changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property
owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same
zoning designation.
(2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and in the sanle. zoning district as the subject
property, and
(3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning), and
(4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant's project description is provided in Attachment E to this report.
The proposed four story restaurant and hotel project would include a new 117,698 square foot
building with 143 guest rooms, a restaurant of approximately 5,602 square feet, a small amount
of retail (87 square feet), a small gym (541 square feet), one level of underground parking, and a
new surface parking lot and landscaping. The maximum height of the building would be 50 feet,
with a design that steps up and back from the comer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore
Road. The proposed parking facilities would include 166 parking spaces, 90 of which will be
within the one level of underground parking, and the remaining 76 surface parking spaces would
be located in front of the building. The project includes removal of the existing building and 25
existing trees.
Key Issues
Staffhas identified the following issues for the P&TC's specific consideration and comment:
,Land Use and Intensity
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Commercial, and the site is within
the East Bayshore Employment District. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-46 states, "maintain the
East Bayshore area as a diverse business and light industrial district" and notes that "the design
of new or redeveloped buildings should reflect the area's location near the Baylands and that
connections to the nearby Baylands should be strengthened by taking advantage of views and
improving bicycle and pedestrian connections to the open space area." The proposed hotel use
will introduce a new use to this employment district, to enhance the diversity of uses. Placement
of bicycle racks approximately 30 feet from the intersection, and pathways from the East
Bayshore sidewalk through the property, will improve bicycle and pedestrian activity at this
important comer.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attacmnent I is the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration. This document i~cludes discussion of
potential environmental impacts and a summary including the traffic study completed for this
proj ect. The traffic study was based on the original plans and found that even with the original
proposal of 162 rooms, the proj ect would not have a significant impact on traffic in the area.
Baylands
The proposed project is within the Baylands Master Plan area and will therefore be subject to
compliance with the guidelines when reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The major
impacts of the master plan on the proposed project will be in the areas of signage, materials, and
landscaping.
Variance Findings
Under the CS regulations, the structure must be built to the setback for 50% of the street
frontage. The proposed project does not meet the 50% "build-to" requirements as the design
includes a 30 foot setback along Embarcadero Road rather than the 0-10 foot setback required to
create a 10-12 foot sidewalk in the CS zone. The proposed building does span 50% of the
frontage, but it is located 20 feet farther back from Embarcadero Road than is required by the
code, and therefore an exception is requested from the code regulations. A variance is indicated
as the process for this exception, rather than a Design Enhancement Exception, due to the extent
of the setback discrepancy (20 feet). The following findings are proposed, per P AMC
18.76.030(d), prior to approval ofa variance:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not
limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the '
requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as
the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from
consideration are:
(A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and
(B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property
owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same
zoning designation.
Though the proposed project is inJhe Service Commercial designation in the
Comprehensive Plan, it is not surrounded by other properties within the sanle zoning
designation. Placement of the building at the "build-to" lines required in the CS zone
would not be consistent with the site placement of the surrounding buildings in the area,
nor with the open feel of the Baylands. Build-to line placement is more desirable along
the EI Camino Real and pedestrian oriented streets. The proposed design brings the
building closer to the street than other buildings in the area in order to provide the
presence on the street, which is the goal of the "build-to" lines, and places the building
farther back than required in order to address the more open context of other buildings
near the Baylands. In addition, the PG&E easement along East Bayshore Road prevents
placement of a building within 80 feet of the East Bayshore Road property line.
2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
City of Palo Alto Page 6
upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject
property.
The proposed project is in an area dominated by office buildings and auto dealerships in
the ROLM(E) zoning district where the required front setback is 20 feet, and there is no
"build-to" requirement. The proposed zoning will comply with the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site, and approval of this variance would allow the design to meet all
other the requirements of the new zoning designation, while presenting a design which
also works with the context of other buildings in the vicinity.
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposed project is located within the area encompassed by the Baylands Master
Plan. This plan describes the openness of the Baylands which is a significantly different
environment than other areas of the city within the CS zone like EI Camino Real or other
pedestrian oriented streets. Therefore this proposed setback is appropriate to the type of
environment in and around the Palo Alto Baylands.
4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
The granting of the requested variance would provide for a building and site design that
are more in keeping with the surrounding area than if the "build-to" regulations were
enforced and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
Site and Design Findings
The proposed zoning for this site includes the Site and Design Combining District (D). Section
18.30(G).060 of the PAMC requires the P&TC review the project and recommend approval or
changes such that the project is compatible with the Site and Design findings; in italics below.
Staffhas prepared customized findings for P&TC review:
1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The project is designed for a hotel and related uses and incorporates a site layout that is
comparable to the existing building and compatible with surrounding uses. Specifically,
the hotel would be located on Ernbarcadero Road, adjacent to office and automobile sales
facilities and the proposed building is situated on the site in a similar manner. City
standards and regulations will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site would
be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the existing uses located in the
immediate area. During construction, it is expected that there would be temporary
impacts to the area in terms of construction-related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These
impacts would be addressed by applicable City construction standards, such as
restrictions on hours of construction, the City's noise ordinance, and the mitigation
measures found in the attached draft Negative Declaration (Attachment I).
2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct o/business, research, or
City of Palo Alto Page?
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
This site is designated for Service Commercial land use in the Comprehensive Plan, and
is proposed to be rezoned to the Service Commercial zone district. It is surrounded by
one and two-story office buildings. The replacement of an existing single story restaurant
building with a new four story hotel and restaurant should not reduce the overall
functionality of the immediate area .. Hotel and restaurant uses are expressly pennitted in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and help to support employment uses and revenue generation in the City. The
proposed hotel location also provides easy access from State Highway 101.
3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed. The project would replace a disturbed area on the site, which is currently
developed with a restaurant and surface parking lot areas. The project would increase the
number of trees on the site and provide for enhanced landscaping and open space and
comply with the requirements in the Baylands Master Plan for compatibility with the
Palo Alto Baylands. Green building features would be incorporated to achieve LEED
Silver compliance. This application was subject to an environmental impact assessment
(EIA), and it was detennined that, as detailed in the attached Negative Declaration
(Attachment I), there will be n<? significant environmental impacts associated with the
proposed development.
4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Service Commercial per the Palo Alto 1998 -
2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project for rezoning from Planned Community
to Service-Commercial, and construction of a new hotel and restaurant is consistent with
the land use designation. The proj ect is also ;consistent with The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that
these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The
commercial properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for
pedestrians. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are incorporated into the Draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). Additional applicable Comprehensive Goals
and Policies are provided in Attachment F. The draft Record orLand Use Action
(Attachment B) incorporates these findings.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project includes a new hotel and restaurant which will support the Comprehensive
Plan goals which encourage private property owners to upgrade commercial properties in ways
that will support the City's economic base. The Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to this
project are provided in Attachments Band F.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
This project is the second hotel project since the zoning ordinance amendment of 2005 which
allowed additional FAR for hotels. The proposed hotel will comply with the requirements of I
City of Palo Alto Page 8
PAMC 18.16.060 (d) including recently adopted provisions by Council to regulate extended stay
hotels.
TIMELlNE
The Site and Design Review process provides for the following review: P&TC,'ARB, and then
City Council for final action. IfP&TC recommends approval, the project will be scheduled for
ARB review in January 2010, followed by City Council review in February or March 2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. Issues
discussed include concerns about aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, though expected
impacts are less than significant with standard conditions of approval and state and local
requirements. The public comment period for this document will close on November 26, 2009.
To date, no comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Zoning Ordinance
B. Draft Record of Land Use Action
C. Location Map
D. Zoning Map
E. Project Description Letter*
F. Comprehensive Plan Policies
G~ Zoning Comparison Table
H. Existing Planned Community Ordinance
1. Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration(CEQA) (Provided to Commissioners, Libraries,
Development Center, and 5th floor of City Hall only)
J. Project Plans* (Provided to Commissioners, Libraries, Development Center, and 5th floor
of City Hall only)
*prepared by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc., applicant
Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner jjY
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manage~
DepartmentIDivision Head Approval: Q~ curtis ituamS:Director of Planning /l
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
November 18, 2009
EXCERPT
Okay, item number two is 1700 Embarcadero Road. A request by Stoecker & Northway
Architects, Inc., on behalf of Wu-chung Hsiang and Vicky Ching, for rezoning to Service
Commercial with a Site and Design Review Combining District [CS(D)], approval ofa Variance,
and approval of Site and Design Review for demolition of an existing restaurant and construction
ofa four story hotel and restaurant. Would Stafflike to make a presentation?
Before we do that Commissioner Holman has a brief statement.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, one of the applicants sits on a Board that employs me so I have to
recuse myself from this item and wish you all well.
Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, thank you. Staff, a presentation.
2. 1700 Embarcadero Road (Mings Restaurant & Hotel)*: Review and recommendation
of requests for: (l) an Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation
from Planned Community (PC) to Service Commercial (CS) with the Site and Design (D)
Combining District, (2) Site and Design Review of the proposed restaurant and hotel
building, and (3) a Variance to allow a greater setback (less then the 50% "build to"
requirement) along a portion of Embarcadero Road. Envirolunental Assessment: An
Initial Study has been completed and a draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Good evening Commissioners. The proposed project before you
tonight is the replacement of the Mings Restaurant at 1700 Embarcadero Road. The proposal is
for a new hotel, which would include a portion for the restaurant. This application includes three
aspects: the rezoning of the property from a PC zone to CS(D); a Site and Design Review; and a
Variance.
When this project came before you a year ago it was conceiv~d as a new PC zone but based on
comments received at that time the proposal has been revised to be a rezoning to Service
Commercial rather than Planned Community. The Service Commercial matches the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the area with a Site and Design Combining District due to
its location in proximity to the Baylands. Today's hearing is to consider the appropriateness of
the proposed zoning as well as to conduct the Site and Design Review and consider a Variance
for setback requirements. Any recommendation for approval of the Site and Design will be
contingent upon the successful rezoning of the property of course, but the two processes are
being run concurrently for this project.
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 1 of37
1 The Commission's review of the Site and Design is for the purpose of ensuring four objectives
2 are accomplished by the project. The full text of these objectives are included in the Staff Report
3 but in summary they are to ensure that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding
4 area and uses, that the design will be based on sound environmental and ecological principles,
5 and that the use is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the guiding documents
6 for Site and Design in this area is the Baylands Design Guidelines. The purpose of these design
7 guidelines is to provide specifics for new construction within the Baylands as well as some
8 general direction to projects in the vicinity of the Baylands. They emphasize muted natural
9 colors, horizontal lines, low fences and signage, and design for practicality.
10
11 In discussion with the applicant Staff has recommended that the part of the design that will have
12 the strongest impact when it comes to using the Baylands Design Guidelines is the landscaping
13 and signage at the street comer where it can create a gateway along with the newly constructed
14 building and Baylands themed landscape on the opposite site of East Bayshore Road. The
15 project's relationship to the Baylands and how it works with the Baylands Design Guidelines
16 will be described in more detail by the applicant as well.
17
18 One element that Staff would like specific comment from the Commission tonight is on the issue
19 of the ~xisting street trees along East Bayshore Road. The existing trees may not be the most
20 appropriate species for the location due to the excessive cropping that has been necessary due to
21 the overhead power lines and the high maintenance of those street trees species that are there at
22 the moment. This development may be the appropriate opportunity to replace the trees with
23 more appropriate species that will be more appropriate to the overall site design and to the
24 Baylands Design Guidelines. The applicant has expressed their willingness to follow the City's
25 requirement either way.
26
27 The Variance request for this project is from the build to requirements. These requirements in
28 the CS zone apply both to the front and street setbacks and require that the building be built to
29 the edge of the setback for a certain percentage of the length. The proposal is for the building to
30 be placed along the edge of the PG&E easement, which is an 80-foot setback from East
31 Bayshore Road. This meets the requirements for street side since the building is built as close to
32 the property line as is possible given that easement. The Variance is requested for the location of
33 the building in relation to the front setback. Rather than being located within ten feet of the
34 sidewalk the proposal would be 30 feet setback to be in keeping with surrounding sites. Draft
35 fmdings can be found in the Staff Report.
36
37 We have the architect, several representatives for the applicant here. They are ready to make a
38 presentation and discuss more about the project, and Staff is available to answer any additional
39 questions.
40
41 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let me just remind members of the public that if they would like to
42 speak on this item to fill out a cara. The applicant, would you like to make a presentation? You
43 will have 15 minutes.
44
45 Mr. John Northway, Stoecker & Northway Architects: Thank 'you. We came about a year ago,
46 we listened to you, we conferred with Staff, and we are back following your recommendations
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 2 of37
1 for a zone change rather than a PC. I am going to be very brief. I want to briefly introduce our
2 project team. The project architects are Clare Malone-Pritchard, and Cynthia Munoz. Our
3 landscape architect is Jerry Mitchell. Wu-chung Hsiang and Vicky Ching are here. We will all
4 be available to answer your questions after the presentation. I am going to turn it over to Cynthia
5 because she knows how to work all that I would go blank.
6
7 Ms. Cynthia Munoz, Stoecker & Northway Architects: Hello, I am pleased to provide you with
8 this overview of the proposed project. In this slide we have an aerial photo. Here is the project
9 site with Mings Restaurant. Embarcadero Road runs along the north of the property and East
10 Bayshore Road along the west. To the west are a recently completed office building and the
11 Audi and Honda dealerships sit to the east. Across the road to the north and to the south are
12 some older office buildings. The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and the airport sit along the
13 east of the property down Embarcadero Road. As you can see we are cutoff from direct access
14 from the Baylands although we are very close. These properties prohibit a direct connection to
15 the Baylands.
16
17 You can see the shadow of the electrical tower that currently sits at the comer. The power lines
18 run north-south and continue for quite a distance. The 60-foot PG&E easement sits here, and sits
19 along the five-foot wide public utility easement. Currently you can enter the site from both
20 Embarcadero Road and from East Bayshore Road.
21
22 Here is a footprint of the proposed hotel superimposed on this site. In terms of site circulation
23 we are keeping the main vehicle entrance at the southwest comer of the property along Bayshore
24 and away from the main traffic along Embarcadero. Another reason for keeping the main site
25 entrance at this location is the owners have consulted with a feng shui expert and the feedback
26 they received was that to counter the effects of electrical tower which is a fire element the main
27 entrance to the hotel needed to be located as far away from it as possible. It was important that
28 the entry be fairly centered on that elevation, placing at the comer of the building for example
29 was not sufficient.
30
31 Service vehicles we proposed to have access to this site off of Embarcadero Road leading onto a
32 secondary driveway and a loading zone for deliveries is planned right inside that service
33 entrance. The trash recycling area is planned for this southeast comer of the property.
34
35 At the comer of the site the plan will be to plant the area with species native to the Baylands.
36 Mings would develop an outdoor dining area facing this comer as well making this a more
37 attractive and welcoming area. The restaurant would be accessible from the interior of the hotel
38 as well as from the outdoor plaza area.
39
40 There is a central courtyard, which would house a pool, gazebo, and outdoor seating areas for
. 41 guests. We currently have planned bicycle parking near the restaurant entrance as well as near
42 the main hotel entrance. A decorative paving pattern would lead guests entering the main drive
43 to the main hotel entrance.
44
45 We decided to back the four story portions of the building against the adjacent commercial
46 properties, and stepped the building down to two stories towards the comer of the property. This
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 3 of37
1 presented us with opportunities to have planted gardens on top of the roofs on the two story and
2 three story portions.
3
4 This is a schematic layout of the one story underground parking garage. The first floor and
5 second floor have the same footprint while the third floor steps back some, and the fourth floor
6 steps back even more. The roof plan illustrates some potential areas for photovoltaic panels.
7 The intent is for any rooftop equipment to be concealed by a surrounding equipment screen. We
8 also use the equipment screen to provide sun shading to the building by incorporating a deep
9 horizontal element to it.
10
11 The following are some prospective views of the concept for this building. This is a more
12 detailed depiction of our concept for the building as viewed looking towards the property comer.
13 Here are some less detailed massing models that we put together. Here again is a view looking
14 at the property from the comer. This is the southwest comer looking towards the main entry as if
15 you were entering the main driveway entrance. Here is the southeast comer, this is the main
16 entrance, and this is the side facing the car dealerships. Here is the northeast comer, so this front
17 would be parallel to Embarcadero Road. Here is the south view looking straight at the main
18 entrance. The west view, so this is the side that is 'parallel with Bayshore Road. H;ere we just
19 superimposed the massing model on some streetscape photos.
20
21 In the interest of trying to see what if any visibility there might be of the project from the
22 Baylands we chose to look back towards the property from several locations in Bixby Park.
23 Here is an enlarged aerial map indicating the approximate locations of where I stood looking
24 back towards the project site. What I did after parking my car I decided to head up this path
25 noting that there was a high point and then decided to continue down where the path dips and
26 then reaches another crest, then thought that it would also be beneficial to head downhill to get
27 past the mound of the dump to see what I could see looking back at the project site. So here is
28 from point one looking back approximately towards the direction of the site. As you can see
29 what I found was that the mound created by the dump pretty much obscures what I could find of
30 the site, which was nothing. Likewise as I headed further south down the path. Here is where I
31 start to head downhill towards this flat path. I stopped and looked back and approximately the
32 project site sits behind this area. The key was I was trying to find the electrical tower on the
33 comer, which we approximate to be about 102 feet tall, and our building is half that height. So I
34 couldn't see.the tower so I would assume that our building would be not visible from this site.
35 Again, here is' where I am on the lower walking path looking back toward that same site.
36
37 So drawing inspiration from the Baylands our concept is to use stone veneer in a natural tone to
38 establish a strong horizontal base. The upper two floors and mechanical equipment screen would
39 be finished with an exterior insulation finish system and we plan to use colors that would
40 compliment the natural tones of the Baylands. To accent the comer of the building near the site
41 entrance and the main hotel entrance we plan on incorporating accents of colored and decorative
42 glass. We would plan to have deeply recessed windows to provide some shading along with
43 incorporating horizontal aluminum shades.
44
45 Specific plantings for the site and rooftop gardens are being developed and Jerry Mitchell, the
46 landscape architect is here to provide you with a brief overview of the concept.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 4 of37
1
2 Mr. Jerry Mitchell, Landscape Architect: The hotel landscape consists of a number of different
3 components. The first one as Cynthia mentioned would be the perimeter plantings, which will
4 have a very strong Palo Alto Baylands theme. There will be a meandering path in this area with
5 educational signage and other Bayland type plantings, which will match the site across the street
6 that has quite an extensive Bayland landscape.
7
8 The entry road has a very strong pattern as does the porte-cochere. This was done to really
9 strengthen the sense of arrival at the hotel and direct people. There is fire access around the edge
10 of the porte-cochere and then out this way. Also fire access right here, this has all been worked
11 out with the Fire Marshall.
12
13 The entrance to the restaurant in this area consists of a vehicular turnaround and then concentric
14 circles of different colors of concrete, which is kind of a feng shui approach to creating a nice
15 warm entry into the restaurant as those concentric circles blend into the entrance to the
16 restaurant, which has its own little courtyard which will have a very subtle water feature right at
17 the entrance and seating for guests.
18
19 The interior courtyard has a four-lane lap and swimming pool. There is a spa. It is enclosed
20 with a regulation five-foot fence. Some of it will be an open metal fence. Portion of it will be a
21 wooden fence. There will be an outdoor pavilion here, a shade sail type with a barbeque for the
22 guests. Then there will be a meandering path along this edge and as Cynthia mentioned a
23 loading zone right here. I think that pretty well covers the landscape concept.
24
25 Mr. Northway: We are basically done with our formal presentation. Since Amy turned the lights
26 down would it be helpful to you for Cynthia to show you again the Baylands colors and the stone
27 colors? They were kind of washed out so whatever you would like.
28
29 Chair Garber: If there are questions or a request we will have you do it. Otherwise we will
30 move forward. Thank you. We have two members of the public that would like to speak.
31 Commissioners, again I am suggestion that we go to the public first before we move with our
32, questions and comments. You will have five minutes. Robert Moss followed by Ron Barton.
33
34 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber and Commissioners. This is a
35 significant inlprovement from the initial proposal. It looks a lot better. The orientation on the
36 site is more reasonable.
37
38 One of the things that concerned me with the original proposal was that there were supposed to
39 be buildings and access and things right under the power lines and that has been moved back. So
40 the safety issue is no longer a problem.
41
42 There are a couple of things you probably ought to take another look at just to be sure everything
43 has been handled properly. One ofthenl is the change of the trees. Now, as you know we have
44 had some issues recently about trees. I think it is not a bad idea if we are going to be
45 redeveloping this site to take a look at what we want to put in there in terms of trees, and make
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 5 of37
1 sure that we have an adequate and compatible group of trees both along Embarcadero and along
2 Bayshore, and also have some of them scattered throughout the property itself.
3
4 The second question I have, kind of, is access to the restaurant is kind of an afterthought. You
5 'go down an entry and you go down I guess you could call it a driveway but it is really parking,
6 and you get down to the restaurant and drop people off I guess or tum around and come back
7 again. I can see some logic to it but it just stdkes me as being a little bit awkward for people
8 who are not hotel guests to get in there and use it. Unless you have adequate signage people are
9 not going to be able to find it. That is just something you can take a look at and see whether the
10 restaurant can be connected to the driveway and the parking a little bit more effectively.
11
12 I also was alittle bit surprise the restaurant is going to be about one-third the size of the current
13 restaurant. I thought the current restaurant was fine and am surprised they are cutting it back that
14 much but they know what they. are doing so I guess that is right. .
15
16 The other I guess you would call it a question is the access along Embarcadero where it was
17 talked about that being for fire access only. Isn't there an actual entrance right at the right side?
18 It goes up into Embarcadero so people can come in and go around fronl the top in as well as
19 coming in from Bayshore and going around. If that is an entrance and people can come in from
20 Embarcadero you might want to take a look at the traffic pattern because you can get people
21 going in both directions at the same time and I am not sure that the drive area is wide enough.
22 So just a matter of traffic circulation and how it would be more effective and safer.
23
24 Otherwise, as far as the design of the building it is lovely. I think it is going to be a very nice
25 addition to the community.
26
27 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ron Barton our last speaker. You will have five minutes.
28
29 Mr. Ron Barton, Carlsen Audi: Hello. We have some concerns about the Variances being
30 granted. We have already received numerous complaints from consumers about how hard it is to
31 visually see our dealership and these proposed trees and some of these other changes are going to
32 have a negative impact on people seeing our location. It is going to have a major impact upon
33 us. That is just our comment.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mr. Barton, one of the Commissioners has a question for you.
36 Commissioner Keller.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: My understanding is that the Variance is so that the hotel is further away
39 from Embarcadero Road than would be required. In other words, the requirement would be ten
40 feet from Embarcadero Road and now it is going to be about 30 feet from Embarcadero Road.
41 What exactly are you suggesting?
42
43 Mr. Barton:JThe building is going up and they are going to be planting trees in front of the
44 building according to the tree plan.
45
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 60f37
1 Commissioner Keller: So what is it that you would like to see? I am not sure what your request
2 is.
3
4 Mr . Barton: Our concern is that the City put in a power box by us and now you can't see our
5 signage. You have a very short, brief span of time to see our signage. Putting these trees in, in
6 five years is going to make it much harder to see our location. With this Variance the building is
7 going to be much taller than it is now. It is going to be pushed back a little bit but it is going to
8 be substantially taller. It is going to be four stories and we feel it is going to have a negative
9 impact on us.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: So I am still not clear on exactly what changes you would like to be in
12 this proposed development.
13
14 Mr. Barton: We would like -some of the current landscaping in front of Mings doesn't interfere
15 with our operation. These trees in front and on the comer of the tree line in five to six years
16 those are going to be large trees.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: So am I understanding you that you are complaining about the trees on
19 the property line.
20
21 Mr. Barton: On the Embarcadero side, yes.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: On the property line between the driveway and your property, are those
24 the ones you are complaining about?
25
26 Mr. Barton: The ones from Bayshore to Embarcadero would be those four trees that are not
27 there now, those ones being planted.
28
. 29 Ms. French: We can certainly study that when it gets to the architectural review.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Then you are complaining about the four trees on Embarcadero but you
32 are not complaining about the trees on the property line between the subject parcel and your
33 property.
34
35 Mr. Barton: We won't know until we find out what kind of trees those are going to be.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So I am assuming that you will bring your concerns to the ARB in
38 addition where those are stressed in more detail.
39
40 Mr. Barton: Yes sir.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, sir.
43
44 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will keep the public meeting open if there are any other questions
45 of the speakers. Commissioners, I have lights from Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner
. 46 Lippert. .
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 70f37
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I have two questions here. What we are looking at are two parcels.
3 They are not being combined are they?
4
5 Ms. Cutler: The two parcels will be combined by removing that property line so that this will be
6 all one parcel.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so the porte-cochere is not going to be straddling a property line.
9
10 Ms. Cutler: Correct, it will be all one parcel.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. What is the double line there? Why is there a double property
13 line? Is there a little piece of salvage in there or something? It looks like two lines tllere.
14
15 Ms. Munoz: It looks like one line is a property line and then there is indicating an existing
16 easement that will be abandoned for some existing electrical boxes that will no longer be used.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I had another question regarding the PG&E easement
19 where the primary power lines, the big kahuna towers are going to be traversing the property. It
20 has been my experience where primary power lines are concerned the utilities have the right to
21 come in and they butcher the trees. So the ones in the parking lot, what is going to happen with
22 regard to those? Are those going to be subject to PG&E being able to butcher them? How do we
23 control the growth in such a way that they don't feel obliged to do that?
24
25 Ms. Munoz: We were given limitations from PG&E on types, sizes specifically of trees that we
26 could plant there and we were planning to keep within that parameter. Jerry could probably
27 answer that.
28
29 Mr. Mitchell: We are limited to trees no higher than 15 feet within that easement.
30
31 Commissioner LiJ?pert: Okay and you found a suitable palette that is going to work in there?
32
33 Mr. Mitchell: We also have a shade ordinance to try to fulfill so we need trees that will spread
34 but not be over 15 feet. That is going to take some maintenance as well as a careful choice of
35 trees.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert:· I guess that is where I am going with my line of questioning. You are
38 caught between a power line and a ..... Our ordinance is that every ten cars you are supposed to
39 provide a shade tree. Those are supposed to be adequate in order to shade the automobiles.
40 Then you have the power lines. So my line of questioning really is how are you going to make it
41 so that it is something that is substantial and something that somebody is going to want to park in
42 that is going to look good, but it is not going to wind up getting butchered by the utilities.
43
44 Mr. Mitchell: Well, we are going to select trees that will tolerate pruning. They will have to be
45 kept down to 15 feet and then spread as wide as we, can get them. We have not made a final
46 choice in trees yet.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 8 of37
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Can you give me a peek as to what you are talking about doing there?
3 Or just thinking out loud.
4
5 Chair Garber: You would like hinl to speculate on his tree choices?
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, just talk about it a little bit. They made some choices on colors and
8 finishes. I am not inclined to dig into that too deeply.
9
10 Mr. Mitchell: Well, I guess I am not understanding the question.
11
12 Conlffiissioner Lippert: Any thoughts on tree choices, what you are considering? What you are
13 looking at? What you are thinking about?
14
15 We are looking at a project here which is particularly close to the Baylands so the idea here is
16 that we want it to blend in with the Baylands, but we also have a lot of physical constraints. So
17 what I am looking for is how are we going to make it so that it works so that it is an inviting
18 place and yet it blends in with the adjacent environs.
19
20 Mr. Mitchell: That is one of the design problems. At the intersection where I pointed out that
21 we would like to have some meandering paths and a little berming done in addition to the
22 Bayland planting. Typically the Baylands are somewhat treeless. So if we really want to use
23 that as a theme that particular area is not going to have too many trees in it. That conflicts with
24 the shade requirement so we can't carry that idea 100 percent along all of the parking areas,
25 which we have to shade. Other than that I don't know what I can say about tree choices. That is
26 something that once we get into construction drawings that is when we will really start making
27 some choices of plant materials.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: Jennifer.
30
31 Ms. Cutler: I just want to insert that those kinds of details will be required prior to going to
32 ARB. A full landscape plan as well as specific species of trees will definitely be required.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: I appreciate that and I understand it. Where I am going and maybe Amy
35 understands a little bit better because of your landscape architecture background, is here we have
36 one of the most beautiful open spaces in Palo Alto and we are putting a hotel use in proximity to
37 that. The architects have done I think a really great job in terms of working out the sight lines, in
38 terms of how we view this building from the Baylands. As you know across the street we have a
39 project that was built and there were sonle existing eucalyptus trees and eucalyptus trees are
40 nonnative to California and it is a tree that is antithetical to the Baylands and the environs there.
41 They have grown, and matured, and they look nice, but the idea here is we are looking at this
42 anew and we have some site constraints. I am interested in understanding what the thinking is
43 behind the process that is going to get you the right tree selection. You, as a landscape architect,
44 do you have any ideas as to what those trees might be?
45
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 9 of37
1 Mr. Mitchell: Well, the evergreen elm has been one that we have been focusing on for parking
2 lot shading. In fact there are some out there along Bayshore Road. The City Arborist has
3 proposed ~hatthose be removed. It is not a set thing. So it would give us more latitude in
4 treating that area as a Bayland. But that is tree that we are strongly thinking about.
5
6 Chair Garber: May I?
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Sure.
9
10 Chair Garber: Are there trees that are a part of the Baylands that are recommended for the
11 Baylands that would be appropriate to use here?
12
13 Ms. Cutler: There is a list of species of different types of plants that are appropriate to the
14 Baylands. That has been shared with the applicant. It doesn't dictate that these are the only
15 species that can be used but it does give guidance and suggestions for those types of things. So
16 they will definitely be working with that when they finalize what types of species to use on the
17 site.
18
19 Ms. French: I would add too that due to the need for 50 percent shading of the parking lot we
20 would be expecting to see a shade study that would also inform the types of trees, as the
21 applicant has mentioned.
22
23 Mr. Mitchell: One thing I want to say again, your own City guidelines for Bayland point out
24 very strongly that the Baylands don't have very many trees. So there is sort of a conflict here
25 where we have to compromise and try to shade the parking areas and at the same time maintain
26 the character of the Baylands. We will have the tree selections made for the ARB and we will
27 have some definite recommendations at that time.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to note and flag that as an issue or concern on my part when
30 it comes to Site and Design Review. Maybe John has something to share in addition to that, do
31 you have any thoughts? I don't want to put you on the spot but you have worked in Palo Alto
32 long enough.
33
34 Mr. Northway: I think that basically we will sit down with the Staff and with Dave Dockter.
35 Jerry has a huge amount of expertise. It is a conflict but we will work it out and we have to meet
36 the requirements of shading and we have to meet PG&E's requirements. I am quite confident we
37 can do it with the help of everybody involved here. As for me selecting a tree, I can't keep a
38 flower alive so you don't want to talk to me about this.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I am in the same boat as you. I can't keep a plant alive either but if I
41 don't mention it then my wife will get on my case.
42
43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez followed by Keller.
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Before I forget I know that the Carlsen Audi has a very
46 kind of low profile to the street. I would suggest as a good neighbor that prior to going to ARB
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 10 of37
1 that you do some sight line studies and try to work out an agreement or kind of a win/win
2 situation that you can do all you can with the placement of trees, and other issues to try to be a
3 good neighbor.
4
5 Can I talk about land use?
6
7 Chair Garber: This would be an excellent time to do that.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I am a little bit troubled by this site plan. The feng shui is
10 important and I respect that but the idea of having the entrance to a hotel on the back is just bad
11 urban design. One of the public speakers mentioned that the circuitous entrance to Mings, which
12 is by the way right near the fire, really begins to open up that PG&E tower as being an important
13 sort of symbol. It seems to me, and I now all architects say this so I apologize in advance, if the
14 entrance was off Embarcadero, the building was flipped, and the hotel and the restaurant shared a
15 common entrance that it would be more invigorating to the street. It would add something to this
16 pretty sort of not very interesting intersection right now that it doesn't have. I like the building
17 design. I think it is very attractive. I think when you say insulated panels you mean GFRC. Is
18 that what is going to go above?
19
20 Ms. Munoz: What you might more commonly hear is EFIS, the foam insulation behind and then
21 the stucco on top of it.
22
23
24 Commissioner Martinez: It's okay. Is that a green product, by the way?
25
26 Ms. Munoz: We are looking at companies that incorporate green production nlethods, so yes.
27
28 Commissioner Martinez: So Styrofoam is green all of a sudden.
29
30 Ms. Munoz: Well, some of it is insulative properties in terms of how it helps with the
31 mechanical system. So we are looking at all aspects of the materials we are choosing.
32
33 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, I appreciate that.
34
35 The other issue, the setback Variance I think that is okay. I think at some point we are going to
36 want to look at the whole issue of commercial setbacks. We seem to come across this often
37 where a building wants to move in and out in relationship to the sidewalk or ~he public way for
38 aesthetic reasons if nothing else. It seems to me that these formulas that require 50 percent of
39 this or no more than five feet away from this are sort of not very good predictors of what the
40 situation calls for. I think we want to sort of begin to look at some flexibility that we are not
41 looking at, a call for a Variance in each of these commercial situations. That is just an aside, but
42 this points to that problem and in my short tenure here we have come up against it a couple of
43 times before as well.
44
45 I just really think that that tower and the big circle and the double-loaded parking really call
46 attention to something, which I think is not very attractive. If this became the back of the
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 11 of37
1 building and this parking where there I don't think you ~ould have many people looking for the
2 hotel entrance because they drive by this big circle driving up to the entrance to the restaurant
3 and then1having to double back to find the porte-cochere. It just seems like it could be a much
4 more dynamic element. It is the place people are coming and going where there is a limousine
5 picking up and dropping off people, where people are waiting for the taxi. It invigorates the
6 street and to put it on the backside of the building I don't think serves the commercial interest of
7 the hotel and it certainly doesn't serve the City as really giving us something sort of happening at
8 this comer. I will pick up a couple of other things later on. Thank you.
9
10 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller followed by Garber.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So first I an1 wondering if the applicant has any comments
13 with respect to the member of the public mentioning about restaurant signage and access.
14
15 Mr. Northway: Actually in the previous design that was a comment that was also made by ARB.
16 We actually have done quite a bit that will emphasize that entry to the restaurant. Of course
17 there will be signage that will be quite clear directing people.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. One of the things that is interesting to me about this is the
20 notion of the address of the property. It is my understanding that the address of property is
21 Embarcadero Road. Therefore people who Google it or look at other maps sources to find out
22 where this is, I notice you have an aerial Google map that must have been while the site across
23 the street was under construction. So I guess you can date when the maps were done. People
24 would drive along Embarcadero Road and presumably they will see some signage for the
25 restaurant because the restaurant fronts on Embarcadero Road. Their natural tendency is not to
26 turn on East Bayshore to approach a property that is on Embarcadero but in fact to go on
27 Embarcadero and notice that essentially they have gone a little bit too far and they tum up the
28 driveway in order to go to the restaurant they will have hook all the way around. So to me there
29 is something weird about that in terms of how you get to the restaurant because essentially you
30' are going all the way around.
31
32 The second thing is that something similar is true regarding the issue of the hotel except instead
33 of going all the way around to get to the hotel people will go down Embarcadero Road, go on the
34 driveway off of Embarcadero Road, and then go into the porte':'cochere the wrong way, from the
35 back end if you will. So that indicates to me something about the notion'that it is not clear
36 whether'signage itself is sufficient for the problem. Maybe talking about the entrance of the
37 hotel being away from the fire element of the PG&E tower does an entrance parallel off the
38 driveway, parallel to East Bayshore against the Audi property, would that satisfy the needs of
39 being away from the fire elen1ent and having the entrance on that side, which is where people
40 would naturally go. Then you could have as some people or I think a member of the public
41 mentioned, and also Commissioner Martinez mentioned the idea of combining those entrances
42 and having the entrances of both of them be on the driveway off of Embarcadero Road. It does
43 provide that synergy, mal<:es more consistency from that point of view there in terms of that
44 being an entrance to both of them. That being the way that I think most people are going to
45 drive. Itis only when you have been there one time and you know that you are going all the way
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 12 0/37
1 around that you are going to figure out that the best way to go is on East Bayshore. So that gives
2 me some pause.
3
4 One of the things about the current restaurant is that it has a lot of, if you will, meeting room
5 space and gathering spaces. I notice the new restaurant is considerably smaller than the old
6 restaurant, and that there is a fairly small meeting room space within the hotel. I don't know
7 enough about the business currently but that seems to be something that is disappearing that I am
8 not sure - I am just wondering about that community -obviously, I realize it is a private facility,
9 but in some sense it is a community resource that various events can take place at that side of the
10 restaurant. I am wondering the extent to which that makes a chance to support.
11
12 There was also a question with respect to fire access to Embarcadero Road. I am assuming that
13 is only emergency access. Is that correct? That yellow portion is emergency access and not
14 accessed by regular vehicles. I am seeing nods from the architects.
15
16 Mr. Northway: That is correct, and that has been negotiated with the Fire Department. Even
17 though it is outlined in yellow it will be essentially a grass type area that the fire trucks can drive
18 over but it will not look like a road.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: It looks like there are some bollards along the edge of that too keeping
21 people from going through that.
22
23 Mr. Northway: Yes, and the reason that the driveway entry is down, part of it is the design
24 element but in working very closely with the Traffic Department that other driveway is just too
25 close to the main intersection for traffic to think that it can work. I have worked on several
26 projects that are comer projects. The reason that it is an Embarcadero Road address is because
27 the City has a policy to make life simple that the short side of the site is the front and back. I
28 have worked on comer projects where we have moved the entry around and it is possible to
29 change the address. We probably would be pursuing that because your comments about the
30 clarity of it are on but there are some very good technical reasons why coming in off of
31 Embarcadero really doesn't work from a traffic standpoint.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So maybe a note about potentially changing the address
34 makes sense.
35
36 This subject property is in a flood plane and I am not sure how the flood plane is being
37 addressed. I looked at the EIR study and it mentioned something about the flood plane but it
38 didn't indicate whether the ground floor of the building is above the base flood elevation. So I
39 don't see where that is.
40
41 Mr. Northway: The ground floor, the habitable spaces are all above the flood plane elevation
42 and the entry elevation to go down into the parking garage is also above the flood plane
43 elevation. FEMA allows you in commercial projects to do that. So the entry to the ramp is
44 above the flood plane level and then it is okay to have a parking garage beneath the ground.
45
46 Commissioner Keller: Right. Is there any raising of the ground floor?
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 13 of37
1
2 Mr. Northway: Yes, the site will be raised to meet the flood plane requirements.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: How much will it be raised?
5
6 Mr. Northway: I will have to ask.
7
8 Ms. Likens: Just very roughly from street level to first floor finished floor it would be in the
9 range of about three and a half to four feet to get finished floor of first floor a foot above the
10 flood plane level.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I suggest that that information be put in the Staff Report that
13 goes in the future to note that this is being raised above. That information is useful.
14
15 In terms of the tree canopy over the parking lot let me ask Staff a question. Let us just
16 hypothetically say that the proposed tree shading study winds up not meeting that requirement of
17 50 percent shading within so nlany years. Does that require a Variance?
18
19 Ms. French: That is a godd question. Don't have an answer.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. It seems to me then if you look at the parking that is
22 identified. I guess that is C2 that identifies the parking. There is another one\ that identifies the
23 parking and trees. I guess the better one is A5, is that right? It appears that you have a bunch of
24 trees that are along the frontage road of East Bayshore, and then there are some trees that are in
25 the .....
26
27 Ms. Likens: Sheet LDl.l towards the back might be a better reference.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. LD1.1. Then there are some trees that are in little sort of
30 fingers that come into the parking lot. It appears that if the neck that goes from the parking lot
31 into the road on the East Bayshore shore side, if that neck were narrowed so that the cars parked
32 were a little bit closer to the circular area you could support more fingers going into the parking
33 area, and those fingers would support additional trees that can provide additional shading. So
34 that is something that can be considered in terms of this structure.
35
36 I think it is amusing in some sense that the restaurant is near the fire e1enlent. I guess there is a
37 lot of fire going on with restaurant, hopefully not in the restaurant, hopefully only in the cooking
38 portion.
39
40 I would like to follow up on Commissioner Martinez's comments regarding the build to lines. I
41 agree with the idea of having additional flexibility regarding build to lines. To me the issue of
42 build to lines I would actually like more recessing. I think that the E1 Camino Design Guidelines
43 of building tall buildings pushing up against the street doesn't provide a wide enough sidewalk
44 anyway. I think that the question with respect to whether effective sidewalk includes the
45 distance of the street trees I think is an open question that we should address with respect to the
46 E1 Camino Design Guidelines. It seems to me that the intent of the build to lines is so that we
City 0/ Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 140/37
1 don't see a sea of parking between the building and the street. If somebody were to recess the
2 building from the street and put landscaping there that is not really objectionable. The idea from
3my point of view of the build to lines is so that we don't have buildings that are recessed 50, 100
4 feet or whatever, and a sea of parking in front. Now I realize that because of the PG&E
5 easement on East Bayshore that necessarily you can't put anything under there so you nlight as
6 well put parking there. The increased setback on Errtbarcadero Road and landscaping on there
7 that seems to·be a net benefit not a detriment. It seems to me that if you think about for example
8 Alma Street and some other streets have I believe a 30-foot scenic setback for that street and I
9 would encourage us on the part of our rezoning to put a similar setback along Embarcadero Road
10 east of 101. Essentially that is what is there now and we want to maintain that landscaping
11 buffer in the front and not bring it up against the street. So in some sense if this had the scenic
12 setback that it should have there wouldn't need to be a Variance. I do think that the issue here is
13 that if people want to put landscaping in and not parking I think that the idea of the build to lines
14 is really not to have a row of parking. I think that needs to be taken into account in terms of how
15 that ordinance is considered in the future. Thank you.
16
1 7 Chair Garber: Thank you. On page 20 of the EIR there is discussion regarding parking. I was
18 wondering if Staff could walk us through the support of the reduction of the parking by the 25 or
19 26 percent, and how they got there.
20
21 Ms. Cutler: So the code allows for certain reductions in the number of parking provided for the
22 hotel rooms below the one-to-one in cases where you have multiple uses on the site. In this case
23 it seems appropriate that certain areas like the meeting room, the small 200 square feet of retail,
24 the small exercise room. These are spaces that are pretty clearly going to be used in connection
25 with the hotel and so having extra parking provided for those I think that is the kind of mixed use
26 that can allow for a reduction in parking. You wouldn't need extra parking for those.
27
28 Then the same kind of thing can be said to a slightly lesser degree for the restaurant. It seems
29 quite likely that in this location a lot of the visitors to the hotel will be using this restaurant as
30 there really isn't anything else in the close vicinity when visiting. There also likely will be a
31 number of the guests that come via shuttle and other modes of transportation. So the code does
32 allow up to a 75 percent reduction in the parking required for those spaces based on mixes of
33 uses. In this case the restaurant has been reduced in size and things like that. So a full 75
34 percent reduction does not seem appropriate. The type of reduction that is proposed by the
35 applicant however, which I believe is a 40 percent reduction in the number of spaces for the
36 rooms, a 25 or 26 percent reduction overall, is a better balance for this site.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me, Chair.
39
40 Chair Garber: Yes, go ahead.
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: A clarification, there is no EIR. You are talking about the
43 Environmental Checklist.
44
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 15 of37
1 Chair Garber: Yes, I apologize, thank you. Sorry for the titling error there. On the setback
2 question do we know how far back the buildings are that are across Embarcadero from this
3 building? Do we know how far those are set back, or does the applicant?
4
5 Ms. Munoz: Unfortunately I don't have the dimensions with me. Would you like me to just put
6 up the aerial to just get a visual of that?
7
8 Chair Garber: Yes, let's take a look at that. Okay that is helpful. Thank you.
9
10 Commissioner Martinez, a question for you. I am interested in your thought regarding the
11 enlivenment of the street. Here is my question though for you. We don't really have a
12 streetscape the way that we do for instance along El Camino or one of our other shopping streets
13 here. We have the office building that is across the street and we have these other sort of
14 enclosed sort of offices. The way that the site is zoned there is precious little opportunity to have
15 those sorts of experiences here. Would that change your thinking about how this site might be
16 utilized by this project at all?
17
18 Commissioner Martinez: Looking at the aerial plan I can agree that there isn't any pattern for
19 the setbacks and the open space but it does exist. I think it suggests that the proposed building is
20 sort of out of sync with what exists around it, especially if you look to the Carlsen site. I think it
21 would be fairly drastic to impose a similar kind of setback. I think it would all but kill the
22 project. That being said, I still believe that if our attitude is to create a kind of parkway kind of
23 environment an increased setback would be appropriate.
24
25 Chair Garber: I agree actually with all of that. . I suspect that the Carlsen site is probably not
26 built out to the degree that it could be if it were to be improved. I actually wasn't thinking about
27 the setbacks specifically I was thinking about your comments regarding creating more life along
28 the street, the combing of the entrances of restaurant and the hotel, and the moving of the
29 entrance to the comer in order to create a higher level of intensity and visual intensity I am
30 assuming. Whereas the other sort of experiences along these two streets, Bayshore and
31 Embarcadero, are actually more office park-like as opposed to something that has a big retail or
32 restaurant focus or continual focus. Are you following my thought here?
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. If anything it sort of reinforces what I was saying. This building
35 or this site is kind of a gateway. The use is very different from even the retail uses nearby,
36 definitely different from the offices, which really don't have a presence. Even for the vitality of
37 the hotel and restaurant themselves kind of hiding how you get to them, obscuring the address. I
38 think Commissioner Keller's comment about the Embarcadero address is right on. I think they
39 would be foolish to change the address when there is a freeway exit with that name on it. It
40 guides people right to the hotel. I think engaging the fire elenlent more and putting the entrance
41 to the hotel there, or as I suggested putting it on the opposite side where it still gets some
42 exposure and suggests some activity to the street would both be appropriate. On the back it just
43 seems poor city design. It may work for their individual purposes of separating the restaurant
44 from the hotel and not mixing the patrons, or whatever their sort of programmatic goals are, but
45 it doesn't work from a city design point and that is really all I am addressing.
46
City of Palo Alto November 18. 2009 Page 16 of37
1 Chair Garber: Okay, thank you. We have a follow upfrom Commissioner Lippert.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: If I might be permitted to answer the same question. I see it a little bit
4 differently. What I see is as you exit Embarcadero Road off of Bayshore you come across the
'5 freeway there the openings in the two buildings actually become a gesture or a definition of an
6 entrance to the building. That is what you see as a vehicle. The fact that they have put a circle
7 there, and a turnaround, denotes that that is a drop-off point or the entrance to the building. Most
8 people would think, yes that is the entrance to the building. However, when you come into the
9 driveway that is off of the frontage road you are confronted with two choices. You actually
10 come to a fork in the road so take it. You can either go to the left and go to the restaurant or you
11 can go straight ahead and go to the porte-cochere. It doesn't diminish the procession of the
12 building. All that it doesis it makes it confusing initially but it is later clarified because there
13 really is only one main entrance to the driveway which is off of the Bayshore Road. Even if you
14 were to take the first immediate driveway off of Embarcadero Road it would bring you around to
1'5 the porte-cochere. You don't have any choice but eventually you would wind up at the
16 restaurant. You would know to go around the building. So to me the gesture of the front of the
17 building is the opening of the two buildings and that theY'do not touch.
18
19 The only criticisnl that I have and that really is an ARB issue, it is not a Planning Commission
20 issue, is that I would want the front of that building to be maybe the fa9ade to be on a radius with
21 that circle to thereby reinforce in plan what you see vertically. So that is really my only criticism
22 with it.
23
24 I just want to add one other element to this, which is the Menlo Park gateway project that is
2'5 being proposed for Marsh R<:>ad by Bohannon Development they don't have any frontage off of
26 Marsh Road. They don't have any frontage for the hotel off of Bayshore Freeway.Y ou have to
27 exit Marsh Road and you have to make a right hand tum onto either Constitution or
28 Independence before you actually get to the front door of the hotel or the health club that they are
29 proposing. Right in the middle of the site they have light manufacturing. That is sort of all that .
30 light manufacturing and parking is shrouded by these buildings that sort of surround it. This is a
31 much more preferable solution.
32
3 3 The~n I have some comments that I would like to make also af1:er you finish.
34
3 '5 Chair Garber: Actually I am done but Fineberg was ahead of you. Commissioner Fineberg.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start by talking about some of the impacts of what
38 being in the flood plane means. I am looking at the vertical elevations in various photos and they
39 are all showing flat ground. I know we are not necessarily going to get the answers tonight but if
40 you are starting on East Bayshore in a car at grade, about four feet above sea level, and by the
41 other side of the PG&E right-of-way and the parking lot for the restaurant you come up maybe
42 200 feet. You are going to have make a four feet rise in grade and so what you are going to be
43 confronting from East Bayshore is a hill up into the property. Then if you took the fork to the
44 restaurant is it going to stay up or is it going to go down? So is the property going to appear
4'5 hilly? If you continue to the porte-cochere I would assume it stays up at the eight feet above sea
46 level. Then as you go around -so is that going to work?
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 17 of37
1
2 Ms. Munoz: We have actually started to look at that in more detail with our civil engineer.
3 Basically when you do enter the main driveway it will be a ramp up to get you close to the level
4 of finish floor. Then if you took the fork to the hotel that porte-cochere area stays relatively
5 level, and then starts to gradually slope back down as you go around the backside of the building.
6 Then in terms of the approach going towards the restaurant we definitely want to minimize the
7 cross-slope on the parking area and then work the berming and the Baylands planting concept
8 into the edges of the property and the landscape area to bring grade back down to sidewalk level.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: So that comes to my next point. For the trees that have to go in you
11 just mentioned you would use berming and bringing it back down to grade at the edge. Will
12 there be any raised elevation at the edge of the property along East Bayshore where those trees
13 with the maximum height of 15 feet will be? I am asking that not for the legal definition of how
14 the City considers grade but is it 15 feet from the top of the new grade because that is some
15 distance from under the power line? So is the tree really going to really have to be 12 feet or 13
16 feet or 10 feet?
17
18 Ms. Munoz: That is a good point. We would want to clarify that with PG&E. The nice thing is
19 that the trees being planned are as close to the sidewalk as you are nearing back down to natural
20 grade so that might work to our benefit.
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. I would agree with Commissioner Martinez's
23 comments that sometimes our Variances don't appear to apply in all situations. I would agree
24 that this one size fits all is not working. If there is one pla~e where I have seen physical
25 constraints on a property that legitimately justify a Variance this is it. Having a PG&E high-
26 tension line running on the substantive street-face of the property with a required 80-foot setback
27 that is huge. So I would concur that a Variance to accommodate that, that is a significant
28 limitation on the property. I am one of the first people to criticize when the requirements for
29 Variances are trivialized. So this is one that I could see supporting coming down the road.
30
31 One of the other questions I have is about the parking reductions. Presumably when the
32 standards were made for parking reductions they understood that hotels are more than simply a
33 collection of bedrooms. Hotels include amenities for the guests like exercise rooms, -restaurants,
34 meeting rooms, and that there weren't blinders put on and that those standards for parking
35 assumed certain amounts of other uses. So I am baffled by why we are willing to reduce those
36 reductions without reasons to justify that there is something of substance other than there is a
37 slightly different use somewhere else in the property. If this was let's say in the Downtown area
38 half a block off University I would understand that there would be a decreased demand for
39 parking because there are good shuttle buses serving it, there are walkable restaurants, there is
40 nightlife, there are amenities, there is public transit, there is Cal train. This is a site that the only
41 way you are going to get to and from that except for maybe a few of the employees and a few of
42 the people visiting the guests this is an area that is going to be served by cars. Almost every trip
43 that every. guest, restaurant or hotel, is going to be via car. So under-parking this site will
44 undermine the economic vitality of the business, will create spillover traffic and parking
45 problems on the adjacent frontage streets and areas where there is parking. So I think we need to
46 carefully explore whether the reduction in parking is prudent.
City o[PaloAlto November 18, 2009 Page 180[37
1
2 I would agree with comments that the access to the restaurant and the back entrance seems a
3 little different than we are used to. I am not sure the right way to address that but maybe if there
4 is something that can be done within the structure that makes the entrance more prominent. I
5 don't know if it is a setback or different materials. Just so that it is not something hidden down
6 the back and so that there is way finding. The classic example for me is getting out of the
7 basement of this building. There are little tiny signs that you have to look for otherwise you can
8 drive around in circles and it is all just this monotonous same-looking thing, if that can be
9 avoided so that it is clear when you come in. I don't know if that means something that
10 announces the beginning of the porte-cochere sq people don't dive down into the basement if
11 people are looking for the registration desk. Some extra thought on that I think would benefit the
12 site design.
13
14 The last thing I want to talk about is site dewatering during the construction of the basement. It
15 is too early yet but I would like to see it addressed for the later stages. In that area, maybe Staff
16 can give a better estimate, one maybe three miles due south of there are some significant plumes
17 of toxic groundwater that are known to be migrating in a generally northward direction. That is
18 under several projects we have already built on. They have been identified and we know where
19 they are. I would like to know if there is any knowledge of what a safe distance is when you pull
20 groundwater that we not be pulling those plumes further north.
21
22 Ms. Cutler: The project submittal did include a phase one, which was also used as reference in
23 the environmental document because that is definitely something that we look at. Those experts
24 did find that is was sufficiently far away from other sites in the area. There wasn't anything
25 close enough that that was of concern. '
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Were those findings based on average conditions in general areas or
28 specific for what is the groundwater table there and where the known toxic sites are.
29
30 Ms. Cutler: My understanding is that the first part of their research is to determine where the
31 toxic sites are in the vicinity and what is known about those sites. So where the plume is or
32 where it is traveling would definitely be considered as part of-that research.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioners, we have done one round of everyone. We are coming up to
37 Commissioner Lippert again. I would like to try and get out of here in the next hour or so if that
38 is possible.
39
40 We have three things that we need to consider, whether to adopt the Negative Declaration, two
41 whether to approve the Site and Design Review, and three our action on the Variance. So if we
42 can begin to focus our comments on those three things that would be helpful.
43
44 Ms. Cutler: I would like to add that there is also the rezoning that should also be considered.
45
46 Chair Garber: Thank you, sorry. Four, yes. Commissioner Lippert.
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 190f37
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I will begin by saying that I believe the rezoning on it is very
3 appropriate. We had reviewed this earlier. It was looked at as a PC and we had actually as the
4 Planning and Transportation Commission had recommended that they look at rezoning
5 especially since now we have a hotel guidelines or zoning. So I think that is very appropriate.
6 They took our comments very seriously and they actually gave it substantial thought before
7 returning to us. So I have to comment the applicant fIrst of all for enduring and doing that.
8
9 With regard to the Variance I run in complete agreement. \ I think that the 80-foot setback with
10 regard to the PG&E utility easement is a major encumbrance on the property and as such it is a
11 physical constraint that II would defInitely entertain in tenns of supporting your Variance request
12 here.
13
14 Regarding the Negative Declaration again I don't have any problem with the environmental. I
15 think it is apropos.
16
17 The only other comment I really have is with regard to the trees along Embarcadero Road. I
18 think that that can be mitigated simply by looking at the density of those trees in ternlS of their
19 height. Maybe it is something that is a particularly tall tree with not a lot of low hanging
20 branches. That would help mitigate the problems in tenns of the Carlsen site being obscured by
21 them. I don't think that that's really a problem here even if they were lower trees. We currently
22 . have those wonderful eucalyptus trees as we come off of the Bayshore Freeway. I don't have
23 any problem seeing through those to see the building that is there or seeing what is beyond it. I
24 don't think that these trees are signifIcant enough that they are going to create a problem. Maybe
25 there is a way to make the neighbor happy and I think that as I say, good fences make good
26 neighbors.
27
28 So those are really my comments and if we return back I would be happy to make a motion.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. I have a couple of further questions. They both relate to
33 page 20 of the Environmental Checklist and I also take Commissioner Lippert's correction that
34 this is not an Environmental Impact Report. The fIrst thing is in tenns of traffic on page 20 it
35 says the proposed hotel will cause an increase of 72 new PM trips which is above the threshold
36 for the traffic impact assessment. Then it says the calculated increase in delay of the PM hour
37 was less than two seconds at both intersections. What is the LOS at that intersection, at the
38 intersection of Embarcadero and East Bayshore?
39
40 Ms. Cutler: Which intersection was that?
41
42 Conlffiissioner Keller: I believe the relevant intersection is Embarcadero· and East Bayshore.
43
44 Ms. Cutler: Okay. Give me a moment and I will see if I can find it in the traffic report.
45
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page200f37
1 Commissioner Keller: Please. While you are figuring that out I will ask my second question. It
2 states in the document here it says allow for consideration of a 40 percent reduction in required
3 parking for hotels in the CEQA document. I believe I heard some comment about, I am finding
4 it, talking about a reduction of 75 percent. So I am confused.
5
6 Ms. Cutler: I can clarify that if you would like.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Yes.
9
10 Ms. Cutler: There are a number of different percentages that are floating around through the
11 report in terms of the reduction of parking. The allowed reduction in the number of parking
12 spaces for the hotel rooms per code, the nlaxinlum is 75 percent. The proposed reduction in the
13 parking spaces for the number of rooms would be 40 percent approximately. The reduction in
14 the overall parking is actually just 25 percent of the overall, the 222 required parking spaces. So
15 that is how we have those thre~ different numbers floating around.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: Well, yes.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: What is the hard number? You gave the percentages but what is the
22 actual number of cars reduced?
23
24 Ms. Cutler: So the requirement is 222 spaces total for everything combined. The proposed
25 project is providing 166 spaces. So that is a 56-space reduction.
26
27 Also to respond to the earlier question from Commissioner Keller the existing and background
28 Level of Service in the AM hour for the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero
29 Road is C. F or the PM hour the existing is C, but the background which is based on expected
30 projects in the area over the next few years while this is being developed that actually goes down
31 from C to Ebased on the background activity not on this project.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: First of all I am totally surprised that this intersection is actually currently
34, C. Whenever I try and drive through this intersection between almost five o'clock and six
35 o'clock if I can get through at a C level of delay I am totally floored. So I am skeptical about
36 that personally. Didn't you say the current is C in PM? '
37
38 Ms. Cutler: The existing is C both AM and PM.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: So first of all, independent of whether it is C or not, which I think it
41 probably isn't, you said that the expected is E, right? That the future projected is E.
42
43 Ms. Cutler: The background numbers that they provided here gives a Level of Service ofE.
44
45 Chair Garber: Forgive me, meaning that if there was no project in three to five years it would be
46 E.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 21 of37
1
2 Ms. Cutler: Precisely.
3
4 Chair Garber: Thank you.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Now, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the City of Palo
7 Alto's significance for traffic thresholds is if it is D or greater and the increase is one second or
8 more in critical delay then that is considered significant. If it is D or greater and it is increased
9 by at least one second of delay that is considered a significant from the City of Palo Alto's
10 Traffic Significance Thresholds. Am I correct or incorrect on that?
11
12 Ms. Cutler: The increase in delay that is shown here for that PM hour is 1.3 seconds it appears.
13 Off the top of my head I don't what the increase limit is.
14
15 Mr. Williams: It is four seconds of delay or 0.01 in the increase in volume over capacity. Is that
16 what you are asking? What the delay increase is of significant threshold?
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Yes, not one second, but four seconds?
19
20 Mr. Williams: Four seconds or one-one hundredth ofan increase in the volume over capacity
21 ratio for the intersection. '
22
23 Conunissioner Keller: Okay. By the way, I have been looking all over the City web site for that
24 actual significance threshold and I can't find it anywhere. The only thing I could find was a
25 Staff Report proposing what it should be and not any document saying what it actually is.
26
27 Mr. Williams: I will ask Julie if we can't make that available because she has all that stuff.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: The best thing I could find is a Staff Report from 2003 I believe it was or
30 something like that, which indicated that it was one second of delay.
31
32 Mr. Williams: I think it was proposed at one point in time to be that but that is not what we
33 have.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So what you are saying is this is less than four seconds
36 and less than one percent additional traffic. Is that right? Less than one percent increase in
37 traffic.
38
39 Ms. French: It is .01 increase of volume over capacity.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
42
43 Mr. Williams: The document you have, the Mitigated Negative Declaration when it looks at
44 these various things has all the significance criteria in there. So on item (h) in there says if it
45 causes a local City of Palo Alto intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service D and it causes
46 an increase in the average stop delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, the
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 22 of37
1 critical volume to capacity ratio to increase by 0.01 or more. Then item (i) says if it is a local
2 intersection already at Level of Service E or F if it deteriorates and the average stop delay for the
3 critical movements by four seconds or more. Then again the next one, regional intersections are
4 also·four seconds or 0.1.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what is the measure of the increase in V over C?
7
8 Mr. Williams: For this intersection you mean?
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Yes.
11
12 Mr. Williams: I don't know. That would be in the traffic study somewhere I assume but I don't
13 have that.
14
15 Chair Garber: Do you want to have them get back to you on that?
16
17 Conunissioner Keller: Well, you are looking for that.
18
19 Ms. French: We have it.
20
21 Ms. Cutler: We have it.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Please go ahead.
24
25 Ms. Cutler: So for East'Bayshore Road at Embarcadero the increase in V over C is .005 for the
26 AM and .005 for the PM.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
29
30 Ms. Cutler: You are welcome.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: There is an inconsistency here still that I am confused about. On page 5
33 of the Staff Report it says that the request is for 40 percent of the number of parking spaces on
34 hotel rooms and 75 percent reduction is allowed. However, in the Environmental Checklist form
35 it says in about five lines from the bottom of the paragraph starting 'The building,' three
36 paragraphs from the bottom. It says but allow for consideration of up to 40 percent reduction in
37 required parking for 1i.otels. So I am still confused. If this site is 40 percent here and the Staff
38 Report says the site requested 40, and then the Staff Report allows 75 percent. I am still
39 confused as to the degree of consistency of those.
40
41 Ms. Cutler: Yes, it looks like that 40 percent in the environmental document is probably a typo.
42 It may be that that was based on reductions that are allowed by the Director in a separate part of
43 the parking code. I don't have the zoning parking requirements right here in front of me, but
44 there is a table that are allowed reductions by the Director. So it may be that that is where that
45 40 percent came fronl. Amy is going to take a look at that for me.
46
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 23 of37
1 In the section of the table that is specifically talking about the required parking spaces for hotels
2 within that table, that line there, that is where it actually specifically says up to a 75 percent
3 specifically for the hotel rooms.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Okay, well that is useful. I am hoping that probably one of these days we
6 will revisit the Parking Ordinance if only to look at multifamily residential like the Arbor Real
7 project and the adequacy of parking there and relative to neighborhoods. So we might want to
8 look at this as well.
9
10 Mr. Williams: I would suggest that we stay up tonight and do that.
11
12 Commissioner Keller': I don't think it is agendized so it will be a little difficult to do.
13
14 Chair Garber: Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Fineberg.
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to come back to the discussion about the intersection of
1 7 Embarcadero and East Bayshore. Recently there were some metering lights turned on at the
18 onramps to 101. I know they were turned on at Oregon. Were they turned on also at
19 Embarcadero? So does this traffic analysis include that recent change in condition?
20
21 Mr. Williams: I would be surprised if it includes it. Probably wouldn't know what the impact is.
22 If the impact is what Caltrans predicts it would be an improvement. They are in the process of
23 monitoring how those are worki~g. Our traffic engineer as well as Caltrans is looking at
24 monitoring that. In the couple of weeks it has been on now it seems to be functioning well and
25 there are not excessive backups being created any more so than existed before certainly. But I
26 don't know and again I would be kind of surprised if they looked at that. We could certainly ask
27 them.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so if that could be flagged for some attention to see if it has
30 created any situation that has changed since the intersection measurements were made.
31
32 Then I want to also come back to the parking and the Director's reduction of parking. In the
33 Staff Report on page 5 it talks about the reasons for the reductions. It says, "This reduction is
34 requested based on Section 18.52.040 Table 2, which allows for a reduction of up to 75 percent
35 of the spaces required for guest rooms upon approval by Director based on parki1].g study of
36 parking generated by the mixes of uses." When they talk about mixes of uses do they mean the
3 7 services in the hotel for hotel guests like restaurants and meeting rooms or are they talking about
3 8 true mixes of uses as defined by our code and mixed use buildings?
39
40 Mr. Williams: I think in the hotel they are not talking about mixed use buildings like the other
41 kind of reduction. I think they are mostly talking about the things where there would be some
42 overlap between the hotel guests. They would use the restaurant some, they would use the gift
43 shop, whatever gym facilities, and things like that that otherwise would generate trips to and
44 from. It is an acknowledgement that they are not the only ones that are using that especially like
45 a restaurant. So I think what we need to consider is what are those facilities, and as Jennifer was
46 saying some of them seem to be almost wholly supportive of the guests, others particularly the
City o/PaloAlto November 18, 2009 Page 24 0/37
1 restaurant would be used by the guests to some extent but would also clearly be used by the
2 community at large. So the study should take into account the fact that some of those reductions
3 relate very directly and some of them less directly, and we need to all feel comfortable that that
4 balance is struck. That is why it provides the flexibility but I do think for the hotels it is really
5 supporting the guests of the hotel and the employees of the hotel, but it is not mixed with
6 residential or mixed with retail necessarily type of thing.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: When the standards were implemented and there were minimums put
9 in place for parking spaces per number of rooms did they not consider or did they not assume
10 that hotel guests would require amenities? So are we double reducing? One it was factored
11 when we made the standard, and two now we reduce again.
12
13 Ms. Cutler: We are actually counting those extra amenity spaces in terms of if you look at the
14 table that calculates the number of parking spaces that is required. That 222 includes not only
15 the space per room but also the number of spaces that would be required for that 200 square feet
16 of retail and each of the other uses, of the restaurant as well as the retail, the gym, the meeting
17 room, all of those things were actually added together. So we are not reducing it double. We
18 added everything together and then from that we are considering reduction.
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: I would see the sort of double reduction not coming from - I agree
21 with the methodology in your calculation. The place I would see the reduction is when the
22 standards were established did they already assume that you would have a hotel guest conle and
23 there would be a restaurant, and they would go from the hotel room to the restaurant. So the
24 standard for the required parking assumed they would go to the restaurant or was it strictly if
25 there is' no other amenity in the building and there is only a hotel only with restaurants and then
26 you calculate the separate areas separately?
27
28 Mr. Williams: I think the latter. I think that they did not. I mean the one per room was not
29 assuming that there would a restaurant and there would be sharing of some of the amenities, and
30 all that kind of thing. I think you could also argue that one per room, well there are also
31 employees too so it really should be more than one per room, but I think it balances out because
32 y<?u rarely have 100 percent occupancy either, so one was sort of determined as the number.
33
34 I will tell you that when we did the Parking section of the Zoning Ordinance Update that was one
35 use that we really, wanted to target looking at because this is goofy. This language here, I don't
36 know if I have seen that kind of language in other ordinances with the 75 percent of all this stuff.
37 So we wanted to survey other comnlunities and see what they had and we just ran out of time
38 and didn't get to look specifically at hotels. Maybe we would have spent more time if we knew
39 we had so many of them on the drawing board a few years later.
40
41 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. The last item on that parking issue is has there been or should
42 there be consideration of any TDMs and would they be viable given this site of the property?
43
44 Ms. Cutler: The idea of having a TDM was something that we considered but felt really would
45 be appropriate if there had been found to be some potential impact from traffic and
46 transportation. Since the studies for that showed that there wasn't going to be any kind of
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 25 of37
1 potential impact there there wasn't any kind of connection that we could make in terms of
2 requiring any kind ofTDM.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Martinez.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: On a follow up on the parking again. I just want to make a couple of
7 comments here. Number one, in a hotel particularly a business hotel generally you have mUltiple
8 guests that are coming together, often times traveling together, but then they stay in separate
9 rooms. So again that would support a reduction in terms of the parking because let's say going
10 to the hotel and you haven't really increased the number of cars associated with that group.
11 Especially since businesses have become very tight in terms of traveling these days.
12
13 The second comment I wanted to make is generally associated with a business hotel that is
14 located in a remote location like this, I don't know who the operator is but my assumption is that
15 there would be some sort of shuttle bus to connect the hotel with the Downtown of Palo Alto and
16 being able to get around. Yes, the train station, and even the Research Park. So maybe that is
17 something that the applicant would want to address early on and include it in as part of the report
18 that there would be some sort of shuttle bus. We can't condition it but it would definitely
19 support the parking reduction right up front.
20
21 Then the second comment I wanted to make is with regard to the operation and my assumption is
22 that it will also be the current restaurant that is there. That is a lunchtime destination. Well some
23 people might be in the hotel roonlS at noon but not me. The idea is that hotel guests generally
24 check-in in the evening sometime between three and five, maybe even as late as six or seven at
25 night. During the daytime hours there are very few guests in their hotel rooms. They are out
26 doing business or whatever. So the people that are arriving for lunch and using the restaurant
27 there it is what we have in terms of the dual parking on residences and commercial spaces. It is
28 very similar. So again that would support the parking reductions. So that is how I could see and
29 I could begin to support parking reductions there.
30
31 Then one last comment going back to the shuttle bus. If the shuttle bus did go to the Palo Alto
32 Train Station that in its way would be sort of a mini Transportation Demand Management
33 Program because people that lived in Redwood City, Mountain View that were working in the
34 hotel could be picked up by the shuttle bus and brought to the hotel to work, and they don't need
35 to bring their cars.
36
37 I Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
38
. 39 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. The reduction of 56 parking spaces is kind of a lot. I am
40 sympathetic that there is a way to sort of manage it to make it work. Commissioner Lippert is
41 more creative than I am at that. This restaurant is not a hotel restaurant. That sort of gives me
42 pause to whether we are sort of inviting something that could be a disaster. It is a popular
43 restaurant at lunch and dinner. The number of spaces that are being asked to be reduced could
44 really create problem both for the City and for the uses there.
45
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 26 of37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I am not used to business hotels sort of being sort of transit friendly. My experience is they are a
lot of cars. The opportunity for car sharing might be after people arrive there on their own to go
to an event but usually they arrive on their own. It may be less than ten percent that opt to do car
sharing. So I would really ask the applicant to look for opportunities to increase the parking and
maybe try to get the reduction down to 25 cars. Something really that has a little bit of a
pressure relief to it.
I had a couple of other comments that I will make now. I am still not convinced at all that this
entrance on the back, the porte-cochere on the back, is a viable option. I am intrigued by the way
Commissioner Lippert has described the sort of way finding of sort of being able to see an
entrance that is not really the entrance when you approach, and then go to the fork in the road
and perhaps only have a 50 percent chance of getting it wrong. It just seems to me that a circle
by the tower is pretty powerful and it wants to draw people to that as an entrance. If not, don't
have it there. I think it is important as a sort; of an urban design element if you make it work for
what it is, but if it is a suggestion that this is sort of the entrance to the facilities and you don't
have to think about it I think that is kind of the wrong assumption. I don't think it works for city
design to have those kinds of symbols that really mislead you and require signage to point you in
the right direction. I think that shows a weakness in the design. So I would really advocate this
fire entrance to be fired up a little bit more and serve the hotel, serve the restaurant, serve as the
entrance to the facility even if the parking for the hotel has to be a little bit farther away. Thank
I you.
Chair Garber: Could I ask the architects to walk us through the entry sequence and give us
perhaps maybe a little better feel as to what it is we will see and maybe address some of the
issues as to how the massing of the building works at the comer, etc.? That might help the
Commissioners get a better feel for what the experience actually is.
Ms. Munoz: You mean as for instance a guest of the hotel how they would approach?
Chair Garber: Sure. I am talking very experientially here and maybe that will help our
conversation a little bit.
Ms. Munoz: Sure. I totally neglected to even use the model that we brought so maybe that
might help. I will go grab that and bring it back to the microphone.
Chair Garber: You can use the portable microphone right there if that will help.
Ms. Munoz: Okay, so the idea is that as you come down East Bayshore and enter following this
patterned driveway the idea is that if you are going to the hotel entrance we are trying to do
exactly what Commissioner Fineberg was talking about in trying to find a way architecturally to
emphasize the main entrance of the hotel, and treat it in a way that draws your attention there.
We also feel that as you approach this main driveway you are following this pattern that is very
deliberately leading you towards the hotel entrance. There are also opportunities in this enlarged
drive porte-cochere area to emphasize with some kind of feature that also kind of enhances your
view down this driveway. So then when you enter the main entrance you are greeted by a large
double story lobby and can see through to the courtyard. So that is the kind of sequence that we
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 27 of37
1 see. If you need to turn around after you dropped your passenger off this allows for a turnaround
2 to go back and into the parking garage. So that is one idea there.
3
4 Chair Garber: Let me just interrupt while you are there. If I am taking that left hand turn having
5 just come off of 101 and going down Bayshore, what causes me to know to take that left hand
6 tum?
7
8 Ms. Munoz: From Embarcadero?
9
10 Chair Garber: Sure.
11
12 Ms. Munoz: Well what we planto do in terms of monument signage, and I know this is maybe
13 perhaps getting to your point of a weakness needing to use signage, but we would want to place
14 the monument sign for the hotel very deliberately close to the driveway entrance. We also
15 architecturally are trying to really architecturally emphasize this comer of the building as
16 something more dramatic and that would again draw you towards this side as the n1ain hotel
17 entrance.
18
19 Chair Garber: I am going to interrupt briefly. In your elevations of the Bayshore you have
20 indicated an area near the comer that is to be for signage. How does that work? That is on the
21 building itself I mean.
22
23 Ms. Munoz: Oh right. So the idea in terms of signage we would want to' place afreestanding
24 monument sign here near the driveway entrance. We also have an opportunity on the building
25 for some hotel signage close to again drawing it all towards this end of the building. Any hotel
26 related signage to draw you here.
27
28 Chair Garber: I think Commissioner Martinez has a question.
29
30 Commissioner Martinez: You started along Bayshore not at Embarcadero coming off the 101,
31 and from where I sit that entrance to the courtyard is so powerful and then you have that lovely
32 PG&E tower sort of also kind of the little Eiffel Tower of the Embarcadero. You have all of that
33 happening right there at that comer. Why would I want to turn right and go away from that?
34 Isn't that sort of drawing me into the hotel? So aren't you sort of working against that?
35
36 Ms. Munoz: Well, I definitely see your point but I can also see that this is trying to give you a
37 slightly different experience as a destination once you enter the site. Then this becomes more a,
38 it is not a point that I would actually want to see a lot of traffic. I would rather have this be an
39 attractive place where I have a little bit of calm and have this nice seating area as opposed to
40 . having this be this hub of cars driving in and out, even though I totally understand your point. I
41 can see this working nicely as well.
42
43 Chair Garber: As a caution to Commissioner Martinez and I can be counseled by Staff here,
44 short of there being an issue with the zoning and how the land is being used we have limited
45 impact as to direction in terms of massing, etc. Am I correct here? I mean we could create
46 suggestions for the ARB to go and look at some of these issues, yes?
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 28 of37
1
2 Ms. Cutler: You are reviewing this in terms of Site and Design as well as the rezoning. As the
3 Staff Report describes the area that the Planning Commission is supposed to be focusing on is
4 the use, and making sure that the \Vay the site is going to be used, so there is a bit of site planning
5 in that, the way the site is going to be used is appropriate for the surroundings.
6
7 Chair Garber: But we have on other projects given a list of concerns that we would like the ARB
8 to address, which we can pass on.
9
10 Ms. French: Absolutely. I do want to make sure you have got in front of you the Site and
11 Design Review findings in the Record of Land Use Action daft under Section 5. There are four
12 findings. One to ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that is orderly,
13 harmonious, and compatible. It is also on page 2 and 3 of the Staff Report so you probably read
14 that through in the Staff Report. So there is that compatibility.
15
16 Chair Garber: Yes, got it. I think actually gives us enough leeway to have these conversations.
17 Commissioner Martinez, anything further? If you don't, I do.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: No, but I have tried very hard not to say anything about the building
20 design. So lam aware of that problem.
21
22 Chair Garber: Sure go ahead.
23
24 Conimissioner Lippert: I just want to make one other follow up observation. I appreciate your
25 acknowledgement of the way I view the project even though we may differ. One of the things
26 that I also find very refreshing about having the porte-cochere on the backside of the building is
27 that a fault with a lot of architecture today is that a building doesn't address all sides. In fact you
28 wind up with a side that orphan or drab or dead, and just is not inviting at all. Now maybe that is
29 the purpose of having a backside of a building is to say that this is not the front, but in this case
30 because it is such a prominent building located with a lot of area around it it is going to be highly
31 visible. So having the entrance on the backside may not be such a bad thing because it does in
32 fact create ,an interest around all sides of the building. The weakest side of course being the side
33 that faces the Porsche dealer.
34
35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, you have a light.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. The first comnlent that I am going to make is that I can
38 understand the idea of way finding from East Bayshore. I am pleased with the idea that there is
39 , going to be a monument sign on East Bayshore because I can tell you coming from South Palo
40 Alto crossing over onto East Bayshore from San Antonio Road I almost miss Mings because
41 there are a bunch of driveways before it and I never figure out which is the right driveway. So I
42 am glad that is being corrected.
43
44 I can understand that the fork once you enter the property from East Bayshore knowing whether
45 to tum left to go to the restaurant or tum right to go to the hotel I think that can be easily dealt
46 with with onsite signage.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page290f37
1
2 I think the part that hasn't really been addressed is the person coming from 101 or crossing over
3 101 on Embarcadero Road. That person seeing an address of 1700 Embarcadero Road is going
4 to stay on Embarcadero Road and not know to turn right. The image that I am having in my
5 mind is if you ever drive on highway 17 down to Santa Cruz,'somewhat before you reach Santa
6 Cruz, before you reach Scotts Valley there is th,is huge sign that says Clair's Retreat three miles
7 to the left. I am sort of imagining that there would be some sort of sign saying if you want to go
8 to this hotel or restaurant turn right from Embarcadero onto East Bayshore, because that is
9 essentially what you are telling people to do. I am not sure who is going to know to do that. I
10 think people are going to go straight on Embarcadero Road and they are going to see the hotel or
11 restaurant and figure out that they have to enter-through the side, the driveway on Embarcadero
12 Road, and just keep going around on that route. I am not sure exactly how to address that but I
13 think that is what most people are going to do because they are not going to know to tum right on
14 East Bayshore.
15
16 That being said, actually I think that some people will tum right on East Bayshore and those are
17 the people that realize that that intersection is so clogged that you can turn right more easily than
18 going straight. So maybe the bad traffic will encourage people to tum right because you can do
19 that free right tum without waiting for the light. Six of one/half a dozen of the other.
20
21 The second thing I am sympathetic with the comments of Commissioner Martinez with respect
22 to parking. Taking a look at the underground parking in sheet A6, can we put that up on the
23 screen? If you look at that it is sort of this Delta shape if you will the Greek letter Delta shape.
24 It is sort of parallel to the arrangement of the building. It is not clear why the parking lot has to
25 parallel the shape of the building. If one were to take the diagonal portion on the left and replace
26 that with two sort of vertical portions on the map and in some sense create three arms these all
27 being underground I am wondering why that is not a feasible thing to do which would provide
28 more underground parking and address some of the deficit.
29
30 Ms. Munoz: If we were to do that we would actually encroach into the public utility easement
31 and the PG&E easement. We were specifically told we had to keep the basement wall a very
32 specific distance away from the public utility easement. So this exactly meets that and follows
33 the building footprint. So we basically'tracked the building wall all the way up and down.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So you essentially can't build under the easement.
36
37 Ms. Munoz: We cannot.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: You can however build under to the left inside the interior of the triangle
40 and you can build to the right of the triangle adjacent to the Audi dealership. I am wondering if
41 there is a way to reconfigure that so the building basement goes beyond the building envelope
42 and allows for more parking that way.
43
44 Ms. Munoz: We did look at schemes that did exactly that but we were trying to be sensitive to
45 constructability and construction costs, and have the basement follow the building footprint. So
46 this is where we ended up.
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page300f37
1
2 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. Thank: you. So a couple of comments about that. First
3 of all, I do recognize that some people will arrive here using shuttles. I do realize that some
4 people will leave here using shuttles. I think that that is unlikely to be the case for those using
5 the restaurant. They are either onsite using the restaurant or they are offsite driving. Do we
6 know whether this hotel is going to have stays of30 days or less or stays greater than 30 days
7 with a Development Agreement? Has that been determined yet?
8
9 Ms. Cutler: It-will be required to meet the current code. Anything more specific than that has
10 not been discussed.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: So do we know the answer to that?
13
14 Mr. Northway: There are no plans at this time to have anyone there longer than 30 days. In your
15 thinking about parking although Wu and Vicky would love to have 100 percent occupancy as
16 would the City, I think we all know realistically hotels are not 100 percent occupied.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Thank: you. I think Commissioner Fineberg has a follow up.
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: Will the rooms still have kitchen units in them?
21
22 Mr. Turner: Yes. The basic idea and Wu would like to speak to you a little further about it, he
23 can do it now or later, the basic idea of who will stay here will be people who will probably be
24 here for maybe a week or ten days. That is why the ability to have a kitchen in the room, that is
25 the kind of market they are looking for. Wu can add more to it either after when we have the
26 three minutes of if you would it right now.
27
28 Commissioner Keller:. I would invite her to address us right now.
29
30 Chair Garber: Sure, why don't you take this as the formal opportunity to respond to any of the
31 public comments or anything else?
32
33 Mr. Wu-chung Hsiang, Applicant: Thank: you. Vicky and I own this piece of land. Now, at the
34 moment when you come to Mings in fact it also comes from the back. It is impossible to drive in
35 from Embarcadero Road because the one way if you take the front you cut a big -you see we
36 have the front door there. We always come in from the back. It is impossible to come in from
37 there.
38
39 About the restaurant, we actually thought about abolishing the restaurant if necessary. Because it
40 will be very expensive to build a parking lot of two levels. Impossible. So we actually thought
41 about that but then everybody said we have to keep Mings. We only kept a quarter of the size of
42 Mings. So what we will do if necessary, if the restaurant is doing well, very well, then we have
43 valet parking. We can get valet parking because the times changed. You see only the
44 lunchtimes are sort of busy now and we can't have that. Dinnertime we can always have valet
45 parking or something. So therefore for the cost of building the underground, because Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 31 of37
1 Management Program, and whether that can be met by the shuttles or by valet parking. I think
2 that is certainly appropriate, but we don't have any way to require that without having TDM
3 measures, I think those are perfectly reasonable and achievable measures, which I am
4 presuming, or my understanding is the applicant is going to do anyway. So I think that is quite
5 reasonable. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, perhaps a motion to organize us?
8
9 MOTION
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: I will try to make a motion but I have a comment first. I do see another
12 way of getting around the parking issue. Again, this has to do with hours of the day and being
13 able to share parking. Perhaps the property owners might be able to enter into an offsite parking
14 agreement with the adjacent office building that during evening hours when the hotel is maxed
15 out they would be able to simply park there. Then we know the next day that usually early
16 people leave the hotel to go on and do their business. That is an excellent idea, Commissioner
17 Keller. Perhaps the adjacent properties have an offsite agreement for using the commercial
18 office parking for restaurant parking during evening hours.
19
20 So with that what I would like to do is move that the Planning and Transportation Commission
21 recommend the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and environmental assessment and
22 approve the requested zone change to Service Commercial with a Site and Design Review
23 Combining District, CS(D), and approve the Site and Design Review and Variance application
24 for development of a four story hotel and restaurant on the property located at 1700 Embarcadero
25 Road subject to the conditions of approval on findings in the Record of Land Use. I would like
26 to add to that that the Staff work with the applicant in terms of working out the under-parking
27 constraints either through a Transportation Demand Management Program or an offsite parking
28 agreement for the overflow on the adjacent comnlercial office buildings.
29
30 Chair Garber: Do we hear a second?
31
32 SECOND
33
34 Commissioner Keller: I will second.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller seconds. Would the maker like to address his motion?
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: No, I think we have had enough discussion here. I have heard from all
39 of my Commissioners and hopefully we have addressed the most significant issue here, which is
40 the parking. I entertain any other amendments that my Commissioners would want to make to
41 see this project move forward.
42
43 Chair Garber: The seconder?
44
45 Commissioner Keller: I understand that the intent of the discussion of the maker, Commissioner
46 Lippert, in terms of Transportation Demand Management, if you will Transportation Demand
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 33 of37
1 Management or Parking Demand Program in some sense dealing with one or the other to address
2 the parking issue. That is my interpretation of ConlDlissioner Lippert said.
3
4 I am going to address something that I have not addressed already and that is that I appreciate the
5 photographs taken from the Baylands, and particularly from Bixby Park the height there. That
6 addresses a major concern that I had about the sight lines and the degree to which a 50-foot
7 building would be visible from Bixby Park. I trust the applicant being able to say that they
8 couldn't see the very tall story pole of the PG&E tower. If they are not able to see that then I
9 presume that they wouldn't have been able to see the much shorter 50-foot building for the hotel.
10
11 I am assuming that the 50-foot building is 50 feet above the raised grade. So when the grade is
12 raised by three or four feet or however many feet it is raised by that the height is 50 feet
13 measured from the new grade not from the original grade. So I don't think that that changes the
14 visibility because the PG&E tower is still much higher, but it is worthwhile to note that raising
15 the grade does raise the building slightly above the 50-some odd feet above the original grade.
16
17 I think in some sense we have a project here that.as many design projects are over constrained
18 and it is kind of hard to satisfy all of the needs here. I think that there are a number of challenges
19 that the ARB is going to have to address. One of those challenges is way finding. How do you
20 figure out where the entrance of the hotel is, and if something can be done in terms of the
21 monument sign and other way finding signs within the property for East Bayshore, particularly
22 since there is some bike parking, which I think is great. Way finding for bikers so that they
23 know how to get to the overpass over 101 and know how to get to the bike paths in the Baylands
24 I think would be important amenities on the property that should be considered.
25
26 I do think that some solution to the problem of drawing people onto East Bayshore rather than
27 onto Embarcadero Road entrance, some solution to that is going to have to be found with respect
28 to this. Although if you are coming down East Bayshore in the logical northerly direction it
29 makes sense, you see this entrance, you go in there, but if you are coming from anywhere else
30 you won't know that that entrance is there. So visual cues of some sort would be helpful. I don't
31 suppose you would want a big arrow pointing in the southern direction along the edge of
32 building but something would be quite useful.
33
34 It is interesting that we have two hotel projects that we are reviewing today. This does say
35 something about the fact that we did change the CS zoning in order to encourage the creation of
36 hotels. I am hoping that the fact that some hotels have been built recently, the Rosewood, the
37 hotel project that was being mentioned by Commissioner Lippert with respect to Marsh Road
38 and 101 indicates that there is still a viable opportunity for hotels.
39
40 I look forward to eating at the Mings Restaurant when it reopens and I am sure a large segment
41 of the community will miss it in the years that it is under construction.
42
43 Chair Garber: Commh;;sioners, discussion. I will go. I am in support of the motion. I do believe
44 that the findings for the Variance can be found such that the property does enjoy the privileges of
45 other properties in the vicinity and is within the same zoning district.
46
City of Palo Alto November J 8, 2009 Page 34 of37
1 I would like to ask for a friendly amendment that Staff engage the applicant to study the impact
2 of the trees along Errlbarcadero relative to the impact on neighbor's.signage.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: I accept that. That was one of my comments earlier on.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Fine with me.
7
8 Chair Garber: Okay. Perhaps a second one and that is that the trees in the parking lot be found
9 from the Baylands Master Plan Tree List and/or as recommended by the City Arborist or agreed
10 to by the City Arborist.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I think that is definitely a problem area and I agree with your
13 amendment.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Likewise.
16
17 Chair Garber: Relative to the entrances and the issue of way finding I do not disagree with a
18 number of the comments that Commissioner Martinez in particular had, however I do believe
19 that the issue of trying to enter the site from Embarcadero is problematic. I do believe that the
20 way that I read the building is contrary to the way in which I am hearing the applicant is
21 expecting the building to be used. I find it more difficult to reconcile myself whether that is a
22 planning problem or if you will a cultural one. So I am erring in favor of the applicant here in
23 that I am not finding anything explicit that is contrary wise to the intent of the zoning and will
24 trust that the use of the property will be made clear both by the architecture as well as the likely
25 occupants.
26
27 So with that I think I will also look forward to some if not friendly anlendments then potentially
28 a list of things that we might forward onto the ARB for their particular attention to be paid to,
29 which we may have other additions to. So Commissioner Martinez and then Commissioner
30 Lippert.
31
32 Commissioner Martinez: I believe those conditions have been fairly well stated by
33 Commissioner Keller and also by the Chair. The problem of way finding is going to be a
34 challenge. I do want to say that contrary to popular belief I do support this hotel in Palo Alto. I
35 think it will be a great asset to this part of the city. Without commenting about the design I think
36 it is a good start.
37
38 I want to also acknowledge that the cultural significance of the entrance is important. If there is
39 confidence that that will work I am all for it. I think the model addresses my concern about the
40 importance of the Embarcadero side. I think the way it steps down, the way it opens up, the way
41 it is different from the other sides of the hotel on the most significant comer of the project makes
42 that work. I think you will have a challenge in keeping hotel visitors from wanting to go in that
43 way and use up all the parking for the restaurant that is on that side, but I think you will find a
44 way to make it work.
45
City o/PaloAlto November 18,2009 Page 35 0/37
1 It is a good proj ect. I want to reinforce the recommendation that the ARB challenge the
2 applicant to come up with a signage program as necessary but not dominant to make this project
3 work. In other words, I don't want to see signs everywhere I want to see them where they
4 absolutely have to be. With that I am going to say that I am supporting the motion. Thank you.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Fineberg.
7
8
1
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a couple of brief comnlents here for the
9 Architectural Review Board. The first thing is that I don't think yours is the first hotel that has
lOan Eiffel Tower element out in front. In fact, this is much more desirable than the one in Las
11 Vegas.
12
13 Again, for the Architectural Review Board and for the applicant the two-story element I think
14 could be a very powerful gesturing element to Embarcadero Road especially greeting people as
15 they come off of Bayshore Freeway. What I think would be helpful to study or just take a look
16 at is not only the fayade and trying to get the circular element to be expressed in some way to
17 that end that is facing the frontage road, but also I think there is an opportunity here to create
18 greater connection between the courtyard and the roof terraces. Specifically what I am thinking
19 about is perhaps there could be some sort of external staircase that comes up from the courtyard
20 around the face of the building, and then retunling on the outside of the building and connecting
21 up with the roof garden, thereby connecting that negative space with the positive space that is on
22 the roof. I think that could be a really great asset or piece of punctuation both for creating more
23 interest on that fayade as well as creating a procession of some kind for the guests at the hotel as
24 they come through swimming pool court. So that is just a comment.
25
26 Regarding your palette of materials I have one minor suggestion. When it comes to using an
27 EFIS system you might want to look at a new product, Icenene, which is a soy-based rigid foam
28 product. I don't know if it comes in boards or not. It is a sustainable material.
29
30 Chair Garber: I have a couple of other things to add to the ARB's list. First of all, in response to
31 a number of the comments for the ARB to look specifically at the way in which the open comer,
32 the massing of it to see if that is going to meet their review.
33
34 Also, to look at the entry itself on that fayade relative to its size. Is it strong enough to compete
35 against the potential left turn? Are there opportunities to emphasize that decision through
36 landscaping, through gateway sorts of elements that go into that secondary parking lot that leads
37 you to the restaurant, etc.? It seems to me there are a variety of different strategies that they may
3 8 want to have some suggestions regarding that.
39
40 Commissioner Fineberg and then we will get to our vote.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: I will be supporting the nl0tion. I believe the findings are present for
43 the zone change, the Site and Design Review process, and the Variance process.
44 ;
45 One quick clarification just to make sure there were no misunderstandings of an earlier comment
46 I made. When I referred to the poor way finding and the drab basement that one drives around in
City of Palo Alto November 18,2009 Page 36 of37
1 circles, in this building I meant here at City Hall. I was not referring to this building, the project
2 that you are applying for. So just to make sure that nobody thinks that was about the project.
3 Thank you. .
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: I want to add one more thing for the ARB review. That is to consider the
8 arrangement of tree coverage over parking, and in particular the idea of adding additional fingers
9 separating parking spaces more frequently to allow for tree coverage. I think that could be done
10 without major changes to the design. Thank you.
11
12 MOTION PASSED (5-01-1, Commissioner Holman recused, Commissioner Tuma absent)
13
14 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed~ The
15 motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Martinez, Fineberg, Garber, Keller, and Lippert
16 voting yea, and Commissioner Tuma absent and Commissioner Holman recusing herself.
City of Palo Alto November 18, 2009 Page 37 of37
ATTACHMENT J
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
1700 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Jennifer Cutler, Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-329-2149
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc.
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
. 09PLN-00175
6. PROJECT LOCATION
1700 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA
Parcel Numbers: 008-03-065 & 008-03-064
The 2.5 acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, east of U. S. Highway 101. The proposed project site is bounded by Embarcadero
Road to the north, East Bayshore Road to the west, and private offices to the east and south, as shown on'
Figure 1, Vicinity Map.
1700 Embarc'adero Road Page 1 Negative Declaration
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The General Plan designation is Service Commercial per the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan.
This land use designation is for facilities relying on customers arriving by car that don't necessarily
benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas and includes auto services and dealerships, motels,
lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. Non-residential floor area
ratios range from up to 0.4. The proposed project, which is in close proximity to a freeway off ramp and
includes a restaurant and hotel, is consistent with the land use designation.
8. ZONING
The Zoning designation for this site is currently Planned Community (PC). . The proposed project
includes rezoning the property to Service Commercial (CS) with a Site and Design Review Combining
District (D). The existing zone was specific to the restaurant existing on the site and is required to be
rezoned for any new development on the site. The proposed CS zone is contained in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16. The CS commercial district provides for citywide and regional
services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which
generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment,
loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. The site and design review (D)
combining district is intended to provide a process for revi.ew and approval of development in
environmentally and ecological1y sensitive areas, in order to assure that use and development will be
harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological
objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses are permitted
in this zone district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is the removal of one existing'lot line to create one new lot, the demolition of one
existing restaurant building, and construction of a new four-story restaurant and hotel building with one
, level of underground parking (Figure 2, Project Site Plan). The new building is proposed to be 117,698
square feet and wil1 be in approximately the same location as the existing '15,180 square foot building to
be demolished with additional building extending toward the rear of the lot away from Embarcadero
Road.' The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet. The proposed development will also include
surface parking. The proposed project includes a one-level underground parking lot including 90 parking
spaces. An additional 76 spaces are proposed as surface parking along three sides of the new building. A
total of 166 parking spaces are proposed on the site. The underground garage has ingress and egress from
the side of the building facing the rear property line (shared with 2465 East Bayshore Road) on the comer
of the building closest to East Bayshore Road. The main restaurant entrance will be at the comer of the
building closest to the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, and the hotel will have
the main pedestrian entrance on along the rear, facing away from Embarcadero Road. The proposed
landscaping will include various ground cover and low plantings, and numerous parking lot trees, species
to be determined as part of the architectural review process.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
~ The site is located in the northeastern area of the City of Palo Alto and' is designated Service Commercial
by the Comprehensive Plan and is adjacent to office buildings on two sides with Embarcadero Road and
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 2 Negative Declaration
East Bayshore Road adjacent to the property to the north and west. Additional offices are located across
both streets. The site is one block away from the US Highway 101.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-$pecific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to' the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration .. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from" the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 3 Negative Dec1aration
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7). Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria· or threshold, ifany, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMP ACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual X
character or quality of the site and its 1,2,8
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, i X
public view or view corridor? MapL4
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 1, X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within MapL4
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,8 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or 1,2,8
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,2 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes replacing the existing building with a: new design and new "landscaping. While this
will change the existing visual character of the site, it will be reviewed by the Architectural Review board to
ensure that it does not degrade it. The project site is located approximately lh mile from the Palo Alto Baylands
Preserve. The design of the landscaping and signage on the site would include elements conforming with the
Baylands Master Plan. The proposed project does include new lighting, but will be required to meet the City's
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 4 Negative Declaration
standards which restrict light levels. No public views or view corridors ·will be affected by this new building, and
retention of existing trees, and the planting of new landscaping will soften the views of the new building from the
adjacent public roadways.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optionall1).odel to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance 1, 5
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California X Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9,6 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1 X Farmland, to non-agricu1tural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located,in a "Prime Fannland", "Unique Farmland", or "Fannland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,8,10
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 5 Negative Declaration
The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The project may involve excavating, grading, and paving activities which could cause
localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter (PMlO). Dust related impacts are
considered potentially significant but may be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Construction equipment would also emit NOx and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction
equipment to be considered significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over
a long period of time. Based on the size of the proposed project, emissions of NO x and ROC are 'anticipated to be
less than signifi cant.
Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with the
proposed project. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project is not
expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shaH be watered at least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and
watered daily.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance' of a
demolition permit.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentiany Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 1,2-X or special status species in local or regional MapNl, plans, policies, or regulations, or by the 10 California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natura]
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2-X policies, regulations, including federally MapNI protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 7 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 1,2-
species or with established native resident or MapN1 X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) . Conflict with any local policies or <:>rdinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree 1,2,3, S X preservation policy or as defined .by the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natura] Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2 regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is a new hotel & restaurant project to be located on a parcel which is almost entirely covered
by paving and the existing restaurant bUilding. The developed nature of the site reduces the chance of impacts to
candidate-, sensitive·, and special status-species. The site does not include any trees protected by Palo Alto's Tree
Preservation Ordinance. The site, includes 24 trees of eight species, five of which are regulated street trees.
Substantial changes in landscaping are proposed and would result in a greater number of trees than are currently
on the site.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless' Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Councii 1,2 X
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2· X
pursuant to 15064.5? MapLS
c) . Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2-X
geologic feature? MapLS .
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapLS X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 8 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
. Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-
f)
eligible for Jisting on the National andlor MapL7 X California Register~ or listed on the City's
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 2-, . X
of California history or prehistory? MapL8
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a low archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Although
existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native
American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional t~sting and
produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of
construction.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the See
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent 1,2,8 X
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publ~cation 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN-X
10,8
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-
including liquefaction? MapN5, X
8
iv) Landslides? 2-MapNS X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
oftopsoi1? 1, 8 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 9 Negative Declaration
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as 2-MapNS X
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in l
. Table 1S-1-B of the Uniform Bui1ding 2-MapNS X
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or 1
alternative waste water disposal systems X
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,4,8
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated X
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the project site
is in an area that is subject to violent ground shaking in the event of an earthquake and has a high potential for
liquefaction but is not in an area subject to surface rupture, expansive soils, or earthquake induced landslides.
All new construction will be required to comply with to th~ provisions of the most current Building. Code,
portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of
. an earthquake. Therefore, no geological or seismic impacts are expected.
Substantial or permanent changes to the' site topography are not expected as site is relatively flat and covered with
either building or surface parking. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and
drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved
grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 10 Negative Declaration
Mitigation
I Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use, 8 X
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable 8 X
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,8-X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or MapN7
waste within one-quarter mi1e of an existing or
QfoJ~osed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,8 X
e)
f)
g)
h)
I
i)
j)
to hazards from hazardous materials
contami~ation, emissions or ,accidental release?
Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant 1,2-X
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a MapN9,
result, would it create a significant hazard to 10 the public or the environment?
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been X
adopted, within two miies of a public airport or 1,2,3
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety 1, 2, 3 X
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2-X
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland X
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 2-MapN7 I
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1, 8, 10
environment from existing hazardous materials X
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
D~SCUSSION:
The proposed project is the replacement of the existing building containing the Mings Restaurant. The proposed
re'staurant & hotel building does not include use of hazardous materials. The. proposed project is not within 1,4 mile
of any schools or residential properties.
The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the California State
Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The adjacent property at 1730 Embarcadero Road
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 11 Negative Declaration
was a former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site, but received regulatory case closure status in
January 1998. Due to the age of the releases and the location of] 730 Embarcadero down-gradient relative to the
subject site in respectto groundwater flow, E2C concluded)n the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for this
project that the likelihood that the .soil and groundwater beneath 1700 Embarcadero Road is impacted at levels of
regulatory concern is low.
Due to the project's proximity to the Palo Alto Airport, it will be required to include granting of an avigation
easement to restrict the height of any futur~ development of the site, therefore the project is not expected to pose
airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or
evacuation. The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area.
Mitigation Measures:
'None Required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? ] ,2,8 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantial1y with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit 2-MapN2 X in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the 1,2,8 X alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 1,2,3 X substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in floodin~ on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide 1,2,3 X substantial additional sources o.f polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 1,2,8 X
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 1 ~O-year flood hazard area
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 12 Negative Declaration
structures which would impede or redirect 2-MapN6 X
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, 2-MapN6 X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a N8 levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X
N8
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies, but
it is located in a 100-year flood hazard area. Since the project does not" include housing it is not considered a
significant impact. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project will
be required to meet City requirements for stormwater drainage. No impact.
During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Non-point source pollution is a
serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for" people who live near polluted streams or
baylands. Standard conditions of architectural review approval would require the incorporation of Best
"Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention iJ? all construction operations, in
conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)' in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential
water quality impacts. City development standards and standard conditions of project approval would reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
The project includes a one level basement, providing parking spaces for the project. Any intrusion below the
groundwater table is expected to be minimal, such that there would be minimal to no diversion of groundwater
flow around the basement.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless . Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,8 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with X
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not 1,2,3,8 limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1,2 X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,8 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 13 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,8 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with estabHshed residential, 1,2 X
recreational, educational, religious, or, scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime fannland, unique farmland, or 1,5 ,X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is within a Planned Community (PC) zone, which provides specific regulations unique to the
subject site. Any change in the development on the site, beyond what is described in the PC zone, requires a
rezoning of the property. The proposed project, a 117,698 square foot four-story hotel with a restaurant and one
level of underground' parking, also includes a proposal to rezone the site to Service Commercial to bring the
zoning into conformance with the existing land use designation under the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
project is an allowed use as regulated by the' proposed Service Commercial zone in the City of Palo Alto Zoning
Ordinance and the existing land use designation in the 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan, and, will replace a one-
story building that contains one restaurant. The increase from one story to four stories on the site will be dramatic
and taller than the two and three-story office buildings in the area but the building is designed so that the tallest
portions are farthest from the public roadways with rooftop terraces at the front comer of the building so that the
massing is stepped back from the street corner. The resulting impact is therefore expected to be less than
significant. The proposed designation for this site is Service Commercial with the Site and Design combining
district (CS(D». This zoning is contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16 and 18.30, and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project would also include demolition of the
existing 15,180 square foot building and installation of new landscaping. This use complies with the zoning and
land.use designation as described above.
The project will comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources, and would not impact farmland.
See Sections Band D for further discussion of these topics.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to· the
region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a 10cal1y-,
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 14 . Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 X
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division· of
Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no
aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication
in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of
Palo Alto. . '.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
K. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentia lIy Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the 1,2,8
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,8
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,8
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1,8
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people 1,2
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) F or a project within the vicinity of a private 1,2 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,8 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB? ! ... ..
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,8 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 15 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,8 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,8 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2-Map X
1)
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other N3,8
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,8 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of approximately 65 Ldn based on Map N3 of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Most of the proposed activities on the site will be interior activities with some
outdoor activities in the courtyard located in the center of the building. California Building Code requirements
include a maximum interior Day/Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) of 45dBA or less for hotels and motels, as
well as limitations on noise levels between units. Window type will be dictated by these requirements and
mechanical equipment to provide ventilation may be required if exterior noise levels require windows to stay
closed. With compliance with these requirements of the state building code the impacts are expected to be less
than significant.
Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels and vibrations from garage
construction. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and
construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to
comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels
associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would
. result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
. Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing 1,2,8
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
examp]e, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Disp]ace substantial numbers of existing 1 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 16 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources ( Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues .Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement 1
housing elsewhere?
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2 X
employed residents and jobs?
I " ..... I tively exceed regional or local 1,2 X
popUlation projections?
DISCUSSION:
The project would not add significant population or induce population growth, nor will it displace housing or
people, as it will include a new restaurant to replace the existing and a four-story hotel. The proposed project will
result in less than significant impact on population or housing. Standard conditions of approval require fees to
cover any increased need for housing. Impact will be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other perfonnance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 1,2 X
Police protection? 1,2 X
Schools? 1',2 X
Parks? 1,2 'X
Other public facilities? 1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 17 Negative Declaration
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard area.
The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. The site is
located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the
need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Standard conditions of approval require fees to cover any increased need for community facilities, schools, and
housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, libraries and parks, the project's
impact will be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
N. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources . Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Upless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that 1, 8 substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities which 1, 8
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is a new hotel & restaurant building replacing one existing restaurant building. Though the
increase in square footage is 105,698 square feet the users will be temporary visitors to the area or existing
residents visiting the restaurant and therefore the project is not expected to· have a significant effect on existing
recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area
are required per City ordinance. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures:
N one Required.
o. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues U'nless Impact
. Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (Le., 1,8,9 X
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 18 Negative Declaration
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the 1,8,9 X
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,2 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,2 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,8 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,3,8 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X
programs supporting alternative 1,2,8
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,2,9 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase \
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,2,9 X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
! stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,2,9 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by. four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,2,9 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,2,9-X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,2,9 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
-capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at ;
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 19 Negative Declaration
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1,2 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,2,9 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,2,8 X
DISCUSSION:
Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for
producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied
to help predict future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of the traffic
generation by the proposed project was estimated by Hexagon Transportation Consultants by applying to the size
of the development the applicable trip generation rates. These calculations, in the table below, are calculated on
the basis of the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled
Trip Generation, seventh edition. The proposed project is the replacement of an existing restaurant with a new
building containing a new restaurant and a new hotel with an increase in square footage of approximately 105,698
square feet.
Traffic Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I
Land Use Sizel Daily Daily Peak-Hour Hourly Peak-Hour Hourly Trips !
Rate2 Trips Rate2 Trips Rate2
Existing Restaurant (22) (24)
Proposed Hotel 162 8.2 1,328 0.56 91 0.59 96
Net New 69 72
J Size expressed in number of rooms
2Trip rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, seventh·edition.
The proposed hotel is calculated to cause an increase of 72 new peak PM Hour trips, which is above the 50 trip
threshold for the City of Palo Alto's requirement for a Traffic Impact Assessment. The traffic assessment
prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants included review of the intersections of Embarcadero Road with
East Bayshore Road and with Saint Francis Drive. The calculated increase in delay in the PM Hour was less than
2 seconds at both intersections and therefore the traffic increase is considered less than significant. No mitigation
is required.
The building is proposed to be developed with a new underground parking garage and new surface parkjng. After
these improvements the site will provide 166 parking spaces, including 76 surface spaces and 90 underground
spaces. The City zoning regulations require 222 parking spaces for this project (1 space per guest room (143), 1
space per 60 sq. ft. public service area (50), 1 space per 200 sq. ft. other restaurant area (14), 1 space 4 occupants
of meeting room (11), 1 space per 200 sq. ft. retail (l), and 1 space per 200 sq. ft. gym (3) but also allow for
consideration of up to 40% reduction in required parking for hotels, with approval from the Planning Director.
Tpe project includes a request for a reduction in parking by 25% so that the project would provide a total of 166
parking spaces. The Planning Director is supportive of the requested reduction, and the City Council will take
final action on the project.
The required 26 bicycle parking spaces will be provided for the proposed building.
Mitigation Measures:
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 20 Negative Dec1aration
None Required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality 1,2 X
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or 1,2 X
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effe~ts?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stonn water drainage facilities or expansion 1,2 X
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,2 X
entitlements neefled?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may X
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 1
commitments?
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the 1 X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? 1 X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The p"roposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use
resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit
calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are
capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and
recycling facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that
would be generated by the expected uses within the project site.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
1 700 Embarcadero Road Page 21 Negative Declaration
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
'population to drop below self~sustaining 1,2,3,8 X
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal "
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a 1,2,8 X
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects 1,4,8 X
on human beings, either directly or
indirectlyi
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultura1 or historic
resources. The use is appropriate for the site and would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in
the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect
on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts. .
Global Climate Change Impacts ,
The potential effect of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions} on global climate change is an emerging issue that
warrants discussion under CEQA. Unlike the pollutants discussed previously that may have regional and local
effects, greenhouse gases have the potential to cause global changes inthe environment. In addition, greenhouse
gas emissions do not directly produce a localized impact, but may cause an indirect impact if the local climate is
adversely changed by its cumulative contribution to a change in global climate. Individual projects contribute
relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases that when added to all other greenhouse gas producing activities
around,the world result in increases in. these emissions that have led many to conclude is changing the global
climate. However, no threshold has been established for what would constitute a cumulatively considerable
increase in greenhouse gases for individual development projects.
The State of California has taken several actions that he1p to address potential global climate change impacts.
Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California Code of Regulations Title 24
I GHGs as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 22 Negative Declaration
Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first
established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards
are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies
and methods.
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32 describes how global climate change will impact the environment in California~ The impacts described in
AB 32 include changing sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in stonn
flows and flood inllndation zones, and'other impacts. The list of impacts included in AB 32 may be considered
substantial evidence of environmental impacts requiring analysis in CEQA documents. AB 32 focuses on
reducing GHG in California. The GHG emissions reductions found in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, signed
in June 2005, are consistent with the cli,mate stabilization models produced by the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). These climate stabilization models show that if GHG emissions are reduced to the levels shown
in Executive Order S-3-05, the climate will stabilize at approximately a 2 degree Celsius rise, averting the worst
impacts associated with globaJ climate change. GHG as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxid~, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires the CARB; the
State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020.
In June 2008, the California's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued an interim Technical Advisory on
the role of CEQ A in addressing climate change and GHGs. As part of the advisory, OPR asked the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) staff to recommend a method for setting statewide thresholds of significance for GHG
emissions, to encourage consistency and unifonnity in the CEQA analysis for GHG emissions throughout the
state. ARB is currently developing recommended statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHGs that may
be adopted by local agencies for their own use. On October 24, 2008, ARB released the Preliminary Draft Staff
Proposal on the Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases
under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposal, which is currently undergoing public review,
focuses on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions -specifically,
industrial, residential, and commercial projects. The report proposes a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons
of C02 equivalent per year (MTC02e/year) for operational emissions (excluding transportation) associated with
industrial projects, and perfonnanc~ standards for construction and transportation emissions. ARB staff intends to
make its final recommendations on thresholds in 2009, but currently no quantitative, significant criterion has been
adopted for determining impact significance. i
According to the OPR interim Technical Advisory, in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG
emissions, CEQA requires that lead agencies disclose and mitigate such emissions to the extent feasible whenever
the lead agency detennines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. The
advisory recommends identifying and quantifying, to the extent possible, GHG emissions, assessing the
significance of the impact, and identifying alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce impact significance, as
appropriate. In the absence of adopted significance thresholds for GHG emissions, the following discussion is
provided to disclose qualitatively the potential effects of the proposed project (from both construction and
. operation) on global climate change.
The project would generate GHGs during construction and ongoing operations. During construction, the
operation of heavy construction equipment would be the primary source of GHGs. However, these emissions
would.in effect be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. For that reason and given the
relatively small-scale of construction, the project is not expected to result in a net increase in GHG emissions that
would significantly delay or hinder the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in California
Governor's Executive Order S-3-05 and the impact is considered less than significant. However, given that ARB
is currently recommending mandatory performance standards for construction activities, the Project wi]] include
the fol1owing measures that will help reduce the Project's GHG emissions:
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 23 Negative Declaration
• The contractor shall reduce emissions through any of the fol1owing options or others that achieve
reduction in overall emissions: use late-model engines, .low-emission diesel products or alternative fuels
(e.g., Lubrizol, Puri NOx, biodisel fuel) in all heavy duty off-road equipment.
• The contractor sha11 minimize idling time to 10 minutes for all heavy-duty equipment when not engaged
in work activities, including on-road haul trucks while being loaded or unloaded onsite.
• A City-approved Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling Plan (or such other documentation to the
satisfaction of the City) will be in place prior to project construction. The Plan shall demonstrate the
diversion from landfills and recycling of all nonhazardous, salvageable and re-useable wood, metal,
. plastic and paper products during construction and demolition activities. The Plan or other documentation
shall include the name of the waste hauler, their assumed destination for all waste and recycled materials,
and the procedures that will be followed to ensure implementation of this measure.
\ • The project shall be submitted to the USGBC and shall obtain a rating of at least Silver through the LEED
'certification process.
Following construction, the use of the new building is expected to generate minor quantities of GHG emissions
over the long-term. The primary sources of GHG emissions would be associated with vehicle trips of employees
and visitors, and energy use within the building.
Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development project
would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global
temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development
project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas-emissions generated by the proposed
project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global
climate change.
In an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA
Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this project, the proposed
project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State
of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. As
such, impacts are considered less than significant.
Global Climate change also has the potential to impact the proposed project through potential increases in sea
level and the flooding that may result. The proposed project is located in an area that would be subject to
flooding in a 100-year flood, and based on initial studies may also be flooded as a result of a rise in sea level. The
Federal Emerg~ncy Management Agency (FEMA) is currently corlducting studies on current tidal elevations and
will be issuing a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) some time in 2011. This study will take into account
changes in sea level since the 1980s, but will not take into account the impacts of future sea level rise. The new
FIRM will likely show a slightly higher Base Flood Elevation for tidal flooding, resulting in an expanded Special
Flood Hazard Area for Palo Alto. The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study being conducted by the Army
Corps of Engineers (with the Water District serving as one of the local funding partners) is moving slower than
originally envisioned due to limited funding from the federal government. The Water District is advancing funds
to keep the project moving. Shortly after the first of the year, the Shoreline Study will be producing updated
maps for public review showing sea level projections for the years 2016 and 2067. These maps are likely to show
substantial increases in future sea levels and associated tidal Base Flood Elevations. The tidal floodplain for Palo
Alto could extend as far west as Middlefield Road under these future scenarios.
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 24 Negative Declaration
Once the Shoreline Study mapping results are published, the Water District will be asking each community in the
county affected by sea level change for their reaction to the results. The Water District will be going out to the
voters in 2012 seeking approval of a new special tax for flood control improvements. Tidal flood protection
projects will be a key'element of this ballot measure. Water District staff has estimated that the ballot measure
will be able to fund the planning/design of three levee segments in the county and the construction of one levee
segment (there are a total of nine levee segments identified in Santa Clara County).
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1,998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload
5. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division 'of Land Resource'
Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004.
6. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
2001
'7. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
8. Project Plans and project\description, Stoecker and Northway Architects, Inc., July 29, 2009
9. Traffic Impact Analysis for 1700 Embarcadero Mings Hotel, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated
September 3, 2008
10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1700 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, prepared by E2C, dated June 23,
2009.
11. Geotechnical Investigation for 1700 Embarcadero Road, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated July 2009.
1700 Embarcadero Road Page 25 Negative Declaration
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: APRIL 12, 2010 CMR: 211:10
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT: Review and Comment on Revised Draft Program EIR for the Bay Area to
Central Valley High Speed Train and Monthly Update on City Activities
Related to the California High Speed Rail Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council provide comments on the outline for the City's comments on
, . ..... the Revised Draft Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central Valley High Speed Train proj ect and
direct staff to return with a draft final comment letter for Council approval on April 19.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2008, the voters of California approved initial bond funding for the California
High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) detailed environmental studies and plans for the
construction of high speed rail from Los Angeles to San Francisco, via San Jose and the Caltrain
corridor. The HSRA consulting team for the San Francisco to San Jose Project Level
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) began work in early 2009. On March 30, 2009, Council
approved a "scoping" comments letter to forward to CHSRA and a Memorandum of
Understanding to join the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC). A City Council subcommittee
was appointed and the City has established a web page to keep the community informed about
the project at: www.cityofpaloalto.orglcahsr. On May 18, 2009, the City Council adopted
Guiding Principles (Attachment D) to provide direction to the City'S High Speed Rail Ad Hoc
Committee. On March 15, 2010, the Council designated the Ad Hoc Committee a Standing
Committee of the City Council.
DISCUSSION
This report provides information on the review of the Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft
Program EIR and an update regarding activities related to the High Speed Rail project that have
been undertaken since the last report on March 15.
Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR
In August 2008, a group of petitioners filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court
claiming the Authority's Final Bay Area to Central Valley Program Environmental Impact
CMR: 211:10 Page 1 of4
12
Report (PEIR) (Attachment F) violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in
numerous ways. (Town of Atherton, et aI., v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, et al).
On August 26, 2009, the Court mled that the Program EIR required revision and recirculation in
the several areas to comply with CEQA related to the San Jose to Gilroy section and noise and
vibration impacts. On December 3,2009, HSRA rescinded the certification of the 2008 Program
EIR and directed Authority staff to prepare the necessary revisions to the PEIR and circulate
them in accordance with CEQA for public comment.
On March 4, 2010, the HSRA released a Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
(Attachment E). A 45-day public comment period began on March 11, 2010, and will end on
April 26, 2010. (Palo Alto has formally requested a 30-day extension of the comment period,
but has not received a reply from HSRA). The document includes the changes made in response
to the court decision, focused on the Gilroy-San Jose alignment and alternatives to using the
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. It does respond in detail to the noise and vibration issues
cited in the Court mling.
Included in this packet is a memorandum from the City Attorney which describes a framework
for providing comments on the Revised Program EIR, and implications of the availability of new
information to reopen comments on the full 2008 Program EIR.
Staff has retained an environmental consulting firm to assist with the preparation of comments.
A draft of the outline for comments on the Revised PEIR is provided as Attachment A. The
outlin~ includes all of the potential subject areas to be covered by the City's comments on the
revised draft PEIR as well as the original Program EIR. Staff requests that the Council provide
comments on the outline including any other areas for comment. Staff will then prepare a
detailed comment letter for Council review and approval on April 19.
To facilitate discussion, several documents are attached to this report or links to documents
related to High Speed Rail are provided as background for the Council's review of the Revised
PEIR, including:
• A copy of the Cities of Menlo Park and Atherton lawsuit challenging the validity of the
original Program EIR. Many of the reasons for challenge might be similar to reasons
Palo Alto might challenge the Revised Draft Program EIR (Attachment B).
• A copy of the decision on that lawsuit, finding deficiencies in the analysis for the Gilroy-
San Jose segment and related to vibration impacts (Attachment C).
The Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the Revised PEIR on April 7 and
prepared comments for Council's consideration. A memo summarizing the Commission's
discussion and the PTC draft minutes will be provided to the City Council at-places on April 12.
San Francisco to San Jose HST Preliminary Project Alternatives Analysis Report
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report was released for circulation and presented to
the HSRA Board on April 8.
CMR: 211:10 Page 2 of4
The City has retained the engineering film Hatch Mott MacDonald to conduct an independent
peer review of technical conclusions in the AA, such as tunneling feasibility and other below
grade options, costs, and railroad operations. The scope of work includes full technical review
and participation in meetings with the Ad Hoc Committee, City Council and a community
meeting. Staff will schedule two community meetings prior to the City Council finalizing
comments on the report.
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
The Peninsula Rail Program (PRP) adopted Context Sensitive Solutions, a dynamic, two-way
collaborative process, to support the active involvement of Peninsula communities in the
planning and design of California High-Speed Rail and Caltrain 2025 projects .
. CSS is a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a
transportation project that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and
environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS offers an opportunity for
communities, stakeholders, and project sponsors to collaborate to define key values, priorities,
measures of success, and context considerations.
The PRP has prepared a CSS Toolkit which will guide the process, and has posted the Toolkit on
its website at http://www.caltrain.com/peninsularailprogram csstoolkit.html.
Next StepslPlanned Activities
The next milestones for the Project are:
Release of San Francisco to San Jose Preliminary Alternatives Analysis -April 8, 2010
End comment period for Bay Area to Central Valley Revised PEIR -April 26, 2010
Draft EIRIEIS -First Quarter of2011
Final EIRIEIS -End of2011
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Council policy direction related
to the California High Speed Rail Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Outline for Comments on Bay Area to Central Valley Draft Revised Program EIR
B. Menlo Park!Atherton Litigation v. High Speed Rail Authority
C. Court Decision re: Menlo Park! Atherton Litigation
D. Guiding Principles
E. Revised Draft Program EIR for Central Valley to Bay Area High Speed Rail Project, March
2010 (Council only, available online at:
http://v . .rww.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.asp?p''9274 )
CMR: 211:10 Page 3 of4
F. 2008 Final Program EIR for Central Valley to Bay Area High Speed Rail Project (CDs for
Council only, available online at: httn:11w\V\v.cahighspe.cdrailca. gov/l ihrary. asp ?pc:::927 4)
COURTESY COPIES
Nadia Naik, Californians for Responsible Rail Design (CAARD)
Dominic Spaethling, California High Speed Rail Authority
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Deputy City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 211:10 Page 4 of4
A
ATTACHMENT A
Outline for Comments on the
Revised Draft Program EIR for the
Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train
General Comments and Process
• No scoping sessions or public meetings on the Second Program EIR/EIS were held
anywhere on the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco, and Peninsula cities
were absent from the Outreach Before Draft Program EIRiEIS process
• Significant new information exists that makes the earlier Program EIR/EIS invalid and
requires a recirculation of the document
o The ridership and revenue modeling used for the analysis and alternatives
comparison is flawed, particularly given the new information provided in the
2009 Business Plan update
o New information on project impacts and alternatives is being discovered during
the project-level environmental review for the San Francisco to San Jose and San
Jose to Merced segments, and this new information may indicate new or
increased impacts, and new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures
o New alternatives have been suggested to the Union Pacific/Monterey Highway
alignments
o New information regarding the use of the Monterey Highway median for
portions of the right-of-way results in new questions regarding noise, land use,
property, traffic, and construction impacts
o The recently announced project to conduct a seismic retrofit of the State Route 92
San Mateo highway bridge opens the possibility of placing a HST crossing in
conjunction with that rebuilt bridge
o The need to evaluate impacts from Union Pacific's refusal to share its right-of-
way opens up the possibility of considering new alternative alignments for not
only the Pacheco Pass alignment but also the Altamont Pass alignment, including
an Altamont Pass alignment that would run along State Route 84 through the
East Bay rather than along the Union Pacific right-of-way.
Project Description
• Document fails to adequately describe the location of the project, including the proposed
right-of-way and station locations, and the degree of uncertainty regarding these
locations
• Document fails to adequately indicate the extent the project would require acquisition of
private property through eminent domain
• Project description is internally inconsistent
• Document fails to indicate exactly where grade separations would take place (all or only
some of the existing intersections) and whether pedestrian crossings would be added
Business Plan
• Document fails to provide an explanation of the methodology used to calculate ridership
figures
• Document fails to include an explanation of what portions of projected ridership would
occur regardless of whether the project was approved or regardless of the alignment
alternative chosen
• Document fails to include a full tabulation and explanation of project costs,
methodologies for calculating costs, costs for each alternative and sub-alternative, costs
for tunnels through developed urban areas, and costs for developing ridership
• Document fails to include a tabulation of expected funding sources for the project
• Document fails to address construction costs, including full economic cost of eminent
domain
• Document fails to address how nearby businesses would be affected during project
construction, whether small businesses will survive, and how city tax revenues may be
affected as a result
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
General Comments
• Document identifies a Peninsula alignment and station locations, but fails to fully
identify, analyze, and mitigate all Peninsula-related environmental impacts from that
specific alignment and those specific station locations
• Document fails to disclose or adequately analyze the project's potential impacts
associated with ~he use of the Caltrain and/or Union Pacific shared right-of-way
• Document fails to discuss the potential necessity of locating the project alignment away
from the Union Pacific right-of-way, both in the San Francisco to San Jose segment and
the San Jose to Gilroy segment, due to Union Pacific's refusal to share a right-of-way
with the HST system
• Mitigation measures used in the document are often inadequate, and in some cases so
poorly described as to make it impossible to determine the feasibility of the mitigation
measure
• Document fails to address significance criteria within each local jurisdiction
• Impact discussion focuses on a corridor 50 feet to either side of the existing corridor or
50 feet to either side of the centerline of the new HST alignments, when the document
should focus on a wider corridor for impacts, such as 500 feet to either side
• Document fails to indicate how the HST would affect Caltrain service (both during
construction and operation), and whether Caltrain would be able to continue providing
express service
• Document uses flawed assumptions in determining impact significance
• Document fails to address how grade separations will affect traffic, air emissions, noise,
land use (separation of communities), and aesthetics
Aesthetics
• Document fails to address the visual impacts of 45 miles of sound walls proposed as
mitigation for noise impacts
• Document fails to address the visual impacts of elevated structures
• Document fails to address shade and shadow impacts of sound walls and elevated
structures
• Document fails to adequately indicate how sound walls would address aesthetics
impacts for elevated railway, and fails to indicate height of sound walls
• Document fails to address visual impact of new utility lines
• Document fails to address how the absence of screening trees along certain segments
affects the impact significance of new utility poles and wires
• Document fails to address how any new vehicle or pedestrian overpasses would affect
the visual environment
• Document fails to address whether the project would include nighttime lighting, and
what impact such lighting would have on neighboring uses, particularly two-story
residences
Agriculture
• Document fails to adequately address the loss of prime agricultural land, particularly if
the proposed right-of-way must be relocated away from the Caltrain/Union Pacific
right-of-way within the San Jose to Gilroy corridor; this relocation could be necessitated
by Union Pacific's refusal to share a right-of-way with the HST system
• Document fails to address the indirect loss of agricultural lands due to induced sprawl
development at proposed station locations
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
• Document fails to fully disclose or adequately analyze the project's potential air quality
impacts, including the production of greenhouse gases and contribution to global
climate change
• Document fails to adequately compare air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
between the alternatives (elevated, at grade, below grade, underground)
• Document uses flawed assumptions in the impact analysis
Biological Resources
• Document fails to address the potential loss of valuable wildlife habitat, including
wetlands, particularly if the proposed right-of-way must be relocated away from the
Caltrain/Union Pacific right-of-way anywhere along the San Francisco to Gilroy
corridor; this relocation could be necessitated by Union Pacific's refusal to sh~re '" right-
of-way with the HST system
• Document fails to address impacts to trimming or removal of mature or heritage trees
along project alignment
• Document fails to address impacts to E1 Palo Alto, the iconic heritage redwood tree in
Palo Alto
Cultural Resources
• Document fails to address impacts to historic resources and Native American
archaeological sites along the alignment
Environmental Justice
• Document uses incorrect methodology for analysis
Geology and Seismicity
• Document fails to adequately address potential impacts and risks associated with the
rail line crossing several active and potentially active fault zones
• Document fails to adequately address impacts resulting from a major earthquake and
associated strong ground motion
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Document fails to address the public health and safety impacts due to possible
derailments on the Union Pacific, Caltrain, or HST lines and subsequent collisions with
high speed trains
• Document fails to address other possible collisions with trains
• Document fails to address conflicts with underground toxic plumes
Hydrology and Water Quality
• Document fails to address impacts of trenching or tunneling on groundwater during
construction, which applies to portions of the Altamont Route Alternatives
• Document fails to address impacts on creek flow, creek stability, and riparian habitat
• Document fails to adequately address impacts of shallow groundwater on operations
and maintenance
• Document fails to adequately address the impacts on project operations from flooding
Land Use and Planning
• Document fails to discuss direct and indirect impacts of potential "sprawl" development
as a result of the project, particularly near the locations of proposed stations
• Document fails to address the displacement of residents and businesses if the proposed
right-of~way must be relocated away from the Caltrain/Union Pacific right~of-way; this
relocation could be necessitated by Union Pacific's refusal to share a right-of-way with
the HST system
• Document fails to address land use impacts through the division of existing
communities, either through the expansion of the existing Caltrain/Union Pacific right-
of-way, the elevation of structures within the Caltrain/Union Pacific right-of-way, or the
relocation of the proposed right-of-way away from the Caltrain/Union Pacific right-of-
way; this relocation could be necessitated by Union Pacific's refusal to share a right-of-
way with the HST system
• Document fails to address project impacts due to potential incompatibility with existing
or planned uses, inconsistency with zoning or general plan designations, and
incompatibility with existing or proposed development plans
• Document fails to address impacts to local businesses, particularly during construction
• Document fails to address impacts to property values due to aesthetics, noise, vibration,
circulation, and daily train operations
• Document incorrectly states that project corridor would have a "high" compatibility
rating, when the document states that single-family residential homes have a "low"
compatibility rating
• Document fails to address how elevating the railway could create a physical barrier that
divides a community
Minerals
• No issues identified at this time
Noise and Vibration
• Document fails to adequately address the impact significance of noise and vibration
impacts, and fails to adequately mitigate these impacts.
• Document categorizes noise and vibration impacts as "low-level", "medium-level", and
"high-level", and establishes four noise-related thresholds of significance, but does not
indicate whether the project impacts would exceed these thresholds and be considered
significant impacts
• Document fails to adequately explain how the proposed mitigation measures would
address noise and vibration impacts and reduce these impacts to a less than significant
level
• Document addresses estimated noise levels on a region-wide basis, and does not
quantify anticipated noise levels on the proposed alignment or station locations
• Document fails to address noise and vibration impacts during construction
• Grade separation would introduce inclines -document fails to address how such
inclines would affect noise and vibration impacts of HST, Caltrain, and freight train
operations, particularly when climbing up an incline
• Document fails to quantify the noise level increase over existing conditions
• Document fails to address nightly track maintenance
• Document fails to address how different design options (tunnel, below grade, at grade,
elevated) affect noise impacts
• Document fails to address how wind and weather patterns would affect noise impacts
• Noise impact ratings should be indicated as "high" along most of the San Jose to San
Francisco corridor due to dense residential development
• Document addresses noise impacts from 186 mph operations, but does not address noise
impacts for 220 mph speeds through Morgan Hill and Gilroy
• Document fails to quantify noise reduction provided by sound walls, particularly given
the presence of two-story residences and the possibility of an elevated railway
• The proposed sound wall height appears to be inadequate to address noise impacts
• Document fails to address impacts of sound walls on traffic noise for adjacent streets;
vehicle noise may bounce off the sound wall and back out into the community
Population and Housing
• Document fails to evaluate project impact on the jobslhousing balance in the region
Public Services
• No issues identified at this time
Recreation
• Document fails to address impacts to park and recreational facilities -access, noise,
visual impacts
• Document does not accurately count/consider all of the parks and recreational facilities
along the project route
Transportation and Traffic
• Document fails to address the transportation-related policies and plans of local
jurisdictions
• Document fails to identify impacts to streets during construction, including
identification of detours and road closures
• Document fails to address increased traffic and parking impacts in the vicinity of
proposed stations
• Document fails to address impacts to pedestrian and bicycle paths that intersect the
proposed alignment
• Document claims that Monterey Highway is underutilized, and that the loss of 2 of the
6 lanes will not significantly affect traffic in the area -the document fails to support
these conclusions
Utilities
• Document fails to address the energy needs for the project, the quantity of electricity
required, and what infrastructure (utility lines and substations) would be require? to
bring the necessary power to the corridor
• Document fails to address other potential utility needs for the project, and whether the
infrastructure is present to accommodate the project's needs
• Document fails to identify impacts of the relocation of all utilities within and crossing
the right-of-way
Cumulative Impacts
• Document fails to address the cumulative impacts of proposed Caltrain improvements
• Document fails to address the cumulative impacts of proposed roadway improvements
along the entire corridor from san Francisco to Gilroy
Alternatives
• Document fails to include information on the environmentally superior alternative,
thereby depriving the public of an opportunity to comment on the methodology used to
identify that alternative
• Document fails to analyze all alternatives at an equal level of analysis as required by
NEPA (this issue relates to the previous Program EIR/EIS and not the current Revised
Program EIR, and thus may not be germane to the current document under review)
• Alternatives analysis is inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete, and biased
o Analysis of Altamont Pass Alternatives inaccurately portrays the operational
characteristics in a way that results in significantly underestimating the potential
ridership of those alternatives
o Document improperly and unfairly discounted and found infeasible the
potential for the Altamont Pass Alternative to rebuild the Dumbarton Rail Bridge
in a way that could be used by both the Caltrain Dumbarton Rail Project and the
proposed high-speed train
o Document overemphasizes the aquatic impacts of rebuilding the Dumbarton Rail
Bridge and unfairly discounts the likelihood of being able to obtain
environmental clearance
o Document underestimates the aquatic, wetlands, and wildlife impacts of the
Pacheco Pass Alternative's crossing of the Grasslands Ecological Area and
discounts the difficulty of obtaining environmental clearance for such a crossing
o Document improperly and unfairly overemphasizes the impacts of a corridor
through the cities of Pleasanton and Fremont, while underestimating the impacts
of a corridor along the San Francisco Peninsula
o Document underemphasizes the impacts of running the corridor through
portions of San Jose south of San jose's Diridon Station by not disclosing the
absence of undeveloped land outside of the Union Pacific corridor south of that
station
• Document fails to adequately address alternative alignments within or along the
Caltrans right-of-way and Highway 280
• Document fails to address an alternative where the HST alignment ends in San Jose, and
then passengers transfer to Caltrain
• Document fails to address alternatives that would reduce the number of tracks to less
than four
• Document provides a "low" or "medium" impact rating for segments that pass
alongside residential development, when that rating should be higher
Response to Comments
• Responses are often perfunctory or conclusory, and not supported by substantial
evidence
LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. FLASHMAN
STUART M. FLASHMAN (SBN 148396)
5626 Ocean View Drive
2 Oakland, CA 94618-1533
TEL/FAX (510) 652-5373
3 e-mail: stu@stuflash.com
4
JEFF HOFFMAN SBN: 225569
5 LA W OFFICE OF JEFF D. HOFFMAN
6 132 Coleridge Street, Suite B
San Francisco, CA 94110-5113
7 Tele:ph?ne: (415) 285-7735
FaCSJmlle: (415) 920;.1731
ATTACHMENT B
I C~~1./TIl!ErING
r J !:Jaa:d Before Meeting ~ecelved at Meeting
8 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Town of Atherton et al"
(Exempt from filiDg fees -Gov. Code §6103)
9
10
II
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE-STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
TOWN OF ATHERTON, a Municipal :
13 Corporation, PLANNING AND
CONSERVATION LEAGUE. a California
14 nonprofit corporation, CITY OF MENLO
PARK" a MUnicipal Corporation,
15 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND, a'California
. 16 nonprofit corporation, CALIFORNIA RAIL
FOUNDATION, a California nonprofit
17 cor,{'orat~o~, and BA YRAIL ~LIANCE. a
Cahforrua nonprofit corporation, and other
18 similarly situated entities,
Petitioners and Plaintiffs
19 v.
20 CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY, a public entity, and DOES 1-20~ 21
Res ondents and Defendants
Case No.:
.' VERIFIED PETITION FOR
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE .
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
[Public 'Resources Code §21168; Code of
Civil Procedure §§.Hi60, 1994.5]
'PPTTTIf'ftJ FOR Wl? TT OF MANn A TP ANn rnll.lfPl A ThTT
· '~. INTRODUCTION
2 1. PETITIONERS bring this action to challenge the decision of Respondent and Defendant
3 CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY ("CHSRA") to approve the Bay Area to
4 Central Valley High :Speed Train Project (hereinafter, "Project"), including specifically choosing
5 an alignment for the Project, without providing legally adequate review under the California
6 Envirenmental Quality Act Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA").
7 Respondent's actions are illegal as they violate CEQA and the California Code of Regulatiens,
8 Title 14, section 15000 et seq ("CEQAGuidelines").
9 2. PETITIONERS allege that CHSRA approved the Project based on a Firial Prograrinnatic
10 Environmental Impact Report/Enviropmental Impact Study ("FPEIR,/S") that did not adequately
11 and accurately describe the Prpject, _ did not give adequate_ consideration to the Project' s impacts
12 -on the environment, failed to propose adequate mitigation measures to address the Preject's
13 signific~t -impacts, failed to provide a fair and adequate eonsidenition of feasible a1te~riatives·to
_ 14 the appreved Project, andJailed to pro.vide adequate responseS.to comments on the Draft" . _-
15 Programmatic Enviro~ental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study ("DPEIRlS")
]6 submitted by other public agencies, as well as by concerned organizations and individuals.
-.
17 .3. The Project is part of a larger proposed legislatively.mandated plan to d~velop high
-18 speed rail service betWeeri the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco.. It follows on ·CHsRA's
19 earlier approval of an overall proposal for such high speed rail service, based on a broader
20 overall FPEIRIS. However, that FPEIRJS specifically left undetennined the route the high speed
21 rail project would take from the Central Valley to its. northwestern terminus of San Francisco.. -
22 The Project being challenged herein was intended to fill that gap.
, '.,'
23 4. While the Pro)ect entailed many ~tudi~s, analyses, ai;ld choices~ perhaps the single biggest
24 cho~ce w~s betw~eri two major alternative a1ignm~nts: the "Pachec(> Alignment" ruoiling north
" . . , .. ' .' , "
25 and westward from the Gentral V alley mai~ line south of Merced, through Pacheco Pass then
2"6 north through qUroy to. San Jese ~d then north and west along the San Francisco Peninsula to.
27 San Francisco, and the "Altamont Alignment" running north and westward from the Central
28 Valley main line north ef Modeste, through Tracy, through the Altamont Pass and acress the
2
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
EaSt Bay, with one branch going south and westward to San Jose and a second branch going wes
2 and northward across San Francisco Bay to San Francisco.
3 5.' PETITIONERS allege that the CHSRA's consideration of these two major alternatives
4 was neither fair nor complete, .but, instead, improperly distorted the analysis o~benefits and
5 impacts, and ultimately of feasibility and desirability to unfairly and improperly bias the analysis
6 in favor of approving the Pacheco Alignment.
7 6. Respondent's actions will hann PETITIONERS, their members, and the public, by
8 causing serious environmental harm along the Pacheco Alignment route. That harm, because of
9 the inadequacy of the environmental review under CEQA. was neither properly disclosed nor
]0 adequately mitigated. In addition, it could have been avoided through choice of the Altamont
11 Alignment.
12 7. PETITIONERS seek this Court's peremptory writ of mandate ordering the CHSRA to
13 rescind its actions in approving the Project and certifying the FPBIRIS for the Project.
"
,14 PETITIONERS also seek this Court temporary restraining order and,preliminary and permanent
15 injunction to prevent CHSRA from proceeding with implementing the Project in the absence of
16 adequate review under CBQA. PETITIONERS also seek this Court's declaration that the
17 PROJECT approval by CHSRA. violated CEQA. Finally" PETITIONERS, acting in the public
18 interest, seek an award of costs and of attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1 021.5 or
19 other applicable authority.
20 PARTIES
21 8. Petitioner TOWN OF ATHERTON is a municipal corporation, formed and existing
22 under the general laws of the State of California. ATHERTON lies directly aStride of the '
23 proposed Pacheco Pass alignment down the San Francisco Peninsula. It and its citizens will
24 therefore be directly affected by CHSRA's decisions to certify the FPEIRIS for the Project and
25 approve the Pacheco Pass ali~nment as part of the Project. .
26 9. Pet~tioner PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE is a public benefit nonprofit
27 California corporation, established and existing under the .laws of the State of California,
28 headquartered il;l Sacramento" California. PCL works, using the political and legal systems, to
3
I ,
enact and implement policies that protect and restore the California environment. PCL is an
2 affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation.
3 10. Petitioner CITY OF MENLOP ARK. is a municipal corporation, formed and existing
4 under the gener~llaws of the State of California. MENLO PARK. lies directly astride of the
. .
5 proposed Pacheco Pass alignment down the San Francisco Peninsula. It and its citizens will .
. 6 therefore be directly affected by CHSRA's decisions to certify the FPEIRJS for the Project and
7 approve the Pacheco Pass alignment as part of the Project.
8 11. Petition~r TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND is
9 a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, headquartered in the Bay Area, established and
10. existing under the Jaws of the State of California as a regional advocate to promote transportatio
11 .solutions favoring transit over new highway capacity, development around transit stops ra,the~ . '.
12 than sprawl into the Bay Arear~ open ~paces, and more market-oriented pricing of private motor
13 .. vehicle travel. .TRANSDEF advocates on behalf oHts members and the public. at large for .. '
• • j ~. •
.14 :effective regional pbinning,smart·growth, iIp.proved transit service, and'Cleaner air. TRANSDEF
15 has participated in the development of the 2001, 2005 and 2009 Bay Area Regional
. '
16 Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs. TRANSDEF has actively
17 engaged in numerous public agency proceedings involv~ng transportation and air quality issues,
18 including specifically the admfuistrative proceedings around the Project and its envir0IllD:ental
19 review under CEQA.
20 12. Petitioner CALIFORNIA RAIL FOUNDA~ION, based in Sacramento, is a California
~l nonprofit public benefit corporation, establishe4 and existing under the laws of the State of
22 California. CRF works to educ~te the public on rail and, bus technology and, prom()te cost-.
23 effective expansion of the state'~ public transp~rtatio~ services.. ,"
24 13. Petitioner BA YRAIL ALLIANCE is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation,
25 established and existing under the lawtl of the State of California~ BA YRAIL works to build
26 public awarenes~ of and support for plans that "",ould improve regional passenger rail
27 infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay area, so as to improve the ,quality and convenience of the
28
4
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
services that they support, and thereby iinprove the region's environmental characteristics and
2 quality of life.
3 14. PETItIONERS include in this action as co-petitioners and co-plaintiffs such other partie
4 whose interests and claims are substantially the same as those of the above-named petitioners
5 and p1aintiffs. Said additional petitioners and plaintiffs may be named individually by
6 amendment to this petition and complaint.
7 15. PETITIONERS and their ~embers/citizens'have,a direct and'beneficial interest in the
8 approval and implementatiop of a well-planned, efficient, and environmentally sensitive high
9 speed rail system within California and the· San Francisco Bay area, and more specifically in the
10 fully-informed, fair, and proper choice of alignment for the Project.
11 16. Respondent and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY was
12 estab~shed as 'an independent state authority by the legislature in 1996 and charged with
13 planning, constructing and operating a high-speed train system to serve the Los Angeles to San
14 Francisco mainline route as well as other-major California cities along or cotmecting with that
15 mainline route. CHSRA is governed by a seven member Board of Directors (hereinafter, .
16. "Board"). CHSRA, its staff, and contractors and consultants working under its control and
17 direction, prep8.fed the DPEIRlS and the FPEIRlS for the Project, and the Board of CHSRA
,18 certified the FPEIRIS for the Project and gave final approval to the Project.
19 17. PETITIONERS are Wlaware of the true names and capacities of Respondents and
20 Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue those Respondents and Defendants
21 ll:llder fictitious names. PETITIONERS will amend their Petition and Complainfto show their
22 true names and capacities when the Respondents and Defendants have been identified and their
23 capacities ascertained. Each of the Respondents and Defendants is the agent, employee. or both
24 of every other Respondent and Defendant, and each performed acts on which this acti~n is based
25 within the course and scop·e of such Respondent's and Defendant's agency, employment, or both.
26 PETITIONERS are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that eac~ Respondent and
27 Defendant is legally responsible in some manner f~.r the events and happenings referred to
28 herein.
5
Pt:l'1'TTT('iJl.l JU"'Il1 UTl1 T'1' ()l< 1\6 A l\Tn A 'TP A l\Tl"\ ("!()1\,fDT A ThTT
2
3
4
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18. PETITIONERS have satisfied the requirements of Public Resources Code §21177.
PETITIONERS and th~ir members/citizens/elected officials submitted oral and/or written
comments to CHSRA, prior to the close of the public hearing before the approval of the Project,
objecting to the approval of the Project. PETITIONERS, their members/citizens/elected ).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
officials. other public agencies, other organizations, and members' of the public raised each of the
claims presented in this petition prior to the close of the public. hearing on the approval of the
Project.
19. PETITIONERS have complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section
21167.5 by mailing written notice of the commencement of this action to Respondent C~ifornia
High Speed Rail Authority before fIling this Petition and Complaint. A copy of that notice, with
. ','''' .' .
proof of service, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
20. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.7. PETITIONERS have provided a
copy of this PetitiQn and Corpplaint to the Califorirla Attorney G~neral. A COpy of the 14 '
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 .
accompanying notice and proof of service are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
21. PETITIONERS have nG plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the (',)rdinary course oflaw.
J
Unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate to require CHSRA to rescind'its approval
of the Proj~ct and·certification of the FPEIlUS. CHSRA's actions in violation of CEQA will
remain in effect.
22. IfCHSRA is not enjoined from moving forward to implement the Project and froni
undertaking acts in furtherance thereof, PET~TIONBRS will suffer irreparable harm for which
tJ:1ere is no adequate remedy at law in that CHSRA will move towards constructing a high speed
. .
tram system including the Pacheco Pass Alignment, with attendant significant environmental . . '. . '" '.' . impacts. without having fust coriducted adequate environmental review, which might have .' . . '.
avoided or mitigated some or all of those impacts.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
23. In 1993~ the qovemor of California issued Executive order W-48-93 calling for
28 . establishment of a task force to study the feasibility of implementing a statewide high-speed rail
6
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
l-I
system, Shortly thereafter, the Governor signed Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 authorizing
2 creation of a nine~member Intercity High Speed Rail Commission (hereinafter. "Commission")
3 to st.udy and develop a framework for implementing such a system over a 20-year time horizon,
4 24. In 1996. the Commission issued its fmal report. In that report. the Commission
5 summarized its study of a statewide high speed rail system and specifically of different potential
6 aJignments for portions of that syste~. The report identified the Altamont Pass alignment for the
7 route between the Bay Area and the Central Valley as the preferred alternative. concluding that,
8 "The Panache or Pacheco Passes would result in higher impacts than the Altamont Pass,
9 particularly impacts to wetlands and habitat for threatened and endangere~ species."
10 25. After its creation in 1996. the CHSRA prepared and, in or about the year 2000. adopted a
II final High Speed Train System Business Plan, The CHSRA then moved forward toward the .
12 production and .certification of a Progranunatic EIRIEIS on the broad outlines of the statewide
13 High Speed Rail systein.
]4 26. In or about January 2004, th~ CHSRA released its DPEIRIS for the statewide high
. .
15 speed rail system. That DPEIRIS evaluated only two alternative alignments for access to the San
16 Francisco Bay Area: the Pacheco .Pass Alignment and the Panache Pass Alignment. The
J7 DPEIRIS rejected an Altamont Pass Alignment as not meeting the purpose and need of the
18 project due to the need for a new Bay Crossing and the claimed reduction in train frequencies.
19 27. PETITIONERS, pu1?lic agencies, other organizations, and individuals submitted
20 numerous commentS on the DPEIRIS objecting 'to its failure to give serious consideration of the.
21 Altamont Alignment option and pointing out the serious environmental problems inherent in the.
22 Pacheco Aligninent.
23 28. In or about December 2005, the CHSRA certified the FPEIRIS for· the' statewide high
24 speed rail system and approved the statewide project. In certifying the FPEIRIS for the statewid
25 high speed rail system· and approving the project, the CHSRA specifically detennined norto .. '_.
26 choose 1m alignment for access to the San Francisco Bay area from the Central Valley, putting
27 that decision offfor further study.
28
7
2
3
'4
5
6
7
, 8
9
PROJECT mSTORY
29. The CHSRA resolution approving the statewide high speed rail system specifically
authorized CHSRA staff to prepare a separate progra~atic EIR to study the options for a high
speed rail connection between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley portion of the
, high speed rail system. It specifically mandated study of both the Pacheco Pass Alignment and
the Altamont Pass Alignment alternatives.
30. The DPEIRJS for the Project was prepared concurrently and in coordination with a
separate study undertaken by the, Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC"), the Bay
Area Rapid Transit District ("BART"), and the Caltrrun Joint Powers Authority to develop a Bay
10, . Area Regional Rail Plan. However, ,that effort did not involve any separate environmental
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
review component.
, 31. On or about July 16, 2007, CHSRA released the DPEIRJS for the project. The document
c~nsisted of nine subst~tive chapters, totaling almost 800 pages oft~xt,'phis munerous tables"
diagrams,' and figures., In 'addition to the docwnenf itself, CHsRA 'also' rele~sed a series of ' '
technical studies in support ofthe DPEIRJS. The initial comment period was $et for sixty days.
Given the voluminous amount of material to be reviewed, numerous agencies, organizations, and
individuals requested an extens.on of the comment period. The comment peri,od was
consequen~ly extended until October 26, 2007.
32. PETITIONERS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege the following: that
20 . . prior.to or during the time when the DPEIRJS for the Project was beingj)repared, CHSR.1\, either
21 . , ~irectly or through'its directors, staff, consultantsandlor contractors, le.arned that th~ Union
'22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pacific Railway (hereinafter, "UP") strongly objected to the lise of its right-of-way' by the Project . ,
or any other portion of the high speed nUl system being planned by CHSRA. ,In part, this was . . . .
because UP was concerned about potentially severe public sa:fety impacts that could be '
associated with having its freight operations and the Project operating in the s~e right-of-way
or even in adjoining rights-of-way. UP communicated this concern to CHSRA. ,CHSRA also',
became aware that UP insisted that the Project, as proposed, would have severe adverse, impacts
on UP's ability to effectiv~ly conduct its freight operations in the future. Nevertheless, the
8
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
DPEIRIS failed to disclose UP's objections and concerns or any of the potential associated
2 adverse environmental impacts.
3 33. PETITIONERS, their members, public agencies, organizations, and individuals
4 submitted voluminous comments on the DPEIRIS for the Project. M~y of those comments
5 again raised questions about the fairness and adequacy of the DPEIRlS's analysis of the Pacheco
6 Pass vs. Altamont Pass alignment alternatives. In addition, comments pointed up potential
7 disruptive impacts of the Pacheco Pass alignment on areas throughout the San Francisco Bay
8 Area and disputed the DPEIRIS~s claim that its land use impacts would be minimaL Comments
9 also suggested other previously-unanalyzed options for the Project alignment.
]0 34. On or about Novemb~r 14,2007, CHSRA staff released a document entitled, "Summary
11 of Public Hearings and Comment Period.'" The eight-page document purported to summarize th , ,-. '. .
12 issues raised by comments submitted on the DPREIRlS on the Project. That same day, CHSRA
I ., " ". .' '.
13 staff also r~leased ,a document: entitled; "S~ff Recommendations: Preferred Network Alterpative;
14 'HST Alignment and Station Locations." Even though the time period for public review and
]5 comment on the DPEIRIS had already closed and 'even though responses to ,comments on the
'16 DPEIRJS had not yet been completed or provided to the CHSRA Board, the staff
17 recommendations designated the P~checo Alignment Alternative as the preferred a1ter~ative in
18 the DPEIRlS, with the proviso that at an unspe,cified future date, with unSpecified future funding,
19 a lo:wer sp~ed regional rail link between the Central Valley and the East Bay through the
20 Altamont Pass could be added. The Board purported to take no actio~ on ,the staff
21' recommendations.
22 35. On or about May 21, 2008, CHSRA released the FPEIRIS.for the Project, consisting of
23 'fu.ree volumes: Volume I -the FPEIRIS itself;, Volwne II -the.. technical app~ndices ,to the
24 FPEIRfS; and Vohime'III -coinments received on the DPEIRIS and responses to those . . .' . .
25 comments.
26 36. In or about June 2008, CHSRA released a,document entitled, "Addendum/Errata to Final
27 Program EIRJEIS for Bay Area to Cen~al Valley Portion of the California HST System"
28 (hereinafter, "Errata/Addendum''). The Errata/Addendum contained modifications to the
9
FPEIRIS ' s analyses of air quality and energy use. The Errata! Addendum was not circulated for
2 public comment.
3 ri. On or about July 8, 2008, CHSRA held a public hearing to receive comments on the
4 FPEIRIS and on the Project. PETITIONERS and others submitted oral and written comments
5 objecting to the certification of the FPEIRIS and the approval of the Project.
6 38. On or about July 9, 2008, after hearing ~taff-prepar~d responses to the comments
. 7 re~eived at the public hearing, the CHSRA Board voted to certify the FPEIRISfor the Project
8 and to approve the Project. .
9 39. On or about July 9, 2008 CHSRA filed a Notice of Determination for its approval of the .
10 Project.
11
. CHARGING ALLEGATIONS
12 FIRsT CAUSE"'OF ACTION
13 ..
;Vioiation of CEQA and CEOA Guidelines ~ Certification of LegiUly Inadeg~ate Environmental
14 Impact Statement. . . .' .' .
15
16
17
40. PETITIONERS hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs 1
through 38 as though fully set forth herein.
.41. The Project required discretionary approval by CHSRA and was therefore a project under
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CEQA.
42. The Project did not qualify for any CEQA exemption and therefore required
environmental review under CEQA.
43. CHSRA was the lead agency for environmental review of the PrQject under CEQA.
·44. CHSRA detennined that the Project had potential to cause significant adverse
enviro~erit~ impacts, imd'theJ:'ef~r~ determin~d to prepare ~ prOWamt)l~tic EIR for the Project.
45. CHSRA had a duty under .cEQA to certify that the FPEIRIS f~r the Project satisfied ail
. '.
requirements under CEQA. CHSRA. violated this duty by ~ertifying the FPEIRIS for the Project
~h~re the' FPElRiS was deficient in the foliowing respects:
10
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
I" I
Count One: Inadequate Project Description
2 46. An EIR is required to include an adequate description of the Project being considered.
3 The description must be accurate and must contain sufficient detail to allow the reader of the EIR
4 to understand the "nature of the Project and its salient characteristics. The project description in
5 the FPEIRIS was inadequate for the following reasons:
6 • The Project description failed to ~dequately describe the location of the Project,
7 including relevant information on the location of the proposeq right.of-way and
8 station locationS. In partiClilar, the project description failed to indicate the degree of
" 9 uncertainty as to where the Projec~ right-cif-way and stations would be located and
10 contained conflictiflg information about the location of tho Project right-of-way. In
11 addition, the project description failed to indicate the extent the project would require"
12 acquisition of private property thro:ugh eminent domain.
13 • " The Project description failed to include relevant inf~mation about es~entiru "
14" characteristics of the project, including speoifically operational characteristics such as
15 the projected ridership for the various alternative aiignments along with a dear
]6 explanation of the methodology used to calculate those ridership figures.
17 • The Project description failed to include an explanation of what portions of projected"
18 ridership would occur regardless of whether the Project was approved or regardless 0
19 the alignment alterpative chosen.
20 • The Project description failed to include a full tabulation, with explanations, of
21 Project costs, including costs for each alternative or sub-aItemative, methodologies
22 for calculatIng"those costs, and including the projected costs.for tunpels through
23 developed urban areas and costs for developingthe"ridership for each alternative"
24 (e.g., advertising costs, costs of incentives offered to employers, developers, etc.), as"
25 well as severance costs involved in taking portions o~ parcels by eminent domain.
26 • The Project description failed to include a tabulation of expected funding sources for
27 the Project.
28
11
• The Project Description, as presented in the DPEIRIS circulated for public review an
2 comment, failed to include infonnation on the environmentally superior alternative
3 and how it was chosen, thereby depriving the public of the opportunity to comment
"
4 o~ the methodology used to identify that alternative.'
\ ,
5 • The project description failed to clearly explain the relationship of the project to the
6 . proposed regional rail servi¥e along the Altamont Alignment, inCluding specifically
7 the extent to which the two projects were and would be linked, both financially and
8 operationally.
9 Accordingly, the approval of the Project and the certification of the FPEIRJS mu~t be set
10 as,ide. ,
II Count Two: Failure'to Fully Disclose Diad Adequa~ely Analyzet~e Project's Significant'
12 Environmental Impacts.
,13 47. The FPEIRlS failed to fully disclose or adequately analyze, the significant gr.owth~
14 inducing impacts, of the Pacheco Alignment in an,a around the ,areas south of San Jose, around '
15 Gilroy, and both east and west of Pacheco Pass. These impacts, both direct and indirect, would
16 inolude:
17, • loss of valuable prime agricultural land;
18 • .increased auton;lOtive traffic;
19 • increased energy consumption;
, ,
20 • promotion of inefficient "sprawl" development;
21 • promotion of development in the absence of adequate supporting infrastructure;
22 • loss otvaluable wildlife habitat;
, ,
23 • destruction of wetlands and other valuable water resources; . ....' ",,' ,
24 48. The FPEIRlS fails to fully disclose or adequately.analyze the Project's significant·
25 impacts associated with the use of UP and/or UP-shared right-of-way an,dlor the neCessity of
26 moving the Project away from the UP right-of-way, including the following: '
27 • public health and safety impacts due to' the potential for derailments on the UP freight
28 line and subsequent collision of high speed trains with the derailed freight cars;
12
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
• di,splacement of residents and businesses if CHSRA was forced to relocate the Project
2 right-of-way away from the UP right-of-way;
3 • destruction of wetlands, wildlife habitat, and/or valuable prime agricultural lands if
4 the CHSRA was forced to relocate the Project !ight-of-way away from the UP right-
s of-way;
6 • 'Land use impacts through the' division of existing communities if the Project right-of-
7 way was moved away , from the UP or l!P-shared right-of-way so as to divide existing
8 communities;
9 49. ,The FPEIRIS fails to fully 4isclo~e or adequately analyze the Project's significant
10 impacts on jurisdictions it ~1l traverse, including specifically ciiies on the San Francisco
11 Peninsula bordering on the Caltrainright-of-way, including the following:
12 • noise~ air quality, and vibration impacts on portions of the jUrisdictions near the
13 Caltrain right-of-way from the construction and operation of the Project;
14 • land use impacts in dividing existing communities if <;HSRA is forced to move,the
15 Project away from the Caltram right-of-way in order to protect UP freight use of the
16 Caltrain right-of-waYt as well as land use impacts from further visually and physically'
17 dividing communities by the widened and possibly elevated structures along the high,
speed rail right~bf-way; 18
19
20
• displacement of residents and businesses if CHSRA was forced to relocate the Project
right-of-way away from the: Caltnun right-of-way;
21 • impacts throtigh the destruction of existing vegetation, including many mature trees'
22 along'the 'proposed Pacheco Pass aligfunent.'
23 • Visual inipacts from pl~cement ofJhe qigh speed rail right-of-way, including
24 specifically visual impacts from possible elevated structures and/or soundwalls.
25 SO. The FPEIRfS fails'to fully disclose or adequately analyze the Project's significant air
26 quality impacts; inclfiding specifically itS impact through production of greenhouse gases arid '
27 contribution to global warining;
28
13
51. The FPEIRIS fails to fully disclose or adequately analyze the Project's significant
2 impacts on traffic and public transportation.
3 52. The FPEIRIS fails to fully disclose, or adequately an~lyze the Project's significant
4 impacts on agricultural lands, including both impacts through the taking of agricultural lands,
5 impacts from severance of agricultural land, and indirect agricultural impacts due t,o induced'
6 sprawl development
7 53. The FPEIRIS fails to fully disclose or adequately analyze the Project's significant
8 impacts on biological resources, including the direct and i~direct impacts on Wildlife habitat,
9 threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, wetlands areas, and other unique or
10 valuable biological resources.
11 ?4. The FPEIRIS fails to fully disclose ~r adequately analyze the Project's significant land' "
J2 use impacts, including impacts due toincompatibjJity with existing or planned land uses" , ' ,
13 inconsi~ten~y with zoning or general pian designations, and impacts on, Section 4(f) or 6(f)
, '
J4 re~ources.
1~ 55. The FPEIRIS fails to fully disclose or adequately analyze the Project',S significant
16 cumulative impacts. Accordingly, the approval of the Project and the ~ertification of the
17 FPEIRIS must be set aside.
18 Count Three: The FPEIRIS Failed to Adequately Mitigate the Project~s Significant
19 Impac~s. ,
20 56. Especially because the FPEIRlS failed to adequately assess and identify the Project's
, , ,
21 significant impacts, the FPEIRIS failed to adequately identify appropriate measures to mitigate,
22 the, Project's significant impacts. Even in thos~ ca~es where the FPEIRIS identified a signifi<?ant
23 impact and identified measures to mitigate that impact, the mitigation measures were Qften , . . . " . '. \., .., '
24 inadequate and, in many cases so po~rly described as to make it impossible to determine whether
25 the measure was even fea$ible. For example, the FPEIRIS, as mitigation for potentially
26 significant Project land use impacts, calls fOl:' "Continued coordination with local agencies.
27 Explore opportunities for joint and mixed-use development at stations. Relocat.ionassistance
28
14
PETITION FOR WRlT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
during future project~level review. Overall mitigation strategies for affected land uses and in EJ
2 areas.~· (FPEIRlS, p. 9-8.)
3 57. Consequently, the FPEIRIS often improperly determined than the identified measures
4 were sufficient or potentially sufficient to' mitigate Project impacts to a level of insignificance
5 when the evidence in the record failed to support that determination. Accordingly. the approval
6 of the Project and the certification of the FPEIRIS must be set aside.
7 Count Four: The FPEIRlS Failed to Include an Adequate ~alysis of Project Alternatives.
8 58. Under CEQA. an EIR must include an adequate analysis of feasible project alternatives.
9 59. In addition to the statutorily-mandated no project alternative, the FPEIRIS included two
10 ' basic alternative alignment alternatives, Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass. although each of these
11 alignment alternatives included numerQus sub-alternatives for various portions of the route. For
12 ,example,the Pacheco Pass Alternative included sub-alternatives traversing'the area l?a:sr of
13 Pacheco Pass either along a southerly ';He1¥Y Miller'Road" alignment ori northerly "GraSslands
14 Ecological Area North" 'alignment. Similarly, the Altamont Pass alignment included sub-
'15 alternatives using either an elevated bridge near the existing Dumbarton Rail Bridge or a new
16 tunnel between Oakland and San Francisco to traverse San Francisco Bay between the East Bay
17 and San Francisco.
18 60. While the FPEIRIS purported to provide a fair. objeCti',:,e and complete comparison of
19 these two project altern.atives. the ahalysis Was inadequate. inaccurate. incomplete and biased,
20 thereby making a fair comparison of the two major alternatives impossible. This violated the
21 'basic purpose of'the analysis of alternatives under CEQA.
22 61. The,FPEIRfS's analysis of the Altamont Pass Alternatives inaccurately portrayed the
23 operational characteristics of those alternatives in a way that resulted in sjgnificantly
24 underestimating the potential ridership for those alternatives. thereby unfairly penalizing the
25 Altamont Alternatives compared to th~ Pacheco Alternatives.
26 , -62. The FPEIRIS improperly and unfairly discounted and found infeasible the potential for
27 the Altamont Alternative to rebuild the Dumbarton Rail Bridge, in a way so that it could be used
28 by both Caltrain Dumbarton Rail Project trains and High Speed Rail trains.
,15
63. The FPEIRIS improperly and unfairly overemphasized the aquatic impacts of building a
2 new rail bridge at the site of the existing Dumbarton Rail Bridge and discounted the likelihood 0
. 3 being able to obtain environmental clearance for such a bridge as part of an Altamont Pass
4 alignment alternative; while, at the same time, underestimating the aquatic, wetlands, and
5 wildlife impacts of the Pacheco Pass alignment alternative's crossing of the Grasslands
6 Ecological Area and discounting the difficuity of obtruning environmental clearance for such a
7 crossing.
8 .. 64. The FPEIRlS improperly and unfairly overemphasized the impacts of running the high
9 speed niil alignment through the cities of Pleasanton and Fremont as part of an Altamont Pass
10 alignment alternative, while, at the same time, underemphasizing the impacts of running the high
J 1 speed niH alignment through the developed urban ju-:isdic~io~ al~ng the San Francisco .
. .
12 Periinsula, including specifically Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View. Sunnyvale,. . . . . . .' . .
13 and Santa Clara, as well as portions orSan Jo.se. In additio~,by not discl~sing the abse~ce of . , -' . . . .
14 undeveloped land outside the UP·.corridor south of San Jose's DiTidOI),Station;tlltiFPEIRIS
15 underemphasized the impacts of running the high speed rail alignment through portions of San
16 Jose south of that station.
17 . 65. Both ATHERTON and MENLO PARK., in their comments on the DPEIRfS, proposed
]8 study of an additional alignment alternative along the San Francisco Peninsula, running within or
19 along the Caltrans right-of way for Highway 280. The FPEIRlSIailed to adequately discuss this
20 8ltemative alignment.
2] 69. The FPEIRIS's :unfair, incomplete. and biased aI1!llysis of project alternatives violated , '. .
22 CEQA; s requirement that the discussion .of project alternatives allow the deci~ion makers and the
23 . public the information needed ,to make an informed decision. Accordingly,. the approval of the -. ." " .. . .
24 . Project and the certification of the FPEIRIS must be set aside ..
25 Count Five: Fan~re to Adequately Respond to Comments on the DPEIRIS
26 67. An EIR must include adequate written responses to all ,comments, both oral tmd writte1'l,
27 received by the lead agency during the public cornrrlent period. The F~EIRIS was i~adequate
28 because the responses to many of the comments received by the lead agency during the public,
16
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
comment period were inadequate. In many cases, the responses were perfunctory or conclusory,
2 and in other cases the responses were not supported by substantial evidence. In the case of
3 MENLO PARK, the.~mment letter was not even included in the FPEIRJS and was not
4 responded to at all. Accordingly, the approval of the Project and the certification of the FPEIRJS
5 must be set aside.
6
. ·7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of CEOA and CEOA Guidelines':' Failure· to recirculate DPEIRlS in response to new
information and/or changed· circumstances . .
68. PETITIONERS hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 66 inclusive. as though fully set forth herein. . " . .
69. CEQA requires that a draft BIR be recirculated for an additional round of public
'comment if changes to the document after the close of the previous comment period result in the .' , .' " , -', . '. ,
addition of significant new information. In addition, recirculation is required if new
•• 'w"··
circumstances have arisen after the close of the previous public comment periqd that would
require substantial revision to the BIR. CHSRA violate.d its duty under CEQA by refusing to
recirculate the DPEIRJS for public comment after changes to the BIR resulting in addition of
significant new information oli air quality and energy use impacts, and specifically the Project'.s
impacts on global warming.
70. CHSRi\ violated its duty under.CEQA by refusing to recirculate the DPEIRJS for public
comment after it was publicly revealed that UP had raised strong objections to CHSRA's use of ,'. .' .. . , '.. ".,
its right-of-way or adjoining property for the Project right-of-way and raised serious concerns
.' . '. " '. . .
about ~ignificant public safety impacts not previously. identified in the DPEIRIS. Accordingly,
the approval of the Project and the certification of the FP~IRIS must be set aside. .. ." .
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines -Failure of CEQA Findings to be Supported by
Substantial Evidence
'..
17
71. PETITIONERS hereby reallege and incorporate.by reference the preceding paragraphs 1.
2 through 69 inclusive as though fully set forth herein.
3 72. CEQA requires that an agency approvmg a Project for which an EIR was prepared and
4 significant impacts were identified adopt findings explaining and justifYing its actions. (public
5 Resources Code §21081.) Those findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the
6 record. CHSRA violated this duty to prepare and approve adequate CEQA findings in support 0
7 its decision to approve the Project in that the findings were not supported by substantial
8 evidence. Accordingly, the approval o~the Project niu.st be set aside.
9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 . DECLARATORY RELIEF -Code of Civil Procedure § l060
11 73. PETITIONERS hereby realleg~ arid incorPorate by reference the preceding paragraphs'l
12 through 71 as though fully set forth herein.
. . . 13 74. An actual controversy and dispute exists between PETITIONERS and CHSRA regarding
.. 14 . .... .,
the Project approval's compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. PETITIONERS
15 allege that the Project approval Jailed to comply with CEQA and/or the CEQA Guidelines, while
16 PETITIONERS are informed ~d believe, and on that basis allege, that CHSRA believes that the
17 Project approval did fully comply with both CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
]8 75. PETITIONERS seek ajudicial declaration that the Project approval f~ed to comply'with
19 the requirements of CEQA and/or the CEQA Guidelines.
20 76. An actual controversy and dispute exists between PETITIONERS and CHSRA regarding
21 . .
the FPEIRlS's compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. PETITIONER:S allege .that . . . , ~
22 the FPEIRIS fail~d to comply with CEQA and/or the CEQA Guidelines, while PETITIONERS .
23
24
25
26
27
28
are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CHSRA believes that the FPEIRIS did
. . . ,"
fully comply with both CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines
77. PETITIONERS seek a judicial declaration that FPEIRlS failed to comply with CEQA
and/or the CEQA Guidelines.
?8. An actual controversy and dispute exists between PETITIONERS and CHSRA regarding
the adequacy of the CEQA findings made by CHSRA in support of the Project approval.
18
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
.l PETITIONERS allege that said findings were invalid because they were not supported by
2 substantial evidence in the record. while PETITIONERS are informed and believe, and on that
3 basis allege, that CHSRA believes that said findings were fully adequate and yalid.
4 79. PETITIONERS seek a judicial declaration that the CEQA findings made by CHSRA in
5 support of its approval of the Project were ~va1id because they were not supported by substantial
6 evidence in the record.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PETITIONERS pray for relief as follows:
1. For this Court's peremptory writ of mandate ordering CHSRA to:
(a) vacate and set aside its detenninations approving the Project, including its
determinati~n to choose the.Pacheco Pass alignment for the Project;
(b) vacate and set aside its certification of the FPEIRIS for the Project; remanding the
Project and its environmental review under CEQA to CHSRA for reconsideration in '. . . . .
accordance with this Court's determination and ,final judgment.' . ,
2. F or ~his Court's temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining
CHSRA, its agents, servants and employees, and all others acting in concert with it or in its
behalf, from taking any action t9 move forward on implementing the project pending a final
decision on the merits by this Court.
3. For this Court's pennani:mt injunction restraining CHSRA, its agents, servants and
employees, and all others acting in concert with it or in its behalf, from undertaking any activity
or activities that could result in any change or alteration in the physicaJ environment until
CHSRA has fully complied with this Court's writ of mandate and judgment and taken all
required action~ that maybe necessary to bring the'FEIR and all planning pe~t approvals, into .
compliance with CEQA, Code of Civil Procedure section f094.5, and all otherrequirements oflaw.
4. For this Court's declarations that:
. . .
a. the Project approval violated CEQA and/or the CEQA Guidelines as set forth
in this Petition and Complaint;
19
\
b. the certified FPEIRIS for the Project failed to meet the requirements of CEQA
2 and/or the CEQA Guidelines; and
3' c. the CEQA fmdings for the Project approval were not supported by substantial
4 evidence fll the record.
5 5. For its costs of suit.
6 6. For an award of attorneys' fees under C.C.P. §1021.5 or other applicable basis.
, "
7 7. For such other equitable and/or legal relief as the Court considers just and pro:per. ,
8 'DATED August 7,2008
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman
Law Offices of Jeff Hoffman
Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
~f~.JfI.~ By: . :
. Stuart M. Flashman
20
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
. I
2
3
4
6
7
8
',"
VERIFICATION
I. David Schonbrunn. em the President of the Transportation SoJutions Defense and
Education Fund, whi~h is a petitioner and plaintiff in the above, petition and complaint, and' I .
make this verification on its behalf and with its authorization. I have read the foregoing Petition
and Complaint ai:td am familiar with the maUe{S alleged therein. AU facts alleged in this
complaint are true of my own personal knowledge exot..-pt as to facts that are alleged on
information and be1ief, and as to them I am infotmed and believe they are~. I declare Wlder '
" ,
9 penalty of petjury under the la.ws of the State of California tQat th foregoing is t[Ue and correct
10 and 'that this Verification was executed on Aug~ Z, 200~ at ' allfomia.
u.
12
,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
--,~---------
21
PEnllON FOR WRIt OF MANDATE AND COMPLAJNT
· , '.
.' .. , ,
, Ex'hibit A
Law Offices of
Stuart M. Flashman
5626 Ocean View Drive
, Oakland; CA 94618-1533
(5]0) 652-5373 (voice and FAx)
e·maiJ: stu@stuflash.com
Mr. Mehdi Mcrshed,Executive
Directcr
Califcrnia High Speed Rail
Authcrity
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento., CA 95814
August 7, 2008
RE: . Notice cf In:tent to. .Ini tiate Li tigaticn (Bay Area to. .
Central Valley High Speed Train Pro.ject).
Dear Mr. Mo.rshed,
Please take nctice that the To.wn of Atherto.n, the Planning
.and'Conservaticn League, the City cf Menlo. Parkl the
Transpcrtation Sclutions Defense and Education Fund, the
California Rail Fo.undaticn; and the BayRail.Alliance ~ntehd·to.
fil~ suit against the California High Speed Rail Authcrity ,
challenging its apprcvals for the above-referenced,prcject and
its 'associated environmental review. The ·lawsuit will ~llege
violaticns of the Califcrnia Enviro.nmental Quality Act 'in'
connection with those approvals.
Mcst sincerely,
Stuart M. Flashman
Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman
Jeff l'loffman
Law Office qf Jeff D. Hoffman
Attorneys for the Town of
Atherton, the Planning and
Ccnservation League, the City of
Menlo. Park, the Transportation
Sclutions Defense and Education
FundI the California Rail
Foundation, and the BayRail
Alliance
~f~ By: __________________ __
Stuart M. Flashman
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Alameda County. I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to the within above titled action. My business address is
5626 Ocean View Drive, Oakland, CA 94618~1533.
On August 8,2008, I served' the within NOTICE OF INTENT TO ~ITIATE.
LITIGATION on the party listed below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, in a United States Postal
Service mailbox at Oakland, California, addressed as follows: . .
Mr. Mehdi Morshed, Executive Director
. Califoinia High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425 .
Sacramento .. CA 95814·
I. stUart M.· FlastUnan, hereby declare Under penalty of perjury Wlder the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is.true and correct. '.
"
. Executed at Oakland, California on August 8, 2008 ..
~~.~ ~F1ashman·. '.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTACHMENT C
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
TOWN OF ATHERTON, a Municipal
corporation,
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE,
a California nonprofit corporation,
CITY OF MENLO PARK, a Municipal
corporation,
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND, a California
nonprofit corporat10n,
CALIFORNIA RAIL FOUNDATION,
a California nonprofit corporation,
and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE, a California
nonprofit corporation, and other
similarly situated entities,
Petitioners and Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY, a public entity, and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Respondents and Defendants.
----------------------------------------,
Case No.
34-2008-80000022
RULrNG ON SUBMITTED
MATTER
This matter came on for hearing on May 29, 2009. The
matter was argued and submitted. The Court took the matter
under submission. The Court, having considered the pape~s,
the administrative record wh1ch was admitted 1nto evidence
z4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
at the hearing, and the arguments of the parties, makes its
ruling as follows.
Petitioners challenge the decision of respondent and
defendant California High Speed Rail Authority ("CHSRA" or
"the Authority") to approve the Say Area to Central Valley
High Speed Train Project ("the Project"), including
specifically choosing an alignment for the Project.
Respondent chose an alignment running through Pacheco Pass
rather than the other major alternative alignment WhlCh ran
through Al~amont Pass.
Petitioners contend that respondent has not provided
legally adequate review under the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.
("CEQA"). Petitioners contend that respondent's actions are
illegal as they violate CEQA and the California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. C\CEQA
) Guidelines").
Petitioners contend that the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report ("FPEIR") for the Project was
19 inadequate 1n several respects. They contend that it failed
20 to include an adequate description of the project and
21 feasible alte~natives. They contend it failed to adequately
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
identify and mitigate the Project's significant impacts, and
that its alternatives analysis was inadequate and improperly
predisposed towards the Pacheco alignment .. Petitioners also
contend that respondent Authority improperly refused to
recirculate the Draft Program Environmental Impact 'Report
("DPEIRh ) after Union Pacific Railroad announced it was
unwilling to allow use of its right-of-way, and that
2
1 respondent Authority failed to consider or respond to Menlo
2 Park's comment letter on the DPEIR.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
I . STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitioners contend that this challenge is governed by
Public Resources Code section 21168. Petitioners contend
that under that standard of review, "the courts' inquiry
shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse
of discretion. Such an abuse is established if the agency
has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the
determination or decision is not supported by substantial
evidence." (Petitioners' opening brief, 8:24-9:2, citing
Ebbets Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry &
F~re Protection (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936, 944.)
Respondent contends that its action was quasi-
legislative and that review is governed by Public Resources
Code section 21168.5, which limits the Court's inquiry to
whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Respondent states that under this standard, a prejudicial
abus~ of discretion is established if the agency has not
proceeded in a manner required by law or if the decision is
21 not supported by substantial evidence. Respondent further
22 states that a prejudicial abuse of discretion is established
23 if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law
24 or if the decision is not supported by substantial
26
26
27
28
evidence. (Respondent's brief in Opposition to Petition,
\
6:25-7:3, citing Citizens of Goleta valley v. Board of
Superv~sors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 [Goleta II].)
The Court concludes that respondent's action was quasi-
legislatlve and that review is governed by Public Resources
. 3
1 Code section 21168.5. However, the two code sections embody
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
essentially the same standard of review, i.e.,. whether
substantial evidence supports the agency's determination.
(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of th~
Univers~ty of California ("Laurel Heights II") (1993) 6
Cal.4th 112, 1133, fn. 17; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.
v. Regents of the Uni vers~ ty of California ("Laurel Heights
I") (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392, fn. 5.) Thus petitioner's
reliance on section 21168 in its brlef does not affect the
outcome of this case.
An EIR is presumed adequate, and the plaintiff in a
CEQA case has the burden of proving otherwise. (Al Larson
Boat Shop v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18
Cal.App.4th 729, 749.)
II. ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE PROJECT
A. WHETHER THE FPEIR FAILED TO INCLUDE AN ADEQUATE
17 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
18 1. One of petitioners' principal contentions is
19 that the project description in the FPEIR failed to provide
20 sufficient detail on the Pacheco alignment to determine the
21 project's impact~ in displacing residents and businesses.
22 The FPEIR and the Authority's findings assume that most, if
23 not all, of the proposed high-speed rail line in the area
24 between San Jose and Gilroy would be built within existing
25 right-of-way, "the existing Caltrain corridor." (AR
26
27
28
A000031i see also B004187.) However, Union Paciflc Railroad
had informed the Authority just prlor to the publication of
the FPEIR that it would not allow the Author~ty to use any
of its right-of-way for the Project. (AR E000027.) And
4
1 after the FPEIR was released, but before the Authority
2 certified the FPEIR and made the related findings and
3 decisions, Union Pacific submitted a longer letter
4 reiterating its unwillingness to share its tracks with High-
S Speed Rail vehicles. (AR E000003-E0000004.)
6
7
8
9
,10
11
12
13
14
15
16
However, the FPEIR appears to show that the ~ortion of
the chosen Pacheco alignment between San Jose and Gilroy
follows the Union Pacific right-of-way (AR B003944, B003955,
B003961, B00510S-S10~, B006293.) In many places it shares
the right-of-way with the Onion Pacific line (e.g., AR
B005292, B005298, B005300) and is sandwiched between the
Onion Pacific right-of-way and Monterey Road/Highway (AR
B005300, G001425-G001437). If Union Pacific will not allow
the Authority to use its right-of-way, it appears it will be
necessary for the Author1ty to obtain additional right-of-
way outside of this area, requiring the taking of property
\
'and displacement of residents and businesses. However, none
17 of this was addressed in the FPEIR.
18 Respondent argues that a programmatic EIR does not need
19 to contain a high degree of detail, and that deta1led
20 information can be deferred to a later site-specific project
21 EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, sections 15146, 15152; In re Bay
22 Delta Programmatic Env~ronmental.Impact Report Cases (2008)
23 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1169-1172.) Respondent contends that the
24 Project description in the FPEIR contains an adequate level
25 of detail for a programmatic EIR. It argues that this EIR
26
27
28
was intended to support the Authority in making the
fundamental choice of a preferred alignment and station
locatibns, but not select a precise footprint for high speed
train facilities. More 1mportantly, respondent argues, the
5
1 FPEIR does not assume use of the Union Pacific right-of-way
2 between San Jose and Gilroy, but rather that it depicts the
3 HST tracks adJacent to Union Pacific's right-of-way; see,
4 e.g., Figure PP-6 at B005292. Respondent contends that this
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
figure also shows there is room for the HST tracks between
the Union Pacific right-of-way and Monterey Highway
(B005292) •
Petitioners contend that Figure PP-6 (AR B005292)
identifies ~Existing ROW" for ~Monterey Road" but does not
explicitly identify the existing right-of-way for the UP
tracks. Petitioners contend that Figures PP-12 ~AR B005296)
and PP-14 (AR B005298), by contrast, clearly show the HST
right-of-way as lying within that existing right-of-way.
Several maps show little room between the exist~ng UP tracks
and the Monterey Highway (e.g. AR G001432-G001435.)
Respondent, in oral arguments, argued a different
interpretation of Figure PP-14.
The Court concludes that the description of the
alignment of the HSR tracks between San Jose and Gilroy was
19 inadequate even for a programmatic EIR. The lack of
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
specificity in turn results in an inadequate discussion of
the impacts of the Pacheco alignment alternative on
surrounding businesses and residences which may be
displaced, construction impacts on the Monterey Highway, and
impacts on Un10n Pacific's use of its r1ght-of-way and spurs
and consequently its freight operations.
2. Petitioners contend that the project description
failed to provide an adequate explanation or delineation of
the project's costs. They contend that the cost estimates
in the FPEIR were inaccurate and skewed to favor the Pacheco
6
1 Pass alignment alternative by significantly understating the
2 acquisition costs for permanent right-of-way and temporary
3 construction-period right-of-way. They also contend that
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
the cost analyses for Altamont Pass alignment alternatives
considered only the cost of a new high or low bridge but not
the option of "piggybacking" on the existing Dumbarton rail
bridge.
The authorlties cited by petitioners do not require
project cost information to be in an ErR; case authority
does, however, hold that cost information is required to
support a lead agency's CEQA findings when it rejects
alternatives as economically infeasible. (Uphold Our
Heritage v. Town of Woods~de (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587;
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Superv~sors ("Goleta
I") (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167.) The Authority did not.
reject all of the Altamont alternatives as economically
infeasible. Furthermore, the Court finds that the FPEIR's
cost information is supported by substantial evidence. The
evidence includes Chapter 4 (B004624-647) which in turn
refers to Appendices 4Aand B (B005971-6086, B006087-6180);
and Appendix D (B004637; B004646; B006243).
3. Petitioners contend that the FPEIR failed to
accurately and impartially describe the operating
23 characteristics of the project alternatives. They contend
24
25
26
27
28
that the FPEIR failed to accurately descrlbe the frequency
of service for the Altamont and Pacheco alternatives in that
it did not consider "train-splitting."
The Court finds that the EIR provides an adequate
description of HSR operations, supported by substantial
evidence. The rldership forecasts were developed by experts
7
1 in the field of transportation modeling and were subject to
2 three independent peer review panels. (See C001886-88,
3 C001879-964, C001954-60, E004118-148i E004149-187; E004188-
4 97.) Substantial evidence supports respondent's approach of
5 not using train-splitting on main trunk service. Evidence
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
in the record, including evidence submitted by petitioners,
shows that train-splitting and coupling is operationally
disruptive, and that while some HST systems worldwide use
train-splitting and coupling, the use is very limited. (See
8004716, 8006694, 8008032, B008035-36, 8008037.)
Petitioners also contend that the FPEIR failed to
adequately and fai~ly describe the ridership of the Altamont
and Pacheco alternatives. They contend the Pacheco
alignment would not draw sign~f~cant additional recreat~onal
ridership because the limited number of stops on the HSR
would make it less attractive than the already-existing
Caltrain "baby bullet" route, and any additi.onal ridership
would be at the expense of Caltrain ridership rather than
taking cars off the road.
The Court f~nds that the ridership modeling and
forecasts performed by the Author~ty and the MTC are
substantial evidence to support the FPEIR's description of
the Pacheco alternative as having higher "recreational and
23 other" ridership than Altamont pass. The ridership analysis
24
25
26
27
28
concluded that it taps into a very wide market in Santa
Clara County (B006696) and also creates a sizeable HST
market to and from the Monterey Bay area, a market virtually
non-existent for the Altamont Pass alternative (B006695).
. The ridership analysis also suggests that some ind~viduals
will pay a premium to ride the HST rather than Caltrain in
8
1 this corridor based on the serv~ce being faster and more
2 reliable. (B006696.)
3 B. WHETHER THE FPEIR AND THE AUTHORITY'S FINDINGS
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
FAILED TO ADEQUATELY IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT'S
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Petitioners contend the Authority understated the
project's potentially significant impacts and overstated the
degree to which those impacts would be adequately
mitigated. Petitioners' primary contentions regarding
impacts concern biological impacts, growth-inducing impacts,
and local impacts along the-San Francisco Peninsula (noise,
vibration, visual, taking of property and severance impacts,
and impacts on mature and heritage trees). !
1. Exhaustion of administrative remedies:
Respondent contends that petitioners failed to exhaust
administrative remedies as to any defect 1n the respondent's
CEQA findings on impacts and mitigation, and that therefore
the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine codified
in Public Resources Code section 21177 bars petitioners'
claim that respondent's CEQA findings on impacts and
20 mitigation are not supported by substantial evidence. The
21 authorities cited by respondent, including Mira Mar Mobile
22 Community v. Clty of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 447,
23 do not support respondent's contention that it was necessary
24 to spec1fically object to proposed findings. The Court
26
26
27
28
concl~des that the criticisms, comments and objections made
to the EIR were sufficient to exhaust administrative
remedies as to the issues raised in this case.
2. Biological impacts: Petitioners contend that
the analysIs and mitigation of the impacts to the Grasslands
9
1 Ecological Area ("GEA") along the Pacheco alignment and to
2 the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge {"Refuge") along
3 the Altamont alignment were not adequate, were neither equal
, 4 nor impartial, and were lacking in detail. Petitioners also
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
contend that certain factors are conside~ed for the GEA but
not for the Refuge, and that respondent did not adequately
consider comments that replacing an existing bridge
embankment with an elevated structure on piles would
actually enhance conditions in the Refuge.
The Court finds that substantial evidence supports
respondent's treatment of biological impacts to the GEA and
the Refuge. The' impacts analysis and mitigation 'section of
the EIR (see generally AR B004462-4538), read together with
the responses to comments (see 8006584 et seq.; G000807-
00814 [Summary of Key Issues on the DPEIR]) constitutes an
adequate and impartial analysis of the biological impacts on
the two areas. The same methodology was used throughout the
area. The level of detail was adequate for a programmatic
EIR. The FPEIR's identification of a more detailed
19 mitigation strategy for the GEA (AR 8004537) but not for the
20 Refuge is not unreasonable because the lands within the
21 Refuge boundary are already protected. The record does not
22
23
24
'25
26
27
28
support petitioners' contention that the inclusion of a more
detailed mitigation strategy for the GEA and not the Refuge
was the cause of concerns expressed by the U.S. Fish and
wildlife Service (8006366) and the U.S Environmental
Protection Agency (8006358) about use of areas within the
refuge.
3. Growth-inducing impacts: Petitioners contend
that the analysis of growth-inducing impacts was not
10
1 adequate. They contend that there was not a sufficient
2 analysis of the impacts in three rural counties-San Benito,
3 Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties. Petitioners contend that
4 the HSR will extend the area in which existing employees can
6 live and commute to a job in a distant urban center, and
6 that such growth is not analyzed in the FPEIR. Instead,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
there was analysis as to eleven other counties and San
Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties were merely
included in ftthe rest of California."
The Court f1nds that the FPEIR contains an analysis of
growth-inducing impacts which is sufficient to satisfy
CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, sec. 21100, subd. (b) (5); CEQA
Guidelines, sec. 15126(d), 15126.2(d).) Nothing in the
GU1delines or in the cases requires more than a general
analysis of projected growth. (Napa C~t~zens for Honest
Government v.Napa County Bd. of Superv~sors (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 342, 369.) Respondent relied on established
modeling programs, the Transportation and Economic
Development Im~act System (TREDIS) and the California
19 Urbanizat10n and Biodiversity Analysis (CURBA). Stations
. 20 will be located in already-urbanized areas and thus the bulk
21 of .the growth increase will occur in already urbanized
22 areas. Petitioners' claim that the HSR will result in
23 greater development in the three more distant rural counties
24 is based on speculat10n, not matters as to which they have
26 technical expertise or which are based on relevant personal
26
27
28
observations. (See Bowman v. C~ty of Berkeley (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 572, 583.) Respondent's responses to comments
explained that the system would not result in a significant
increase 1n commute accessibility to the Bay Area for a
11
1, number of reasons, including the limited number of stations,
2 the localized accessibility benefits provided by these
3 limited stations, the lack, of local transit options in
4 outlying areas, the higher cost of HST use for shorter trips
5 compared to auto use, and time considerations. (B006647-48;
6 B006712-13.) The Court finds the analysis to be
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sufficient.
4. Local impacts along the San Francisco Peninsula
Petitioners contend that the Project will result in
significant noise, vibration, and visual impacts; that it
will result in significant land use impacts, including
specificalJy taking of property and severance impacts; and
that it will impact mature and her1tage trees along the
right-of-way:
a. Noise, Vibration, and Visual Impacts
Petitioners contend that section 3.4 of the FPEIR,
addressing the proJect's noise and vibrat10nal impacts,
failed to identify specific quantifiable standards or
criteria used to determine whether the impacts would be
significant, and that it identified qualitative criteria but
failed to provide evidence by which the public could
determine whether these criteria had been met. FurtQer,
respondent found that vibrational impacts would be reduced
to a level of insignificance (AR000024), but petit10ners
contend there is no evidence in the record to support this
finding.
12
1 As for noise and vibration impacts, petitioners conten'd
2 that the FPEIR does not provide appropriately detailed
3 information to show that noise impacts will be reduced below
4 a level of significance. The FPEIR also identifies the need
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
for extensive soundwalls of up to 16 feet in height, but
petitioner contends respondent does not address the
potential visual impact of these barriers and improperly
puts off consideration of such impacts to the project level
environmental review.
The Court finds'that the' FPEIR contains an adequate
level of detail regarding noise for a program EIR. The
analysis used Federal Railroad Administration and Federal
Transit Administration criteria and tools to assess noise.
(B004100-4105.) The FRA manual contemplates that the
evaluation will first look at general questions.
(C008070.) It concluded that grade separations at existing
crossings would result in noise benefits, and listed
mitigation strategies, including design practices, to reduce
impacts. (B004120-4137.)
The FPEIR also consl.dered all HST alternatives to
result in significant noise and vibration impacts for
21 purposes of the programmatic analysis. (B004129.) It noted
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that more detailed mitigation strategies for noise and
vibration impacts would be developed in the next stage of
environmental ,analysis. (B004129-30. ) Response to comments
noted that project-level environmental review will consider
design and profile variations ,to reduce impacts, as well as
design options for noise barriers. (8006480, B006538-40.)
The FRA manual identifies means of mitigating vibrational
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
impacts I (C008147; C008176-8180) and noise impacts (C008085,
C008117-8122) .
However, with regard to vibration impacts, the FPEIR
I
states:
"Although mitigation measures will
reduce vibration impact levels, at the
programmatic level ~t ~s uncertain
whether the reduced vibration levels
will be below a signif1.cant impact. The
type of vibration mitigation and
expected effectiveness to reduce the
vibration impacts of the HST Alignment
Alternatives to a less-than-significant
level will be determined as part of the
second-tier project-level environmental
analyses," (B004131 [emphasis added].)
Nevertheless, the Authority, in its CEQA Findings of
Fact, found that, as to the impact of vibrations, specified
mitigation strategies "will reduce this impact to a less-
than significant level." (A000025 [emphasis added].)
The Court finds that in light of this contradiction
between the FPEIR and the CEQA F1.ndings, the Authority's
finding that the mitigation strategies will reduce the
vibration impact to a less-than-significant level is not
supported by substantial evidence.
Visual impacts: The FPEIR recognizes that sound
barriers may be necessary mitigation measures along some
portions of the HST route through the Peninsula.
Petitioners contend that the visual impacts of these·
barriers should have been analyzed in more detail. However,
25 the extent to wh1.ch n01.se barriers would be used could not
26 be known until the next stage of env1.ronmental analYSis,
27 when engineering and design considerations will be applied
28 on a site-specific basis. (B004l29-30.) Sound barriers are
14
1 discussed in FPEIR section 3.9, Esthetics and Visual
2 Resources, along with mitigation strategies. (B004305-
3 4307.) Visual and esthetic impacts were considered
4 significant and unavoidable. (B004307.) The FPEIR
5 identified subsequent analysis which should be performed.
6 (Id.) Respondent found that as part of the site-specific
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
design, many of the impacts on aesthetics and visual
resources can be avoided or substantially mitigated, but
that it did not have sufflcient evidence to make that
determination on a program-wide basis. Therefore,' for
purposes of this programmatic EIR, esthetic and visual
impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
(A000041.) Respondent adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. (AOOOI04-109. )
The Court finds that petitioners have failed to
establish that respondent failed to adequately analyze the
visual impacts of the Project or that it otherwise abused
its discretion.
b. Land Use Impacts
19 Petitioners contend that the Project will result in
20 significant land use impacts, including taking of property
21 and severance impacts. Atherton contended in its comment
22 letter that the proposed four-track alignment would result
23 in the need to take additional property beyond the existing
24 right-of-way. (B006530.) However, the response to this
25
26
27
28
comment (B006537-40) and the CEQA findings (A000029-33)
indicated that the HST tracks were expected to fit withln
the Caltrain right-of-way.
As discussed elsewhere in this Court's ruling, Union
Pacific has stated it is unwilling to allow its right-of-way
15
1 to be used for the project. The need for the taking 9f
2 additional property is a related issue that will be required
3 to be analyzed in connection with further analysis of the
4 impact of Union Pacific's denial of use of its right-of-
5 way.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
c. Mature and Heritage Trees
Petitioners contend that the Project will impact mature
and heritage trees along the right-of-way. But the FPEIR's
response to Atherton's comments indicates, 1n part, that a
more detailed review of the impacts on mature and heritage
trees would be performed at a project level environmental
review (B06538) and that ~he HST is not expected to require
the removal of trees along the right-of-way in Atherton
(B006538) •
The Court finds that respondent did not need to conduct
a more detailed review of the impacts on trees at this level
and properly deferred such analysis to project-level
environmental review.
C. WHETHER THE FPEIR'S ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS WAS·
19 INADEQUATE AND IMPROPERLY PREDISPOSED TOWARDS THE PACHECO
20 ALIGNMENT
21 Petitioners contend that the Authority's findings
22 improperly determined that all Altamont alternatives were
23 infeasible. Petitioners contend that it improperly
24
25
26
27
28
determined that there were cost and regulatory obstacles to
a Dumbarton Bay crossing; that the decision to eliminate
several Altamont choices because of lower ridership and
frequency of service was not supported by substantial
evidence; and that construction difficulties for the
Altamont alternatives shou1d not have been the basis for
16
1 eliminating those alternatives. Petitioners contend
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
solutions and answers existed to meet each of the issues.
Petitioners further contend that the Authority's decision to
dismiss an alternative using the median of U.S. Highway 101
or 1-280 through the Peninsula without analysis violated
CEQA.
The Court finds that the FPEIR studied a reasonable
range of alternatives and presented a fair· and unbiased
analysis. There were dozens of d~fferent ways to build the
HST to connect the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The EIR
divided the study area into six study corridors, examined
different alignment alternatives and station locations
options within each corridor, and further broke down the
alignment alternatives into segments.
Substantial evidence supports the FPEIR's discussion of
operational and environmental issues related to the Altamont
Pass alternatives. The potential environmental impacts of
. the alternatives were discussed in Chapter 3 of the FPEIR.
Chapter 7 of the EIR summarizes and compares the
environmental consequences of 21 representative network
alternatives, defining the major tradeoffs' among the
21 possible network alternatives. This fostered informed
22 public participation and decision-making. (Laurel Heights
23
24
25
26
27
28
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univers~ty of California
("Laurel He~ghts In) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 37, 404.)
The Court finds that substantial evidence in the record
supports the FPEIR's explanation that putting the HST system
over the existing, out-of-service Durnbarton Rail Bridge is
not reasonable. (See, e.g., GB003926-27 [existing retrofit
plans involve only a single track], B006687 [HST requires
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
26
27
28
two separated and dedicated tracks], B006368, B006687,
B006742.) The EIR reasonably concludes that a shared
Caltrain/HST Dumbarton crossing would require at least a new
double track bridge. (B003926-927, B006687; G000809.) The
Bay Area regional Rail Plan reached the same conclusion.
(D001484.) Furthermore, the existing Dumbarton Rail Bridge
has two swing bridges that pivot to allow ship traffic, a
systemic vu~nerability which is inconsistent with the speed,
reliability and safety requirements of the HST system.
(B006687, B004044.)
The Court also finds that the FPEIR reasonably
concluded that train-splitting was not a reasonable
alternative, and that avoiding additional branch splits
would beneflt traln operations and service. The FPEIR and
theCEQA Findings treat the branch lssue equally for both
Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass.
The Court also finds that the FPEIR accurately
describes construction challenges for the Altamont Pass with
a Bay crossing or using the I~880 median. The challenges
for a Bay crossing include loss of wetland habitats in the
Bay associated with a new Bay crossing, the potential
difficulty of obtaining the types of permits and
environmental clearances needed to build a new Bay crossing
because of the limits which federal law imposes on
activities within the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge,
and the permitting jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission. The record shows that the
construction challenges for use of the 1-880 median are
complex - a complexity also recognized by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.
18
1 The Court further concludes that the record supports,
2 the Authority's decision to exclude from further detailed
3 study an alternative using the median of U.S. Highway 101 or
4 1-280 through the Peninsula. The primary reason for
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
eliminat1ng these alignment alternatives was the need to
construct an aerial guideway for the train adjacent to and
above,the existing freeway, while maintaining freeway access
and capacity during construction. Such need would result in
substantially increased construction costs and
constructability 1ssues. These a11gnments would also have
significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts, due to height and proximity to wildlife preserves.
The evidence supports the elimination of the 101 and 280
alignment alternatives from detailed study.
III. WHETHER THE AUTHORITY IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO RECIRCULATE
THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR AFTER UNION PACIFIC'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF
ITS
'UNWILLINGNESS TO ALLOW USE OF ITS RIGHT-OF-WAY
Petitioners contend that portions of the Pacheco
alignment as analyzed by respondent are dependent upon the
use of Union Pacific Railroad's right-of-way, and that
respondent improperly refused to recirculate the DPEIR after
Union Pacific Railroad announced its unwillingness to allow
use of its right-of-way shortly before respondent's approval
of the Pacheco alignment.
Respondent contends that the alignment is not dependent
upon the use of Union Pacific's right-of-way.
However, this Court concludes that various drawings,
maps and photographs within the administrative record
strongly indicate that it is. The record further indicates
19
1 that if the Union Pacific right-of-way is npt available,
2 there may not be sufficient space for the right-of-way
3 needed for the HST without either impacting the Monterey
4 Highway or without the takings of additional amounts of
6 residential and commercial property.
6 These are significant impacts which were sufficient to
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
trigger the recirculation of the FPEIR~ However, respondent
failed to take such further action after it received Union
Pacific's statement of its position.
IV. WHETHER THE AUTHORITY FAILED TO CONSIDER OR RESPOND TO
MENLO PARK'S COMMENT LETTER ON THE DPEIR
This issue is moot in light. of the Court's ruling
denying the motion to augment the administrative record. In
that ruling, the Court determined that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that Menlo Park's comment letter ,
was received by the Authorlty. The Authorlty was not
required to consider or respond to a comment letter it did
not receive.
v. RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO
19 EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
20 Respondent contends that petitloners failed to exhaust
21 administrative remedies as to any defect in the respondent's
22 CEQA findings on impacts and mitigation, and that therefore
23 the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine codified
24 in Public Resources Code section 21177 bars petitioners'
26 claim that respondent's CEQA findings on impacts and
26
27
28
mitigation are not supported by substantial evidence. As
stated in the Court's discussion of a.rguments concerning
lmpacts, supra, the Court concludes that petitioners
20
1 exhausted their administrative remedies as to the issues
2 raised in this case.
3
4
5 VI. PALO ALTO'S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Palo Alto was granted leave to file an amicus brief.
However, its brief has raised legal issues not raised and
briefed by the parties, including challenges to the use of a
second program EIR, the Authority's treatment of land use
compatibility, and an alleged failure to consult Palo Alto.
For this reason its arguments have been disregarded by the
Court.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Court finds petitioners have met their burden of
showing that the EIR contains an inadequate description of
the project, that respondent's finding that mit~gation
strategies will reduce the vibra.tion impact to a less-than-
significant level is not supported by substantial evidence,
that as a resuLt of the FEIR's inadequate description of the
project its land use analysis was inadequate, and that
respondent improperly failed to recirculate the FPEIR upon
receipt of Union Pacific's statement of its position
22 regarding its right-of-way. The petition for writ of
23 mandate is granted on these grounds.
24 Petitioners' other contentions are without merit.
25
26
27
28
VIII. DISPOSITION
Petitioners shall prepare a judgment consistent with
this ruling and in accordance with California Rules of
Court, rule 3.1320 and Local Rule 9.16. Petitioners shall
. also prepare a writ for ~ssuance by the'clerk of the court.
2l
1 Petitioners shall recover their costs pursuant to a
2 memorandum of costs.
3
4
5 DATED: August '26, 2009
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING
(C.C.P. Sec. 1013a(3))
It the Clerk of the Superior Court of California. County of Sacramento,
certify that 1 am not a party to this cause. and on the date shown below I served
the foregoing RULING by depositing true copies thereof, enclosed in separate,
sealed envelopes with the postage fully prepaid, In the Umted States Mall at
Sacramento, California, each of which envelopes was addressed respectively to
the persons and addresses shown below.
Stuart Flashman
Attorney at Law
5626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA 94618
Jeff Hoffman
Attorney at Law
132 Colendge Street #8
San FrancIsco, CA 94110
Danae Aitchison
Attorney at Law
1300 I Street #Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 94244
Kristina Lawson, Arthur Coon
Attorney at Law
1331 N California Blvd., Fifth Floor
Walut Creek. Ca 94596
I. the undersigned deputy clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregOing IS true and correct.
Superior Court of California,
County of amento
Dated' .AUG 26 200i
1 z4
.ATTACHMENTD
City Council High Speed Rail Subcommittee
Guiding Principles
Adopted May 18, 2009
The City Council High Speed Rail Subcommittee, consisting of four members, is
designated by the City Council to represent the City in public in meetings with
community groups and stakeholders, when speaking to other public agencies, when
providing written correspondence in advocating for legislation related to high speed rail.
The Subcommittee will have the authority to speak on behalf of the City Council at
hearings on short notice when full City Council discussion at a regularly scheduled
Council meeting is not feasible. In such cases the Subcommittee should be guided by
broad principles that are consistent with existing City Comprehensive Plan and adopted
City Council policies.
In order to ensure consistency with existing City Council positions and policies, the
Subcommittee will be guided by the following principles:
• The City is supportive of efforts to improve accountability and effective
governance of high speed rail planning and operations.
• The City advocates advancing economic feasibility analysis and project financing
options by High Speed Rail Governing Body to implement selected alternatives.
• The Ad Hoc committee will work with peninsula cities coalition to draft
Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrain and HSRA and return to full
Council for review and approval.
• The City understands the opportunity to apply for Federal stimulus funding but is
concerned that enough time is allowed for appropriate analysis, public process,
and decision making.
• The City recognizes that High Speed Rail, if done correctly, has the potential to
minimize adverse impacts and be beneficial to the community.
• While acknowledging that the current direction for the San Jose to San Francisco
High Speed Train project is to use the Caltrain right-of-way as the for the high
speed rail corridor between San Jose and San Francisco, the City is open to and
could support alternative alignments.
• The Ad Hoc Committee will be guided by the City of Palo Alto Scoping
Comments for the California High Speed Rail Authority's San Francisco to San
Jose High Speed Train (HST) Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIR/BIS).
• The City supports Caltrain electrification and improved commuter rail services
between San Francisco and San Jose. The City supports evaluation of operating
conditions along the Caltrain right-of-way that would be conducive to a high speed
rail intercity connection in San Jose, with improved Caltrain commuter rail service
between San Jose and San Francisco.
• The City is supportive of exploring creative urban design and use of context-
sensitive design processes that consider community values in collaborative
community-sensitive planning and for the high speed rail project.
• The Subcommittee shall provide monthly reports to the Council on the activities of
the Peninsula cities Consortium.
• The Subcommittee will meet regularly with community leaders and stakeholders
to inform and involve the larger Palo Alto community in the planning, review,
oversight and decision-making for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project.
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 12, 2010
13
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR:209:10
SURJECT: (1) Library Construction and Bond Issuance Update, (2) Confirmation of
Approval of Use of Available General Obligation Bond Proceeds to Pay for
Temporary Facility Costs for Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center; and (3) Preliminary Direction Regarding a Temporary Main
Library
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that:
1. Council confirm its December 7, 2009 approval to use available General Obligation (GO)
Bond proceeds to pay for temporary facility costs associated with providing a temporary
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center at the Cubberley Community Center.
2. Council provide input on making available a temporary Main Library at a location yet to
be determined, and using available GO Bond proceeds to pay for those additional
temporary facility costs.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2008, City voters passed Measure N which gave the City the authority to issue
bonds in an amount up to $76.0 million for library and community center capital improvements.
On March 2, 2009, Council adopted a "Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse
Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City" for expenses incurred for the
library and community center capital projects (CMR: 149:09) -Attachment A. On the same date,
Council approved the capital projects and the funding necessary to move ahead with Measure N
improvements. This marked the beginning of the more detailed design development phase.
In the March 2 report (CMR: 149:09 -Attachment A) staff stated that proceeds from future bond
sales would be used to: "reimburse the Infrastructure Reserve for the design work funding
requested in this report and all costs incurred up to the time bonds are issued; construction of a
new and expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community Center; renovation and expansion of
the Main Library; and renovation of the Downtown Library."
On December 14,2009 the Council approved additional funding for the temporary Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center (MPLCC) facilities at Cubberley (CMR:463:09). In this report,
staff listed the temporary facility costs that could be covered by bond proceeds. The Library
Bond Oversight Committee has encouraged staff to confirm with Council its intent that bond
proceeds be used to cover eligible costs for temporary facilities. To date all costs, those
CMR209:1O Page 1 of5
considered bondable (covered by bond proceeds) and those considered non-bondable (not
covered by bond proceeds) have been funded using General Fund Infrastructure Reserve
resources. Bondable costs may be reimbursed from bond proceeds when the first series of bonds
is issued in June. TIle final section of this report provides an update on the timeline for bond
issuance.
DISCUSSION
1. Temporary Mitchell Park Facilities
In order to maintain adequate service levels during the construction for the new Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center (MPLCC), the Cooncil approved construction of temporary
facilities at the CubberJey Community Center. The temporary facility is currently under
construction at the Cubberley Community Center, and is budgeted at $600,000.
The December 14, 2009 staff report regarding the construction contract for these facilities made
clear that many costs could be covered by bond proceeds, explaining:
" ... staff directed bond counsel to further research the issue of construction costs
for the temporary facilities. The bond counsel determined that, because the
temporary library costs are necessitated by the project itself those costs can in fact
be bondable (covered by bond proceeds) as a site improvement related to the
greater library bond projects. Therefore, these construction costs can be
recovered at the time of the bond sale for the MPLCC in the spring or summer of
20 I 0, although items such as furniture, fixtures, and similar equipment for the
temporary library remain non-bondable."
The report further detailed the temporary facility expenses that were eligible to be covered by
bond proceeds, including construction, design, certain shelving, and security infrastructure.
Thus, the report strongly implied, and may have even been the Council's understanding III
approving the contract, that the listed costs would be covered by bond proceeds.
The Library Bond Advisory Committee subsequently reviewed the issue on January 26, 2010
noting that Measure N is silent on whether temporary facility costs would be paid with bond
proceeds. The Committee encouraged staff to request full and clear direction from the Council
on whether bond funds should be used for these facilities. The Committee did not, however, take
any position on whether these costs should in fact be covered by bond proceeds as such decisions
are outside their scope of review.
The text of Measure N was limited to 75 words and necessarily could not include each and every
component of the project. In addition to the opinion from bond counsel that these costs are
eligible, stafrs research confirms that use of bond proceeds to cover temporary storage and
facility expenditures incurred while constructing or renovating new or existing buildings is
common for such projects. In the City of San Jose, for example, temporary storage facilities for
community libraries undergoing construction were covered by GO bond proceeds. In addition,
the City of Millbrae paid for temporary facility costs with bond proceeds. Therefore, staff is
recolrunending that the Council confirm its approval of bond funds for the temporary Mitchell
Park facilities.
CMR209:10 Page 2 of5
2. Temporary Main Library Faeilities
Council has not yet approved construction of a separate temporary facility during the closure of
Main Library. Staff is in the early stages of estimating costs for a temporary Main facility, so
costs cited in this report are extremely tentative. There are two options that may be available in
order to provide a temporary Main Library. One is to design, renovate, and provide construction
management services for a leased retail space of approximately 8,500 square feet for 18 months.
Costs for this option are preliminarily estimated at $685,000. A second option would be to lease
trailers and install site utilities on City-owned property at an estimated at $960,000. The costs
for either temporary facility could increase or decrease depending on the size and condition of
leased facilities and availability of on-site utilities necessary for the trailers. Other variables that
could push the costs for a temporary facility higher include: parking needs, accessibility
requirements, seismic requirements, and modifications for lighting or circulation. The 18-month
time frame includes the time needed to renovate the leased space or to install trailer utilities; to
move staff and equipment into and later out of the temporary facility; and for additional time in
the event the opening of the renovated Main Library is delayed.
Like the temporary Mitchell facilities, many of these temporary costs for Main may be covered
by bond proceeds. Although additional costs such as operational expenses and certain equipment
cannot be covered by GO bonds (e.g., non fixed equipment such as chairs and desk top
computers), those costs are relatively minor and can be covered by using existing shelving,
computers, and furniture from the libraries undergoing construction, as well as the Library's
operating budget.
Temporary library facilities will allow the City to maintain service during construction of the
permanent facilities. Staff is requesting Council input on providing a separate temporary library
during the Main Library renovations. It is staff's intent to return to Council at a later date when
costs are more clearly defined and Council can make an informed decision on whether to move
forward with a Main temporary facility. Once again, given the current economic milieu and the
competitive nature of the construction industry, staff anticipates that construction bids will be
under projected estimates. How much will not be known until construction awards are made.
Should (his oceur, there may be flexibility to cover temporary facility costs within the funding
authority provided by the voters.
3. Next Steps
In concert with the City's financial and legal consultants, a schedule for issuing bonds in mid-
June has been prepared. This schedule is in keeping with Council's desire to pursue an
advantageous construction cost environment and the goal of eliminating any capitalized costs for
property owners. This timeline facilitates placing the costs of the first series of two bond issues
on the property tax rolls for next fiscal year. 'The current schedule is as follows:
May 10,2010
May 11,2010
May 25, 2010
CMR209:IO
City Council Action on Financing Documents to Issue Bonds
Ratings Presentation to S&P and Moody's
Ratings Received
Page 3 of5
May 26, 2010
May 27, 2010
June 8, 2010
June 29, 2010
July 19,2010
Late July
Bond Sale Notices Published
Preliminary Official StatementlUnderwriter Bid Form Finalized and
Circulated
Bond Bids Received, Bonds Priced, and Bonds Awarded to Winning
Bidder
Close Bond Issue and Receive Bond Proceeds
City Council Action on Establishing Tax Levy
Send Property Assessments to County
In terms of construction bids and schedules, staff anticipates the following:
May 4, 2010 Bid Due Date for Downtown Library work
June 7, 2010 Council Awards Construction Contract for Downtown Library Work
June 8, 2010 Bid Due Date for Mitchell Park Facilities
June 21, 2010 Council A wards Construction Contract for MPLCC
June 28, 2010 Downtown Construction Begins
July 12, 2010 MPLCC Construction Begins
In order to meet the County's early August requirement for property assessment information,
staff must completc the bond sale in early June. To sell the bonds in early June, staff will be
returning to Council on May 10 for approval of the financing documents and a "not to exceed
amount" on the first series bond issue. In selecting the not to exceed amount, staff will rely on
what it believes are reliable design and construction estimates for Mitchell Park work.
Proceeds for the first bond series will cover funds advanced by the City for these projects to date
(including or excluding, depending on Council direction on temporary library costs for Mitchell)
as well as construction costs for the Downtown Library, and estimated costs for Mitchell Park
facilities. It is important to note that if bond proceeds from the first series of bonds are in excess
of costs, they will be carried forward for the Main Library project and could potentially reduce
the amount issued in the second bond series.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Council approval of use of bond funds for the temporary library at the Cubberley Community
Center would result in a return of approximately $600,000 to the Infrastructure Reserve. Based
on the current cost estimates, using bond proceeds for an additional temporary Main Library
would translate into a tax of approximately $0.21-$.34 per $100,000 of assessed value (A V) for
property owners. The original estimate for all projects that was placed on the Measure N ballot
was $27 per $100,000 of AV.
CMR 209: 10 Page 4 of5
It is critical to note that in the unlikely event pennanent facility design and construction costs
should consume bond proceeds or that available proceeds fall short of actual temporary facility
costs, the City's Infrastructure Reserve or GF would have to absorb the temporary facility
expenditures.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Although temporary library costs were not considered in initial project estimates, covering such
costs is legal and consistent with General Obligation Bond coverage practice.
TIMELINE
See Discussion section
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On July 21, 2008, the Council confinned the Director of Planning and Community
Environment's (PCE) approvals of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center and a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for Main Library. The Downtown Library project was detennined to be
exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15301, "existing fucilities."
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR:149:09 "Adoption of (1) Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse
Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City .... "
Attachment B: CMR: 463:09 "Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$381,583 for Costs Related to Constructing a Temporary Library and Teen Center at the
Cubberley Community Center .... "
PREPARED BY:
ty Directo , Administrative Services
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: ---."L-, __ ±--_::;;.L'-------
Director, Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: -----t.--ro~-l.---'--+-'------
CMR209:IO Page 5 of5
ATTACHMENT A
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCIl 2, 2009 CMR:149:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of (I) Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse
Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City; and (2)
Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 to Establish Capital
Improvement Program Project Number PE-09005, Downtown Library
Improvements, and to Provide an Appropriation in the Amount of
$411,056; Establish Capital Improvement Program Project Number PE-
09006, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center New Construction,
and to Provide an Appropriation in the Amount of $3,390,309; Establish
Capital Improvement Program Project Number PE-09010, Library and
Community Center Temporary Facilities, and to Provide an Appropriation
in the Amount of $79,525; and Approval of Contract C09130744 with
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., in a total amount not to
exceed $3,827,280 for Architecture and Engineering Design Services for
the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, DOwntown Library and
Library and Community Center Temporary Facilities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Attached for approval is a design contract with Group 4 Architecture that will allow for the
completion of construction documents for the Downtown Library, the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center; and Library and Community Center Temporary Facilities. This work is
consistent with the work approved by voters as part of the Library bond measure, Measure N, in
November 2008.. In order to fund this work, and to provide staff with the resources for
miscellaneous small contracts, a BAO is also included for adoption. Since approval for this
work is being requested outside of the normal budget adoption process, new Capital
Improvement Project numbers need to be created to budget the funds provided by the BAO.
Aqoption of the Resolution of Intention to Reimburse Expenditures will allow the City to l'eCOUp,
from bond proceeds, project funds that will be advanced by the Infrastructure Reserve (IR) for
the library and community center projects as described in this report. All design costs incurred
prior bond issuance will be bome by the IR. Based on the project schedule, City staff intends to
issue two series of bonds. The City intends to time the issuance of the bonds in order to ensure
that the best bond market conditions exist. The first series, for an estimated $57.1 million, would
CMR:149:09 Page I of8
be issued before construction begins in spring 2010. The second series, estimated at $18.9
million, would be issued in winter 2012. These estimates include future design, contract,
construction, and issuance costs.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures from the Proceeds of
Bonds to be Issued by the City (Attachment A) ;
2. Approve the creation of a new Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PE-09005 for the
Downtown Library (Attachment B);
3. Approve the creation of a new Capital Improvement Project PE-09006 for the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center (Attachment C);
4. Approve the creation of a new Capital Improvement Project PE-09010 for Library and
Community Center Temporary Facilities (Attachment D);
5. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment E) in the total amoont of
$3,880,890. Of this amount, $3,827,280 is to be distributed to the various CIPs as
outlined under Item 6 below as well as $3,000 to CIP PE-09005, Downtown Library, for
miscellaneous small contracts and $12,000 to CIP PE-09006, Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center for miscellaneous small contracts. Additionally, $38,610 will be
distributed to the various CIPs as outlined further below for plan check services.
6 Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute contract C09130744 with Group 4
Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (Attachment F) in a amount not to exceed
$3,827,280 for architectural and engineering design services for the Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center and for the Downtown Library, including a total of
$3,483,080 for basic services and $344,200 for additional services. The funding shall be
allocated in the fullowing proportions:
-Downtown Library
Design Fee = $367,206
Additional Services = $37,000
Total CIP PE-09005= $404,206
-Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
Design Fee = $3,043,549
Additional Services = $300,000
Total CIP PE-09006 = $3,343,549
-Library and Community Center Temporary Facilities
Design Fee = $72,325
Additional Services = $7,200
Total CIP PE-09010 = $79,525
CMR:149:09 Page 2 ofS
BACKGROUND
A General Obligation bond measure for library and eommunity center improvements, Measure
N, was passed by City voters on November 4, 2008. This Measure approved a maximum
amount of $76.0 million in bonds. Proeeeds from future bond sales. will be used to: reimburse
the 'Infrastructure Reserve for the design work funding requested in this report and all ()osts
incurred up to the time bonds are issued; construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center; renovation and expansion of the Main Library; and renovation
of the Downtown Library. It is important to note that design work to date (which includes the
feasibility study and preliminary design by Group 4 Architecture) has been paid (approximately
$1.5 million) by the General Fund and these monies will not be reimbursed from bond proceeds.
Detailed history of the design development can be found in past City Manager's Reports to
Council, CMR:286:02, CMR: 119:06,CMR:343:06, CMR:434:06; CMR:225:07,
CMR:32 I :08and a December IS, 2008 Informational CMR:473 :08,
http://yrww.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzonelre.portslcmrs.asp
The various site improvements are summarized as follows:
-Downtown Library
The progranunatic evaluation by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning (Group 4
Architecture) found that the existing services at this library adequately serve its service
population and significant capital improvements are not recommended. By relocating
technical services to the new Mitchell Park library, much of the current technical staff
area will become public space as a result of interior reconfiguration. A small program
room is planned. Systems upgrades, such as improved lighting and mechanical systems
will also be provided.
-Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
The Mitchell Park Library and Community Center will be a joint facility, designed to the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design level of Gold (CMR:309:08). The
existing Mitchell Park Library is about 10,000 square feet and will be replaced with a
new facility of 36,000 square feet. The new library will be two stories to accommodate
an enlarged eollection, a children's area, an aeoustically separated teen area, group study
rooms, staff areas and a program room. Increases in collection, seating, eomputers,
children's area and programming space are planned to serve the needs of the projected
population. Technical Services staff, currently locatcd at the Downtown Library, would
be relocated to the Mitchell Park Library in order to facilitate the increased intake of new
materials for the entire Ii brary system.
The existing Mitchell Park Community Center is approximately 10,000 square feet and
will be replaced with a new facility of 15,000 square feet. Similar to the existing
eommunity center, the new building will be a one-story building attached to the new
library. By sharing activity space, the joint facility will be smaller in size than two
independent buildings and will create a more efficient use of the Iibrary/eommunity
center site.
CMR:149:09 Page 3 of8
-Main Library
The Main Library improvements include small group study rooms that are acoustically
separated from the rest of the existing building and a new program space that seats 100
people. To accommodate the new program space, the Main Library will expand by
approximately 4,000 square feet from the current 21,000 square feet on the ground floor
of the building (CMR:434:06). The interior of the existing library will also be
reconfigured to make better use of areas that are vacated by reloeating certain materials
into the new building. Lighting and other building systems will also be upgraded. All of
the improvements will be made with consideration for the historic nature of the existing
building.
DISCUSSION
New Capital Improvement Projects
Approval of Measure N by votera in allowed the library design to begin before the mid-year
budget approval, which is scheduled for April 2009. Approval of new CIPs for the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center, the Downtown Library, and Library and Community
Center Temporary Facilities are needed in order to begin design work. This separation will
allow funding to be properly allocated and tracked from the beginning of the project. A CIP for
the Main Library will be presented as part of the normal Fiscal Year 2010·2012 budget process
as construction is not expected to begin until 2012. Attachments B through D include the
descriptions of the CIPs that are being requested for creation and approval.
Funding for design work will be provided by the Infrastructure Reserve upon Council approval
of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment E). This funding will be apportioned (see table
below) into the new CIPs to pay for the design of each particular facility. This allocation will
allow for clear tracking of all costs associated with each building. All funds expended in these
projects will be reimbursed to the Infrastructure Reserve shortly after bond proceeds are
received. A new CIP also is proposed for temporary library and community center facilities
(Attachment D). Bond proceeds carmot be used to fund temporary faoilities, equipment or
furnishings so funding from the Infrastructure Reserve will have to be identified to cover these
costs. This may require a reallocation of funding from other existing or planned projects. Staff
will be evaluating the impact of these costs as part of the Fiscal Year 2010-2012 budgefprocess.
pesign Contract
Conceptual designs for the three sites are now 35 percent complete and have been reviewed by
the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC), the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and City Council.
They were also presented to the community as part of the Measure N outreach efforts.
The contract with Group 4 Architecture (Attachment F) will complete the design of the
Downtown Library and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center f!'Om the current 35
percent completion stage to final construction documents. The contract does not yet include
funding for the construction administration phase of the project, which would be included for
approval along with the construction contracts. A contract for the design of the Main Library
will be presented in the fall of 2010 as that library is not scheduled to begin design until early
201l. The Downtown Library would be the first library advertised for construction bids, likely
CMR:149:09 Page 4 of8
in the spring of 2010, followed shortly thereafter by the Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center. '
In addition to design fees, staff is requesting a total of $15,000 be included in the BAO to be
used for any miscellaneous unforeseen small contracts, printing costs, hazardous materials
testing, and other incidentals that might. arise through the duration of thc project. Of this amount
$3,000 would be used for the Downtown Library and $12,000 would be used for the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center.
The City will also be entering into a contract with West Coast Code Consultants to provide plan
check services for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and for the Downtown
Library, which will help expedite the project. This contract will total approximately $38,000 and
is within the City Manager's contract award authority. These costs are also reimbursable from
bond proceeds and were included in the original budget estimates.
Temporary Faci1itie~
The contract with Group 4 Architecture also includes design services for temporary facilities
needed during construction of the libraries and community center. Temporary facilities cannot
by law be funded by bond proceeds. The overall budget for temporary facilities that was
established prior to the passage of the Measure N bond was $600,000, which would come from
General Fund monies. In order to reduce the demand on General rood monies, staff is proposing
to use existing spaces at the Cubberley Community Center Auditorium in Heu of leasing trailers
or other spaces while the Mitchell Park library and community center is under construction.
Improving existing City spaces instead of leasing trailers or other facilities would also help
reduce future budget demands as the money for temporary facilities would be used to improve
the Auditorium for library use (upgraded lighting, new paint, etc.). The estimated cost to
improve the Auditorium and pay for associated moving and storage costs is $150,000. However,
this cost will be refined as the design improvements are better developed.
The Auditorium would be used as temporary space for Downtown Library Technical Services
staff and would function as a temporary Mitchell Park Library, including a "homework help"
area. The Teen Center, currently located at the Mitchell Park Community Center, would be
given priority use of the Cubberley gyrrmasium for special events but would otherwise not
require additional space. Staff intends to continue to provide similar services and programs to
library patrons and teens during this interim period. Lease contracts currently in effect for the
Auditorium will tenninate December 31, 2009, which wiD enable the needed improvements to be
completed prior to the start of construction on the Downtown Library in the spring of 2010.
There are currently eight primary users of the Auditorium. Staff is working with these users to
identifY possible new locations at Cubberlcy that would be suitable to their programs or space at
other City sites. Lost revenue for the Auditorium would be $80,000 per year. This lost revenue
is less than the cost of leasing other temporary facilities even when combined with necessary
improvement costs of$150,000.
The Library Administrative Services section, which is currently located at the Downtown
Library, will likely be placed in the lower level of the Lucie Stem Center. This area is already
furnished with carpeting, desks, phones and other office equipment so improvement costs will be
CMR:149:09 Page 5 of8
minor. The use and location of temporary facilities during the construction of the Main Library
is still under discussion and findings will be presented at a later date.
Outreach
Staff has been working to develop an implementation strategy and structure for the projects that
will facilitate the flow of information between staff, the community and key stakeholders
(CMR:473:08). Three committees will be established for this effurt: the Technical Team (staff
from multiple departments and Group 4 Architecture), the Stakeholders Committee (staff,
community stakeholders and representatives from various boards and commissions) and an
independent Citizen Bond Oversight Committee to provide financial oversight of the project.
The Bond Oversight Committee was a specific requirement of Measure N.
The Technical Team has recently completed their formal review of the 35 percent complete plans
so that Group 4 Architecture can quickly begin incorporating any needed revisions. An initial
Stakeholders Committee is planned for March 12,2009, to review the project to date and identity
joint goals and objectives for outreach efforts during the constrtlction of the bond projects.
Recommendations fur the composition and goals of the Citizen Bond Oversight Committee will
be presented to Council as a separate item on or about March 16, 2009.
RESOURCE IMPACT
To complete design for the Mitchell Park and Downtown projects, a BAO in the amount of
$3,880,890 is needed. The distribution of these funds is shown in the table below:
Bond Funding Genera I)'nnd
Bondable
Mitchell Temporary &
Downtown Park Library & Facility General
Library Community Center Bondable Design Fnnd
PE·09005 PE.09006 Subtotal PE-09010 I!!m!
Group 4
Architecture $404,206 $3,343,549 $3,747,755 $79,525 $3,827,280
West Coast Code
Consult. $3,850 $34,760 $38,610 $38,610
Miscellaneuus
Small Contracts $3,000 $12,000 $15,000 $15,000
$3,801,366 . $3,880,890
Later, in the summer or fall of 2009, a contract for construction management services to
supplement existing staff levels will be forthcoming. These later contracts will also be funded
through the Infrastructure Reserve (IR) at the time that they are presented to Council for
approval and will be reimbursed later from bond proceeds.
Based on the proposed project schedule, it is optimal to issue two series of bonds. The first
series of bonds would be issued just prior to the beginning of construction in the spring of201O.
This issue would cover the design and contract costs cited above as well as the construction costs
for the Downtown and Mitchell Park libraries and the Community Center. These project costs
CMR:149:09 Page 6 ofB
are estimated at $54.9 million. Together with the costs associated with issuing the bonds (e.g.,
underwriter, legal fees, and capitalized interest), the current estimated total fur the first bond
issue is $57.1 million.
The second series of bonds would be issued just prior to work on the Main Library in the winter
of 2012. Current estimated costs for this project are $18.0 million. Including issuance costs, the
second series of bonds is estimated at $18.9 miUion. The first and second series of bonds total
$76.0 million.
It is important to note that the costs cited above are still estimates and that project costs may
ehange based on construction bids and other factors. While the City has the authority to issue up
to $76 million in bonds, it will only issue an amount based on actual design and construction bid
costs. Issuance costs are somewhat dependent on the principal amount required for the projects
and will be determined primarily at the time of the bond sale. Interest costs on the bonds sold
also will be known at the time of the bond sale.
Since the first series of bonds is expected to be issued prior to the beginning of construction in
the spring of 201 0, property owners can expect their first General Obligation bond assessment on
their 2010-20n property tax statement. When the next series of bonds are issued some time in
the winter of 2012, another ineremental and final assessment will be added to each property
owner's tax bill. Measure N indicated that the estimated, total assessment (after all bonds are
issued) would equal $27 per $100,000 of assessed value. At this time, staff believes this remains
a realistic estimate. As stated in previous reports, this amount is subject to change based on the
fmal amount of bonds issued and the interest rate incurred at the time of the bond sale. In order
to make the bond issuance process clear and transparent, staff intends to have the City's
Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel available at future meeting(s) as appropriate.
Funding nceds for temporary facilities, equipment or furnishings are estimated at $150,000.
Since these expenses cannot be covered by the bonds, they must be paid by the Infrastructure
Reserve. In addition, all incremental operating and maintenance expenses resulting from the
new fucilities and any new programs will have te be funded by the General Fund. Staff is
working to identify funding plans for these items.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The projects discussed in this update are consistent with Council's prior policy direction and
consistent with the establishment of the Library Facility Plan as a Top 4 priority for 2008.
TIMELINE
The consultant will begin design of the Downtown and Mitchell Park projects shortly after
approval of the design contract. The approximate project schedule is as follows:
• Approve eonsultant contract to provide construction management services for the
Downtown and Mitchell Park libraries. Summer/Fall 2009
• Approve construction contract for temporary facilities in preparation for the remodel of
the Downtown Library late 2009, early 2010
• Approve construction contract for Downtown Library &
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Spring 2010
CMR:149:09 Page? ofB
• Approve construction contract for temporary facilities in preparation for the remodel of
the Downtown Library late 2009, early 20 I 0
• Approve construction contract fur Downtown Library &
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Spring 2010
• Appruve consultant design contract for Main Library
• Approve construction contract for Main Ubrary
late 20 I 0, early 20 II
late 2012, early 20\3
These timelines are only rough estimates at this point and will be refined as the design
progresses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the Director of Planning and Community
Environment's (PCE) approvals of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) fur the Mitchell
Park Library and Commwilty Center and a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for Main Library. The Downtown Library project was determined to be
exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15301, "existing facilities."
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution ofintent
Attachment B: Description of New CIP PE·09005, Downtown Library
Attachment C: Description of New CIP PE-09006, Mitchell Park Library & Community Center
Attachment 0: Description of New CIP PE-09010, Library & Community Center Temporary
Facilities
Attachment E: Budget Amendment Ordinance
Attachment F: Contract, Group 4 Architecture
PREPARED BY: ..i.~-~ ... ~
Senior Engineer
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
ROBERTS
Dir ctor of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:149:09 Page 8 ofB
ATTACHMENT B
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: DECEMBER 14,2009 CMR:463:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$381,583 for Costs Related to Constructing a Temporary Library and
Teen Center at the Cubb'erley Community Center; Approval of a
Contract with Johnstone Moyer, Inc., in a Total Amount Not to
Exceed $227,463 to Convert the Cubberley Community Center
Auditorium into a Temporary Library to Replace the Mitchell Park
Library (Capital Improvement Program Project PE-09010)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) in the amount of $381,583 for
remodeling the Cubberley Community Center auditorium into a temporary Mitchell Park
Library, for future security alarm, telecommunications, shelving and other small contracts
related to the temporary library and for upgrades to a classroom used as a temporary Teen
Center during construction of the Mitchell Park Library Community Center.
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract (Attachment B) with
Johnstone Moyer, Inc" in the amount of $227,463 for construction of improvements at
the Cubberiey Community Center auditorium that will convert it into a temporary library
facility to serve as a replacement for the Mitchell Park Library during its upcoming
construction. The construction bid includes the price of bid alternates I through 4 that
total $3,911.
3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Johnstone Moyer, Inc., for related, additional but unforeseen
work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed
$34,120.
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2008, Council directed staff to proceed with placing on the November 2008 ballot a
library/community center bond measure. Measure N, whieh passed on November 4, 2008,
includes funding for construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center (MPLCC), renovation and expansion of the Main Library and renovation of the
Downtown Library. During construction of the Downtown Library and the MPLCC, staff and
CMR:463:09 Page I of6
books would be moved into a temporary library that will be located at the remodeled auditorium
of the Cubberley Community Center.
Funding for a temporary library had been approved in Fiscal Year 2010 as CIP PE-09010, with
an initial funding amount of $75,000. On March 2, 2009, Council approved a contract with
Group 4 Architecture in the amount of $79,525 to identify a location for a temporary library and
Teen Center and to provide conceptual layouts and costs (CMR:149:09). On September 14,
2009, staff and Group 4 Architecture updated Council on the Measure N library bond measure
projects and prescnted design and construction management contracts for approval
(CMR:368:09). At that meeting, Contract Amendment No.1 with Group 4 Architeeture in the
amount of $92,034 was approved to complete the final design of the temporary library and to
provide construction administration services (CMR:368:09). Incorporated into the Council's
motion to approve the staff recommendations was an amendment directing Library staff and the
Library Advisory Commission (LAC) to readdress some elements of the design tor the
Downtown Library. As a result of this direction and after review by the LAC, shelving height
was increased from 66" to 84", four additional 84" high shelves were added, along with two
additional computer stations. It was also determined that Library Administration staff should
remain at the Downtown Library (CMR:409:09).
DISCUSSION
Measure N Library Project Update
Construction documents for the Downtown Library are approximately 90 percent complete and
have been submitted to the Building Division for a building code compliance review. The design
development plans (which outline the general design concept and details) for the Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center (MPLCC) are 100 percent complete and have been reviewed by
the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Parks & Recreation Commission (PARC), the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Art Commission. Plans were also presented to
citizen focus groups, teen groups and to the community, the latest being a community meeting
for the MPLCC on October 28th. Review by these committees will continue through at least
January 2010 and additional community meetings will be seheduled for 2010, prior to the start of
constructi on.
Project Description
Group 4 Architecture was initially contracted to study alternative locations and design options
for a temporary MPLCC. Working with staff from the Public Works, Library and Community
Services Departments, the Cubberley Community Center Auditoriunl was identified as the best
location for a temporary library while a new Mitchell Park Library was being constructed. The
auditorium is currently rented by various community groups whose rental agreements will expire
on December 31, 2009. Staff has been able to accommodate these renters in other rooms of the
Cubberley Community Center.
An approximately 5,090 square foot temporary library with books, computer terminals and
seating will be located in the main auditorium area. The Mitchell Park Library currently has
approximately 83,000 volumes in the collection. The temporary library will accommodate
approximately 45,000 volumes, 28 reader table seats, 10 study carrel seats, 18 computers and
associated seats and 10 lounge seats. Used shelving and furniture will be taken from the
Downtown and Mitehell Park Libraries and re-used in the temporary library whenever possible.
Shortly after completion of the temporary library, some furniture and Technical Services staff
currently located at the Downtown Library will be moved into what is now the kitchen area at
the back of the auditorium. Once the Technical Services staff has been relocated to the
auditorium, construction on the Downtown Library can begin. Later, when construction on the
new MPLCC is ready to begin, additional furniture, books and shelving will be moved into the
auditorium. Once the books from the MPLCC have been moved in the summer of 2010, the
temporary library will be opened to the public and construction on the new MPLCC library will
begin. Any remaining books not housed in the temporary library will be stored elsewhere.
Technical Services staff will remain in the temporary library at the Cubberley Community
Center until their new spaces at the MPLCC have been completed. Library Administration staff
currently located at the Downtown Library will be moved to the Main Library for the duration of
the Downtown Library renovation and moved back to the Downtown Library when that work is
completed. The Teen Center now at the MPLCC will be relocated to a classroom at the
Cubberiey Community Center just prior to demolition of the existing MPLCC.
Bid Process
A notice inviting formal bids for the Temporary Library project was sent to twenty-three
contractors. 111e bidding period was 15 working days. Bids were received from 16 contractors
on November 17, 2009, as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment B). Bids ranged from
a total low bid of $244,349 to a high of $450,444, which includes the cost of five bid alternates.
Bid alternates 1 through 3 are for the removal and replacement of overhead lamps that contain
small amounts of hazardous materials, bid alternate 4 is for the addition of overhead fans for
summer cooling and bid alternate 5 is for painting the rooms and trim. Staff recommends that
bid alternates I through 4 be approved, at a total cost of $3,911 and that bid alternate 5 be
deferred until the temporary library is closed and furnishings removed.
ummarvo 1 S fB'dP rocess
Bid NameINumber IFB 134408 II!ll:1porary Library Improvements Project ...........
Proposed Length of Pro' eet 4 months
Number of Bids 23
Contractors
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder's 12
Exchanges
Total Days to Respond to Bid 15
Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes
. Number of Company Attendees at 18
• Pre-Bid Meeting
mumber of Bids Received: 16
Bid Price Range (inc!. 5 Bid Alts)* $244,349 to $450,444
"Bid summary proVided III Attachment C.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $227,463 submitted by
Johnstone Moyer, Inc., for the base bid plus Bid Alternates 1 through 4 be accepted and that
Johnstone Moyer, Inc., be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is fifty percent below
the engineer's estimate of $568,000 dollars. Staff contacted Group 4 Architecture in an effort to
determine why the engineer'S estimate was significantly higher than even the highest bid
CMR:463:09 Page 3 of6
received. The estimating subconsultant used by Group 4 Architecture does not typically e~1imate
small scale projects such as the temporary library. That, combined with the economy which has
spurred some contractors to bid jobs at-cost, resulted in a conservative engineer's estimate. Staff
is working with Group 4 Architecture to negotiate a reduced construction administration contract
that reflects the lower construction cost.
A contingency amount of 15 percent is requested because renovations of older buildings tend
involve more unforeseen conditions due to incomplete archival blue prints, as well as dry rot and
termite damage which may be uncovered during construction.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed
and found no significant complaints.
RESOURCE IMPACT
A BAO in the amount of $381,583 (Attachment A) is requested to provide funding for
construction of the temporary library and to provide for future small contracts for a security
system and related electrical and teleeommunications work and for new shelving and modular
furnishings to supplement existing furnishings that will be relocated from the Mitchell Park and
Downtown Libraries. It also includes an allowance to upgrade (add partitions, extend electrical
and data for computer connections) a classroom formerly used by the JCC that will serve as a
temporary Teen Center.
Staff has been meeting internally and with bond counsel and the external auditor to detennine the
most advantageous time for a bond sale, and the best way to eoordinate the sale of bonds with
the construction schedule and funding. Staff has also been working with bond counsel to
establish guidelines and a decision-making process to determine items for which bond funds may
be appropriately used. In addition, at the October 27,2009, Library Bond Oversight Committee
meeting, a question was asked as to whether costs for the temporary library were bondable costs.
As a result of that query, staff directed bond counsel to further research the issue of construction
costs for the temporary facilities. The bond counsel determined that, because the temporary
library costs are neeessitated by the project itself those costs can in fact be bondable as a site
improvement related to the grcater library bond projects. Therefore, these construction costs can
be recovered at the time of the bond sale for the MPLCC in the spring or summer of 2010,
although items such as furniture, fixtures, and similar equipment for the temporary library
remain non-bondable. Based on the newly developed framework, staff plans to complete similar
analysis as other new and unique cost issues arise. Costs for non-bondable expenses such as
furnishings will be funded through the Infrastructure Reserve. Bondable expenses will be
reimbursed to the Infrastructure Reserve at the time of the first bond sale in the spring or summer
of2010.
Bond Council has reviewed the following specific items related to the temporary spaces:
Bondable Costs
Temporary Library construction cost -Johnstone Moyer, Inc.
Contingency (15%)
Subtotal:
CMR:463:09
$227,463
$34,120
$261,583
Page 4 of6
Temporary Library -Mise Contracts, Estimated Costs
Security Systems & Access Card Readers -Infrastructure installation
(conduit, wire, security keypads and panels)
Library Shelving -Relocating and re-using certain shelving from
Mitchell Park Library, leasing additional shelving units as-needed,
seismically anchoring and removing all shelving when the temporary
library is disestablished
Telephone and computer data -Purchasing and installing new
panels/switchboards for the telephone/data systems (OPX)
Interior furnishings for Technical Services -Remove Pivot office
panels at the Downtown Library and reinstall at the Temporary.
Library. Purchase new Pivot panels and parts, if necessary
Teen Center -Misc Contract, Estimated Cost
Installing conduit and cables for telephone and computers
Subtotal:
Total Bondable Costs, PE-0901O:
Non-Bondable Costs-Estimates
Temporary Library
Telephone -Purchasing new telephones compatible with the OPX
phone system
Subtotal
Total Non-Bondable Costs, PE-09010:
Total BAO:
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Approval of this contract is consistent with City policies.
TIMELINE
$25,000
$30,000
$25,000
$30,000
$5,000
$115,000
$376,583
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$381,583
Construction on the temporary library will start shOlily after contract approval and is anticipated
to be complete with staff within four months (approximately early May of 2010). The
Downtown Library can begin construction after completion of the temporary library.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is an interior renovation and is therefore categorically exempt.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance
Attachment B: Construction Contract
Attachment C: Bid Summary
CMR:463:09 Page 5 of6
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
KAREN BENGARD
Seni or Engineer
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
JAMES KEENE
city Manager
r;;:;m:A.<1:oq------------------------Page 6 of6 -CMR:463:09