HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-09 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Conference Room
January 9, 2012
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are
available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 January 9, 2012
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.
Call to Order
Study Session
1.Joint Study Session with the Library Advisory Commission
7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
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 of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval
Approval of Minutes October 17, 2011
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
2.Review and Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Developers’ Fees for Fiscal
Year 2011
3.Policy and Services Committee and Utilities Advisory Commission Joint
Recommendation to Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$200,000 to be Transferred from the Electric, Gas and Water Enterprise Funds
in Order to Establish the Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration
Program
2 January 9, 2012
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.
4.Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution
Approving the City of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
5.SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 5.20.270 of Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Pertaining to Maintenance of a Recycling Center
6.Approval of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement between the City of Palo
Alto and the Palo Alto Players for the Cooperative Use of the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre
7.Adoption of Two Resolutions (1) Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan
for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees and (2)
the Memorandum of Agreement for Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), Local 521 to Add a Total of Six New Positions Related to the
Development Center Blueprint Project
8.Confirmation of Appointment of James Michael Sartor as Public Works
Director and Approval of At-Will Employment Agreement
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: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
9.Public Hearing: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of Resolution
Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated
10.Public Hearing: Approval of Request for Removal of a Category 4 Single-Family
Residential Building at 935 Ramona Street from the City’s Historic Inventory
3 January 9, 2012
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Closed Session
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
11.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: City of Palo Alto et al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2010-80000679
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is
described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table
at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not
required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
4 January 9, 2012
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.
Additional Information
Supplemental Information
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk
Informational Report
Report on Demand Side Management Achievements for FY 2011
Traffic Signal Installation on Alma Street at Alma Plaza
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2410)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 1
(ID # 2410)
Summary Title: Joint Council/LAC Study Session
Title: Joint Study Session with the Library Advisory Commission
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Library
Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint study session with the Library Advisory
Commission scheduled for January 9, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
1. 2011 Library Overview
2. 2011 LAC Priorities
a) Virtual Library
b) Teens
c) Dashboard
3. 2012 LAC Priorities
4. Main Library/Art Center Connector
5. Q & A
Prepared By:Evelyn Cheng, Administrative Assistant
Department Head:Monique le Conge, Library Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2391)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 2391)
Summary Title: Annual Status Report on Developers' Fees FY 2011
Title: Review and Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Developers' Fees for
Fiscal Year 2011
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the Annual Report on Developers'
Fees for the period ending June 30, 2011 (Exhibit A).
Background
State law (Government Code Section 66006) requires each local agency that imposes
development impact fees prepare an annual report providing specific information about those
fees. This requirement is part of the law commonly referred to as AB 1600. It codifies the legal
requirement that fees on new development must have the proper nexus to any project on
which they are imposed. In addition, AB 1600 imposes certain accounting and reporting
requirements with respect to the fees collected. The fees, for accounting purposes, must be
segregated from the general funds of the City and from other funds or accounts containing fees
collected for other improvements. Interest on each development fee fund or account must be
credited to that fund or account and used only for the purposes for which the fees were
collected.
Government Code Section 66006 contains comprehensive annual reporting requirements for
development impact fees. This statute requires that, within 180 days after the close of the
fiscal year, the agency that collected the fees must make available to the public the following
information regarding each fund or account:
o A brief description of the type of fee in the fund.
o The amount of the fee.
o The beginning and ending balance for the fiscal year in the fund.
o The amount of fees collected and interest earned.
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 2391)
o An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditure on each improvement, including the total
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
o An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the local agency determines that sufficient funds
have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public
improvement.
o A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund,
including the public improvement on which the loaned funds will be expended,
and in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid
and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.
o The amount of any refunds made due to inability to expend fees within the
required time frame.
This report must also be reviewed by the City Council at a regularly scheduled public meeting
not less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public. In addition, notice
of the time and place of the meeting shall be mailed at least 15 days prior to the meeting to any
interested party who files a written request with the local agency for such a mailed notice. An
early packet consisting of Exhibit A only was made available to the public and included in the
packet for the December 12, 2011 meeting of the City Council.
The law also provides that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and
every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make findings with respect to any portion of
the fee remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted. The finding must:
identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put; demonstrate a nexus between the fee and
the purpose for which it was originally charged; and identify all sources and amounts of funding
anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements along with the approximate
dates on which the anticipated funding is expected to be deposited into the fund.
If the agency no longer needs the funds for the purposes collected, or if the agency fails to
make required findings, or to perform certain administrative tasks prescribed by AB 1600, the
agency may be required to refund, on a prorated basis to owners of the properties upon which
the fees for the improvement were imposed, the monies collected for that project and any
interest earned on those funds.
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto development fees covered by AB 1600, and documented in Exhibit A,
include the following:
January 09, 2012 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 2391)
o Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real traffic impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.45): Fee for
new nonresidential development in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real Service
Commercial zone, to fund capacity improvements at eight intersections.
o San Antonio/West Bayshore Area traffic impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.46): Fee for new
nonresidential development in the San Antonio/West Bayshore area to fund capacity
improvements at four intersections.
o Housing impact fees imposed on commercial developments (PAMC Ch. 16.47):Fee on
commercial and industrial development to contribute to programs that increase the
City's low income and moderate-income housing stock.
o Parking in-lieu fees for University Avenue Parking District (PAMC Ch. 16.57): Fee on new
non-residential development in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District in
lieu of providing required parking spaces.
o Parks, Community Centers, and Libraries impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.58): Fee on new
residential and non-residential development to provide community facility funds for
parks, community centers and libraries.
o Residential housing in-lieu fees (PAMC Ch. 16.47): Fee on residential developments in-
lieu of providing required below-market rate units to low and moderate income
households.
o Parkland dedication fees (Quimby Act) (California Government Code Section 66477):
Fees or parkland dedication imposed on new residential and non-residential
development.
o Charleston-Arastradero Corridor pedestrian and bicyclist safety fees (PAMC Ch. 16.59):
Fee on new development and re-development within the Charleston-Arastradero
Corridor to provide for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements.
o Citywide Transportation impact fee (PAMC Ch 16.59): Fee on development in all parts
of the City to fund transportation projects and programs to reduce congestion.
o Water and sewer capacity fees (California Government Code Section 66000): Fee on
developments adding load to water and sewer systems.
AB 1600 requires the City to make specified findings in the event any funds are not expended
within five fiscal years of collection and every five years thereafter. While there are several
funds containing collected fees that have not been expended in five years, the required
January 09, 2012 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 2391)
statutory carryover findings have already been made for those funds and no further findings
are required.
The San Antonio/West Bayshore Fund, Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real Fund, University
Avenue In-Lieu Parking Fund, and Community Center and Library Development Funds contain
development impact fees that remain unexpended. In fiscal year 2008 (CMR 107:09) the City
Council made the required findings that there was a continued need for the San Antonio/West
Bayshore funds for a right turn lane at the intersection of westbound Charleston at San
Antonio. In fiscal year 2008, Council also found a continued need for the Stanford Research
Park/El Camino Real fund for major intersection improvements at the Page Mill/Hanover
intersection and a continued need for the University Avenue In-Lieu Parking funds for the
purpose of construction of public parking spaces.
Finally, in fiscal year 2007 (CMR 106:08) the City Council made the required findings that there
was a continued need for the community center and library development impact fees for the
development of new facilities at the current Mitchell Park community center and library site.
In the case of housing impact fees from commercial development, developers impact fees for
parks, parkland dedication fees, Charleston/Arastradero pedestrian/bike safety fees, and
citywide transportation impact fees, the funds on hand as of June 30, 2011 have all been
received within the past four years. Therefore, no findings are required for those fees.
Resource Impact
Council approved the required findings with respect to unexpended fees in fiscal years 2007
and 2008. The next interval for approving findings for unexpended fees is fiscal year 2012 for
the fees continued in 2007 and fiscal year 2013 for the fees continued in 2008.
Policy Implications
This report does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
Presentation of this annual report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act; accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: DeveloperFeeAttach11 (XLS)
Prepared By:Allen Lee, Senior Accountant
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
January 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 2391)
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
Stanford Research Park/San Antonio/West
FUND El Camino Fund Bayshore Fund
Purpose and Authority Traffic impact fees imposed on new Traffic impact fees imposed on new
for Collection nonresidential development in the nonresidential development in the
Stanford Research Park/El Camino San Antonio/West Bayshore Areas
Real CS zone to fund improvements to fund capacity improvements at
at eight identified intersections.four identified intersections.
PAMC Ch. 16.45 PAMC Ch. 16.46
Amount of the Fee $10.38 per square foot $2.14 per square foot
Fund Balance July 1, 2010 $2,668,906 $761,804
Activity in 2010-11
Revenues
Fees Collected 0
Interest Earnings 84,150 24,017
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (19,843)(6,402)
Transfer In from Gas Tax Fund
Transfer In from CIP Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $64,307 $17,615
Expenditures
Other 0 0
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Improvements 0 0
(PL-05002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2011 $2,733,213 $779,420
Net Funds Available $2,733,213 $779,420
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditures have been made from
this fund in Fiscal Year 2011. Fees are
planned to be used for Gunn High School
entrance near Foothill/Arastradero.
No expenditures have been made from this
fund in Fiscal Year 2011. Fees are planned
to be used for specific traffic improvements
in the Charleston/San Antonio Road area,
but have been delayed by a related project to
be constructed by the State Department of
Transportation.
Page 1 of 8 1/3/2012
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
University Avenue
Commercial Housing Parking Assessment District
FUND In-Lieu Fund In-Lieu Fund
Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on large commercial Fees collected from non-residential
for Collection and industrial development to development within the University Ave.
contribute to programs that increase Parking Assessment District in lieu of
the City's low income and moderate-providing the required number of
income housing stock.parking spaces.
PAMC Ch.16.47 PAMC Ch 16.57
Amount of the Fee $17.97 per square foot $64,272 per space
Fund Balance July 1, 2010 $1,737,554 $102,486
Activity in 2010-11
Revenues
Other Revenue from Other Agencies 392,253 0
Interest Earnings 66,065 3,232
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (2,418)(704)
From State of California 258,366
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues 714,266 2,528
Expenditures
Purchase of 801 Alma property 0 0
Consultant Fees 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2011 $2,451,820 $105,014
Other Commitments/Appropriations
Encumbrances 0
Reserve for unrealized gain on
investments (79,604)(4,422)
Net Funds Available $2,372,216 $100,592
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this fund in Fiscal Year 2011.
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this fund in Fiscal Year 2011.
Page 2 of 8 1/3/2012
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
Residential & Non-Residential Housing Residential & Non-Residential Housing
Community Facilities Community Facilities
FUND Parks Community Centers
Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on new residential and Fees imposed on new residential and
for Collection non-residential development approved non-residential development approved
after Jan 28, 2002 for Parks. after Jan 28, 2002 for Community Centers.
PAMC Ch. 16.58 PAMC Ch. 16.58
Amount of the Fee
Residential: Single family
$9,971/residence (or $14.890/residence
larger than 3,000 sq ft); Multifamily
$6,527/unit (or $3,300/unit smaller than or
equal to 900 sq ft)
Residential: Single family $2,585/residence
(or $3,870/residence larger than 3,000 sq ft);
Multifamily $1,700/unit (or $858/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 sq ft)
Nonresidential: Commercial/industrial
$4,234 per 1,000 sq ft; Hotel/Motel
$1,915.00 per 1,000 sq ft
Nonresidential: Commercial/industrial
$239.00 per 1,000 sq ft; Hotel/Motel $108.00
per 1,000 sq ft
Fund Balance July 1, 2010 $2,803,275 $1,479,343
Activity in 2010-11
Revenues
Fees Collected 151,203 32,133
Interest Earnings 87,361 47,282
Unrealized Gain/Loss (8,585)(7,442)
Transfer In from CIP Fund 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $229,979 $71,973
Operating Transfer to Capital Projects
Fund (220,000)0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures (220,000)0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2011 $2,813,254 $1,551,316
Other Commitments/AppropriationsReserve for unrealized gain on
investments (107,613)(57,492)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Funds Available $2,705,641 $1,493,824
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
Budgeted transfers in the amount of
$220,000 were made to the Capital
Improvement Fund in Fiscal Year 2011 for
Park Restroom Installation (PE- 06007)
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2011.
Page 3 of 8 1/3/2012
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
(INFORMATION ONLY)
Residential & Non-Residential Housing Residential Housing
Community Facilities In-Lieu Fund
FUND Libraries
Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on new residential and Fees collected from residential
for Collection non-residential development approved developments of three or more units in
after Jan 28, 2002 for Libraries. lieu of providing the required below-
market rate unit(s) to low and moderate
PAMC Ch. 16.58 income households.
PA Comprehensive Plan and
PAMC Chapter 18
Amount of the Fee
Residential: Single family $902/residence
(or $1,344/residence larger than 3,000 sq
ft); Multifamily $539/unit (or $296/unit
smaller than or equal to 900 sq ft)Varies
Nonresidential: Commercial/industrial
$228.00 per 1,000 sq ft; Hotel/Motel
$96.00 per 1,000 sq ft
Fund Balance July 1, 2010 $519,727 $6,262,302
Activity in 2010-11
Revenues
Fees Collected 17,639 1,312,472
Webster Wood In-Lieu Payment 0 4,475
Palo Alto Bimmer In-Lieu Payment 0 15,000
Interest Earnings 16,712 119,424
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (1,576)(9,656)
Tax Credit Refund 1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $32,775 $1,442,714
Expenditures
Legal (32,419)
Housing Program Expense 0 (118,917)
Principal Retired (116,504)
Grants (100,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 (367,840)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2011 $552,502 $7,337,176
Other Commitments/Appropriations (43,664)Reserve for unrealized gain on
investments (20,638)(100,242)
Reserve for Notes Receivable include
$375,000 for 3053 Emerson, $3,611,254
for Tree House Apts, $705,125 for Oak
Manor, $756,819 for Sheridan Apts. and
$35,694 for Palo Alto Gardens.(5,483,892)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Funds Available $531,864 $1,709,378
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
Page 4 of 8 1/3/2012
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2011.
Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2011 include
$118,917 to Palo Alto Housing Corp for BMR
fees, $116,504 for Oak Manor Apts loan
forgiveness, and $100,000 to Housing Trust
of SC County for affordable housing.
Page 5 of 8 1/3/2012
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
Parkland Dedication Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
FUND
Purpose and Authority Fees on parkland dedication imposed Fees collected from new development and
for Collection on new residential and non-residential re-development within the Charleston-
development Arastradero Corridor to provide for pedest-
rian and bicyclist safety improvements.
Govt Code Sec.66477 (Quimby Act) PAMC Ch. 16.60
Amount of the Fee Varies Residential: $1,045.11 per unit; Commercial:
$0.31 per sq ft
Fund Balance July 1, 2010 $311,950 $487,226
Activity in 2010-11
Revenues
Fees Collected 244,519 0
Interest Earnings 13,674 13,948
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments 2,545 (4,525)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $260,739 $9,423
Expenditures
Operating Transfer to Capital Projects
Fund 0 (81,900)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 (81,900)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2011 $572,689 $414,749
Other Commitments/ReappropriationsReserve for unrealized gain on
investments 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Funds Available $572,689 $414,749
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2011.
Budgeted transfers in the amount of $81,900
were made the the Capital Improvement
Fund in Fiscal Year 2011 for the Corridor
Plan (PL-05002).
Page 6 of 8 1/3/2012
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
Citywide Transportation
FUND
Purpose and Authority for Collection
Transportation impact fees imposed on
new development in all parts of the City to
fund congestion reduction projects.
PAMC Ch. 16.59
Amount of the Fee $2,861 per net new PM peak hour trip
Fund Balance July 1, 2010 $180,552
Activity in 2010-11
Revenues
Fees Collected 49,852
Interest Earnings 6,438
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments 536 --------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $56,826
ExpendituresOperating Transfer to Capital Projects
Fund 0
Operating Transfer to BMR Fund
Principal Retired
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 --------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2011 $237,378
Other Commitments/Reappropriations
Reserve for unrealized gain on
investments 0 --------------------------------------------------------
Net Funds Available $237,378
USE OF FEES:
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2011.
Page 7 of 8 1/3/2012
Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Developers' Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2011
(INFORMATION ONLY)
FUND Water and Wastewater Collection
Purpose and Authority Capacity fees charged to developers that
for Collection are adding load to the water and sewer
systems effective July 1, 2005.
California Government Code Sect 66000
Amount of the Fee
Water Domestic: 5/8 in., 3/4 in. $5,000, 1
in. $9,400, 1 1/2 in. $18,850, 2 in. by est.
$125/FU, 3 in. by est. $125/FU , 4 in. by
est. $125/FU , 6 in. by est. $125/FU
Water Fire Service: 2 in. $750, 4 in.
$9,000, 6 in. $22,530, 8 in. $43,080, 10in.
$69,510
Sewer: 4 in. $10,500 first 50 FU, $210/FU
additional, 6 in. by est. $210/FU, 8 in. by
est. $210/FU
FU is fixture unit
Activity in 2010-11
Capacity Fees Collected
Water $863,897
Wastewater Collection 506,580
Total $1,370,477
USE OF FEES:
The fees are used exclusively for water
and sewer system improvements
Page 8 of 8 1/3/2012
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2372)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2372)
Summary Title: Utility Emerging Technology Demonstration Program
Title: Policy and Services Committee and Utilities Advisory Commission Joint
Recommendation to Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$200,000 to be Transferred from the Electric, Gas and Water Enterprise Funds in
Order to Establish the Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration Program
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission, and the Policy and Services Committee recommend
that the City Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $200,000
to establish the Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration Program and direct staff to
develop a process for evaluating and selecting projects. The BAO is to be funded from
$125,000 from the Electric Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve, $50,000 from the Gas
Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve, and $25,000 from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve
Executive Summary
The objective of the Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration Program (Program) is to
promote the testing, evaluation and deployment of new technologies or application of existing
technology in innovative applications that could be used in a variety of areas related to the
provision of utility service, and for the benefit of City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) customers.
These technologies could be employed in the area of energy and water efficiency and
conservation, or renewable energy generation. Technologies related to process improvement,
improved customer service, or improved utility operations will also be considered along with
smart grid related technologies and applications.
The technologies or programs that are deployed will be evaluated based on their ability to:
provide direct benefits to CPAU and its customers; provide positive return on investment for
CPAU; and provide measurable, local environmental benefits.
Both the Policy and Services Committee and the Utilities Advisory Commission voted
unanimously to recommend Council approval of the proposed budget and program
development. The Policy and Services Committee proposed an amendment to include financial
or other benefits to the City as part of the selection criteria.
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2372)
Commission Review and Recommendations
On November 29, 2011, the Policy and Services Committee considered the proposed budget
and structure for the Emerging Technology Demonstration Program. The staff report (Staff
Report ID #2217) presented to the Committee is provided as Attachment C. During the
discussion, Committee members suggested that there should be a fee for companies
participating in the program and that the threshold criteria for selection should include the
company’s willingness to offer financial or other benefits to the City. Staff proposed
consideration of a processing fee for the application process. Committee members also asked
for clarification of the type of risks the City would assume from the program. Staff confirmed
that risks should be limited to loss of any financial investment made by the City in the program
and that there would be no increased liability for the City. Staff also clarified that staff time is
already spent responding to inquiries from interested companies and the program’s
streamlined application process is expected to be undertaken without additional resources.
The Committee voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend Council approval of the proposed
budget and program development, with the addition of a threshold test that participating
companies are willing to offer financial or other benefits to the City. The draft minutes from
the Committee’s November 29, 2011 meeting are provided in Attachment D.
Timeline and Outline of Program Phases
If the establishment of the Program and budget is approved by Council, staff expects to have a
budget, review team, and application process in place by February/March 2012 with the first
evaluation of applications received in May 2012. Staff also plans to prepare semi-annual
reports to the UAC on the Program.
Applicants can complete applications any time during the year and, on a quarterly basis, the
review team will evaluate all applications received each quarter. The Program’s ongoing phases
include:
·Phase 1: Quarterly evaluation and selection of submitted applications
·Phase 2:For projects selected in Phase 1, contracting, actual demonstration, and post-
demonstration evaluation may take from 12 to 24 months. CPAU may retain outside
consultants for the post-demonstration evaluation.
·Phase 3: For any project that successfully demonstrates potential in Palo Alto, the City
may decide to roll out a larger scale pilot or even a full-scale customer program.
Resource Impact
About $50,000 in funds is currently available from the City’s Electric and Gas Public Benefit
Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) program for FY 2012. If the BAO is
approved by Council, an additional $200,000 will be available for FY 2012. The source of the
funds will be $125,000 from the Electric Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR), $50,000
from the Gas Distribution RSR, and $25,000 from the Water RSR. The Electric Distribution RSR
will be reduced to $9,492,669, and the Water RSR will be reduced to $7,231,833. After the
withdrawals from the RSRs, the balances in the Electric and Water RSRs will still be above the
minimum reserve guideline levels. The Gas Supply and Distribution RSRs combined will be
January 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2372)
above the combined minimum guideline reserve levels, but the Gas Distribution RSR will be
reduced to a negative balance of $2,281,871. At mid-year FY 2012, staff plans to transfer
sufficient funds from the Gas Supply RSR to the Gas Distribution RSR to align fund level balances
with expected costs. The alignment is required because there has not been a gas rate increase
since July 1, 2008 which impacts the Gas Distribution Fund, whereas gas commodity prices have
decreased significantly in the Gas Supply Fund.
The Program may also receive additional private or research funding related to the Program
activities. Funding for the Emerging Technology Demonstration Program in FY 2013 and after
will be requested during the annual budget process.
Policy Implications
This Program will advance the Council priorities of environmental sustainability and economic
development. The establishment of an emerging technology program is a strategic initiative in
the Council-approved 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan: “Develop a process to evaluate and
implement new technology through targeted programs and consider creating a fund for
innovative projects and pilots.” Staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that
funding requests are compliant with current legal requirements.
Environmental Review
Approval of this recommendation does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s
definition of a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore, no
environmental review is required.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance for Utilities Emerging Technology
Demonstration Program (PDF)
·Attachment B: Proposed Structure for the Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration
Program (PDF)
·Attachment C: Staff Report to the Policy and Services Committee (PDF)
·Attachment D: Excerpt Draft Minutes -Policy & Services 11-29-11 Meeting (PDF)
Prepared By:Debra Lloyd, Manager
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION
OF $200,000 TO ESTABLISH THE UTILITIES EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
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 20, 2011
did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and
B.The objective of the Utilities Emerging Technology
Demonstration Program (Program) is to promote the testing,
evaluation and deployment of new technologies or application of
existing technology in innovative applications that could be used
in a variety of areas related to the provision of utility service,
and for the benefit of City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)
customers; and
C. Both the Policy and Services Committee and the Utilities
Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City
Council adopt a budget amendment ordinance to establish the
Program; and
D. Funding of $125,000 from the Electric Distribution Rate
Stabilization Reserve, $50,000 from the Gas Distribution Rate
Stabilization Reserve, and $25,000 from the Water Rate
Stabilization Reserve will be used to establish the Program budget.
These funds may be used to engage a consultant to work with CPAU
staff and evaluate the performance of technologies tested, and to
assist in the initial development of the Program. The budget may
also be used to provide funding for equipment needed at participant
sites;and
E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012
budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2.The sum of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($125,000) is hereby appropriated to establish the
Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration Program in the Electric
Fund.
SECTION 3.The Electric Distribution Rate Stabilization
Reserve is hereby reduced by One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($125,000)to Nine Million Four Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand
Six Hundred Sixty-Nine Dollars ($9,492,669).
SECTION 4.The sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) is
hereby appropriated to establish the Utilities Emerging Technology
Demonstration Program in the Gas Fund.
SECTION 5.The Gas Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve is
hereby reduced by Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000)to a deficit of
Two Million Two Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-
One Dollars ($2,281,871).
SECTION 6.The sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000)
is hereby appropriated to establish the Utilities Emerging
Technology Demonstration Program in the Water Fund.
SECTION 7.The Water Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby
reduced by Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000)to Seven Million
Two Hundred Thirty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars
($7,231,833).
SECTION 8. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 9.The activities of the Utilities Emerging Technology
Demonstration Program do not meet the California Environmental
Quality Act’s definition of a project pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental review is
required.
SECTION 10. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Director of Utilities
Director of Administrative
Services
Proposed Structure for the Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration
Program
Staff proposes to establish a streamlined process for potential partners to apply to
participate in the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Program that does not require
substantial staff time to administer. Staff proposes a continuous project solicitation
process with projects selected periodically from all applications received using a
consistent set of evaluation criteria.
Proposed Staffing, Budget and Governance Structure
CPAU staff will coordinate with other City departments to develop a formal application
process for organizations seeking CPAU support or partnership in evaluating, testing,
and deploying innovative and emerging technologies. A standard application form will
be available on the CPAU website and applications can be submitted at any time.
Applications will be reviewed on a quarterly basis and the evaluation and selection
criteria, as well as the timetable for the next quarterly review will also be posted on
CPAU’s website.
A review panel will conduct the quarterly evaluation of applications, with the panel
consisting of CPAU staff, other City staff from the City Manager’s office, Purchasing, and
Facilities, as appropriate, and one or more members of the UAC. As the program
develops the review panel may be expanded to include an external reviewer, who may
be a Palo Alto resident or an industry expert. The City Attorney’s office will also review
selected projects and assist in drafting agreements with project participants. Final
approval of any project will be in accordance with established City processes, including
the City’s Demonstration Partnerships Policy, Municipal Code and conflict of interest
rules.
For each selected project, a CPAU staff member will be indentified as the key staff
liaison for project progress review and evaluation. The liaison will also be responsible for
coordinating with the initial review panel to recommend projects for further
development as a CPAU program and sharing results with other City departments.
Depending on resources available, this liaison role may be filled by a temporary recruit.
Progress on each of the projects selected will be reported to the UAC on a semi-annual
basis and to Council annually.
The Program is not intended to be a grant funding mechanism. The Program budget may
be used to engage a consultant to work with CPAU staff and evaluate the performance
of technologies tested, or to assist in the initial development of the Program. The
budget may also be used to provide funding for equipment needed at participant sites.
If such funding is required, all approvals for contracts or procurement of equipment or
material will follow normal approval processes established by the City. Co-funding with
other Utility programs such as the Smart Grid Pilot Program is also contemplated. It is
expected that many of the projects selected will require staff resources to assist in
finding customers to test a technology or in installing a technology on part of the
distribution system’s infrastructure; however, existing staff resources are expected to
be sufficient for this work.
Proposed Evaluation Criteria
Applications for the CPAU Program will be evaluated using the following criteria, which
could be expanded to include further criteria established to comply with the City’s
Demonstration Partnerships Policy. The first five criteria listed below are the minimum
requirements for a project to be included in the CPAU Program (i.e., the project would
need to be innovative in nature, offer financial or other benefits to the City, comply with
the City’s contractual requirements, be applicable to CPAU and its customers and show
the potential to provide a measurable benefit). The other six criteria would also be used
to evaluate and rank the applications submitted. The city-wide Demonstration
Partnerships Policy emphasizes local economic development; however, while
considering this in the evaluation, CPAU’s Program will not preclude applications from
companies based outside of Palo Alto.
Minimum Threshold Criteria
1.Innovative nature of the product or application
2.Company's willingness to offer financial or other benefits to the city
3.Acceptance of City’s contractual indemnity and customer privacy protections
4.Applicability of the technology or process to CPAU and its customers
5.Beneficial features of the technology and market potential to CPAU and its
customers. For example, show potential for: lower costs; measurable and local
environmental benefits; process improvement; and/or energy or water use
benefits
Other Criteria Used to Evaluate and Rank
6.Proposed start date, milestones, and duration of the demonstration
7.Reliability and track record of promoters of the technology and partnering
arrangement being sought
8.CPAU staff resource requirement
9.Amount of funding required from CPAU and funding available by applicant
10.Local economic development opportunities
11.Coordination with local research institutions
Project applications that propose to use CPAU customer data or utility system
information without appropriate confidentiality protections will not be evaluated by the
review panel.
CPAU’s Role as a Project Partner
Depending on the project, CPAU’s partnership role could range from simply allowing
project proponents access to willing customers,to providing funds for equipment and
staff time. Much of the program funds are expected to be used to hire a consultant to
evaluate the performance of the technologies after they have been installed and tested
for some period of time. CPAU’s role could include any or all of the following:
1.Enable access to customers who are willing to participate
2.Facilitate by identifying customers willing to participate in projects; provide
appropriate access to the utility system, rights-of-way, and/or data; provide
marketing and customer support
3.Use City facilities/processes for a test bed
4.Provide funds and/or equipment
5.Provide staff or consultant time
6.Coordinate or participate in the application of research grants, such as the
American Public Power Association’s Demonstration of Energy-Efficient
Developments Program
At the conclusion of a demonstration project, staff will report on the results to the UAC
and Council. Any insight from successful applications will be shared with other City
departments. Case studies and reports from the demonstration projects may also be
posted on-line.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2217)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 11/29/2011
November 29, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 2217)
Summary Title: Utility Emerging Technology Demonstration Program
Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the Policy and
Services Committee Recommend that Council Establish the Utilities Emerging
Technology Demonstration Program
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and staff recommend that the Policy and Services
Committee recommend that the City Council establish the Utilities Emerging Technology
Demonstration Program with a budget of $200,000 for FY 2012 and direct staff to develop a
process for evaluating and selecting projects.
Executive Summary
The Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration Program (Program) is being established to
promote the testing, evaluation and deployment of new technologies or application of existing
technology in innovative applications that could be used in a variety of areas related to the
provision of utility service, and for the benefit of City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) customers.
These technologies could be in the area of energy and water efficiency and conservation,
and/or renewable energy generation. Technologies related to process improvement, improved
customer service, or improved utility operations will also be considered along with smart grid
related technologies and applications.
The technologies or programs that are deployed will be evaluated based on their ability to:
provide direct benefits to CPAU and its customers; provide positive return on investment for
CPAU; and provide measurable, local environmental benefits. The Program will be integrated
with the City’s Emerging Technologies Demonstration and Pilot Partnerships (Attachment A) to
enhance Palo Alto’s attractiveness as a place that fosters innovation while helping achieve key
Council objectives.
Background
CPAU has an existing small Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) program to
support early stage technology evaluation and deployment, which is funded by a fraction of the
November 29, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 2217)
Public Benefits (PB) charges collected from gas and electric customers.1 Annually, the budget
for the RD&D program is around $50,000, of which $30,000 is from electric PB funds and
$20,000 from natural gas PB funds. In the past seven years, $170,000 has been spent on the
program to support the deployment of ground source heat pumps at the Children’s Library and
at a commercial facility downtown, electric vehicle charging stations, the LED streetlight pilot
projects, hot water heating, the Green Plug program, and small-scale research into new electric
technologies. RD&D program funds have also been used to facilitate workshops and
informational sessions with large business customers on small-scale wind and fuel cell
generation and new lighting technologies. Staff has assisted customers regularly by researching
information, potential for success, and capabilities of technologies that have been presented as
new or innovative.
In addition, since CPAU is in the heart of Silicon Valley, staff regularly discusses and shares
insights with many start-up and venture capital funds managers on the viability and markets for
their early stage technologies. Examples of these technologies include: small wind generation
for roof tops; boiler-burner based cogeneration applications for large buildings; in-home
display devices showing real-time energy consumption of equipment at homes; on-line
residential rebate applications; smart meter-based predictive models of home appliance
characteristics to incent replacement of inefficient appliances; distribution feeder line
monitoring and predictive maintenance algorithms; small micro-turbines for electricity
generation utilizing pressure differentials in the City’s water distribution pipeline systems;
distributed energy storage systems; various techniques to optimize electric vehicle charging and
utilization; cloud-based deployment of utility back-end systems for smart grid applications;
integrated tracking system of corporate GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions, etc. In the process,
CPAU has succeeded in deploying a few of these technologies for the benefit of CPAU
customers.
Providing additional funds to the Program will enable CPAU to expand on its current RD&D
activities. The new project evaluation and selection structure is intended to formalize and
streamline the review process so that this can be accomplished with minimal additional staff
time. The purpose of the Program is to support the deployment of innovative ideas,
particularly from the local business community, provide recognition to the City as an innovation
leader, and further enhance Palo Alto’s stature as a technology and innovation hub in Silicon
Valley.
The UAC has long supported the establishment of a CPAU program to support emerging
technologies. In January 2010, the UAC formed an Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Innovation,
Technology and Projects (Innovation Subcommittee). The Innovation Subcommittee met
several times with staff to develop the outline of an emerging technology program.
1 In 1996, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1890, The Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act,
which allowed for deregulation of the electricity industry. The legislation included a public goods charge on
electricity to fund public purpose programs, including ones focused on research and development. In 2000, AB
1002 created a public goods charge on natural gas.
November 29, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 2217)
Subsequently, the City Manager’s Office, through the City’s Economic Development Manager,
initiated a broader, city-wide effort to develop policies for an emerging technology program
into which the Utilities program was folded. The City Manager will designate a Demonstration
Partnerships Coordinator who will coordinate the process. However, each proposed
partnership will be coordinated with, and funded by, the City department that identifies the
partnership opportunity. Therefore, CPAU needs to develop its own program to evaluate and
select projects.
The City’s Emerging Technologies Demonstration and Pilot Partnerships policy (Demonstration
Partnerships Policy) was reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee on September 13,
2011. However, at that meeting the Committee did not have a chance to review the proposed
CPAU Program. The City Manager’s office continues to refine the proposed City Demonstration
Partnerships Policy and plans to return to the Committee in the next few months. Overall, the
Demonstration Partnerships Policy will provide the City with a framework to engage in
partnership opportunities to advance City priorities and address obstacles facing nascent
companies. It will create a streamlined process for creating demonstration partnerships and
utilize a standard agreement template to streamline procurement where appropriate and
memorialize legal rights and responsibilities of both parties.
In the meantime the Utilities Department is presenting the CPAU Program proposal to the
Committee and requesting a recommendation to move forward with the budget and program
development. Development of the CPAU Program will be coordinated with the City Attorney’s
Office and other departments to follow current City policies, maintain data privacy and
minimize risk to the City. On adoption of a city-wide Demonstration Partnerships Policy, the
CPAU Program will be updated, as needed, to incorporate that new City policy.
Discussion
Staff proposes to establish a streamlined process for potential partners to apply to participate
in the CPAU Program that does not require substantial staff time to administer. Staff evaluated
two different approaches to soliciting project ideas. One method is to regularly issue Requests
for Proposals (RFPs) to solicit projects and select some projects to pursue. Another method is
to have an open process whereby project proponents can apply at any time for the Program.
Experience over the past several years has shown that new technologies are brought to the
attention of staff on an ongoing basis. Many of the technologies or companies request that
CPAU allow them to test their ideas with real customers or with CPAU’s distribution systems.
However, responding to these inquiries on an ongoing basis requires significant staff resources
and a standard process is needed to ensure that projects are selected using established criteria.
For these reasons, staff proposes a continuous project solicitation process with projects
selected periodically from all applications received using a consistent set of evaluation criteria.
November 29, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 2217)
Other Programs Evaluated
Staff has looked at other utilities for ideas on how to structure CPAU’s program, including the
programs operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District and the Emerging
Technologies Coordinating Council.
Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD): SMUD's Customer Advanced Technologies
(CAT) is a research and development program designed to encourage customers to use and
evaluate new or underutilized technologies. Under the CAT program, vendors and customers
contact SMUD with the technology and the proposed demonstration project, and if the project
meets SMUD’s eligibility criteria, then agreements are put in place between SMUD and the
customer. The customer’s site is the test bed for the R&D project and the customer assumes
most of the risk. SMUD provides funding to customers for installing the new technologies in
exchange for a two-year monitoring access agreement. SMUD utilizes outside consultants to
monitor equipment performance. Further details of SMUD’s CAT program are provided in
Attachment B.
The Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council (ETCC):ETCC provides a collaborative forum
for its five stakeholder organizations (California's three investor-owned utilities (IOUs), SMUD,
and the California Energy Commission (CEC)) to exchange information on opportunities and
results from their emerging technologies activities. ETCC works to coordinate its members’
energy efficiency efforts in order to facilitate the assessment of promising energy efficient
emerging technologies that will benefit California customers. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) finances ETCC operations out of IOU ratepayer Public Goods Charge funds,
and provides regulatory guidance. The ETCC meets four times a year. CPAU staff attends ETCC
meetings, but currently SMUD, as the official ETCC member, represents the municipal utilities in
the state.
Proposed Staffing, Budget and Governance Structure
CPAU staff will coordinate with other City departments to develop a formal application process
for organizations seeking CPAU support or partnership in evaluating, testing, and deploying
innovative and emerging technologies. A standard application form will be available on the
CPAU website and applications can be submitted at any time. Applications will be reviewed on
a quarterly basis and the evaluation and selection criteria, as well as the timetable for the next
quarterly review will also be posted on CPAU’s website.
A review panel will conduct the quarterly evaluation of applications, with the panel consisting
of CPAU staff, other City staff from the City Manager’s office, Purchasing, and Facilities, as
appropriate, and one or more members of the UAC. As the program develops the review panel
may be expanded to include an external reviewer, who may be a Palo Alto resident or an
industry expert. The City Attorney’s office will also review selected projects and assist in
drafting agreements with project participants. Final approval of any project will be in
accordance with established City processes, including the City’s Demonstration Partnerships
Policy, Municipal Code and conflict of interest rules.
November 29, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 2217)
For each selected project, a CPAU staff member will be indentified as the key staff liaison for
project progress review and evaluation.The liaison will also be responsible for coordinating
with the initial review panel to recommend projects for further development as a CPAU
program and sharing results with other City departments. Depending on resources available,
this liaison role may be filled by a temporary recruit. Progress on each of the projects selected
will be reported to the UAC on a semi-annual basis and to Council annually.
The Program is not intended to be a grant funding mechanism. The Program budget may be
used to engage a consultant to work with CPAU staff and evaluate the performance of
technologies tested, or to assist in the initial development of the Program. The budget may
also be used to provide funding for equipment needed at participant sites (as in the SMUD CAT
program described above). If such funding is required, all approvals for contracts or
procurement of equipment or material will follow normal approval processes established by the
City. Co-funding with other Utility programs such as the Smart Grid Pilot Program is also
contemplated. It is expected that many of the projects selected will require staff resources to
assist in finding customers to test a technology or in installing a technology on part of the
distribution system’s infrastructure; however, existing staff resources are expected to be
sufficient for this work.
Proposed Evaluation Criteria
Applications for the CPAU Program will be evaluated using the following criteria, which could be
expanded to include further criteria established to comply with the City’s Demonstration
Partnerships Policy.The first four criteria listed below are the minimum requirements for a
project to be included in the CPAU Program (i.e., the project would need to be innovative in
nature, comply with the City’s contractual requirements, be applicable to CPAU and its
customers and show the potential to provide a measurable benefit). The other six criteria
would also be used to evaluate and rank the applications submitted. The city-wide
Demonstration Partnerships Policy emphasizes local economic development; however, while
considering this in the evaluation, CPAU’s Program will not preclude applications from
companies based outside of Palo Alto.
1.Innovative nature of the product or application
2.Acceptance of City’s contractual indemnity and customer privacy protections
3.Applicability of the technology or process to CPAU and its customers
4.Beneficial features of the technology and market potential to CPAU and its customers.
For example, show potential for: lower costs; measurable and local environmental
benefits; process improvement; and/or energy or water use benefits
5.Proposed start date, milestones, and duration of the demonstration
6.Reliability and track record of promoters of the technology and partnering arrangement
being sought
7.CPAU staff resource requirement
8.Amount of funding required from CPAU and funding available by applicant
9.Local economic development opportunities
10.Coordination with local research institutions
November 29, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 2217)
Project applications that propose to use CPAU customer data or utility system information
without appropriate confidentiality protections will not be evaluated by the review panel.
CPAU’s Role as a Project Partner
Depending on the project, CPAU’s partnership role could range from simply allowing project
proponents access to willing customers, to providing funds for equipment and staff time. As
with the SMUD program, much of the program funds are expected to be used to hire a
consultant to evaluate the performance of the technologies after they have been installed and
tested for some period of time. CPAU’s role could include any or all of the following:
1.Enable access to customers who are willing to participate
2.Facilitate by identifying customers willing to participate in projects; provide appropriate
access to the utility system, rights-of-way, and/or data; provide marketing and customer
support (similar to the SMUD program)
3.Use City facilities/processes for a test bed
4.Provide funds and/or equipment
5.Provide staff or consultant time
6.Coordinate or participate in the application of research grants, such as the American
Public Power Association’s Demonstration of Energy-Efficient Developments Program
At the conclusion of a demonstration project, staff will report on the results to the UAC and
Council. Any insight from successful applications will be shared with other City departments.
Case studies and reports from the demonstration projects may also be posted on-line.
Timeline and Outline of Program Phases
If the establishment of the Program and budget is approved by Council, staff is proposing to
have a budget, review team, and application process in place by February 2012. The first
evaluation of applications received would be in May 2012, and then quarterly thereafter. If any
projects are selected in May 2012, semi-annual reports to the UAC would start in November
2012.
·Phase 1: Quarterly evaluation and selection of submitted applications
·Phase 2: For projects selected in Phase 1, contracting, actual demonstration, and post-
demonstration evaluation may take from 12 to 24 months. CPAU may retain outside
consultants for the post-demonstration evaluation.
·Phase 3: For any project that successfully demonstrates potential in Palo Alto, the City
may decide to roll out a larger scale pilot or even a full scale customer program.
Commission Review and Recommendations
Staff provided a presentation on the proposed budget and structure for the Emerging
Technology Demonstration Program at the October 5, 2011 UAC meeting. During the
discussion, the UAC members asked for further details and clarification on the use of the
proposed budget and the timeline for project demonstrations. Staff confirmed that the budget
is expected to be used primarily to hire consultants to perform post demonstration evaluations,
November 29, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 2217)
but that some budget may be used to purchase or provide equipment. Staff also confirmed that
the program and budget would not be used as a grant funding mechanism, neither would it be
used for existing CPAU staff time. Regarding timelines and process, staff explained that timing
would depend on the proposed project demonstration and that would be one of the criteria
used in the evaluation and selection of projects. Staff also clarified that regular reporting to the
UAC and Council is part of the proposal.
After discussion, the UAC voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend Council approval of staff’s
proposed budget and program development. The draft minutes from the UAC’s October 5, 2011
meeting are provided in Attachment C.
Resource Impact
About $50,000 in funds is currently available from the City’s Electric and Gas Public Benefit
RD&D program for FY 2012. If approved by Council, an additional $200,000 will be available for
FY 2012. The source of the funds will be $125,000 from the Electric Fund, $50,000 from the Gas
Fund, and $25,000 from the Water Fund. Sufficient funds are available without any rate
increases, but a Budget Amendment Ordinance to allocate the funds to the Program will be
required. The Program may also receive additional private or research funding related to the
Program activities. Future funding for the Emerging Technology Demonstration Program will be
requested during the annual budget process.
Policy Implications
This Program will advance the Council priorities of environmental sustainability and economic
development. The establishment of an emerging technology program is a strategic initiative in
the Council-approved 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan: “Develop a process to evaluate and
implement new technology through targeted programs and consider creating a fund for
innovative projects and pilots.” Staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that
funding requests are compliant with current legal requirements.
Environmental Review
Approval of this recommendation does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s
definition of a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore, no
environmental review is required.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: City's Test Bed Policy (PDF)
·Attachment B: SMUD's CAT Program (PDF)
·Attachment C: DRAFT UAC Minutes of October 5_2011(PDF)
Prepared By:Debra Lloyd, Manager
November 29, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 2217)
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1786)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 9/13/2011
September 13, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1786)
Summary Title: Emerging Technologies Pilot
Title: Review and Recommendation from the Policy & Services Committee on
Emerging Technologies Pilot and Demonstration Partnerships Policy
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee recommend approval by the City
Council of an adoption of a resolution approving a Council Policy entitled “Emerging
Technologies Demonstration and Pilot Partnerships”
Executive Summary
Approval of this Council policy will result in establishing a framework for engaging and
evaluating demonstration and pilot partnerships with the goal of developing, testing, and
demonstrating emerging technologies, product and service innovations.
Background
The City of Palo Alto is known for innovation, and is the home to many start-ups featuring
exciting new technologies from an array of disciplines. As a municipality and a utility, we are
uniquely suited to form special partnerships to support entrepreneurial development of new
technologies and processes. Such partnerships can help to enhance Palo Alto’s attractiveness as
a place that fosters innovation, while helping us reach key Council objectives. While especially
true in the areas of Energy Efficiency/ Sustainability and Economic Development, emerging
technology partnerships can also assist our goals in transportation, planning, neighborhood
development, communication, and many other areas across departments, and across the City.
Through staff discussions, it is clear that many ad-hoc partnerships are already underway in the
form of technology piloting/ demonstration, use of emerging software, and other types of
arrangements. These partnerships have taken place in many departments, at many levels of
the organization. Staff feels that a council policy that sets a framework for decision making on
partnerships will not only create an understandable process for potential partners, but will also
streamline the use of staff time through the development of a standard agreement which
outlines the basic terms for such partnerships.
Discussion
September 13, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1786)
The proposed Emerging Technologies Demonstration and Pilot Partnerships Policy (Policy)
provides a framework for engaging in and evaluating demonstration partnerships. The Policy
also provides an effective economic development attraction and expansion tool not currently
available under City policy. It is designed to achieve a balance between the City seeking
innovative solutions to delivering municipal services, increasing energy efficiency, encouraging
an environment of innovations, budgetary considerations, and providing a level playing field for
emerging companies within similar fields using similar technologies.
The Policy (Attachment 1) enables the City to enter into mutually beneficial partnerships such
as pilot projects, demonstration/ testing or mutual development opportunities.
The primary goals of the Policy are to:
1.Create a streamlined process for creating demonstration/ pilot partnerships.
2.Develop a standard agreement/contract template to streamline procurement and
minimize legal risk.
3.Maintain good business practice and assure added value to the City.
4.Encourage technology firms/ start-up companies to locate in Palo Alto, innovate in Palo
Alto, and grow in Palo Alto.
5.Advance the City’s Municipal and Community energy efficiency/ Sustainability goals and
Economic Development Strategy, and to enhance Palo Alto’s image as the center of the
Silicon Valley’s cutting edge innovation.
As outlined in the Policy, for some projects, the City may use existing Municipal Code Section
2.30 (Contracts and Purchasing Procedures) to test newly developed products or services as a
pilot. However, this process may not sufficiently address the needs of some innovative
companies to have their products tested. Pilot programs are generally not designed to serve as
an economic development tool, but rather as a mechanism to test products or services the City
has interest in using.
Therefore, the Policy offers an alternative scenario under which the City can take advantage of
arising opportunities to learn about new technologies and offer support to innovators in order
to close the innovation commercialization gap. The decision to engage in a Demonstration/
Testing option is driven by a cost/ benefit analysis prior to agreeing to a Demonstration/ Testing
agreement. The mutual development option allows the City to offer a partner more favorable
terms in exchange for the project’s contribution toward economic development of the City
and/or its potential for benefit for use by the City. Such help may include financial assistance,
different risk allocation or exemption from City Policy, if agreed by the Council.
Depending on the nature of the partnership and its benefit to the City, Palo Alto may offer
different levels of support to the project. Usually the City may provide demonstration partners
with access to City land, facilities, equipment, right-of-ways, and/or City data. The purpose of
the cooperation is to test, evaluate, develop, and/or demonstrate innovative solutions defined
as a product, process, service, or information technology that is expected to deliver measurable
environmental, economic, or social benefits and improve performance, overall process
September 13, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1786)
reliability, and control.
It is envisioned that this Policy will allow the City to take advantage of opportunities to test
emerging technologies, products, and service innovations. Moreover, it seeks to provide a
structure for engaging companies either at an early phase of development, attempting to fulfill
an identified need of the City, or seeking to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of an
innovative product or service.
Overall, the Policy provides the City with a framework to engage in temporary partnership
opportunities to advance City priorities and addresses obstacles facing nascent companies.
Prior to engaging in a partnership, staff will follow the proposed framework to evaluate the
potential rewards and risks to the City. Based on the nature of the demonstration project, the
Policy sets forth a process to identify the appropriate process to arrive at the agreement in a
timely manner, while staying consistent with applicable City policies and ordinances.
Example Demonstration Partnership Project
Mutually beneficial demonstration partnerships may involve allowing use of City land, facilities,
equipment, right-of-ways, and/or City data to test, evaluate and/or demonstrate innovative
products or services. A recent innovative partnership with a start up known as People Power
(on Bryant Street) provides a good case study. Staff is using this partnership to more closely
develop and refine its test bed policy and to alert itself of potential issues in this emerging field
of public/private partnerships.
People Power is developing an Energy Services Platform that allows people to see their energy
usage in real time remotely turn off appliances and adjust their heating/cooling levels. By
accessing real-time data, people will be more aware of their usage and the corresponding costs.
The user will then be able to remotely control unnecessary appliances, saving energy, costs, and
reducing greenhouse gasses.
In order to pilot its emerging products, People Power is planning to partner with 20 residents
and 10 local businesses by placing its technology in half the homes and businesses, using the
additional customers as a control group. The volunteers will need to have a smart phone and
be willing to give access to their utility consumption data during the trial period. The City’s
Utilities Department (CPAU) will allow People Power to install the necessary equipment on the
gas and electricity meters at the selected homes and businesses. In addition, CPAU will partially
fund the endeavor through its Public Benefit Demand Side Management (DSM) program as a
Research and Development project.
The efficiency and conservation programs funded through the DSM budget help residential and
business customers reduce water, natural gas and electricity usage by incentivizing efficiency
improvements, promoting new conservation technologies, supporting new installations of
renewable energy generation and assisting low income customers manage and pay for their
utility usage. More information on this portfolio of programs is available on the City’s website
at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=14820
September 13, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1786)
The devices that will be placed on the volunteers’ meters by People Power are similar to those
already being used by Acterra through the City-funded Green@Home program. These power
control monitors (PCM’s) clamp onto the meter and transmit usage information to a display
inside the home or business. There, the customer can track usage and/or cost instantly. The
instant feedback through these monitors will give residents and businesses a greater
understanding of the usage requirements of their different appliances and equipment and a
better ability to manage their utility consumption and bills. For CPAU, this program will allow
staff to begin tracking the cost-effectiveness of this type of feedback method. Based on the
results of this pilot project, this type of program could be expanded to other customers.
The City believes that piloting this emerging technology will also highlight Palo Alto as a place of
innovation, which we can use to enhance our sustainability message and goals, while testing
this technology and feedback method for changing resident and business energy usage. If the
pilot proves successful and is expanded throughout the City to other customers, it could result
in a reduction in environmental impacts, including energy usage and carbon emissions, as well
as potentially creating jobs.
A partnership agreement with People Power was launched recently under the City Manager
office’s review. The City Manager’s office collaborated with the City Attorney’s office to
develop a contract template that would facilitate innovation, streamline procurement and
minimize legal risk.
Future Implementation
To oversee future implementation, the City Manager will designate the Emerging Technology
Demonstration and Pilot Partnerships Coordinator, a point person within the City Manager’s
Office for Demonstration or Piloting Partnership inquiries. The Economic Development
Manager will serve in this role for the near term. As part of on-going reporting efforts to the
Council, the Coordinator will provide periodic reports to update the Council on the program. In
addition, partnership agreements that have a value of $85,000 or greater, expose the City to an
extraordinary risk, or require an exemption from the Policy will be brought forward to the City
Council for consideration.
Resource Impact
Implementation of the Policy will require varying levels of support depending on the nature of
the partnership agreement. Generally, a demonstration or piloting partnership should be at no
cost or a substantially discoutned cost to the City. If a potential partnership requires funding,
the Economic Development Manager or lead Department will secure appropriate funding. Hard
costs for program financing will be expected to provide a return to the City.
It is expected that some staff time will be needed to coordinate the facilitation of these
partnerships, especially by the City’s Economic Development Manager, Attorney, and Public
Works and Utility Staff. However, because current partnerships have occurred on an ad-hoc
basis, staff expects that overall staff time will be used more efficiently, thereby using less
resources in the long run. These adminstrative costs will be absorbed by current City Staff.
September 13, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1786)
Policy Implications
This policy will advance the Council Priorities of Environmental Sustainability and City
Finances/Economic Development.
Environmental Review (If Applicable)
Not subject to CEQA
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Test Bed Policy (DOC)
Prepared By:Katie Whitley, Administrative Assistant
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Attachment A
DRAFT POLICY
The City may enter into a Demonstration Partnership Agreement with the purpose of
testing, evaluating and/or demonstrating innovative solutions if the potential
partnership follows the Goals of Demonstration Partnerships and meets the
requirements of the Guiding Principles set forth in this Policy. The application of this
Policy depends on the type of Demonstration Partnership as defined in this policy. The
City may consider but it is not limited to, some of the following to enter into a
meaningful demonstration partnership:
1. Make available temporary use of City owned land, facilities, equipment, rights-of-way
and data.
2. Provide financial assistance and/or absorb some costs for project implementation.
3. Agree to non-disclosure statements.
4. Request City Council to exempt the project from certain City Policies.
DEFINITIONS
A "Demonstration Partnership" refers to an agreement between the City and
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and/or other governmental agencies to test,
evaluate and/or demonstrate innovative solutions utilizing City land, facilities,
equipment, right of ways, and City data. The partnership may fall into the following
types:
1. "Pilot Project" refers to a product, process, service, or information technology that is
currently available in the U.S. marketplace and that the City may want to explore for
further application to improve City services.
2. "Demonstration/Testing" refers to a request by an outside party for the City to
provide the outside party with City land, facilities, right of ways, equipment or/and data
for the purpose of testing, evaluating and/or demonstrating the outside party
innovative solution.
3. "Mutual Development Opportunity" refers to a Demonstration/Testing partnerships
that the City has identified as a potential candidate for a contribution toward economic
development and/or has the potential for a benefit for use by the City."Innovative
solution" refers to a product, process, service, or information technology that is new or
improves an existing product, process, service, or information technology and is not
currently deployed in the U.S.marketplace. An innovative solution is expected to deliver
measurable benefits compared to current practice in the areas of environmental
benefits, performance, overall process reliability and control, or economic or social
benefits. Moreover, an innovative solution shall consist of a specific and identifiable
research component.
Attachment A
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
A. Goals of Demonstration Partnerships
Through demonstration partnerships, the City strives to achieve one or more of the
following:
a. create new markets and new jobs or/and support existing local innovators;
b. improve quality and efficiency of City services and operations;
c. advance the City's Green Vision and Economic Development Strategy; and
d. educate the public about innovative solutions.
B. Guiding Principles
Mutual benefits and consistency with City Policy
Both the City's and the partner's goals should be openly and clearly stated. The City will
strive that a proposed partnership be mutually beneficial to both parties. All
partnerships shall, to the extent feasible, be consistent with all applicable policies and
ordinances set by the City, with variance from policy subject to City Council approval.
Mitigated Risk
The partners, its employees and potential subcontractors must, at a minimum, comply
with all applicable laws, codes, rules, regulations and requirements pertaining to the
execution of the demonstration project.
Coordination
The City Manager will designate a Demonstration Partnerships Coordinator who
coordinates the partnership creation process as defined in this policy. Each proposed
partnership will be coordinated with all City departments identified by the Partnerships
Coordinator as being crucial to the success of the project.
Performance Measurement and Evaluation
At the outset of each Demonstration Partnership a set of performance measures should
be established. At the conclusion of each project, a report evaluating the project against
the stated performance measures and any additional information should be forwarded
to the Demonstration Partnerships Coordinator.
C. Partnership Process
Step 1. The City department or Partnerships Coordinator identifies the type of
Demonstration Project considered.
1. Pilot Projects should to the extent possible follow the procedures established by the
Finance Department/Purchasing Division or the Public Works Department, if the project
is a public work.
Attachment A
2. Demonstration/Testing Projects should first be subjected to an initial assessment,
prepared by the proponent, to identify the potential costs and benefit to the City in
engaging in the project. Estimated cost factors should include staff time, out of pocket
expenditures, risk to the City and lost opportunity of providing core services. Projects
that are found to have costs that outweigh the benefits should not be engaged in as a
Demonstration/Testing Project.
3. Mutual Development Opportunities must identify potential for a contribution toward
economic development of the City and/or have the potential for a benefit for use by the
City. To the extent that the City might not otherwise engage in such a project, the City's
Office of Economic Development or interested City Departments may identify resources
for the City to engage in the Project.
Step 2. The Partnerships Coordinator in conjunction with City departments will prioritize
potential demonstration partnerships based on the following criteria:
1. Consistency of the goals of the proposed partnership with the City's mission and core
services.
2. Consistency with existing laws, City policies and practices.
3. Balance between the potential benefit of the partnership with the level of risk
assumed by the City.
4. Potential for actual or perceived conflicts between demonstration partners' and City's
goals or business practices.
Step 3. Based on internal interests and requests from potential demonstration partners,
the Partnerships Coordinator, in consultation with the City Procurement Officer will
decide whether to negotiate with a potential demonstration partner or pursue, to the
extent feasible and practicable, a competitive process as prescribed by the City of Palo
Alto Municipal Code [Chapter 2.30].The Partnerships Coordinator may decide to use
modified competitive models where it is infeasible or impractical to follow established
City procedures. When the Mutual Development Opportunities Model is employed, City
staff may negotiate concurrently with potential partners to establish the most
advantageous demonstration partnerships and to arrive at a timely agreement which is
consistent with this policy and applicable City policies and ordinances.
Step 4. The City, if requested to share some of the potential liability in recognition of the
benefit to be gained by the City, should decide the matter by applying processes used
for other Public-Private Partnership agreements within the City. This includes but is not
limited to mutual indemnification.
Attachment A
Step 5. Demonstration Partnership Agreements shall be approved by the City Council
when:
1. Involving City revenues or expenses of $85,000 or greater,
2. Exposing the City to an extraordinary risk, or
3. Requiring exemption from City Policies.
D. Duration and closure
Each Demonstration Partnership should have a limited duration that is established at
the outset. At the conclusion of each project a report evaluating the project against the
stated performance measures and any additional information should be forwarded to
the Demonstration Partnerships Coordinator. Depending on the partnership agreement
the City may require partners to remove all equipment or materials installed and to
return City property to its original condition.
E. Responsibilities
All demonstration partnerships will be coordinated by the leading City department(s)
under the direction of the Partnerships Coordinator designated by the City Manager.
The Demonstration Partnerships Coordinator will be responsible for:
1. Implementing this policy.
2. Providing guidance to all City departments regarding the interpretation and
application of this policy.
3. Reviewing and assisting in the development of partnership agreements.
4. Tracking and reporting all demonstration partnerships developed by City
departments.
5. Acting as a contact person for partnership opportunities and connecting potential
demonstration partners with appropriate departments.
6. Recommending to the appropriate Authority approval or denial of the proposed
Demonstration Partnership Agreements.
7. Regularly reporting to the City Council regarding the implementation of this policy
and the status of all partnership agreements approved to date.
Extract from Sacramento Municipal Utility District Website
Customer Advanced Technologies
SMUD's Customer Advanced Technologies (CAT) is a research and development
program designed to encourage customers to use and evaluate new or
underutilized technologies.
Unlike many R & D programs, research is accomplished through implementing
real-world demonstration projects (instead of laboratory testing). CAT provides
funding for customers in exchange for a two-year monitoring agreement.
Completed demonstration projects include lighting technologies, light emitting
diodes (LEDs), building envelopes, heating ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems, and a wide variety of other technologies.
Reports describing the results for many of these projects are available. To
download the reports, please click on the links provided below. All files require
Adobe Acrobat Reader to view or print.
Please note that SMUD does not endorse specific products or manufacturers. The
information, statements, representations, graphs and data presented in these
reports are provided by SMUD as a public service. Mention of any particular
product or manufacturer should not be construed as an implied endorsement.
Quarterly newsletter
CAT produces a free electronic newsletter that is published and distributed via e-
mail on a quarterly basis. The newsletter describes current research efforts and
includes a calendar of scheduled technology workshops.
Lighting technologies
Since lighting comprises approximately 20 percent of all electrical energy use in
California, development of new energy-efficient technologies is important for our
energy future. The evaluations presented below demonstrate the pioneering
spirit of SMUD's customer-owners.
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
It takes a lot of energy to heat and cool our homes and businesses. SMUD is
well-known for its innovation and pioneering spirit, particularly in the area of
energy-efficiency. SMUD customers have installed geothermal heat pumps,
evaporative condensed air conditioners, indirect/direct evaporative cooling
(IDEC) systems and other ultra-high efficiency cooling techniques.
Other technologies
SMUD customers have participated in demonstration projects for a wide variety
of technologies including non-chemical water treatment systems, voltage
regulation devices, solar powered lighting systems and solar powered pond
circulators.
_______________________________________ City of Palo Alto
DRAFT
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
EXCERPT MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 2011
ITEM 2: ACTION: Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration Program
Senior Resource Planner Debbie Lloyd provided a summary of the report. The Utilities Emerging
Technology Demonstration Program (Program) is being introduced to promote the testing, evaluation and
deployment of new technologies or innovative applications for the benefit of Utility customers. Lloyd
explained the background to the proposal: Utilities’ existing public benefits programs; UAC support for an
expanded demonstration program; and the City manager’s proposal for a city-wide policy. She also
summarized the proposed program structure with an ongoing application process and quarterly evaluation
and selection of projects; funding levels of $50,000 from the existing public benefits program and an
additional $200,000 for FY 2012; and the evaluation criteria for selecting participating projects.
Commissioner Keller asked if here is a defined timeline to getting benefits from the projects. Lloyd stated
that it would depend on the project - it could be long term or short term. Commissioner Keller asked how
the funds were established from each fund. Lloyd stated that the legal uses of the funds will be considered.
Ratchye stated that this was staff's initial guess of where the benefits would accrue. Director Fong added
that staff would need to be careful to not commingle funds.
Commissioner Keller asked if NCPA has a program. Lloyd advised that ETCC is funded by the Investor
Owned Utilities and the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District. NCPA works with the Public Benefits
Committee to coordinate innovation and R&D efforts at member utility locations.
Vice Chair Berry asked if the program will go to the Finance Committee. Staff indicated that it may go to
the Finance Committee and/or the Policy and Services Committee.
Commissioner Waldfogel asked if there would be an annual report to the UAC. Lloyd said yes.
Commissioner Waldfogel asked if the City could get an equity position in any start-up for which we provided
support or funding taking a page from Stanford University. Director Fong thanked the commissioner for the
idea and promised to look into it.
Chair Foster clarified that money would be spent primarily for consultants to do post-installation evaluation.
Regarding the ETCC, it is a valuable entity and CPAU has been involved in their meetings. He stated that
he likes the program
Commissioner Eglash asked what the money can and cannot be spent on. Lloyd said that the majority will
be spent on consultants for evaluation. Commissioner Eglash advised that staff make very clear any
restrictions on what CPAU's money will be used for. Commissioner Eglash supported the level of budget
devoted to the effort and how high the bar is being set to select projects, and believes that this will help to
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 2
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 2
mitigate the risk of opportunity costs spent in engaging these companies. Commissioner Eglash stated that
a willingness to take risks should not be equated to a willingness to make bad decisions, and that the
proposed list of criteria and the transparent process will help prevent bad decisions. Commissioner Eglash
suggested that future reports and presentations address how the program will be managed –as the current
focus is on launching the program and selecting projects. As an example, will a company be required to
commit to milestones?
Commissioner Keller asked if the results will be evaluated and if that could be used to expand the program,
if justified. Lloyd explained that most of the funds are anticipated to be spent on that activity. She cited the
SMUD program described in the report as an example of how projects and evaluation results could be
shared.
ACTION:
Chair Foster made a motion to support the staff recommendation. Commissioner Keller seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
EXCERPT MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee Meeting
November 29, 2011
Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the Policy and Services Committee
Recommend that Council Establish the Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration
Program
Utilities Advisory Commission Chair, Jon Foster stated that the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) and the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) had been
working together for the past two years to establish a Utilities Emerging Technology
Demonstration Program. The issue was brought forward in late 2009/early 2010
because several emerging energy technology companies viewed Palo Alto as an
innovative place where they could bring and demonstrate new products. Companies
that presented their products to larger utility venues ran into difficulties and sometimes
found it impossible to try to get through bureaucratic barriers. Companies found that
Palo Alto had an interest but the City did not have a program to accommodate their
needs. The Staff brought forward a pilot program that was endorsed by the UAC to
facilitate the incoming applications from technology companies. The program would
start small with limited funds from the City to hire a consultant and to purchase
equipment to help assess the products. The funds could not be used for grants or
loans. The pilot program looked promising and it should generate a large number of
applications. Both Palo Alto and the companies involved could benefit from the new
products and technologies.
Council Member Klein asked why the companies were not paying for the services.
Mr. Foster stated utility companies would volunteer staff time and services and did not
charge the companies. He said it appeared to be the common practice and did not
know why it was done that way.
Council Member Klein stated he had worked with several developing companies that
paid to have their product tested and raised concerns regarding the practice.
Mr. Foster stated that would be an interesting question to ask the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
Council Member Klein suggested asking companies during the evaluation process if
they planned to pay the City for its services.
1 P&S 11-29-11
Mr. Foster raised concerns that companies may ask for something rigorous in return if
they had to pay. The City could find itself in a competitive situation because there
were utility companies that did not charge for services. Palo Alto and its residents
would have the advantage of being a test bed and the opportunity to be the first to try
new products.
Chair Price said it would be worthwhile to examine a fee arrangement. Palo Alto had
an attraction and a draw. The City could establish a fee agreement and at a minimum,
charge the companies for Staff’s valuable time and expertise.
Council Member Burt said Council Member Klein viewed the issue as a factor and
Council Member Price spoke of a fee structure that could be formulaic. He said a
company could have a product that Palo Alto and residents could benefit from but the
fee could be a barrier, where as, a company could have a less gainful product and was
able to meet the fee.
Council Member Klein said he was in favor of the program but was not swayed to
allow the City to try a product for services rendered. He felt that companies who felt
Palo Alto was the right place to promote their product would have no problem in
meeting some form of compensation.
Mr. Foster asked Council Member Klein what his thoughts were regarding
compensation.
Council Member Klein said it could be a fee or an arrangement for the Utilities
Department to adapt in a system where the company would give the City a discount
for a certain amount of time.
Chair Price said there were several forms of compensation models that could be
explored.
Council Member Burt stated that having a set of cutting-edge programs was a good
reason for a program like this. There had been conversations on how to build a set of
cutting-edge energy initiatives. With environmentally focused values, our greatest
impact would be not just about Palo Alto, but about what would be the greatest
environmental impact we would have.
Council Member Holman raised concerns of how the public might view the program in
certain scenarios. She asked if there would be inherent conflicts or legal reasons why
the City could not accept stock in exchange for service.
Mr. Foster said getting stocks in exchange was a very complicated issue. He clarified
that his response was not from a legal standpoint but from one who worked for a
venture-back software company that encountered difficulties in getting stocks.
2 P&S 11-29-11
Council Member Holman clarified she was referring to an inherit conflict and not a
conflict of interest.
Utilities Director, Valerie Fong said the City was not at that point but would need to
take a hard look at the stock option and with legal guidance. She said Staff was in the
stages of looking for utility benefits that could accrue for customers from emerging
technologies. The pilot program would start with limited City funds and staffing and
would be an initial foray to see what was out there, who was interested, and practice
on how to handle and evaluate proposals.
Council Member Holman stated that she was looking for the best way to leverage the
City’s investment for future payback.
Ms. Lloyd stated $200,000 was needed to start the pilot program. The budget for
energy efficiency in the coming year was $.95 million for gas efficiency and $3.38
million for electric energy efficiency. She said investing in these innovative products
would provide the opportunity to learn what products worked in the community and
what would be good investments for energy efficiency.
Council Member Klein stated the City would not have the right to use the product to
make improvements to the City. The intent on how the product would be used needed
to be stipulated in a contract. The company owned the product and the City would be
subjected to a confidentiality agreement.
Ms. Fong disagreed and explained that the use of the product would be a benefit to the
industry and the customers as the industry goes through a learning curve.
Council Member Klein did not see it in those terms and said that was not how the rest
of the world operated.
Mr. Foster supported Ms. Fong’s comment and said if a new, company-owned, product
such as an energy control system, was deployed in 100 houses in Palo Alto and the
test proved to be significant, the end results would be that people would purchase the
product.
Council Member Klein said legally that would not fly and a confidentiality agreement
would need to be dealt with.
Council Member Burt asked Mr. Foster if the vision was that a pilot program would
determine what worked and what did not work in the community. The program would
then be in a better position of taking advantage of the opportunity to scale the product
as a pilot user who would understand the pros and cons and would be in a better
position to decide whether to scale the product for the community. It would constrain
3 P&S 11-29-11
scaling the product elsewhere but would provide a learning curve, would not be
competing with other communities, and would be an advantage to the City.
Mr. Foster agreed.
Council Member Burt noted other advantages. He said the Stanford Research Park and
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) were two research institutes located right in
Palo Alto. They had expressed an interest in things that were being done in Palo Alto
and essentially would allow the City to leverage their resources in research and
development (R&D), and could gain from the program’s evaluation. The City had
benefited from becoming an early leader in a couple of developments in the last
decade. In 1993, the Dark Fiber service became an economic driver for the
community. The City also had a Renewable Energy portfolio that was further ahead
than the rest of the state. Those were two examples that worked well and the
community benefited from its service, its cost-effectiveness, and environmental
achievements. He spoke of Linkoping, Sweden, one of the Palo Alto’s Sister Cities that
had an advanced incinerating system that generated revenue. Linkoping
commercialized and sold plants all over the world. He said Linkoping had a different
form of government and did not envision commercialization to occur in the City.
Mr. Foster addressed Council Member Holman’s issue regarding stocks. He said one
approach would be to get the program going and once the program proved to be
successful, stock options could be looked at.
Chair Price encouraged looking into a fee agreement. She said Staff time and service
were valuable. Palo Alto had accessible benefits and many technology companies had
a fair amount of resources. She felt the City would undervalue its expertise and the
program to not explore the option.
Council Member Klein referred to a statement in the Staff Report ID#2217, page 4,
regarding SMUD that stated “The customer’s site is the test bed for the R&D project
and the customer assumes most of the risk.” He asked if SMUD assumed some of the
risk or was it clear that the customer assumed all of the risk.
Ms. Fong stated it was the supplier that assumed the risk.
Council Member Klein wanted confirmation the City would not assume risk.
Mr. Foster confirmed the City would not be assuming risk.
Ms. Fong stated some of the companies were Startup companies and products would
fail.
Council Member Klein stated it would be helpful to not talk about Startup companies
4 P&S 11-29-11
because a product could be coming from an established company.
Council Member Klein asked if the City was getting a lot of applications.
Ms. Fong stated several industries with various products had applied.
Ms. Lloyd stated one evaluation criterion was how much money the company proposed
to put into the project.
Council Member Klein stated the Staff Report noted that SMUD was a member of the
Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council (ETCC) that represented the Municipal
Utilities in the state. He asked if the SMUD represented Palo Alto.
Ms. Fong said they were the Municipal Utility on ETCC Council.
Ms. Lloyd said they did not represent the City in legal or financial matters. Palo Alto
had voiced an interest to join the ETTC. SMUD took on the responsibility to provide
information and to invite Palo Alto to their meetings, otherwise the City would need to
pay for membership and allocate resources to the ETTC. It was an informal
relationship.
Council Member Klein addressed comments regarding program evaluation and Staff
time. He stated there could be a need to hire a new person to handle the tasks. He
asked why added staffing was not included in the report.
Ms. Fong said Staff involvement and time allocation was undetermined at this time.
Staff could submit a request with justification if needed. She envisioned starting the
program with little effort.
Ms. Lloyd stated that the first year budget would entail program setup, putting into
place an on-line application process, and to setting up an evaluation committee. Most
of the money would be spent on a consultant to evaluate the program, with the
possibility of a part-time person to manage the day-to-day work.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Burt, that the Policy and
Services Committee recommend that Council establish the Utilities Emerging
Technology Demonstration Program with a budget of $200,000 for FY 2012 and direct
Staff to develop a process for evaluating and selecting projects with an added criteria
to the “Proposed Evaluation Criteria” on page 5 of 8 stating “financial or other benefits
to the City” as the second criteria.
Council Member Holman stated the draft policy was attached to the Staff report and
asked if that was still in effect.
5 P&S 11-29-11
Ms. Lloyd clarified the draft policy was a Citywide policy and needed more work.
Ms. Fong stated that Thomas Fehrenbach, Economic Development and Redevelopment
Manager, had planned to return with more input on the Implementation Guidelines and
Partnership portion. She said she had conversations with the City Manager to launch a
smaller program to see how it would work. The Utilities Department’s piece would be
to learn from the pilot program and would provide updates to the Citywide policy.
Ms. Lloyd stated that the Citywide policy would continued to develop while the pilot
program moved forward and could act as a springboard for the Citywide policy and a
test bed on how to streamline the process.
Council Member Holman asked if the “Implementation of the Guidelines” was part of
the policy.
Ms. Lloyd said it was not part of the pilot program guidelines.
Ms. Fong said the pilot program piece was a subset of the larger piece.
Council Member Holman raised concerns regarding security and privacy issues.
Ms. Fong said the program would need to work closely with the City Attorney’s office to
make sure to not jeopardize customer information and to get waivers from voluntary
customers. She was hesitant to embrace the fee-based concept, which could be
perceived as selling customer information. Voluntary customers needed to self-identify
themselves during the initial launch of the program. Privacy laws were strict and
needed to be cautious.
Ms. Lloyd suggested the possibility of charging an application processing fee.
Mr. Foster addressed Council Member Holman’s concerns regarding the security and
privacy issues and referred to #4 of the PowerPoint presentation on the screen
regarding privacy and indemnity provisions.
Ms. Lloyd said the four main evaluation criteria that needed to be met to qualify for the
program were: the product needed to be: 1) innovative in nature, or the application
needed to be innovative, 2) applicability to CPAU and its customers, 3) have beneficial
features of the technology, and 4) be acceptable of the City’s contractual indemnity
and customer privacy protection.
Council Member Klein proposed to add “and become one of the top five requirements.”
Chair Price asked at what point would the performance measures take place and who
the key driver of the exercise would be.
6 P&S 11-29-11
7 P&S 11-29-11
Ms. Fong said an evaluator may be hired after the first year of the program to
evaluation how well the program work.
Ms. Lloyd stated one criteria was to propose a start date, milestones, and duration of
the demonstration. The Committee did not want to see a five-year pilot program.
Council Member Holman stated there were 10 criteria listed in the Staff report and
needed clarification on why only five were shown in the presentation.
Ms. Fong said the first five were threshold criteria and the minimum requirements the
project had to meet in order to qualify for the program. The others would be used to
evaluate and rank the applications.
Council Member Klein asked that the added criteria, “financial or other benefits to the
City” would become criteria No. 2, under the Propose Evaluation Criteria. The third
sentence in the paragraph should read “The first five criteria listed below are the
minimum requirements for a project to be included in the CPAU Program.”
Council Member Burt stated that the first five criteria should be set apart from the
others to indicate they were minimum requirements.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2394)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2394)
Summary Title: Utilities 2012 Legislative Policy Guidelines
Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution
Approving the City of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council adopt a
resolution approving the Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012.
Executive Summary
The Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012 (Attachment B) have been updated to
respond to recent legislative and regulatory trends to: 1) provide direction to staff in evaluating
and responding to legislative action involving Utilities issues, and 2) clarify approved policy and
advocacy direction when active involvement of Palo Alto elected officials is required.
The guidelines are grouped in five sections: the first addressing legislative policy guidelines that
are common to all utilities (electric, gas, water, wastewater, and fiber), and the following four
sections addressing those guidelines that are specific to water, gas, electric, or wastewater
collection. Each section includes a set of goals for the utility and guidelines for Palo Alto staff
and elected officials when taking action to achieve the goals.
Background
The utility industry is a high-profile and heavily regulated industry that is subject to copious
legislative action at both the state and federal levels. Such legislation can influence, among
other things, the reliability and security of the supply and distribution infrastructure,
commodity procurement practices, customer service and billing, program design, rate design,
and activities and costs associated with climate protection. Representatives of the City
(appointed and elected officials and staff) participate in Federal and State legislative forums to
advocate positions on energy-and water-related issues that facilitate the City’s current
strategic objectives, as adopted in the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan. The City also participates in
joint action efforts to advocate for goals and objectives shared by other publicly-owned
utilities.
At the State level, hundreds of bills focused on the utility industry can be introduced each year.
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2394)
The number of bills introduced,the pace at which bills change and new language is negotiated,
and the often surprising speed at which bills can be placed for a vote during the legislative year
requires staff and elected officials to respond quickly if the City is to have any influence on the
resulting legislation. Often, a response to an amended bill is required in a matter of a day or
two. These timing constraints preclude a return to the UAC and Council for approval each time
a response is required. Therefore, a set of policy guidelines is developed each year that
identifies the goals and priorities for the City to be applied by staff when evaluating and
responding to legislation. While the guidelines are used by staff for evaluating legislation, any
advocacy positions taken in alignment with these guidelines will be subject to the approval of
the Utilities Director or City Manager per the City’s legislative advocacy process.
Although it is impractical to return for approval each time a letter is sent in response to a bill
amendment, the issues under debate are known to the UAC and Council through their
participation in legislative committee meetings, the publications and summaries circulated from
joint action agencies, and updates from the City Manager, Utilities Director and other staff.
Formal letters responding to legislative bills or amendments will be distributed to the UAC and
Council.
Commission Review and Recommendation
The Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012 were presented to the UAC at its December
7, 2011 meeting. The UAC proposed one change to make a guideline more generally applicable
to legislative remedies. The UAC unanimously approved a motion to recommend that the City
Council approve the Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012. Draft minutes from the UAC
meeting are included as Attachment C.
Staff has incorporated the change recommended by the UAC into the attached proposed
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012.
Resource Impact
There is no direct resource impact associated with adoption of the proposed legislative policy
guidelines. However, actions taken that support the efficient use of the City’s assets and
resources will help control costs, implement the Council’s policies and goals, and protect utility
customers.
Policy Implications
The recommendation is consistent with Council policy and supports the 2011 Utilities Strategic
Plan’s objectives of: ensuring a reliable and safe supply of utility resources, providing customer
service excellence, managing costs, and ensuring environmental sustainability.
Environmental Review
Approval of a resolution adopting the Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011 does not
meet the definition of a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), thus, no environmental review is required.
January 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2394)
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution Approving Utilities Legislative Guidelines 2012 (PDF)
·Attachment B: Proposed 2012 Legislative Policy Guidelines (PDF)
·Attachment C: Excerpt of Draft UAC Minutes from December 7 2011 Meeting (PDF)
·Attachment D: Report to UAC -Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012 (PDF)
Prepared By:Debra Lloyd, Manager
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
* NOT YET APPROVED*
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Approving the City of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative
Policy Guidelines for 2012
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto Utilities Strategic Plan ("Strategic Plan"),
approved by the Council of the City of Palo Alto on July 18,2011, [CMR 1880] provides a set of
Strategic Objectives for the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) to follow in ensuring
a reliable and safe supply of utility resources, providing customer service excellence, managing
costs, and ensuring environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS, CPAU annually identifies Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines
that facilitate the Strategic Plan's Strategic Objectives; and advocates for utility-related issues at
Federal and State legislative forums in furtherance of those objectives; and
WHEREAS, in December 2011 CP AU staff updated the Legislative Policy
Guidelines to respond to recent legislative and regulatory trends; and
WHEREAS, action on some of these issues may require active involvement of
Palo Alto elected and appointed officials; and
WHEREAS, the Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012 were presented
tQJhe. UAC. allts December I,201Lmeeti.ng,andJne_UAG\I'Qte~~CLto O_(with'cQmmissioner
Keller absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Utilities' Legislative Policy
Guidelines with the changes recommended by the UAC.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the resolution approving the Utilities
Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that any revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2,
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
II
II
II
II
II
111219 dm 6051648
* NOT YET APPROVED*
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not
constitute a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior-Deputy City Attomey
111219 dm 6051648
Mayor
APPROVED:
City-Manager~
Director of Utilities
Director of Administrative
Services
ATTACHMENT B
Utilities’ Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
Advocacy positions taken in alignment with these guidelines will be subject to the approval of the
Utilities Director or City Manager as per the City’s legislative advocacy process
ALL UTILITIES
Goals
1. Preserve/enhance local accountability in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility
programs and rates for our customers while balancing statewide climate protection goals.
2. Support legislation that makes bold progress in cost effectively reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and recognizes early voluntary action.
3. Support efforts to maintain or improve the reliability of the supply, transmission, storage and
distribution/collection infrastructures.
4. Maintain the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) ability to provide safe, reliable, sustainable, and
competitively-priced utility services.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Accountability
2. Climate
Protection
3. Reliability
&
Infrastructure
4. Service
& Cost
Control
1. Advocate goals through active
participation in joint action efforts.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
2. Communicate the City’s record on
environmental and energy efficiency
programs with Legislature, California
Energy Commission (CEC), California
Air Resources Board (CARB), and
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) via California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA),
Northern California Power Agency
(NCPA), and the Bay Area Water
Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA).
State
3. Support legislation that will result in
the most cost-effective reduction of
GHG emissions, recognition of early
action, and inclusion of more efficient
solutions, such as cogeneration,
distributed resources, and demand
control programs, in integrated
resource plans.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
1. Local
Accountability
2. Climate
Protection
3. Reliability
&
Infrastructure
4. Service
& Cost
Control
4. Promote utility legislation and
regulations that support reasonable
reliability standards and compliance
requirements, and effective and
consistent reporting requirements,
customer communications, and goal-
setting.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
Reliability
Councils
5. Oppose cost shifts from Federal or
State budgets and California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC)
jurisdictional utilities through active
participation in CMUA and NCPA
legislative activities.
Federal,
State, and
CPUC
6. Advocate for State and Federal grants
for local and regional applications of
energy efficiency, conservation,
renewable resources, fiber, wastewater
collection systems and recycled water
projects.
Federal and
State
7. Maintain right of way access for utility
infrastructure.
Federal and
State
8. Protect the value of existing assets and
contracts and local regulatory
approvals of same.
Federal and
State
Page 2 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
WATER
Goals
1. Increase the security and reliability of the regional water system owned and operated by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).
2. Maintain the provision of an environmentally sustainable, reliable supply of high quality water at a
fair price.
3. Support ability of municipal utilities to develop and manage their own conservation and efficiency
programs and retain authority over ratemaking, including the ability to optimize volumetric and fixed
charges to balance the goals of revenue certainty and water use efficiency.
4. Support efficiency and recycled water programs in order to minimize the use of imported supplies.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2. Supplies
at fair cost
3. Local
Authority
4.
Minimize
imports
1. Advocate goals through active participation in
the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA) and California
Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA),
with support from Palo Alto staff for
BAWSCA and the San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Water System Financing Authority
(RFA).
Local,
Regional
& State
2. Participate in California Urban Water
Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best
Management Practice (BMP) revisions and
development to ensure that aggressive and
cost-effective efficiency goals are
incorporated and operating proposals are
reasonable, achievable, and cost-effective.
State
3. Advocate to ensure that legislative actions
regarding the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and
conveyance system include the following
requirements:
timely rebuilding of the regional water
system;
maintains the quality of delivered water;
minimizes any increase in the cost of
water;
creates no additional exposure to more
frequent or severe water shortages;
supports the existing water system and its
operation.
Local,
Regional
& State
Page 3 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2. Supplies
at fair cost
3. Local
Authority
4.
Minimize
imports
4. Advocate for interpretations or
implementation of Water Code provisions
(such as those enacted by AB 1823 (2002),
AB 2058 (2002) and SB 1870 (2002)) that
maintain or reinforce the authorities and
protections available to the City and
BAWSCA members outside of San Francisco.
Local,
Regional,
and State
5. Support provision of sufficient resources for
BAWSCA to enable it to advocate for:
an environmentally sustainable, reliable
supply of high quality water at a fair
price;
preservation of Palo Alto’s existing
contractual water allocation and
transportation rights on the SFPUC Hetch
Hetchy system;
regional planning for conservation,
recycled water, and other water supply
projects.
Local
and
Regional
6. Advocate for:
actions that preserve Palo Alto’s existing
contractual rights
supporting actions that preserve local
control over water use and limit
encroachment from outside jurisdictions
Local
and
Regional
7. Support infrastructure security and reliability
including an interconnection between the
SCVWD West Pipeline with the SFPUC’s
Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4.
Regional,
and State
8. Support notification requirements that aid
residents/customers but do not inflict undue or
unobtainable requirements on the utility.
State
9. Support local control of public benefit funds
funding levels and program design.
State
10. Support beneficiary pays methodologies to
prevent taxes or fees, in particular those
imposed on SFPUC customers, to fund
infrastructure improvements and costs of
other water sources such as the Delta.
State
11. Advocate for financing or funding for water
conservation programs and recycled water
projects that meet end-use needs and conserve
potable water and oppose legislation that
would reduce such funding.
Regional,
State and
Federal
Page 4 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
GAS
Goals
1. Preserve/enhance the ability of municipal utilities to develop their own demand side efficiency and
conservation programs, alternative gas supplies, and rate structure.
2. Support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.
3. Increase the security and reliability of the gas supply and transmission infrastructure. This includes
retaining access to intra- and interstate gas transmission systems to reliably serve customers.
4. Preserve just and reasonable utility rates/bills.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Authority
2.
Environ-
ment
3. Reliability
of
Infrastructure
4. Cost
Control
1. Advocate most of these goals mainly
through the American Public Gas
Association (APGA) with minor support
from Palo Alto staff.
Primarily
Federal with
minor advocacy
at State level
2. Work with Northern California Power
Agency (NCPA) and California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA) to the extent
that the City’s goals as a gas distributor
align with generators’ use of natural gas.
Federal and
State
3. Support increased production/incentives
for renewable gas supplies from in or out
of state.
Federal and
State
4. Advocate for financing or funding for cost-
effective natural gas efficiency and solar
water heating end uses.
Federal and
State
5. Support market transparency and efforts to
eliminate market manipulation through
reasonable oversight
Federal
6. Support municipal utilities’ ability to enter
into pre-pay transactions for gas supplies.
Federal
7. Support efforts to improve pipeline safety
in light of recent incidents on the PG&E
system and elsewhere. Work with partners
to discourage extension of CPUC
regulatory authority over municipal gas
operations. Oppose legislative proposals
resulting in unreasonable costs for Palo
Alto’s customers.
Federal and
State
Page 5 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
ELECTRIC
Goals
1. Preserve/enhance the ability of municipal utilities to exercise local accountability and oversight over
matters impacting customer service, programs (such as demand side efficiency and conservation
programs), and rate structure.
2. Preserve/enhance the reliability and security of infrastructure.
3. Support legislation that makes bold progress in cost effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and encourages early voluntary action.
4. Preserve just and reasonable utility rates/bills.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
1. Advocate goals through Northern California
Power Agency (NCPA), California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA), American Public
Power Association (APPA), Transmission
Agency of Northern California (TANC), and
Bay Area Municipal Transmission Group
(BAMx) with support from Palo Alto staff to
speak with a coordinated voice.
Federal
and State
2. Support NCPA’s legislative initiative to
streamline the state regulatory reporting
responsibilities, to eliminate duplicative data
and report submittals to multiple state regulatory
agencies, including the CEC, CARB, and the
California Independent System Operator
(CAISO).
State
3. Advocate for legislation/regulations that provide
local control and support for:
cost-effective clean distributed generation
and cogeneration projects, and standards for
connecting such resources to the local
distribution system;
cost-effective electric efficiency programs;
implementation of renewable portfolio
standards;
cost-effective storage integration;
direct access requirements;
smart meters and smart grid design and
implementation, and
public benefit funds (as allowed in AB1890
(1996)).
Federal
and State
Page 6 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
4. Support cap-and-trade market designs that:
protect consumers from the exercise of
market power;
allocate allowances that help mitigate
impacts to Palo Alto customers while
providing incentives for utilities to move to
lower GHG emission portfolios;
provide flexible compliance mechanisms
such as banking & borrowing of allowances;
allocate funds generated from cap-and-trade
markets to GHG related activities, not as a
revenue source for state or federal general
funds.
Federal
and State
5. Support legislation for renewable portfolio
standards that:
promote the 33% goal for the state;
maintain local compliance authority;
allow utilities to pursue low cost alternatives
by utilizing existing transmission system to
access out-of-state resources, including use
of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs);
prevent double jeopardy in the assessment of
penalties for non-compliance; and
restrict extension of CEC jurisdiction over
Publicly Owned Utilities.
Local and
State
6. Support/encourage transmission, generation, and
demand-reduction projects and solutions
including advocating for financing or funding
solutions/options for projects that:
enhance/ensure reliability;
ensure equitable cost allocation (including
protection against imposition of state-owned
electric contract costs on municipal utility
customers);
improve procurement flexibility (e.g.
resource adequacy rules that ensure
reliability and provide flexibility in meeting
operational requirements or flexibility in
meeting State renewable portfolio standards);
improve market transparency (particularly
transparency of IOU’s transmission and
procurement planning and implementation
activities); and
lower the environmental impact on the Bay
Area and the Peninsula.
Local,
State, and
Federal
Page 7 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
7. Advocate for Congressional, legislative, or
administrative actions on matters impacting
costs or operations of the Western Area Power
Administration such as:
support of Congressional Field Hearings to
explore modernizing flood control strategies,
river regulation and generation strategies at
Central Valley Project (CVP) plants to
enhance generation, water delivery, flood
control and fisheries;
protection of the status of Western Power
Marketing Administration and cost-based
rates;
provisions for preference customers’ first
take at land available with economic
potential for wind farms; and
balancing efforts for competing
environmental improvements in rivers and
Delta conditions with water supply and
hydropower impacts.
Federal,
State and
Regional
8. Advocate for Congressional, legislative, or
administrative actions on matters relating to
overly burdensome reporting and compliance
requirements established by the North American
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC).
Federal,
State and
Regional
9. Support fair and reasonable assessment of grid
reliability established by NERC, WECC, or
FERC and seek Congressional remedies (if
needed) for punitive application of fees and
fines.
Federal
and
Regional
10. Work with California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) or through FERC:
to give buyers of renewable intermittent
resources relief from imbalance penalties;
and
to promote financial and operational changes
that result in timely and accurate settlement
and billing.
Federal
and State
Page 8 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
11. Monitor cyber security issues to ensure that
CPAU, which currently does not have critical
cyber assets, is not subject to NERC cyber
security standards and support NCPA to protect
it and its member agencies from unnecessary
cyber security regulations.
Federal
and
Regional
Page 9 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
Goals
1. Increase the reliability of the local wastewater collection systems.
2. Maintain the provision of an environmentally sustainable, reliable high quality wastewater collection
service at a fair price.
3. Support ability of municipal utilities to develop and manage their own conservation and efficiency
programs and retain authority over ratemaking, including the imposition of non-volumetric customer
meter or infrastructure charges for wastewater collection service.
4. Support equal comparisons of wastewater collection systems by regulatory agencies in order to
minimize and reduce onerous, costly and time-intensive reporting requirements and improve value
and accuracy of information reported to the public.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Reliable
infrastructure
2. Maintain
service
3. Local
Authority
4.Valuable
Reporting
1. Advocate goals through active
participation in the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG).
Local,
Regional
& State
2. Advocate to ensure that legislative actions
regarding the comparison of wastewater
collections systems for future regulations
include the following requirements:
timely rebuilding of the local
wastewater systems;
maintains the quality of delivered
wastewater collection service;
minimizes any increase in the cost of
wastewater collection service;
creates no additional exposure to
more frequent or severe wastewater
overflows;
supports the existing wastewater
collections systems and their
operation.
Local,
Regional
& State
3. Support provision of sufficient resources
for ABAG to enable it to advocate for:
environmentally sustainable, reliable
wastewater collection service at a fair
price;
regional comparisons of wastewater
collection projects for future state
grant funding.
Local and
Regional
Page 10 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
Page 11 of 11
1. Reliable
infrastructure
2. Maintain
service
3. Local
Authority
4.Valuable
Reporting
4. Support infrastructure security and
reliability including equitable allocation
of funds for increasing the security of
infrastructure.
Regional,
and State
5. Advocate for funding for wastewater
collections system projects that reduce
overflows and improve collection system
efficiency.
Regional,
State and
Federal
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on:
DRAFT
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2011
ITEM 1: ACTION: Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
Senior Resource Planner Debra Lloyd presented the Utilities Department’s proposed Legislative Policy
Guidelines for 2012. Lloyd explained the reason for the guidelines, to provide direction in evaluating and
responding promptly to legislative action involving utilities and utilities’ issues throughout the year and to
clarify approved policy and advocacy direction when active involvement of Palo Alto elected officials is
required.With the guidelines, advocacy positions can be taken, including having the Mayor or City
Manager send letters without returning to Council.
Lloyd described legislation that is anticipated to be introduced (or re-introduced) in 2012. This includes
legislation related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard, upgrades to the state's water delivery systems
requiring fees on water users, public goods charges, expansion of net metering, distributed generation,
expansion of direct access, use of revenues from cap-and-trade allowance sales, reporting consolidation,
and cyber security issues.
Lloyd described each change proposed from the 2011 guidelines.
Commissioner Berry suggested that water utility guideline #10 be broadened so it is not so restrictive to
SFPUC customers as this could assist the City in its legislative strategy by including allies. Staff proposed
changing the language in the guideline to clarify that we had particular interest in impacts on SFPUC
customers, but were not eliminating any other interests.
Commissioners Melton and Waldfogel questioned the absence of specific guidelines for fiber, as the City
may need guidelines addressing cyber security issues for the fiber system, and municipal ownership of a
fiber utility. Staff explained that fiber is included in the broader “all utility” goals and guidelines, but if and
when issues unique to the fiber utility were identified it would have a separate section. Regarding the
current cyber security issues, Director Fong explained that the city provides dark fiber service and so cyber
security was an issue in respect to how the system was then used by the department in its business
activities. Therefore, cyber security issues were included under the electric utility guidelines.
ACTION:
Commissioner Melton made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Utilities
Legislative Guidelines for 2012. Vice Chair Berry seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
(6-0)with Commissioner Keller absent.
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2011
SUBJECT: Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
______________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST
Staff requests that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council
approve the attached Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012.
DISCUSSION
The utility industry is a high-profile and heavily regulated industry that is subject to copious
legislative action at both the state and federal levels. Such legislation can influence, among other
things, the reliability and security of the supply and distribution infrastructure, commodity
procurement practices, customer service and billing, program design, rate design, and activities
and costs associated with climate protection. Representatives of the City (appointed and elected
officials and staff) participate in Federal and State legislative forums to advocate positions on
energy- and water-related issues that facilitate the City’s current strategic objectives, as adopted
in the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan: ensuring a reliable and safe supply of utility resources,
providing customer service excellence, managing costs, and ensuring environmental
sustainability. The City also participates in joint action efforts to advocate for goals and
objectives shared by other publicly-owned utilities.
At the state level, hundreds of bills focused on the utility industry can be introduced each year.
The number of bills introduced, the pace at which bills change and new language is negotiated,
and the often surprising speed at which bills can be placed for a vote during the legislative year
requires staff and elected officials to respond quickly if the City is to have any influence on the
resulting legislation. Often, a response to an amended bill is required in a matter of a day or two.
These timing constraints preclude a return to the UAC and Council for approval each time a
response is required. Therefore, a set of policy guidelines is developed each year that identifies
the goals and priorities for the City to be applied by staff when evaluating and responding to
legislation. While the guidelines are used by staff for evaluating legislation, any advocacy
positions taken in alignment with these guidelines will be subject to the approval of the Utilities
Director or City Manager per the City’s legislative advocacy process. Although it is impractical
to return for approval each time a letter is sent in response to a bill amendment, the issues under
debate are known to the UAC and Council through their participation in legislative committee
meetings, the publications and summaries circulated from joint action agencies, and updates
from the Utilities Director and her staff. Formal letters responding to legislative bills or
amendments will be distributed to the UAC and Council.
Page 1 of 2
The proposed 2012 Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines have been updated to respond to
recent legislative and regulatory trends. The priorities are grouped in five sections: the first
listing goals, trends and priorities that are common to all utilities, and the following four sections
identifying goals, trends and priorities that are specific to water, gas, electric, and wastewater
collection.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no direct resource impact associatcd with adoption of the proposed legislative policy
guidelines. However, actions taken that support the efficient use of the City's assets and
resources will help control costs, implement the Council's policies and goals, and protect utility
customers.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012 Redline version showing changes from the
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
B. Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012 Clean
C. Summary of Legislative Action in 2011
PREPARED BY: ~~ / DEBRA LLOYD
':jv-Senior Resource Plarmer
REVIEWED BY: \X't4'ANE RA TCHYE U' Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT HEAD: V*FONG-------
Director of Utilities
ATTACHMENT A
Utilities’ Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
Advocacy positions taken in alignment with these guidelines will be subject to the approval of the
Utilities Director or City Manager as per the City’s legislative advocacy process
ALL UTILITIES
Goals
1. Preserve/enhance local accountability in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility
programs and rates for our customers while balancing statewide climate protection goals.
2. Support legislation that makes bold progress in cost effectively reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and recognizes early voluntary action.
3. Support efforts to maintain or improve the reliability of the supply, transmission, storage and
distribution/collection infrastructures.
4. Maintain the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) ability to provide safe, reliable, sustainable, and
competitively-priced utility services.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Accountability
2. Climate
Protection
3. Reliability
&
Infrastructure
4. Service
& Cost
Control
1. Advocate goals through active
participation in joint action efforts.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
2. Communicate the City’s record on
environmental and energy efficiency
programs with Legislature, California
Energy Commission (CEC), California
Air Resources Board (CARB), and
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) via California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA),
Northern California Power Agency
(NCPA), and the Bay Area Water
Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA).
State
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 2 of 12
1. Local
Accountability
2. Climate
Protection
3. Reliability
&
Infrastructure
4. Service
& Cost
Control
3. Support legislation that will result in
the most cost-effective reduction of
GHG emissions, recognition of early
action, and inclusion of more efficient
solutions, such as cogeneration,
distributed resources, and demand
control programs, in integrated
resource plans.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
4. Promote utility legislation and
regulations that support reasonable
reliability standards and compliance
requirements, and effective and
consistent reporting requirements,
customer communications, and goal-
setting.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
Reliability
Councils
5. Oppose cost shifts from Federal or
State budgets and California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC)
jurisdictional utilities through active
participation in CMUA and NCPA
legislative activities.
Federal,
State, and
CPUC
6. Advocate for State and Federal grants
for local and regional applications of
energy efficiency, conservation,
renewable resources, fiber, wastewater
collection systems and recycled water
projects.
Federal
and State
7. Maintain right of way access for utility
infrastructure.
Federal
and State
8. Protect the value of existing assets and
contracts and local regulatory
approvals of same. such contracts.
Federal
and State
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 3 of 12
WATER
Goals
1. Increase the security and reliability of the regional water system owned and operated by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).
2. Maintain the provision of an environmentally sustainable, reliable supply of high quality water at a
fair price.
3. Support ability of municipal utilities to develop and manage their own conservation and efficiency
programs and retain authority over ratemaking, including the ability to optimize volumetric and fixed
charges to balance the goals of revenue certainty and water use efficiency.
4. Support efficiency and recycled water programs in order to minimize the use of imported supplies.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2.
Supplies
at fair cost
3. Local
Authority
4.
Minimize
imports
1. Advocate goals through active participation in
the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA) and California
Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA),
with support from Palo Alto staff for
BAWSCA and the San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Water System Financing Authority
(RFA).
Local,
Regional
& State
2. Participate in California Urban Water
Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best
Management Practice (BMP) revisions and
development to ensure that aggressive and
cost-effective efficiency goals are
incorporated and operating proposals are
reasonable, achievable, and cost-effective.
State
3. Advocate to ensure that legislative actions
regarding the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and
conveyance system include the following
requirements:
timely rebuilding of the regional water
system;
maintains the quality of delivered water;
minimizes any increase in the cost of
water;
creates no additional exposure to more
frequent or severe water shortages;
supports the existing water system and its
operation.
Local,
Regional
& State
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 4 of 12
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2.
Supplies
at fair cost
3. Local
Authority
4.
Minimize
imports
4. Advocate for interpretations or
implementation of Water Code provisions
(such as those enacted by AB 1823 (2002),
AB 2058 (2002) and SB 1870 (2002)) that
maintain or reinforce the authorities and
protections available to the City and
BAWSCA members outside of San Francisco.
Local,
Regional,
and State
5. Support provision of sufficient resources for
BAWSCA to enable it to advocate for:
an environmentally sustainable, reliable
supply of high quality water at a fair
price;
preservation of Palo Alto’s existing
contractual water allocation and
transportation rights on the SFPUC Hetch
Hetchy system;
regional planning for conservation,
recycled water, and other water supply
projects.
Local and
Regional
6. Advocate for:
actions that preserve Palo Alto’s existing
contractual rights
supporting actions that preserve local
control over water use and limit
encroachment from outside jurisdictions
Local
and
Regional
7. Support infrastructure security and reliability
including an interconnection between the
SCVWD West Pipeline with the SFPUC’s
Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4.
Regional,
and State
8. Support notification requirements that aid
residents/customers but do not inflict undue or
unobtainable requirements on the utility.
State
9. Support local control of public benefit funds
funding levels and program design.
State
10. Support beneficiary pays methodologies to
prevent taxes or fees imposed on SFPUC
customers to fund infrastructure
improvements and costs of other water
sources such as the Delta.
State
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 5 of 12
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2.
Supplies
at fair cost
3. Local
Authority
4.
Minimize
imports
11. Advocate for financing or funding for water
conservation programs and recycled water
projects that meet end-use needs and conserve
potable water aAnd oppose legislation that
would reduce such funding.
Regional,
State and
Federal
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 6 of 12
GAS
Goals
1. Preserve /enhance the ability of municipal utilities to develop their own demand side efficiency and
conservation programs, alternative gas supplies, and rate structure.
2. Support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.
3. Increase the security and reliability of the gas supply and transmission infrastructure. This includes
retaining access to intra- and interstate gas transmission systems to reliably serve customers.
4. Preserve just and reasonable utility rates/bills.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Authority
2.
Environ-
ment
3. Reliability
of
Infrastructure
4. Cost
Control
1. Advocate most of these goals mainly
through the American Public Gas
Association (APGA) with minor support
from Palo Alto staff.
Primarily
Federal with
minor advocacy
at State level
2. Work with Northern California Power
Agency (NCPA) and California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA) to the extent
that the City’s goals as a gas distributor
align with generators’ use of natural gas.
Federal and
State
3. Support increased production/incentives
for renewable gas supplies from in or out
of state.
Federal and
State
4. Advocate for financing or funding for cost-
effective natural gas efficiency and solar
water heating end uses.
Federal and
State
5. Support market transparency and efforts to
eliminate market manipulation through
reasonable oversight
Federal
6. Support municipal utilities’ ability to enter
into pre-pay transactions for gas supplies.
Federal
7. Support efforts to improve pipeline safety in
light of recent incidents on the PG&E
system and elsewhere. Work with partners
to discourage extension of CPUC
regulatory authority over municipal gas
operations. Oppose legislative proposals
resulting in unreasonable costs for Palo
Alto’s customers.
Federal and
State
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 7 of 12
ELECTRIC
Goals
1. Preserve /enhance the ability of municipal utilities to exercise local accountability and oversight over
matters impacting customer service, programs (such as demand side efficiency and conservation
programs), and rate structure.
2. Preserve/enhance the reliability and security of infrastructure.
3. Support legislation that makes bold progress in cost effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and encourages early voluntary action.
4. Preserve just and reasonable utility rates/bills.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
1. Advocate goals through Northern California
Power Agency (NCPA), California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA), American Public
Power Association (APPA), Transmission
Agency of Northern California (TANC), and
Bay Area Municipal Transmission Group
(BAMx) with support from Palo Alto staff to
speak with a coordinated voice.
Federal
and State
2. Support NCPA’s legislative initiative to
streamline the state regulatory reporting
responsibilities, to eliminate duplicative data
and report submittals to multiple state regulatory
agencies, including the CEC, CARB, and the
California Independent System Operator
(CAISO).
State
3. Advocate for legislation/regulations that provide
local control and support for:
cost-effective clean distributed generation
and cogeneration projects, and standards for
connecting such resources to the local
distribution system;
cost-effective electric efficiency programs;
implementation of renewable portfolio
standards;
cost-effective storage integration;
direct access requirements;
smart meters and smart grid design and
implementation, and
control of public benefit funds (as allowed in
AB1890 (1996)).
Federal
and State
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 8 of 12
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
4. Support cap-and-trade market designs that:
protect consumers from the exercise of
market power;
allocate allowances that help mitigate
impacts to Palo Alto customers while
providing incentives for utilities to move to
lower GHG emission portfolios;
provide flexible compliance mechanisms
such as banking & borrowing of allowances;
allocates funds generated from cap-and trade
markets to GHG related activities, not as a
revenue source for state or federal general
funds.
Federal
and State
5. Support legislation for renewable portfolio
standards that:
promote the 33% goal for the state;
maintain local compliance authority;
allow utilities to pursue low cost alternatives
by utilizing existing transmission system to
access out-of-state resources, including use
of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs);
prevent double jeopardy in the assessment of
penalties for non-compliance; and
restrict extension of CEC jurisdiction over
Publicly Owned Utilities.
Local and
State
6. Support/encourage transmission, generation, and
demand-reduction projects and solutions
including advocating for financing or funding
solutions/options for projects that:
enhance/ensure reliability;
ensure equitable cost allocation (including
protection against imposition of state-owned
electric contract costs on municipal utility
customers);
improve procurement flexibility (e.g.
resource adequacy rules that ensure
reliability and provide flexibility in meeting
operational requirements or use of
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)
flexibility in meeting State renewable
portfolio standards);
improve market transparency (particularly
transparency of IOU’s transmission and
Local,
State, and
Federal
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 9 of 12
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
procurement planning and implementation
activities); and
lower the environmental impact on the Bay
Area and the Peninsula.
7. Advocate for Congressional, legislative, or
administrative actions on matters impacting
costs or operations of the Western Area Power
Administration such as:
support of Congressional Field Hearings to
explore modernizing flood control strategies,
river regulation and generation strategies at
Central Valley Project (CVP) plants to
enhance generation, water delivery, flood
control and fisheries;
protection of the status of Western Power
Marketing Administration and cost-based
rates; and
provisions for preference customers’ first
take at land available with economic
potential for wind farms; and
balancing efforts for competing
environmental improvements in rivers and
Delta conditions with water supply and
hydropower impacts.
Federal,
State and
Regional
8. Advocate for Congressional, legislative, or
administrative actions on matters relating to
overly burdensome reporting and compliance
requirements established by the North American
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC).
Federal,
State and
Regional
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 10 of 12
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
8. Support fair and reasonable assessment of grid
reliability established by NERC, WECC, or
FERC and Sseek Congressional remedies (if
needed) for punitive application of fees and
fines established by NERC, WECC, or FERC.
9.
Federal
and
Regional
10. Work with California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) or through FERC:
to give buyers of renewable intermittent
resources relief from imbalance penalties;
and
to promote financial and operational changes
that result in timely and accurate settlement
and billing.
Federal
and State
11. Monitor cyber security issues to ensure that
CPAU, which currently does not have critical
cyber assets, is not subject to NERC cyber
security standards and support NCPA to protect
it and its member agencies from unnecessary
cyber security regulations.
Federal
and
Regional
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 11 of 12
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
Goals
1. Increase the reliability of the local wastewater collection systems.
2. Maintain the provision of an environmentally sustainable, reliable high quality wastewater collection
service at a fair price.
3. Support ability of municipal utilities to develop and manage their own conservation and efficiency
programs and retain authority over ratemaking, including the imposition of non-volumetric customer
meter or infrastructure charges for wastewater collection service.
4. Support equal comparisons of wastewater collection systems by regulatory agencies with regard to
regulations in order to minimize and reduce onerous, costly and time-intensive reporting requirements
and improve value and accuracy of information reported to the public.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2.
Maintain
service
3. Local
Authority
4.Valuable
Reporting
1. Advocate goals through active
participation in the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG).
Local,
Regional
& State
2. Advocate to ensure that legislative
actions regarding the comparison of
wastewater collections systems for
future regulations include the following
requirements:
timely rebuilding of the local
wastewater systems;
maintains the quality of delivered
wastewater collection service;
minimizes any increase in the cost of
wastewater collection service;
creates no additional exposure to
more frequent or severe wastewater
overflows;
supports the existing wastewater
collections systems and their
operation.
Local,
Regional
& State
3. Support provision of sufficient
resources for ABAG to enable it to
advocate for:
environmentally sustainable, reliable
wastewater collection service at a
fair price;
regional comparisons of wastewater
Local
and
Regional
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 12 of 12
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2.
Maintain
service
3. Local
Authority
4.Valuable
Reporting
collection projects for future state
grant funding.
4. Support infrastructure security and
reliability including equitable allocation
of funds for increasing the security of
infrastructure.
Regional,
and State
5. Advocate for funding for wastewater
collections system projects that reduce
overflows and improve collection system
efficiency.
Regional,
State and
Federal
ATTACHMENT B
Utilities’ Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2012
Advocacy positions taken in alignment with these guidelines will be subject to the approval of the
Utilities Director or City Manager as per the City’s legislative advocacy process
ALL UTILITIES
Goals
1. Preserve/enhance local accountability in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility
programs and rates for our customers while balancing statewide climate protection goals.
2. Support legislation that makes bold progress in cost effectively reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and recognizes early voluntary action.
3. Support efforts to maintain or improve the reliability of the supply, transmission, storage and
distribution/collection infrastructures.
4. Maintain the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) ability to provide safe, reliable, sustainable, and
competitively-priced utility services.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Accountability
2. Climate
Protection
3. Reliability
&
Infrastructure
4. Service
& Cost
Control
1. Advocate goals through active
participation in joint action efforts.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
2. Communicate the City’s record on
environmental and energy efficiency
programs with Legislature, California
Energy Commission (CEC), California
Air Resources Board (CARB), and
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) via California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA),
Northern California Power Agency
(NCPA), and the Bay Area Water
Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA).
State
3. Support legislation that will result in
the most cost-effective reduction of
GHG emissions, recognition of early
action, and inclusion of more efficient
solutions, such as cogeneration,
distributed resources, and demand
control programs, in integrated
resource plans.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
1. Local
Accountability
2. Climate
Protection
3. Reliability
&
Infrastructure
4. Service
& Cost
Control
4. Promote utility legislation and
regulations that support reasonable
reliability standards and compliance
requirements, and effective and
consistent reporting requirements,
customer communications, and goal-
setting.
Federal,
State, and
Regional
Reliability
Councils
5. Oppose cost shifts from Federal or
State budgets and California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC)
jurisdictional utilities through active
participation in CMUA and NCPA
legislative activities.
Federal,
State, and
CPUC
6. Advocate for State and Federal grants
for local and regional applications of
energy efficiency, conservation,
renewable resources, fiber, wastewater
collection systems and recycled water
projects.
Federal and
State
7. Maintain right of way access for utility
infrastructure.
Federal and
State
8. Protect the value of existing assets and
contracts and local regulatory
approvals of same.
Federal and
State
Page 2 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
WATER
Goals
1. Increase the security and reliability of the regional water system owned and operated by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).
2. Maintain the provision of an environmentally sustainable, reliable supply of high quality water at a
fair price.
3. Support ability of municipal utilities to develop and manage their own conservation and efficiency
programs and retain authority over ratemaking, including the ability to optimize volumetric and fixed
charges to balance the goals of revenue certainty and water use efficiency.
4. Support efficiency and recycled water programs in order to minimize the use of imported supplies.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2. Supplies
at fair cost
3. Local
Authority
4.
Minimize
imports
1. Advocate goals through active participation in
the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA) and California
Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA),
with support from Palo Alto staff for
BAWSCA and the San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Water System Financing Authority
(RFA).
Local,
Regional
& State
2. Participate in California Urban Water
Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best
Management Practice (BMP) revisions and
development to ensure that aggressive and
cost-effective efficiency goals are
incorporated and operating proposals are
reasonable, achievable, and cost-effective.
State
3. Advocate to ensure that legislative actions
regarding the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and
conveyance system include the following
requirements:
timely rebuilding of the regional water
system;
maintains the quality of delivered water;
minimizes any increase in the cost of
water;
creates no additional exposure to more
frequent or severe water shortages;
supports the existing water system and its
operation.
Local,
Regional
& State
Page 3 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
1.
Reliable
infrastructure
2. Supplies
at fair cost
3. Local
Authority
4.
Minimize
imports
4. Advocate for interpretations or
implementation of Water Code provisions
(such as those enacted by AB 1823 (2002),
AB 2058 (2002) and SB 1870 (2002)) that
maintain or reinforce the authorities and
protections available to the City and
BAWSCA members outside of San Francisco.
Local,
Regional,
and State
5. Support provision of sufficient resources for
BAWSCA to enable it to advocate for:
an environmentally sustainable, reliable
supply of high quality water at a fair
price;
preservation of Palo Alto’s existing
contractual water allocation and
transportation rights on the SFPUC Hetch
Hetchy system;
regional planning for conservation,
recycled water, and other water supply
projects.
Local
and
Regional
6. Advocate for:
actions that preserve Palo Alto’s existing
contractual rights
supporting actions that preserve local
control over water use and limit
encroachment from outside jurisdictions
Local
and
Regional
7. Support infrastructure security and reliability
including an interconnection between the
SCVWD West Pipeline with the SFPUC’s
Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4.
Regional,
and State
8. Support notification requirements that aid
residents/customers but do not inflict undue or
unobtainable requirements on the utility.
State
9. Support local control of public benefit funds
funding levels and program design.
State
10. Support beneficiary pays methodologies to
prevent taxes or fees imposed on SFPUC
customers to fund infrastructure
improvements and costs of other water
sources such as the Delta.
State
11. Advocate for financing or funding for water
conservation programs and recycled water
projects that meet end-use needs and conserve
potable water and oppose legislation that
would reduce such funding.
Regional,
State and
Federal
Page 4 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
GAS
Goals
1. Preserve/enhance the ability of municipal utilities to develop their own demand side efficiency and
conservation programs, alternative gas supplies, and rate structure.
2. Support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.
3. Increase the security and reliability of the gas supply and transmission infrastructure. This includes
retaining access to intra- and interstate gas transmission systems to reliably serve customers.
4. Preserve just and reasonable utility rates/bills.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Authority
2.
Environ-
ment
3. Reliability
of
Infrastructure
4. Cost
Control
1. Advocate most of these goals mainly
through the American Public Gas
Association (APGA) with minor support
from Palo Alto staff.
Primarily
Federal with
minor advocacy
at State level
2. Work with Northern California Power
Agency (NCPA) and California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA) to the extent
that the City’s goals as a gas distributor
align with generators’ use of natural gas.
Federal and
State
3. Support increased production/incentives
for renewable gas supplies from in or out
of state.
Federal and
State
4. Advocate for financing or funding for cost-
effective natural gas efficiency and solar
water heating end uses.
Federal and
State
5. Support market transparency and efforts to
eliminate market manipulation through
reasonable oversight
Federal
6. Support municipal utilities’ ability to enter
into pre-pay transactions for gas supplies.
Federal
7. Support efforts to improve pipeline safety
in light of recent incidents on the PG&E
system and elsewhere. Work with partners
to discourage extension of CPUC
regulatory authority over municipal gas
operations. Oppose legislative proposals
resulting in unreasonable costs for Palo
Alto’s customers.
Federal and
State
Page 5 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
ELECTRIC
Goals
1. Preserve/enhance the ability of municipal utilities to exercise local accountability and oversight over
matters impacting customer service, programs (such as demand side efficiency and conservation
programs), and rate structure.
2. Preserve/enhance the reliability and security of infrastructure.
3. Support legislation that makes bold progress in cost effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and encourages early voluntary action.
4. Preserve just and reasonable utility rates/bills.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
1. Advocate goals through Northern California
Power Agency (NCPA), California Municipal
Utilities Association (CMUA), American Public
Power Association (APPA), Transmission
Agency of Northern California (TANC), and
Bay Area Municipal Transmission Group
(BAMx) with support from Palo Alto staff to
speak with a coordinated voice.
Federal
and State
2. Support NCPA’s legislative initiative to
streamline the state regulatory reporting
responsibilities, to eliminate duplicative data
and report submittals to multiple state regulatory
agencies, including the CEC, CARB, and the
California Independent System Operator
(CAISO).
State
3. Advocate for legislation/regulations that provide
local control and support for:
cost-effective clean distributed generation
and cogeneration projects, and standards for
connecting such resources to the local
distribution system;
cost-effective electric efficiency programs;
implementation of renewable portfolio
standards;
cost-effective storage integration;
direct access requirements;
smart meters and smart grid design and
implementation, and
public benefit funds (as allowed in AB1890
(1996)).
Federal
and State
Page 6 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
4. Support cap-and-trade market designs that:
protect consumers from the exercise of
market power;
allocate allowances that help mitigate
impacts to Palo Alto customers while
providing incentives for utilities to move to
lower GHG emission portfolios;
provide flexible compliance mechanisms
such as banking & borrowing of allowances;
allocate funds generated from cap-and-trade
markets to GHG related activities, not as a
revenue source for state or federal general
funds.
Federal
and State
5. Support legislation for renewable portfolio
standards that:
promote the 33% goal for the state;
maintain local compliance authority;
allow utilities to pursue low cost alternatives
by utilizing existing transmission system to
access out-of-state resources, including use
of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs);
prevent double jeopardy in the assessment of
penalties for non-compliance; and
restrict extension of CEC jurisdiction over
Publicly Owned Utilities.
Local and
State
6. Support/encourage transmission, generation, and
demand-reduction projects and solutions
including advocating for financing or funding
solutions/options for projects that:
enhance/ensure reliability;
ensure equitable cost allocation (including
protection against imposition of state-owned
electric contract costs on municipal utility
customers);
improve procurement flexibility (e.g.
resource adequacy rules that ensure
reliability and provide flexibility in meeting
operational requirements or flexibility in
meeting State renewable portfolio standards);
improve market transparency (particularly
transparency of IOU’s transmission and
procurement planning and implementation
activities); and
lower the environmental impact on the Bay
Area and the Peninsula.
Local,
State, and
Federal
Page 7 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
7. Advocate for Congressional, legislative, or
administrative actions on matters impacting
costs or operations of the Western Area Power
Administration such as:
support of Congressional Field Hearings to
explore modernizing flood control strategies,
river regulation and generation strategies at
Central Valley Project (CVP) plants to
enhance generation, water delivery, flood
control and fisheries;
protection of the status of Western Power
Marketing Administration and cost-based
rates;
provisions for preference customers’ first
take at land available with economic
potential for wind farms; and
balancing efforts for competing
environmental improvements in rivers and
Delta conditions with water supply and
hydropower impacts.
Federal,
State and
Regional
8. Advocate for Congressional, legislative, or
administrative actions on matters relating to
overly burdensome reporting and compliance
requirements established by the North American
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC).
Federal,
State and
Regional
9. Support fair and reasonable assessment of grid
reliability established by NERC, WECC, or
FERC and seek Congressional remedies (if
needed) for punitive application of fees and
fines.
Federal
and
Regional
10. Work with California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) or through FERC:
to give buyers of renewable intermittent
resources relief from imbalance penalties;
and
to promote financial and operational changes
that result in timely and accurate settlement
and billing.
Federal
and State
Page 8 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
1. Local
Accountability
2.
Reliability
3. GHG
Reduction
4. Cost
Control
11. Monitor cyber security issues to ensure that
CPAU, which currently does not have critical
cyber assets, is not subject to NERC cyber
security standards and support NCPA to protect
it and its member agencies from unnecessary
cyber security regulations.
Federal
and
Regional
Page 9 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
Goals
1. Increase the reliability of the local wastewater collection systems.
2. Maintain the provision of an environmentally sustainable, reliable high quality wastewater collection
service at a fair price.
3. Support ability of municipal utilities to develop and manage their own conservation and efficiency
programs and retain authority over ratemaking, including the imposition of non-volumetric customer
meter or infrastructure charges for wastewater collection service.
4. Support equal comparisons of wastewater collection systems by regulatory agencies in order to
minimize and reduce onerous, costly and time-intensive reporting requirements and improve value
and accuracy of information reported to the public.
Legislative Policy Guidelines Venue Goals
1. Reliable
infrastructure
2. Maintain
service
3. Local
Authority
4.Valuable
Reporting
1. Advocate goals through active
participation in the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG).
Local,
Regional
& State
2. Advocate to ensure that legislative actions
regarding the comparison of wastewater
collections systems for future regulations
include the following requirements:
timely rebuilding of the local
wastewater systems;
maintains the quality of delivered
wastewater collection service;
minimizes any increase in the cost of
wastewater collection service;
creates no additional exposure to
more frequent or severe wastewater
overflows;
supports the existing wastewater
collections systems and their
operation.
Local,
Regional
& State
3. Support provision of sufficient resources
for ABAG to enable it to advocate for:
environmentally sustainable, reliable
wastewater collection service at a fair
price;
regional comparisons of wastewater
collection projects for future state
grant funding.
Local and
Regional
Page 10 of 11
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2011
Page 11 of 11
1. Reliable
infrastructure
2. Maintain
service
3. Local
Authority
4.Valuable
Reporting
4. Support infrastructure security and
reliability including equitable allocation
of funds for increasing the security of
infrastructure.
Regional,
and State
5. Advocate for funding for wastewater
collections system projects that reduce
overflows and improve collection system
efficiency.
Regional,
State and
Federal
ATTACHMENT C
2011 Legislative Update
I. State Legislative Issues
Palo Alto staff participates on the legislative committees of the California Municipal Utilities
Association (CMUA) and Northern California Power Agency (NCPA). 2011 was the first year
of California’s current two-year legislative session and October 9, 2011 was the last day for
Governor Brown to sign or veto bills passed by the State Legislature this year.
Bills Signed Into Law during the 2011 California Legislative Session
Electric Utility Legislation
SBX1-2 (Simitian) – This bill reintroduced Senator Simitian’s 2010 Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) bill (SB 722). SBX1-2 was signed by Governor Brown on April 12, and
becomes effective on December 10, 2011, ninety-one days after the end of the First
Extraordinary Session. SBX1-2 contains the same provisions as negotiated in SB 722 last year
and supported by Palo Alto; it requires all electric utility providers—investor owned (IOUs),
publicly-owned (POUs), and energy service providers (ESPs)—to increase purchases of
renewable energy to equal at least 33% of retail sales by December 31, 2020. In the interim each
entity will be required to procure renewable energy in volumes of at least the following
percentages of retail sales: an average of 20% for the period of January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2013; 25% by December 31, 2016, and 33% by 2020. For the three year period
from 2011 to 2013, Palo Alto should meet or exceed the 20% target. Under the bill the City is
required to formally adopt a program for the enforcement of the RPS program by January 2012.
A report requesting Council adoption of such a program and a conforming RPS procurement
plan is scheduled for Council consideration on December 12, 2011.
AB 1027 (Buchanan) – This bill regulates how POUs, such as CPAU, calculate fees for pole
attachments and underground conduit access for cable and telecom providers. The bill was
introduced to address the cable industry’s concerns that POUs are charging excessive rates and it
is burdensome negotiating within the different territories. NCPA and CMUA were initially
opposed to the bill, but NCPA changed its position after it succeeded in getting amendments that
removed the prescribed dollar per attachment fee and instead required that fees are based on a
recovery of actual costs without subsidizing for-profit cable television corporations, video
service providers, and telephone corporations. The amendments also allowed that contracts
executed before January 1, 2012 would remain valid. CMUA maintained its “oppose” position
because further amendments to retain local authority over permitting, timing and fees requested
by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) were rejected. Staff will work with
the City Attorney’s office to ensure future pole attachment contracts meet the new requirements.
SB 136 (Yee) – The definition of “public works,” is expanded for provisions relating to
prevailing wage and related procedures, to also include any construction, alteration, demolition,
installation, or repair work done under private contract related to renewable energy generation
capacity or energy efficiency improvement projects. The language relates specifically to work
that is performed on the property of the state or a political subdivision of the state, so does not
impact the City’s professional services contract for energy efficiency measures on our customer
sites.
SB 489 (Wolk) – The definition of technologies eligible for net metering is expanded to include
all RPS-eligible technologies. Currently electric utilities, such as CPAU, are required to offer a
standard contract or tariff for net energy metering on a first-come-first-served basis until the time
that the total rated generating capacity on net metering exceeds 5% of the utility’s customer peak
demand. The existing definition of an eligible technology requires that the generating facility
use a solar or wind turbine, or a hybrid system of both. CPAU currently offers its PV Partners
program, and does not anticipate demand for other technologies.
SB 859 (Padilla) – Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to keep records of
residential addresses confidential, with specified exceptions. This bill adds another exception for
identifying where an electric vehicle is registered. Under the new law, electrical corporations
and local POUs, such as CPAU, can request and have restricted use of the residence address
information for the purpose of identifying where electric vehicles are registered.
Natural Gas Utility Legislation
In response to PG&E’s San Bruno explosion, the Governor signed a package of natural gas
pipeline safety bills, two of which may impact CPAUs planning and reporting requirements:
AB 56 (Hill) – This bill relates to gas corporations’ rate recovery and expenditures and intrastate
pipeline safety. The rate recovery issues are specific to gas corporations, but the bill also
requires that owners and operators of intrastate transmission and distribution lines, at least once
each calendar year, meet with each local fire department having fire suppression responsibilities
in the area where those lines are located to discuss and review contingency plans for emergencies
involving the intrastate transmission and distribution lines within the jurisdiction of the local fire
department.
SB 44 (Corbett) – The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is designated as the state
authority responsible for regulating and enforcing intrastate gas pipeline transportation and
pipeline facilities pursuant to federal law, including the development, submission, and
administration of a state pipeline safety program certification for natural gas pipelines.
Water Utility Legislation
AB 938 (Perez) – Starting July 1, 2012 retail water agencies are required to provide language
translations for certain portions of “Tier 1” water quality violation (presence of a contaminant in
drinking water at a level in excess of a primary drinking water standard) notices into Spanish and
in the language spoken by any non-English-speaking group that exceeds 10% of persons served
by the public water system. For each non-English-speaking group that speaks a language other
than Spanish and that exceeds 1,000 residents but is less than 10% of persons served, the notice
shall contain information regarding the importance of the notice and a telephone number or
address where the public water system will provide either a translated copy of the notice or
assistance in the appropriate language.
CMUA succeeded in securing a number of amendments to this bill, which removed its
opposition. One of these amendments clarified (or provided safe haven) for how the water
agencies determine the other languages required. If the public water system has made a
reasonable attempt to utilize the data available through the American Community Survey of the
United States Census Bureau to identify the non-English speaking groups that reside in its
service area, then it shall be assumed that they have complied with the code.
Update on other action from the 2011 California Legislative Session
This section provides an update on bills that did not pass the legislature this year, or were vetoed
by the Governor, but have been of interest to Palo Alto and other CMUA and NCPA members,
and may return during the 2012 session.
SB 23 (Simitian) – This bill was the “clean-up” bill for Senator Simitian’s RPS legislation. It
contained non-controversial amendments to update timelines for implementation of regulations
but missed the deadline to get through the legislature this year. Another clean up bill is
anticipated for 2012 and there is a possibility that LADWP will attempt to include their language
from this year’s defeated AB 1391, which would have given the California Energy Commission
(CEC) RPS enforcement and penalty authority over publicly owned utilities for the first time
ever. Palo Alto and NCPA strongly opposed AB 1391 and, thanks to the efforts of the NCPA
staff and members, were instrumental in its defeat. The reasons for our opposition was the
unprecedented extension of CEC jurisdiction over POUs and the risk of “double jeopardy” from
giving two separate state agencies the ability to both issue penalties to a POU for the same
failure to meet certain state requirements. The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012
would continue the City’s oppose position to such legislation.
SB 34 (Simitian) – This bill would establish a fee-based system to pay for upgrades and
modernization of the water delivery system in the State. CPAU already pays 100% of its share
of the cost of the SFPUC system and has been in line with CMUA’s opposition to the bill. This
is a two-year bill and will be taken up again when the legislature reconvenes in January 2012.
The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would continue the City’s oppose position to
such legislation.
SB 35 (Padilla) and SB 410 (Wright) – These bills would have extended and reformed the
CEC’s oversight of the Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Demonstration, and
Development Program. AB 723 (Bradford) would have extended the IOU’s public goods
charge (PGC) requirements to January 2016. These bills failed to get the two-thirds vote to pass
the legislature, but may be re-introduced for the 2012 session. However, the PGC program
expires for the IOUs in January 2012, so Governor Brown has stated his intent to authorize the
CPUC to implement a PGC program for the IOUs. California code does not have an equivalent
sunset date for POU funding of their PGC programs, so CPAU’s public benefits program will
continue. If the CPUC takes this up for the IOUs there may not be any further action on these
issues in the 2012 session, but the City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would continue
the City’s support for local control over the funding and design of its PGC programs.
SB 343 (De Leon) – This bill started out as a set aside of Public Benefits funds to provide on-bill
financing for energy efficiency retrofits for commercial retrofits. Early amendments would have
also required POUs to dedicate a portion of the PGC funds for energy efficiency retrofits for
commercial buildings. Senator Wright said that he was concerned about the POU mandate
which essentially could require the POUs to take away funds used for low income to go towards
commercial EE. He also stated that one size does not fit all for the POU territories. The POU
requirement was subsequently removed, and this is currently a two year bill that would require
the CPUC to determine appropriate energy efficiency financing measures and funding sources
for the residential, commercial, and public building sectors in order to achieve the statewide
energy efficiency goals. The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would continue the
City’s support for local control over the funding and design of its PGC programs.
SB 52 (Steinberg) – This bill would appropriate $50 million from Proposition 84 to mitigate
"rate shock" of complying with the new national pollutant discharge elimination system permit
and waste discharge requirements. Proposition 84 and other grant funding sources are typically
subject to a competitive process. This would bypass the competitive process, which establishes
bad precedent, especially since this is related to the Delta. This also reduces the pool of money
for other applicants, like CPAU for its recycled water project. CMUA opposed this bill, which
failed passage in its first committee hearing. The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012
would continue the City’s oppose position to such legislation.
SB 370 (Blakesly) – The bill would allow agricultural customers to aggregate their load for
purposes of net metering. There is concern that this is a foot in the door for other customers (e.g.
industrial). This bill remains on the active file, but never made it to its first Senate floor vote.
The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would continue the City’s support for local
control over such net metering requirements.
Bills concerned with the transparency of local government salaries,
benefits and pensions.
This is not a utility specific issue, but CMUA highlighted the bills that focus on pensions since it
is a local control issue. The Governor issued a 12-point issue paper on this issue and most affect
new employees. Some would not allow employers to pay the employee portion of PERS fees.
AB 582 would require agencies proposing 5% increases for executives to be noticed twice but it
is not clear to whom it applies since governing boards do not normally act on raises for
individuals, except for the City Manager. AB 392 would require all documents that would go
before a board to be posted on a web site 72 hours before a meeting. SB 46 proposes more
transparency on compensation would require all Form 700 filers to put on all compensation –
salary, expenses, reimbursements, benefits, vehicle payments, etc. None of these three bills
made it past the legislature this year.
Other Legislation Anticipated for the 2012 California Legislative Session
Following his election, California’s Governor Brown announced his support for a statewide
12,000 MW renewable distributed (or local) generation (DG) goal, and we are anticipating
legislation to support this goal in the 2012 session. The Governor has also hinted at an increase
in the statewide 33% RPS mandate. The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would
continue the City’s support for cost effective applications and local control over such
requirements.
Legislation is also expected this year that would either eliminate or severely restrict the
eligibility all out of state biomethane for RPS. This is about the biomethane that is injected into
the natural gas pipeline for use as a renewable fuel for electric generation located in California.
The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would support increased production and
incentives for renewable gas supplies from in or out of state, which would result in opposition to
legislation that attempts to restrict is eligibility.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) cap and trade legislation is anticipated to return in 2012. Revenue from
cap-and-trade markets is a source of funds that the legislature would like to control. The City’s
proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would only support legislation that allocates funds
generated from cap-and-trade markets to GHG related activities, and oppose legislation that
directs the revenue to the state’s general fund.
There is also a potential for legislation that would extend direct access for electricity customers
(i.e., the ability for customers to bypass their utility and purchase electricity from a third party).
The City’s proposed legislative guidelines for 2012 would encourage local control over direct
access.
II. Federal Legislative Issues
Energy and Climate
Deficit reduction remained the primary focus in Washington, with several proposals of interest to
NCPA and its members. NCPA focused its efforts to prevent moving Federal Power Marketing
Agencies (PMAs, like the Western Area Power Administration) away from cost recovery rate
making to market-based rates since its inclusion in the Simpson-Bowles Report last December.
In September President Obama floated two other problematic measures. The President’s $447
billion “American Jobs Act” includes provisions to bar high-income earners (single filers making
$200,000 and joint filers making $250,000 or more) from using the tax-exempt bond interest
exclusion to reduce their income tax rates below 28%. If enacted, this provision could
significantly reduce demand for municipal bonds.
NCPA delegation member Tom McClintock (R-CA) recently introduced legislation that would
repeal the $3.25 billion in borrowing authority provided to the Western Area Power
Administration under the Recovery Act’s Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP). NCPA has
been monitoring Western’s TIP authority since its creation, to ensure it does not expose Western
customers to unnecessary costs. Congressman McClintock’s rationale is that the loan program
puts taxpayers on the hook for any defaults, much the same way that the bankruptcy of solar
manufacturer Solyndra may cost the Federal Treasury over $500 million. Congressman
McClintock convened a hearing on his bill in September in his capacity as chair of the Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power.
NCPA joined a delegation of representatives from the Transmission Access Policy Study Group
(TAPS) in Washington, D.C. to visit Congress and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to address a variety of issues related to cyber security, the new reliability compliance
enforcement initiative expected to be formally submitted to FERC by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), incentives that are provided to spur the construction of
transmission lines, and a number of related topics. Under the new initiative, compliance issues
will be processed more efficiently, focusing on issues that pose a higher risk to reliability,
streamline administrative paperwork, reduce the number of formal violations, and continue to
encourage self-reporting and mitigation. FERC is “cautiously optimistic” with this NERC
initiative but did express concern that some of the lower risk violations that would no longer be
reported as violations under the new initiative, masking patterns of non-compliance that could
actually pose a threat to reliability.
Separately, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power sought to
advance grid-specific cyber security legislation this spring, holding a hearing on the Grid
Reliability and Infrastructure Defense (GRID) Act, legislation approved by the House in 2010
over industry objections. The GRID Act’s progress stalled over the summer, in large part due to
the same objections raised in 2010 regarding its expansion of FERC authority over the drafting
of cyber security standards and their application to distribution assets. NCPA has raised these
objections with committee staff. In NCPA’s meetings in September, committee staff indicated
that the GRID Act will likely be revised based on NCPA’s concerns before it is brought before
the Energy and Power Subcommittee for consideration. Even so, the future of the GRID Act
appears unclear given previous delays and House Leadership’s increased interest on advancing a
more comprehensive approach to cyber security.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2098)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/12/2011
December 12, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 2098)
Summary Title: From 11/0 1 Finance: Recycling Center & HHW
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation on Plan for Elimination of the
Recycling Center and Retaining the Household Hazardous Waste Dropoff Facility;
Adoption of Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan to Eliminate Program
N-55 and Adoption of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code to Eliminate Local
Recycling Center Requirement
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
The Finance Committee recommends that City Council:
1.Approve staff’s plan to permanently close the Recycling Center effective
February 1, 2012 and to conduct outreach on the Recycling Center closure and
the alternatives that are available for the future;
Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation, Staff further recommends that
City Council:
2.Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment E) amending the Comprehensive Plan
to eliminate Program N-55; and
3.Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment F) amending the Municipal Code to
eliminate the requirement for a local recycling center
Executive Summary
On February 1, 2012, the Palo Alto Recycling Center (RC) will be closed at its current
location. The closure of the RC is occurring to reduce Refuse Fund expenses associated
with the RC operation and to allow for capping of the landfill. The RC lies on a portion
of the landfill that must be capped as part of the landfill closure. Staff had originally
intended to combine a new, relocated RC with the existing Household Hazardous Waste
(HHW) Station at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Plant). Based on the
operational costs of the RC and the capital cost of constructing a new RC, the Finance
Committee directed staff to prepare a plan for permanently closing the RC and retaining
the existing HHW Station. The components of the plan are described in this report.
Background
The RC was established on a portion of the landfill in 1972: accepting white paper,
December 12, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 2098)
newspaper, cardboard, glass, cans, motor oil, and scrap metal. In 1979, the RC was
expanded to accommodate curbside collected recyclables. At its peak, the RC was 1.6
acres in size and accommodated a wide variety of recyclable materials. Within the last
couple of years, the RC has been limited to 0.4 acres in size in order to accommodate
refuse burial over a portion of the site. The current RC footprint is located within the
landfill boundary and overlies buried garbage.
Since the RC accepts certain HHW materials (waste oil, filters, batteries, fluorescent
lights and antifreeze) for recycling it will need to undergo a formal facility closure in
accordance with State and local regulations. A closure report will need to be submitted
to the local Fire Department and to the County of Santa Clara, Department of
Environmental Health. This facility closure will need to be completed before the landfill
can be capped, currently scheduled for summer 2012.
Staff had originally intended to combine a new RC with the existing HHW Station at the
Plant. At the Finance Committee meeting on July 5, 2011, staff reviewed the proposed
project. This review included the project costs, a summary of the alternative options
for managing the materials currently accepted at the RC, and annual tonnages for
materials collected at the RC demonstrating that these recyclables have declined from
13% to 6% of the total recyclables in recent years. Operating costs for the current RC
total approximately $400,000 per year. In response to this information, the Finance
Committee directed staff to prepare a plan for permanently closing the RC while
retaining the HHW Station. The FY 2012 and draft FY 2013 Refuse Fund budgets
include the reduced expenses from closure of the RC.
Staff presented the plan for closing the RC to the Finance Committee on November 1,
2011, and the Finance Committee unanimously recommended that City Council approve
the plan.
Discussion
There are four primary components to staff’s plan for closing the RC and retaining the
HHW Station. These components are as follows:
·Alternate locations for recycling and disposal;
·Augmenting the HHW Station;
·Augmenting the Annual Clean-up Day program (potential); and
·Outreach.
Each of these components is discussed below:
Alternate locations for recycling and disposal
Most of the material currently taken to the RC can now be placed at the curb in the
blue recycling containers as part of the City’s Refuse Collection Program. For items too
large for the blue containers, a free annual home pick-up service (the Annual Clean-up
December 12, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 2098)
Day program) is provided by GreenWaste of Palo Alto, the City’s contract refuse hauler,
by calling 650-493-4894. Other options are available as well and are summarized on
the attached chart (Attachment A). Residents who have extra recyclables that do not fit
into their blue recycling container may place these at curbside in a biodegradable
container (e.g. Kraft paper bag or cardboard box), provided the containers do not
weigh more than 60 pounds each. A recent survey of RC users indicated that 70% are
unaware that extra recyclables can be placed at curbside for collection. Educating
residents about this service will be an important component of outreach on the RC
closure. The standard size for recycling service is a 64-gallon cart. Residents who
routinely have extra recyclables are encouraged to contact GreenWaste to request a 96-
gallon cart. There is no charge for exchanging a cart once per year.
Augmenting the HHW Station
The materials accepted at the current RC include HHW such as motor oil, oil filters,
antifreeze, household and auto batteries, and fluorescent lights. These materials can
also be accepted by the HHW program. The current HHW program is open to residents
the first Saturday of each month (and two Fridays per year) as well as mid-month. The
mid-month event is an appointment-based event. Upon the closure of the RC on
February 1, 2012, residents who utilize the RC for disposal of these materials can use
the HHW program, drive to the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, or utilize non-City options
such as taking fluorescent lamps to a hardware store where they are accepted.
To mitigate the impact of the RC closure and to improve the availability of the HHW
program to residents, staff plans to augment the HHW Station by adding additional
storage, consolidating various current collection points, and improving stormwater
protection and safety. The additional storage capacity will allow the HHW Station to be
open more frequently. Upon completion of the improvements, staff anticipates that the
HHW Station will eventually be open to the public on a non-appointment basis, twice
per week for two to four hours.
Staff has contracted with Siegfried Engineering to complete the design for the HHW
Station improvements. Construction of the improvements is anticipated to begin in July
2012, with completion of the project in September 2012.
Augmenting the Annual Clean-up Day program
At the Finance Committee meeting on July 5, 2011, staff was directed to investigate
whether the annual operational savings of approximately $75,000 that result from not
relocating the Recycling Center could be used to add one or more Annual Clean-up
Days in addition to the once per year that is provided for in the contract with
GreenWaste.
Currently, single family residents and multi-family residents that have individual
accounts for refuse service are provided one Clean-up Day per year. These residents
can use their Clean-up Day to dispose of up to four bulky items (such as furniture,
December 12, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 2098)
mattresses, or appliances) and large amounts of yard trimmings and recyclable
materials. Excess garbage can also be collected as part of the Clean-up Day. The
GreenWaste contract cost for this service, which is part of the fixed compensation in the
contract, was $385,491 in FY2011. In calendar year 2010, the Annual Clean-up Day
service was used by 1,552 residences, or 9% of the total residential accounts. The
average cost per Clean-up Day was $248. At staff’s request, GreenWaste provided an
estimated cost of $257,800 for adding an additional Clean-up Day for residents.
Commercial businesses and multi-family residential complexes with shared refuse
service (classified as commercial sector) are also provided one free Clean-up Day per
year. However, in the case of multi-family residential, the service is not available to
each individual unit but must be scheduled by the account holder for the entire
complex. The materials collected are the same as described above for residential
accounts, except that excess garbage can not be collected. Regardless of the size of a
multi-family residential complex, it is limited to four bulky items for its Clean-up Day.
The GreenWaste contract cost for this service, which is also part of GreenWaste’s fixed
compensation, was $268,327 in FY2011. In calendar year 2010, the service was used
by 63 commercial customers, or 3% of the total commercial accounts. The average
cost per Clean-up Day was $4,259.
Based on the level of use of the Annual Clean-up Day program and the cost of adding
an additional Clean-up Day for the residential sector, staff does not recommend
augmenting the program. Thirty-one percent (31%) of RC users surveyed were
unaware of the Annual Clean-up Day program. Staff intends to improve outreach on
the residential Annual Clean-up Day program to increase the public’s awareness of this
service. The very high cost per utilization of the commercial Annual Clean-up Day
program suggests that the services should be reviewed. In 2010, the average
commercial user of the Clean-up Day program disposed of 2.3 bulky items. Under the
City’s refuse rate schedule the cost to the user would be $157.50 if these were bulky
items with the highest fees, compared to the actual cost paid by the City of $4,259.
Outreach
Staff has begun a public outreach program to advise residents that the RC will close on
February 1, 2012. Outreach efforts already undertaken have included a survey of RC
users conducted for 30 hours over a 10-day period in August 2011. RC users were
informed of the upcoming closure, asked what materials they were bringing to the RC,
and informed about services such as the Annual Clean-up Day program and curbside
pickup of extra recyclables. Survey results are summarized in slides 5 and 6,
Attachment B. Other outreach efforts include a sign posted at the RC to inform users of
the impending closure (Attachment C) and a news detail on the City’s website.
Staff has also made presentations and asked for community input at Community
Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) meetings in July and September. CEAP
members were not opposed to the plan to close the RC given the alternative options
December 12, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 2098)
available for managing the materials accepted by the RC and the plans for augmenting
the HHW Station. Other input from CEAP members included the importance of a strong
outreach program to accompany the RC closure, and a desire to see the vacant Zero
Waste Coordinator position filled to assist with the necessary outreach.
Given the costs involved with operation of the existing RC and construction of a new
RC, the availability of alternatives for managing materials collected by the RC, and the
opportunity to increase access to the HHW program by augmenting the HHW Station,
staff recommends that the plan for closing the RC be implemented, and that the RC not
be relocated after its closure on February 1, 2012.
Further information about recycling and reducing waste generation can be obtained by
calling the Zero Waste Program at 650-496-5910 or on the City’s website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/zero_waste/default.asp
Timeline
The Recycling Center will close on February 1, 2012. Improvements to the HHW
Station are anticipated to be completed in September 2012, with expanded availability
to residents beginning immediately following the completion. Outreach to the
community will take place throughout this process.
Resource Impact
GreenWaste contract savings of $193,553 associated with the closure of the Recycling
Center on February 1, 2012 were included in the Refuse Fund Budget Amendment
Ordinance adopted by City Council on September 19, 2011. The contract savings is
estimated to be twice this amount in FY2013 and this will be incorporated into the FY
2013 budget.
Policy Implications
Comprehensive Plan Program N-55 states that the City will “Maintain and expand the
use of the RC at the City’s refuse disposal area”, and Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Section 5.20.270 states that the “…City will maintain within the city’s territorial limits a
recycling center..” Comprehensive Plan Goal N-6 states “...Palo Alto will also continue
its household hazardous waste collection programs and will strive to make these
programs more convenient and accessible to residents.” The HHW program is also an
important component of the City’s Clean Bay Plan.. Augmentation of the HHW Station
will be a signficant step in making the HHW program more convenient for residents as
envisioned by Goal N-6.
While the Comprehensive Plan envisioned maintaining and expanding the RC, changes
to the City’s recycling program have made the RC far less relevant. Implementation of
single stream recycling and the expansion of the materials accepted in the single
stream program have resulted in a significant decrease in the percentage of total
recyclables collected at the Recycling Center. Additionally, vehicle trips to the RC to
December 12, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 2098)
bring materials that can be collected at curbside have other negative environmental
effects, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions. Staff believes that closure of the
RC coupled with increased availability of the HHW program, will result in an overall
enhancement to the City’s sustainability efforts. The attached resolutions (Attachments
E and F) amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code to be consistent with
the current recommendation.
Environmental Review
The plan to close the Recycling Center does not constitute a project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Augmentation of the HHW Station is
being implemented as a separate project for which CEQA review will occur.
Attachments:
·Att A -Alternative Locations for Recycling and Disposal (PDF)
·Att B -Recycling Center Slides (PPT)
·Att C -Recycling Center Closure Sign (PDF)
·Att D -11/1/11 Finance Committee Excerpt Minutes (DOC)
·Att E -Resolution Eliminating Program N-55 (PDF)
·Att F -Resolution Amending Section 5.20.270 (PDF)
Prepared By:Brad Eggleston, Manager Solid Waste
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Residents MFDs/
Commercial Residents MFDs/
Commercial*
Recyclable Materials
Mixed paper xxxx x
Magazines xxxx x
Newspapers xxxx x
Cardboard xxxx x
Paper back & hard cover books xxxx x x
PET #1 xxxx x
HDPE #2 clear xxxx x
HDPE #2 color & plastic #3-7 xxxx x
Plastic bags/film xxxx
Rigid plastic items limited to size of
container xxx
Glass bottles xxxx x
Aluminum cans xxxx x
Aluminum foil xxxx x
"Tin" cans xxxx x
Scrap metal (small size)xxxx x
Scrap metals (large size)xx x
Reusables
Reusable items xx x
Clothes, shoes xx
Media (CDs, DVDs, videos, tapes)
Electronics
Small consumer electronics xxxx x x
Large consumer electronics xx x
Universal Wastes
Motor oil x xx
Oil filters x xx
Household batteries x xx
Auto batteries xx
Anti freeze xx
Fluorescent bulbs and tubes xx
Pharmaceuticals xx
Mercury thermometer/thermostats xxx
Sharps xxx
Other
Cooking oil/grease x
Large appliances (washers, etc)For fee For fee xx For fee
Mattresses & box springs For fee For fee xx For fee For fee
Bulky items (oversize items such as
furniture, mattresses) For fee For fee
4 bulky items
included
4 bulky items
included x
Tires xx For fee
Garbage xx For fee
* For multifamily residential with property managers/house accounts, the Clean Up Day is scheduled by the manager for the entire complex, with 4 bulky items accepted.
The Treatment Plant and HHW Program are located at 2501 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto. Goodwill is located at 4085 El Camino Way, Palo Alto.
The SMaRT Station is located at 301 Carl Road, Sunnyvale.
Summary of Items Accepted by Palo Alto Curbside with Other Programs and Resources
Treatment
Plant
Goodwill
(offsite)SMaRT StationHHW
Program
Annual Clean Up Day
Materials Accepted
Palo Alto Curbside
Plan for Eliminating the Recycling
Center and Retaining the
Household Hazardous Waste
Station
City Council Meeting
December 12, 2011
Attachment B
2
Overview of Presentation
Information on current Recycling Center
Elements of Plan to Eliminate Recycling Center
Alternate Locations for Recycling and Disposal
Augmenting Household Hazardous Waste Station
Augmenting Annual Clean‐up Day (potential)
Outreach
3
Recycling Center: Current Level
of Service
Open 9am‐5pm daily (except three holidays)
Materials collected
single stream recyclables, rigid plastics, scrap
metal, reusable items, media, electronics,
universal wastes, cooking oil, appliances (fee)*,
mattresses (fee)*mattresses (fee)*
* No longer accepted as of 7/28/2011 due to landfill closure
4
Recycling Center: Current Costs
Annual Operating Costs (FY12):
GreenWaste contract: $226,000
GreenWaste bin hauling :$161,000
Total: $387,000
Replacement Cost: about $500,000 capital
5
Recycling Center Survey:
30 hours over 10 days in late August; Surveyed 252 of 325 vehicles entering the Recycling Center
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Si
n
g
l
e
St
r
e
a
m
Ca
r
d
b
o
a
r
d
Go
o
d
w
i
l
l
Mo
t
o
r
O
i
l
/
An
t
i
f
r
e
e
z
e
Sc
r
a
p
M
e
t
a
l
Ba
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
Fl
u
o
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
Bu
l
b
s
Me
d
i
a
/
B
o
o
k
s
Co
o
k
i
n
g
O
i
l
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
U
s
e
r
s
6
Recycling Center Survey Key Findings
185 Palo Alto residents, 67 from other
communities
50 of 72 surveyed did not know that extra
recyclables can go out at curbside
2 Palo Alto residents brought recyclables
because not available at multifamily complex
7
Simplified Matrix of Alternative
Recycling and Disposal Options
XXBulky Items
XXUniversal
Wastes
XXReusable
Items
XXX
Single
Stream
Recyclables
SMaRT
Station
HHW
Program
Goodwill
(East
Meadow)
Annual
Clean‐up Day
Curbside
Recycling
8
Household Hazardous Waste Station
Current program: One Saturday per month,
one afternoon per month by appointment
Proposed augmentations
Consolidate various current container locations
Increase storage capacity
Expand to fixed hours on two days per week
Add reuse cabinets
Improve stormwater protection and safety
9
Annual Clean‐up Day
2010 Program Usage:
1,552 residents used at contract cost of $380,000
(about 9% participation)
2010: 63 commercial businesses used at contract
cost of $263,000 (about 3% participation)
GreenWaste estimate to add additional
annual clean‐up day for residents: $260,000
10
Outreach Plan Components
Dec/Janbill insertBill insert ‐Recycling Center closure
As neededpostsCreate Facebook posts about the closure
Dec/Janads
Create ads to run in local papers to inform community
about the closure
NovemberarticleGreenWaste newsletter
Octoberhandout
Handout for RC attendant to give to RC users ‐alternative
options for their materials
OctobereNews articleseNews article to explain closure and discussion
As needednews detailCreate news detail to guide viewers to new page
OctobersignCreate sign to place at Recycling Center
DateDeliverableAction
11
Plan for Eliminating the Recycling
Center and Retaining the
Household Hazardous Waste
Station
City Council Meeting
December 12, 2011
FINAL SLIDE
The Palo Alto Recycling Center
will close on February 1, 2012
because it is located on part of
the City’s landfill that must go
through the formal landfill
closure process.
Curbside Collection
• Most of the materials
currently taken to the
Recycling Center can be
placed in your blue recycling
cart.
• Occasional overflow of
recyclable materials can be
placed in a paper bag or
cardboard box next to your
blue recycling cart.
Curbside Recycling
(650) 496-5210
Paper
Plastic
Glass
Metal
Electronics
www.zerowastepaloalto.org • zerowaste@cityofpaloalto.org • (650) 496-5910
Alternate Recycling Options
Clean Up Day
(650) 493-4894
Bulky Items
Recyclables
Electronics
Goodwill
(650) 494-1416
Reusable items
Electronics
Bulky items
Household
Hazardous Waste
Events
(650) 496-6980
Motor Oil & Filters
Antifreeze
Batteries
Fluorescent bulbs
Cooking Oil
Books & Media
Household chemicals
Information on additional local options varies by material type and is too detailed for this chart.
Please see our website or call us for more information.
EXCERPT
City of Palo Alto Finance Committee Meeting
November 1, 2011
Plan for Elimination of the Recycling Center and Retaining the
Household Hazardous Waste Dropoff Facility
Mike Sartor, Interim Public Works Director, stated that in July 2011
Staff had proposed elimination of the Recycling Center. At that time
Council had directed Staff to return to the Finance Committee with
additional information regarding how to continue to provide recycling
services to the community, while simultaneously reducing Refuse Fund
expenditures.
Brad Eggleston, Solid Waste Program Manager, explained that the
Recycling Center was open seven days a week. He reviewed the costs
associated with leaving the Recycling Center open, and noted that the
estimated cost of replacing the facility was approximately $500,000. In
August 2011, Staff had completed a survey of 250 Recycling Center
customers, in which they recorded types of materials disposed of and
opinions regarding closure of the facility. Results showed that 35
percent of visitors during the 30-hour survey period were from
municipalities other than Palo Alto. The majority of recycling materials
were single stream materials, Goodwill donation items, and scrap
metal. He emphasized that 70 percent of those surveyed were not
aware that extra recyclables were eligible for curbside pick up. He
explained that in the event of a Recycling Center closure, it was
important that Palo Alto residents had access to recycling alternatives
without having to drive to another municipality. The survey also
showed that there were a number of people bringing universal
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) items to the Recycling Center. The
HHW program was open one Saturday per month, and one afternoon
per month by appointment. Additional capacity at the HHW Facility
would allow for expanded hours of operation. Staff had discussed
instituting fixed hours, two days per week to increase the convenience
of the HHW program. There had also been discussion of the addition of
one or more additional Clean-up Days per year, using some of the
savings from the Recycling Center closure. One additional Clean-up
Day per year would cost approximately $260,000. Since participation
in the Clean-up Day program was rather low, 9% for residents and 3%
for commercial businesses, Staff determined that resources should
Attachment D
instead be devoted to increased community outreach and education
regarding current programs. He reviewed Staff’s Outreach Plan, which
included new signage for the Recycling Center, flyers for all Recycling
Center customers, utility bill inserts, and a number of other items.
Council Member Shepherd had seen two comments on local blogs
describing how Palo Alto residents had gone to the Smart Station to
dispose of HHW and been turned away. She asked how the Smart
Station worked for residential customers.
Mr. Eggleston explained that once a month, the Smart Station was
open to Sunnyvale residents to dispose of HHW. The event was very
similar to those held by the City, but Palo Alto residents were
prohibited from utilizing the Smart Station on those days designated
for Sunnyvale residents. The Smart Station was open seven days a
week and could take most universal HHW items, such as fluorescent
bulbs, motor oil and antifreeze. The Smart Station did not accept the
more toxic HHW items, such as pesticides, chemicals, and propane
tanks.
Phil Bobel, Assistant Director of Public Works, explained that universal
waste was a small subset of HHW, which included the less toxic of the
HHW items. The City’s Recycling Center accepted universal waste
items, so when the Recycling Center closed there could be some
confusion over how to dispose of those items. Staff would address the
potential confusion by not mentioning the Smart Station in the City’s
key outreach materials.
Council Member Shepherd stated she understood that Staff’s proposal
for the Recycling Center closure included alternative disposal options
for both universal waste items and all other HHW items, including toxic
materials. She asked for clarification regarding the appointment
process for the HHW program.
Mr. Eggleston stated the City held a large HHW collection event once
per month, but that residents could also call to schedule a 20 minute
time slot for disposal of their HHW items. Generally, appointments
were available one Wednesday per month for several hours.
Council Member Shepherd remarked that she was previously unaware
of that program.
Mr. Bobel replied that the appointment system was new, and was still
in a pilot phase. The once per month Saturday events were organized
so that all HHW items were hauled away at the end of the day, thus
requiring no storage capacity. The weekday appointments were
experimental, in that the HHW items had to be stored until the next
monthly Saturday event. The weekday appointments had been
instituted in response to years of complaints from members of the
community that Saturday morning was not a convenient time for busy
families. The program was not highly publicized because Staff was
concerned that the Recycling Center did not have sufficient storage
capacity to accommodate overwhelming demand. He explained that
Staff would return at a later date with ideas on augmentation of the
HHW program. Staff hoped to increase the storage capacity for HHW
items, and in so doing, facilitate greater utilization of the HHW
program.
Council Member Shepherd asked if every Palo Alto resident
participated, whether the cost for Clean-up Day would remain the
same.
Mr. Eggleston replied that residents with their own accounts were
eligible to participate, but those residents who resided in apartment
complexes in which the landlord was the account holder were not. The
landlord could participate on behalf of the complex’s residents, but was
limited to the same number of items as any general residential
account holder.
Council Member Shepherd noted that the City was paying $380,000
per year for the service, but that only 9 percent of Palo Alto residential
account holder’s were using it. It was not efficient to add another
Clean-up Day when the current Clean-up Day was so underutilized.
Mr. Bobel agreed and stated that the current program needed to be
modified to address the fact that residents of large multi-family
complexes had no access to the program. Once the Staff learned how
underutilized the program was, they had decided that expansion of the
program was not the most cost efficient strategy. Staff felt that
improved outreach should be the first step. He explained that industry
practice had been to treat multi-family complexes as commercial units,
which carried with it a host of problems that Staff would address in the
next Cost of Services Study.
Council Member Shepherd agreed that the categorization of residents
of large multi-family complexes needed to be reviewed, and stated
that all residential customers should be categorized as such. She
stated that she had been surprised to learn that 35 percent of the
Recycling Center users were from other municipalities. She asked
whether Stanford University still had a recycling program, and what
types of materials were collected through their program.
Mr. Bobel replied that he thought Stanford University’s program was
very similar to the City’s, but noted that they had asked the City not to
mention their program in any publicity materials.
Mr. Eggleston added that he thought that Stanford University’s
program was a little more limited that the City’s.
Council Member Schmid observed several items that he had disposed
of at the Recycling Center in the past that did not seem to be included
in the list of alternative programs. He asked where residents would
dispose of media items after closure of the Recycling Center.
Mr. Bobel explained Staff had not yet determined how to address the
disposal of media, but that they were researching two options:
donation to either the City libraries or the Friends of the Library. They
hoped to have a solution soon.
Council Member Schmid asked how bicycles would be disposed of.
Mr. Eggleston replied that bicycles that were no longer usable would
constitute scrap metal and would be categorized as a bulky item,
eligible for pick-up during the annual Clean-up Day event.
Council Member Schmid asked whether that was the only option for
disposal of bicycles.
Mr. Eggleston replied that it had been the only option presented so far.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether bicycles were usually
considered scrap metal.
Mr. Bobel stated that they were.
Council Member Schmid asked how residents would properly dispose of
ice chests after the closure.
Mr. Eggleston replied that if the ice chest were too big for the blue
recycling bin, then it would be considered a bulky item.
Council Member Schmid noted that electronics were listed as
recyclables. He asked whether they could be placed in the blue bins.
Mr. Bobel stated that small electronics could be placed in the blue
recycling bins.
Council Member Schmid stated that GreenWaste had quoted the yearly
cost of Clean-up Day at $380,000, and asked whether that figure
would increase if participation were to dramatically increase.
Mr. Eggleston stated the figure was part of the fixed cost portion of the
contract, which was not up for renewal until 2017.
Council Member Schmid confirmed that the City would not experience
an increase for at least four to five years. He expressed concern
regarding the efficiency and potential environmental effects of
expanding curbside pickup services.
Mr. Bobel suggested efforts to increase community outreach move
ahead as scheduled and explained that the Finance Committee would
have an opportunity to review the Item again in the future. He added
that many customers, unaware of the City’s services, hired
independent commercial trash removal services. There was a desire
for bulky item removal services, and many residents were not able to
take those items to another location for disposal. He acknowledged
that Staff needed to work harder on disposal solutions for non-bulky
items.
Vice Mayor Yeh observed that there was a potential gap between the
closure of the Recycling Center in February 2012 and the
commencement of the augmented HHW program in September 2012.
He asked what services would be available to the public during that
time period.
Mr. Eggleston acknowledged that there was a gap in convenience, in
that residents would not have daily access to the Recycling Center, but
emphasized that the current HHW program would remain intact.
Mr. Bobel agreed with Mr. Eggleston, and that the challenge would be
to educate residents regarding the disposal options available to them.
Vice Mayor Yeh noted a difference in cost between the commercial and
residential rates, and asked how the rates were negotiated.
Mr. Bobel stated that the current Staff had not been present for those
negotiations, but that GreenWaste may have based the rates on those
from other similar communities. He said that if Staff was able to
increase participation in the programs, GreenWaste might experience
increased costs down the road. It was one of many things that the City
planned to negotiate with GreenWaste over the next several years.
Vice Mayor Yeh inquired as to the timing of the next negotiations with
GreenWaste.
Mr. Bobel explained that Mr. Eggleston had already begun
negotiations, and that Staff had opened up discussions on 15 different
items based on Council input.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services,stated that the City
had the option to execute one-year extensions to the GreenWaste
contract for up to four years.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether Staff was concerned that changes to
the City’s recycling program would result in increased instances of
dumping.
Mr. Sartor stated that Staff had not reported any instances of dumping
at the gates to the landfill, after its closure.
Mr. Eggleston agreed, but stated that Public Works crews frequently
responded to occurrences of dumping. One of Staff’s main concerns
was the dumping of HHW materials.
Mr. Bobel agreed that dumping of HHW materials was a serious
concern, but suggested that the type of person who would drive all the
way to the Recycling Center to dispose of HHW materials was probably
not the type of person who would dump those materials down a storm
drain.
Vice Mayor Yeh expressed concern that there could be other
unintended consequences of the program shift. He asked whether Staff
had seen any movement by GreenWaste or other refuse companies
towards utilization of low emission or green vehicles.
Mr. Sartor explained that GreenWaste’s vehicles ran on compressed
natural gas.
Mr. Eggleston stated that GreenWaste’s original proposal included use
of hybrid trucks, but that the City had decided against it because of
the increased cost.
Chair Scharff was struck by the low participation rates, especially
among businesses. He asked whether the City had the option to cancel
that portion of the contract.
Mr. Bobel replied that it was possible to cancel the commercial
contract. He explained that since multi-family units were also included
in the commercial category, it might be best to complete the proposed
outreach efforts to multi-family units in order to see whether there
was an unmet need amongst that population. It might take a year or
more to determine whether outreach efforts had been successful. If
results showed there was no such need and participation did not
increase, it would not make sense to continue to pay for the
commercial service.
Chair Scharff inquired as to how many of the 63 commercial accounts
were multi-family units.
Mr. Eggleston stated he did not have that information.
Mr. Bobel remarked that Staff would provide that information to the
Finance Committee.
Chair Scharff stated he understood the issues associated with
considering multi-family complexes as commercial customers, but felt
increased public outreach would not help those families who were
limited to disposal of four bulky items per year for their entire
complex. The program would need to be redesigned to include those
customers in some other way. He suggested that cancellation of the
contract for commercial accounts, which received only 3 percent
participation, would free $263,000 for development of a new program
for multi-family units.
Mr. Bobel replied that if the residents of the multi-family units had
more information regarding City waste services, they might coordinate
waste removal through their Building Manager.
Chair Scharff stated that typically, when someone moved out of an
apartment overnight, they left their old couches either in the unit or
next to the dumpster on the premises. The apartment complex was
then responsible for properly disposing of the items, at a cost to the
business. He asked whether condominium owners had their own
residential accounts or whether they experienced the same difficulties
as apartment dwellers.
Mr. Sartor stated that condominium owners were given residential
accounts.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether disposal and handling of the
items in question was part of the Measure E proposal for use of the
Baylands.
Mr. Bobel stated that it was not.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council
Member Schmid, that the Finance Committee recommend that Council
approve Staff’s plan to permanently close the Recycling Center,
effective February 1, 2012, and to conduct outreach on the Recycling
Center closure and the alternatives available for the future.
Council Member Shepherd asked Staff to address the policy
implications of the Recycling Center closure, with regards to expansion
and enhancement of environmental sustainability.
Mr. Bobel explained the recommendations would expand and enhance
the City’s environmental sustainability, and added that Staff planned
to present the Finance Committee alternatives for expansion of the
HHW program under a separate item. The world had changed since the
establishment of the Recycling Center. He noted that there were now
many great alternatives to driving to a Recycling Center, and that
those car trips produced green house gas emissions. He explained that
the environmentally friendly thing to do was to focus on expanding
curbside pick up services.
Council Member Shepherd asked that Mr. Bobel’s comments be
included in the Staff Report to Council, in order to explain the policy
motivation behind the recommendation.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Not Yet Approved
111128 jb 0130881
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Deleting
Program N-55 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
WHEREAS, The Recycling Center was established on a portion of the landfill in
1972 accepting white paper, newspaper, cardboard, glass, cans, motor oil, and scrap metal. In
1979, the Recycling Center was expanded to accommodate curbside collected recyclables; and
WHEREAS, the Palo Alto landfill has ceased accepting waste and the City is in the
process of closing and capping the landfill; and
WHEREAS, the closure of the landfill will require the current Recycling Center to
close; and
WHEREAS, most of materials accepted at the current Recycling Center are also
collected as part of the City’s curbside recycling program. In addition, materials such as motor
oil, oil filters, antifreeze, household and auto batteries, and fluorescent lights, which are currently
accepted at Recycling Center are also accepted at the Household Hazardous Waste facility; and
WHEREAS, based on the operational costs of the Recycling Center and the capital
cost of constructing a new Recycling Center, the City Council has determined that the
community would be better served by permanently closing the Recycling Center and retaining
the existing Household Hazardous Waste Station to collect some of the materials currently
accepted by the Recycling Center; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed meeting,
the Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to permit the closure of the landfill
without the necessity for maintaining a separate Recycling Center in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and
welfare require amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in Section 2
below.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that Program N-55 of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, which reads: "Maintain and expand the use of the Recycling Center at the
City's refuse disposal area" is obsolete and is hereby deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that this project will have no
significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day
after its adoption. This delayed effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a
Not Yet Approved
111128 jb 0130881
sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and its effective date to allow a
complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum
petition filed after the effective date shall be rejected as untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager
________________________ ___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney Interim Public Works Director
Not Yet Approved
111128 jb 0130880 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 5.20.270 of Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code Pertaining to Maintenance of a Recycling Center
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
1. On October 6, 1997 the City Council of the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance
No. 4451 Amending Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 to add among other things, Section 5.20.270
“Recycling Center”.
2. Public Resources Code Section 40059 authorizes the City to determine all aspects
of solid waste and recyclable materials handling which are of local concern, including, but not
limited to, frequency of collection, means of collection and transportation, level of services,
charges and fees, and nature, location and extent of providing solid waste and recyclable materials
handling services.
3. The Recycling Center was established on a portion of the landfill in 1972 accepting
white paper, newspaper, cardboard, glass, cans, motor oil, and scrap metal. In 1979, the Recycling
Center was expanded to accommodate curbside collected recyclables.
4. The Palo Alto landfill has ceased accepting waste and the City is in the process of
closing and capping the landfill.
5. The closure of the landfill will require the current Recycling Center to close.
6. Most of materials accepted at the current Recycling Center are also collected as part
of the City’s curbside recycling program. In addition, materials such as motor oil, oil filters,
antifreeze, household and auto batteries, and fluorescent lights, which are currently accepted at
Recycling Center are also accepted at the Household Hazardous Waste facility.
7. Based on the operational costs of the Recycling Center and the capital cost of
constructing a new Recycling Center, the City Council has determined that the community would
be better served by permanently closing the Recycling Center and retaining the existing Household
Hazardous Waste Station to collect some of the materials currently accepted by the Recycling
Center.
8. Upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed meeting, the Council
desires to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to permit rather than require the maintenance of a
Recycling Center.
Not Yet Approved
111128 jb 0130880 2
SECTION 2. Section 5.20.270 of Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
5.20.270 Recycling Center.
The city will may maintain within the city's territorial limits a
recycling center which accepts from residents and nonresidents the
delivery of recyclable materials. The delivery of some or all of these
recyclable materials may be subject to the imposition of rates as a
condition of acceptance at the recycling center. Under rules and
regulations promulgated by the city manager, the city at any time
may prohibit nonresidents from delivering some or all recyclable
materials to the recycling center, and may impose on nonresidents
rates on the delivery of recyclable materials that differ from those
imposed on residents.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-
first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Interim Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2374)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09,2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2374)
Summary Title: Palo Alto Players Agreement
Title: Approval of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement between the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Players for the Cooperative Use of the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre
From:City Manager
Lead Department:Community Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the renewal of a public-private partnership
agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Players for cooperative use of the
Lucie Stern Community Theatre (Attachment A) for the period September 1, 2011 to August 31,
2012.
BACKGROUND
The Lucie Stern Community Theatre is used by three local theatre companies who produce
approximately 15 productions annually. These three companies (the Palo Alto Players, West
Bay Opera, and TheatreWorks) partner with the Community Services Department to produce
these shows, which foster the cultural and artistic needs of Palo Alto residents and visitors. The
City and these companies each benefit from continuing this cooperative relationship.
As of 1974, the Palo Alto Players dissolved their ties with the Parks and Recreation Department,
and became an independent company. Since that time, the City has continued to support the
Palo Alto Players by providing performance, rehearsal, and shop space at the city-owned
Community Theater (also known as the Lucie Stern Theater). During their 2011 –2012 theatre
season, the Palo Alto Players offers six different productions for adults, including musicals,
comedies, and historical dramas.
DISCUSSION
The Palo Alto Players’ usage of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre is governed by a public-
private partnership agreement. Since production scheduling is done interdependently between
the three groups, and because the cost of relocating a theatre company is prohibitively high,
there exists nearly no opportunity for changing the companies that the Lucie Stern Community
Theatre services. Due to these circumstances, staff recommends that the City Council approve
the modification of the existing public-private partnership. The key terms of this agreement are
discussed below:
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2374)
Term: The new agreement is for one year. If authorized, it takes effect on September 1, 2011
and terminates on August 31, 2012. Similar agreements are intended for subsequent years.
Revenue: In accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule and in exchange for providing facility
usage, the Palo Alto Players shall remit to the City a surcharge in the amount of $2 for each
ticket sold. This fee is effectively passed down to patrons and is applied to all subscription,
group, individual, promotional, and other tickets sold. Complimentary tickets are excluded, and
the sum of the surcharge revenue for each production is due to the City within 30 calendar days
after the closing of the production. Among other functions, the proposed agreement acts as a
revenue contract which governs the application, collection, and accounting of associated
revenue.
Responsibilities of City: The contract outlines the responsibilities of the City using the standard
terms of public-private and “joint-venture” partnerships, including specifying goods delivery
terms, notice requirements for contract termination, and affirming non-discrimination,
insurance, and property guidelines. The City is also responsible for allowing and providing
access to the Lucie Stern Community Theatre during designated hours, providing basic
maintenance of capital equipment, monitoring production safety, and providing information
regarding other scheduled facility uses (such as City-sponsored events of private rentals).
Responsibilities of Company: Additionally, the agreement stipulates the responsibilities of the
theatre company, including their duty to abide by City and department policies and procedures
(specifically including and as related to, without limitation, conduct in community centers,
injury and illness prevention, sale of alcoholic beverages, operations, building emergency
procedures, zero waste, and facility use). Other responsibilities include timely remittance of
fees and surcharges, requirements for sufficient building supervision/staffing, recordkeeping of
ticket sales and surcharge remittance for compliance with audits, and adherence to standard
practices for facility security.
This renewed agreement is substantially identical to previous agreements with the exception of
increasing the ticket surcharge from $1 to $2. This increase is implemented as a result of
Municipal Fee Schedule adjustments effective 07/01/2010 and 07/01/2011.
RESOURCE IMPACT
No additional City resources are required and it is anticipated that this partnership will lead to
enhanced program and capital funding over the life of the agreement.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This partnership would be categorized as a public/private partnership under the City’s Public-
Private Partnership Policy.
January 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2374)
Attachments:
·Attachment A -AGREEMENT-Lucie Stern-Palo Alto Players-2011 (PDF)
Prepared By:Judge Luckey,
Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
AGREEMENT
BY THIS AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO ON THE 1st DAY OF September 2011 BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO (“CITY”) AND PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE
“CONTRACTOR”), (ADDRESS) 1305 Middlefield Road (CITY)Palo Alto, (STATE) California (ZIP) 94301
(PHONE) 650-363-8581. IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE
AS FOLLOWS:
hCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE OR FURNISH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIED 1) GOODS AND MATERIALS, 2)
SERVICES OR 3) A COMBINATION THEREOF AS SPECIFIED IN THE EXHIBITS NAMED BELOW AND
ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS REFERENCE: TITLE: (DESCRIPTION)
Presentation of the 2011-2012 season of plays to be produced in the Lucie Stern Community
Theatre. This agreement is a Class I use of the facility per the Municipal Fee Schedule.
hEXHIBITS THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED EXHIBITS HEREBY ARE MADE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT:
CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED
Exhibit A: Responsibilities of the Corporation
Exhibit B: Responsibilities of the City
Exhibit C: General Conditions
Exhibit D: Non-Discrimination Policy
Exhibit E: Proof of Liability Insurance
hTERM THE SERVICES AND/OR MATERIALS FURNISHED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL
COMMENCE ON September 1, 2011 AND SHALL BE COMPLETED BEFORE August 31, 2012.
The City may at its sole discretion extend this contract for two additional one-year terms.
COMPENSATION FOR THE FULL PERFORMANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT: (See Payment Plan and/or
Schedule in attachments.)
CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CITY:
h PAYMENT RECORD (DEPARTMENT USE PAGE 3)
hCITY ACCOUNT NUMBER:
COST CENTER GL ACCT
PROJECT /INTERNAL ORDER PHASE NO.
80020412-15540 Ticket Surcharge/61203
80020512-13450 Facility Attendant/61203
hGENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED ON ALL THREE PAGES OF THIS AGREEMENT.
.
HOLD HARMLESS. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council Members, officers, employees, and agents from any
and all demands, claims or liability of any nature, including wrongful death, caused by or arising out of CONTRACTOR’S, its officers’, directors’,
employees’ or agents’ negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which the law imposes strict liability on CONTRACTOR in
the performance of or failure to perform this agreement by CONTRACTOR.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement and the terms and conditions on the following pages represent the entire agreement between the parties with
respect to the purchase and sale of the goods, equipment, materials or supplies or payment for services which may be the subject of this agreement. All
prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written are superseded hereby.
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON ITS APPROVAL AND EXECUTION BY CITY. IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE
PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT THE DAY, MONTH, AND YEAR FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE.
hPROJECT MANAGER AND REPRESENTATIVE CONTRACTOR
REVISED 8/15/2011
FOR CITY
NAME Judge Luckey BY_________________________________
DEPT. CSD/Arts & Sciences TITLE_____________________________________________
P.O, BOX 10250 SOCIAL SECURITY
PALO ALTO, CA 94303 OR I.R.S. NUMBER 94-2295483
Telephone 650-463-4932
hINVOICING SEND ALL INVOICES TO THE CITY, ATTN: PROJECT MANAGER
hCITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVALS: (ROUTE FOR SIGNATURES ACCORDING TO NUMBERS IN APPROVAL BOXES BELOW)
APPROVAL OVER $25,000CITY DEPARTMENT 1 Funds Have Been
Budgeted
(1)
PURCHASING & CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION INSURANCE
REVIEW
(2) (3) PURCHASING MANAGER
APPROVAL OVER $25,000 APPROVAL OVER $85,000
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:_____________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:
BY:________________________ _______________________
MAYOR CITY CLERK
REVISED 8/15/2011
EXHIBIT A
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CORPORATION
(1) Abide by the policies/procedures established by CITY and CITY’S Arts and Sciences
Division and the Department of Community Services for the use of CITY facilities,
equipment, costumes, props, furniture, scenery and other production elements. These shall
include, but are not limited to, Regulations Of The City Of Palo Alto Regarding Prohibited
Conduct In Community Centers and Theaters (Appendix A), the City of Palo Alto Injury
and Prevention program (Appendix B), Policy for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages (Appendix
C), Operations Manual (Appendix D), Safety Procedures and Guidelines (Appendix E),
Building Emergency Procedures (Appendix F), procedure for adjusting the Forestage
height including use of the Scissor lift (Appendix G), House Manager's Guide (Appendix
H), Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I), and Costume Room Guidelines (Appendix J). Follow
safety procedures for the use of power and hand tools, mechanical lifts, etc. including the
use of safety goggles, ear protection, face shields, safety cables, outriggers, etc.
(2) Obtain, supervise, and pay all necessary related fees for the services of all professional
assistance needed to produce such productions. Such assistance may include, but is not
limited to the following: Production Directors, all Designers, Carpenters, Painters,
Production Assistants, Music Directors, Choreographers, Musicians and other Front of
House, Artistic or Administrative personnel.
(3) Pay all fees and costs for materials, supplies, scripts, royalties, licenses and other fees and
expenses connected with said productions, including all make-up removal supplies.
(4) Be solely responsible for the control and supervision of all production activities and
personnel connected therewith and shall notify all personnel of their obligations and
responsibilities pertaining to their production area. Act responsibly in matters of building
security when CORPORATION is schedule to utilize CITY facilities.
(5) Conduct regularly scheduled production meetings, shall notify CITY of such production
meetings in writing, and shall coordinate all production activities with CITY'S Project
Manager or his/her designee. There shall be at least one or more, as needed, production
design meeting(s) for each production as scheduled in ATTACHMENT 1 which shall be
convened by CORPORATION at a mutually convenient time prior to start of construction.
Provide the Project Manager or his/her designee with a list of major production personnel
and their phone numbers for each production at the time of the first production meeting.
Construction plans and fly-line plots should be submitted at the aforementioned production
design meeting in order for the Project Manager or his/her designee to ascertain
compliance with CITY fire or other safety regulations.
(6) Provide the Project Manager or his/her designee with a list of all Pyrotechnics effects
(including the use of open flames), all Hydro technical effects, all use of fog or haze, all
loud noises (i.e. gunshots), and all use of strobe lights at least 21 days prior to first use on
stage. No flames shall be permitted on stage without the required fire permits from CITY.
Smoking by any of the actors on stage as an integral part of the production will be
considered a Pyrotechnic effect. Safety precautions approved by a CITY Fire Inspector and
the Project Manager or his/her designee will be taken when smoking is occurring on stage,
and the audience shall be notified beforehand that smoking, loud noises (i.e. gunshots) or
use of strobe lights will occur on the stage. All Fire Department fees for “Open Flame
Permits” and “Candles and Open Flames in Assembly Areas Permits” shall be the
responsibility of the CORPORATION.
REVISED 8/15/2011
(7) Provide the Project Manager with the rehearsal schedule, performance schedule, shop
schedule and any requests for the use of CITY facilities (including but not limited to the
Community Theatre, rooms located in the Lucie Stern complex and the Lucie Stern
Courtyard and patio) for any purpose. Space reservations should be made at least four
weeks in advance. CORPORATION shall accommodate other uses of the theatre facility,
including but not limited to the stage, auditorium, rehearsal hall, scene shop, paint shop,
flat dock, costume shop, and the lobby during periods of non-use during the runs of the
productions. CITY shall notify the CORPORATION of such other uses. CORPORATION
shall provide personnel for any shifting of CORPORATION'S scenery and/or equipment.
(8) Designate as Project Director for the length of this contract an employee or sub-contractor
to manage or supervise all areas and items in this contract, including production, technical,
house personnel and any and all support groups and to be CORPORATION'S liaison with
the Project Manager or his/her designee in all matters relating to the CITY in any way.
(9) Arrange for auditions and casting for such productions and be solely responsible for the
supervision and control of all performers. With respect to casting, CORPORATION shall
have sole discretion to choose and approve the qualifications and select the cast. In
personnel decisions, the CORPORATION shall agree to and comply with the provisions of
the CITY’S Non-discrimination policy (Exhibit 8).
(10) Search for, place and train participants in appropriate areas of theatre production activity
and shall utilize personnel in a safe and effective manner in the presentation of such
productions. CORPORATION shall be solely responsible for the control and supervision
of such participants and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY from any
claims or liabilities arising from the acts or omissions of such personnel. All such
personnel shall be deemed the sole agents and employees of CORPORATION and shall be
notified by the CORPORATION of this circumstance.
(11) Exercise safe practices in the use of CITY facilities and equipment, shall maintain and
clear work areas, and shall within 24 hours report, with form provided by CITY (Appendix
K), information regarding accidents. Immediately report to the Project Manager or his/her
designee on form provided by CITY any breakage, malfunction, deterioration or loss of
any of the CITY'S resources (including musical instruments, tools, lights, sound
equipment, props, curtains, etc.). CORPORATION shall not attempt repair of CITY
equipment without prior consultation with the CITY’S Project Manager. CORPORATION
shall immediately discontinue any activity where an unsafe or dangerous condition exists.
CORPORATION shall train and supervise CORPORATION'S staff and volunteers on safe
theatre practices and adhere to CITY'S safety procedures and guidelines. If, in the opinion
of any CITY or CORPORATION employee, CORPORATION is conducting an activity in
an unsafe manner, CORPORATION or its agents shall be informed and shall immediately
discontinue such activity until such activity is able to be conducted in a safe manner
approved by CITY staff.
(12) Promote and publicize all of its productions, and shall print in all publicity, including, but
not limited to, publications, mailings, flyers, posters, brochures, programs, and paid or
public service advertising, the statement, "In cooperation with the City of Palo Alto
Community Services Department Division of Arts and Sciences." In conformance with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 guidelines and requirements,
CORPORATION shall bear responsibility for providing appropriate auxiliary aids,
interpretive services and accommodations where they are necessary to achieve an equal
REVISED 8/15/2011
opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of public performances produced under
this contract. Printed programs shall include the following statement required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act: "Persons with disabilities who require information on
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: ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-463-4952 (Voice) or
ada@cityofpaloalto.org (Internet).
(13) Continue to exist as an independent, non-profit corporation under the laws of the United
States and the State of California.
(14) Submit all signs or displays to be located on the Theatre premises to Project Manager or
his/her designee for approval at the first production meeting. All displays may be put up at
load-in and must be removed during strike. Inside the Theatre, no display materials may
be placed upon stucco walls. Lobby displays may only be placed on the lobby display
boards, and all fasteners must be removed at the time display is taken down. Nothing may
be posted on the exterior walls or doors of the Theatre or in the Stern courtyard, except for
items in the display case and an approved production name sign hung from the theatre
balcony. Marquee signs must be constructed of light weight material, and shall be secured
in such a way that the sign cannot become dislodged by normal vibration or seismic
activity. Signs shall be of a standard size no larger than ten feet in length and eight feet in
height. All marquee signage must be attached to the theatre balcony with rigging so that
the sign may be easily removed for limited periods during photography shoots, special
events, or building maintenance.
(15) Assure that the auditorium, stage, paint shop, scene shop, flat dock, costume shop, green
room, dressing rooms, rehearsal hall, hallways and outdoor areas adjacent to theatre and
shop will be cleared and clean, and that scenery, properties, and other production elements
will be disassembled and stored, to the Project Manager or his/her designee’s satisfaction,
within six hours after the final performance or on a time schedule mutually agreed upon
between the CORPORATION and the Project Manager or his/her designee. The stage shall
always be returned to its basic set-up as established by the Project Manager or his/her
designee unless there is a mutual agreement with the incoming group that has been
approved by the Project Manager or his/her designee. All items on the STRIKE
CHECKLIST are to be performed unless there is a mutual agreement with the incoming
group that has been approved by the PROJECT MANAGER or his/her designee. The
Project Manager or his/her designee will sign a copy of the STRIKE CHECKLIST form at
the completion of the strike to signify acceptance of clean and neat facilities.
(16) Leave storage, paint, scene and costume spaces clean and clear of CORPORATION'S
materials other than those materials necessary for the ongoing maintenance and repair of
the sets and costumes by the Monday following opening performance.
(17) Leave all spaces clear, clean and orderly at the end of each use. Rehearsal Hall is to be
cleared of all materials, except major set pieces and any rehearsal props, after each daily
use. Rehearsal Hall is to be completely cleared within 24 hours of final use. Dressing
rooms are to be maintained after each daily use. Trash, recycling and compostable
materials are to be removed from all areas daily. Recyclables and compostable materials
are to be placed in the recycling and composting carts near the trash dumpster and garbage
and trash are to be placed into the dumpster. The CORPORATION is required to reduce
waste, reuse and recycle per the CITY’s Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I). Office space and
hallways are to be kept continually clear, clean and orderly and neither space shall be used
REVISED 8/15/2011
for the purpose of set, prop, or costume storage. Materials may not be left or stored any
place out-of-doors overnight or when unattended by contractor personnel.
(18) Enforce current regulations as established by CITY with regard to smoking, food and drink
in CITY facilities (Appendix A). CORPORATION shall provide ushers at all previews
and performances who will enforce such regulations. Smoking is not permitted inside any
CITY facility. No person shall bring any animal into the theatre. This regulation shall not
apply to service animals assisting individuals with disabilities or to animals in training to
become service animals. Use of animals on the stage is subject to approval by the Project
Manager or his/her designee. Food and drink are not permitted in the auditorium,
light/sound booth or on stage, unless used as part of a production scene. Food and drink
shall be permitted only in approved areas such as the green room and lobby.
CORPORATION shall clean up all food and drink containers daily after use.
(19) Observe all provisions of this agreement when using CITY facilities other than or in
addition to the Community Theatre. This includes cleaning up the rooms, returning tables
and chairs to their initial locations and depositing all trash and recycling in the appropriate
receptacles. CORPORATION will be responsible for the maintenance of the Lucie Stern-
Recreation Wing restrooms for weekend performances.
(20) Comply with CITY TB test requirement for employees and volunteers of CORPORATION
at any time the CITY Risk Manager deems it necessary. If minors are involved in the
production, State of California requirements for fingerprinting the staff must be followed.
(21) Comply with CITY sound ordinance levels for any outdoor activities, including load-in,
strike, dismantling, or disposal. Shop doors facing Hopkins and Harriet Streets shall be
closed between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
(22) Pay Building Attendant fees at prevailing rates as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule:
(a) For (an) additional Attendant(s) required for the use of CITY facilities other than
the Attendant the CITY will furnish for the Lucie Stern Community Theatre facility
for the period of from one hour prior to until at least one half hour after the
completion of each public performance as listed in ATTACHMENT 1.
(b) For any performances not included in ATTACHMENT 1.
(c) When using other CITY facilities at the same time as a public performance as listed
in ATTACHMENT 1.
All building use policies must be adhered to for any CITY facility use.
Additional performances of the productions listed in ATTACHMENT 1 may be added to
ATTACHMENT 1 with two weeks notice.
(23) Provide house manager and ushers for every performance or event whenever public is in
attendance. CORPORATION shall permit only persons who have been trained in theatre
emergency, safety and use procedures to usher. CORPORATION shall submit a list of
their trained personnel to the Project Manager prior to public performances for each
production. Ushers must be available to assist patrons under all circumstances and must be
aware of and able to assist disabled persons. The CORPORATION’S House Manager and
ushers must also be available to assist in emergency situations throughout the entire
REVISED 8/15/2011
performance until audience has left the theatre. Ushers must ensure that wheelchairs,
walkers, etc. are not blocking any of the aisles or exits. Ushers shall return seats to the
upright position and remove litter from the auditorium and restrooms at the conclusion of
each performance.
(24) Shall be responsible for installing or removing the removable auditorium seats in
designated areas to accommodate their wheelchair patrons and as required due to the needs
of the production.
(25) Shall have privilege of borrowing available Community Theatre- owned properties, sets,
costumes and scenery for productions scheduled in this agreement. Costumes, properties
and sets created by CORPORATION with Corporation-owned materials will remain the
property of CORPORATION, and shall be removed from the theatre facility at the
conclusion of the production in which the materials are used. The Project Manager or
his/her designee may, on a case-by-case basis, authorize exceptions. Any allowed items
stored at the theatre will become available for use by all contracting CORPORATIONS
and the CITY. All such items created under former agreements will continue to be the
property of the CITY. All office equipment, construction tools, special effects and lighting
equipment purchased and owned by CORPORATION will remain the private property of
CORPORATION and the CITY assumes no responsibility or liability for the loss or
maintenance of such materials. All equipment, instruments, costumes and any other
materials rented, borrowed or owned by any subcontractor, agent or person for the
CORPORATION is the responsibility of the CORPORATION and/or its subcontractors,
and the CITY assumes no responsibility or liability for its maintenance or loss. Such items
as original play scripts, musical scores, scenic designs, costume designs and photographs
belong solely to the authors, composers, artists who created them or their representatives,
and any use of them will be at the sole discretion of the CORPORATION. Any use of
these items must be in accordance with all applicable laws. CORPORATION assumes all
liability and responsibility for any default on production expenses.
(26) Shall be required to replace or have repaired by factory authorized technicians CITY
owned equipment, instruments or materials identified by the Project Manager or his/her
designee as having been lost, damaged or destroyed by an agent of the CORPORATION.
A written report must be made on CITY form whenever CITY equipment is lost, damaged,
or destroyed by the CORPORATION.
(27) May be allowed the use of Community Theatre-owned properties, sets, costumes, scenery,
furniture and equipment for CORPORATION productions not scheduled in this agreement
upon written request to the Project Manager or his/her designee and upon express approval
and written authorization of the Project Manager or his/her designee. CORPORATION
must return to Community Theatre all items borrowed for productions at other venues
within four days of the final performance and shall, in the event the items are damaged or
destroyed, be responsible for the repair or replacement of all such borrowed items to the
satisfaction of the Project Manager.
(28) May use Community Theatre facilities and equipment only for theatre productions
expressly covered under this agreement. Exceptions, such as for classes, camps or
workshops, will be considered by the Project Manager or his/her designee upon the receipt
from the CORPORATION of a written request at least thirty days prior to the date needed
and, if granted, will be approved in writing by the Project Manager or his/her designee. No
such activity will be advertised or promoted until it has been expressly approved by the
CITY’S Project Manager.
REVISED 8/15/2011
(29) Shall enforce all State and City laws relating to the sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages in CITY facilities. Alcohol is permitted at the Lucie Stern Community Center if
approved by the CITY’S Project Manager. Unless otherwise specifically permitted the
only alcoholic beverages which may be sold or served at CITY facilities by CITY policy
are wines, including champagne and sparkling wine. If alcoholic beverages are to be sold
or distributed free of charge, CORPORATION must possess a State A.B.C. The permit for
the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages obtained by the CORPORATION must be
provided to the Project Manager. Proof of liquor liability insurance where CITY is named
as co-insured with liability of at least one million dollars ($l,000,000.00) shall be required.
Permits are to be displayed as required by law. It is the responsibility of the
CORPORATION to ensure that no alcoholic beverage is served to a minor. Identification
must be checked if the person appears to be under thirty years of age. CORPORATION
shall remove all items, including cups, glasses, bottles, napkins and food from the lobby
and any other affected areas, including the courtyard, after each performance.
CORPORATION is required to adhere to CITY’S Recycling and Zero Waste Program
(Appendix I).
(30) Shall have one of their designated and CITY approved key and/or proximity card holders
on the premises at all times as a supervisor whenever anyone from the CORPORATION is
in the facility working for the CORPORATION, whether as a paid employee,
subcontractor or volunteer. The Project Manager or his/her designee must approve any
exceptions in writing.
(31) Shall not in any way modify CITY facilities and may not install or attach anything in or on
CITY facilities without having first submitted a written request to the Project Manager and
having received written permission from the Project Manager or his/her designee. The
approval of the Project Manager does not relieve the CORPORATION from any
responsibility to obtain necessary CITY permits or Building Department approvals for the
modification. Any violation shall result in the CORPORATION being charged for all
repairs necessary to restore the facility to its original condition and any additional costs
pertaining to the restoration of CITY property.
(32) Shall immediately report to the police any incidents of a criminal or suspicious nature
occurring on CITY property and notify the Project Manager or his/her designee within
twelve hours. If initial notification is verbal, it must also be submitted in writing to Project
Manager or his/her designee on provided form.
(33) Shall make sure that the doors to the Scene Shop, Rehearsal Hall, and Costume Shop, as
well as any other exterior access doors to any area of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre,
are not left open, unlocked or left with the locking mechanism disabled at any time when
the immediate area secured by the door is unoccupied by the CORPORATION, even if
only briefly. Failure to do this may result in greater restricted access to the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre, including the possible forfeiture of keys/proximity cards by the
CORPORATION and/or restricted access times.
(34) Must fill out a CITY Report of Accident/Property Damage report (Appendix K) for any
and all accidents, injuries or property damage if a CITY employee is not present to fill out
the report.
(35) Must operate and conduct business in compliance with the CITY’s Zero Waste Plan
(Appendix I) for all activities including, but not limited to, set construction and strike, food
REVISED 8/15/2011
and beverage service, and office activities. The CITY Recycling Program can assist with
resources for achieving this goal. The goal is to send as little waste to landfill as possible
through waste reduction, reuse and recycling. To achieve this goal CORPORATION must
first reduce waste whenever possible.
(36) Shall avoid the use of disposables and shall not use Styrofoam™ and other plastics for
food/beverage service. Reusable food/beverage service ware should be utilized to the
maximum extent possible. Where a reusable food/beverage service option is not available,
choose items that are recyclable. For concessions, choose product packaging that is
recyclable.
(37) Must practice reuse before, during and after production. A list of reuse resources will be
provided to avoid the disposal of construction materials, sets and props. CORPORATION
must recycle construction debris from set materials (e.g. wood, metal).
(38) Must recycle all materials included in the CITY’s Recycling Program including paper (all
types), plastic containers #1-#7, cardboard, glass bottles and jars, and metal cans.
Compostable materials will be disposed of in designated compost waste receptacles.
REVISED 8/15/2011
EXHIBIT A
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
(1) Allow CORPORATION the use of the Community Theatre Rehearsal Hall, Costume
Room, Scene Shop, Paint Shop, Stage, Auditorium, Light/Sound Booth, designated work
space, etc. as scheduled in ATTACHMENT 1 for the preparation and presentation of
theatre productions performed under this agreement provided that CORPORATION
submits specific rehearsal schedules, performance schedules and shop use schedules.
CORPORATION shall be required to comply with all CITY policies. Any use of CITY
facilities and equipment other than that listed in this contract but necessary to carry out this
contract must be scheduled through and approved in advance by the Project Manager or
his/her designee.
(2) Allow the use of the auditorium and the stage for performances and brush-up rehearsals on
the following schedule:
No performance shall begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. nor end later than midnight. In no event
shall CORPORATION conduct rehearsals or other activities, or otherwise occupy CITY
facilities from 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. unless prior written permission is obtained from
the Project Manager or a designated employee of the CITY is on site. CORPORATION
shall observe all facility security rules and regulations as established by CITY (Appendix
A).
(3) Allow the use of the stage and the auditorium prior to the opening night of such
productions according to the production schedule set forth in ATTACHMENT 1. Allow
the use of the rehearsal hall, box office, scene shop, paint shop and costume shop
according to the schedule as set forth in ATTACHMENT 1. Additional facility use may
be provided as specified in item (Exhibit B (1); Exhibit A (28)) above; however, priority
use of the room will always be given to actual rehearsals of productions covered by a
contract with the CITY. The CITY will not be responsible for obtaining additional space,
but may assist in locating other CITY spaces and may act as co-sponsor for use of CITY
facilities under appropriate circumstances. Payment as specified in the CITY’s Municipal
Fee Schedule will need to be made for any productions/performances/events/other uses
that are not included as a part of ATTACHMENT 1. CORPORATION will forfeit the right
to any additional reservations of CITY facilities should CORPORATION reserve space
which is not used. CITY reserves the right to allow other uses of space when not in actual,
scheduled use by CORPORATION.
(4) Provide the Project Manager or his/her designee with a list of all planned activities
utilizing theatre Stage and Auditorium during said periods. This information is to be
provided to the Project Manager or his/her designee in production design meetings
(5) Allow CORPORATION to use all operational production equipment in CITY'S
Community Theatre inventory as requested by CORPORATION and approved in writing
by CITY. CORPORATION takes such equipment "as is" and is responsible for ensuring
that such equipment is in a safe condition prior to use and is returned in working condition
at the conclusion of its use or of the production. The CORPORATION will assist the CITY
in keeping the inventory of tools, equipment, instruments and production materials up-to-
date so that all theatre users may benefit from the use of these materials.
(6) Monitor all aspects of production relative to safety (Appendix E). If the Project Manager
or any designee(s) deem(s) that any procedure followed by CORPORATION is unsafe, he
or she has the authority to immediately stop such procedure. The CITY and
REVISED 8/15/2011
CORPORATION will work together to prevent or quickly mitigate any fire hazards or any
items identified by the Fire Department during facility inspections.
(7) Provide maintenance of CITY facilities and equipment, replacement lamps for lighting
equipment and blades for table power tools, but not hand power tools. CITY shall respond
with reasonable speed to make necessary repairs hereunder.
(8) Provide persons designated by CORPORATION and approved by the Project Manager or
his/her designee with keys, proximity cards (up to a maximum of six), and alarm codes for
access to Lucie Stern Community Theatre facilities solely for the purpose of carrying out
the requirements of this agreement. Keys, proximity cards, and alarm codes shall not be
loaned or transferred and shall only be used by the designated persons. In the event that
CORPORATION fails to properly open or lock and secure CITY facilities leading to a
false alarm call-out or leaves areas of the facility unlocked and unattended, a two hundred
dollar ($200.00) penalty shall be paid to CITY on each occasion. In the event that a
designated key holder loses any key or proximity card issued by CITY the
CORPORATION shall be assessed a seventy-five dollar ($75.00) replacement charge for
each key or proximity card or pay for the cost of rekeying or reprogramming the locks of
the facility if circumstances indicate it as determined by the CITY. CORPORATION will
be responsible and held accountable for all personnel, properties and activities of
CORPORATION. CORPORATION will be responsible and held accountable for all CITY
facility and equipment damages or loss due to negligence.
(9) Have the right to, with no notice; suspend this contract if the building should be declared
uninhabitable for reasons of safety by the proper authorities. (i.e. if the building should be
damaged in an earthquake and be declared unsafe for occupancy). If there is an outbreak of
pandemic flu or other medical emergency and places of public gatherings are closed, CITY
will not assume any financial responsibility for loss of revenue by the CORPORATION. If
the Lucie Stern Community Theatre is not available due to earthquake, other disaster, or
safety related issues, CITY will not assume any financial responsibility for loss of revenue
by the CORPORATION.
REVISED 8/15/2011
EXHIBIT C
GENERAL CONDITIONS
(1) CITY. The Manager Arts-Children’s Theatre is designated the Project Manager for the
CITY, who shall render overall supervision of the progress and performance of this
agreement by CITY. All services herein agreed in this contract to be performed by CITY
shall be under the overall supervision of the Project Manager or his/her designee.
Contractor shall go through Project Manager or his/her designee in all matters dealing with
CITY policies, funding, facilities, equipment and other CITY departments outside the
Community Theatre.
(2) CORPORATION. CORPORATION shall assign a single Project Director who shall have
overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this agreement by
CORPORATION. Should circumstances or condition subsequent to the execution of this
agreement require a substitute Project Director, CORPORATION shall notify CITY
immediately of such occurrence. The Project Director shall be responsible for all actions
of the CORPORATION, including their support groups and volunteers. The Project
Director shall also be responsible for all communication and information to and from
CITY and CORPORATION'S personnel, including their support groups.
(3) ACCESS. CORPORATION shall not prevent the Project Manager, facility maintenance
personnel, and others specifically designated by the Project Manager from free and easy
access to all CITY facilities. The Project Manager and others specifically designated by the
Project Manager shall attempt to coordinate such access if possible.
(4) SPECIFIC SERVICES. CORPORATION shall provide all specified services as set forth
herein, for the presentation of the 2011-2012 Season’s productions as listed in and on the
dates specified in ATTACHMENT 1.
(5) PRODUCTION CHANGES. CORPORATION may make changes to its productions
within the guidelines of the author or his/her representative.
(6) SCHEDULING. CORPORATION may change production scheduling or locations for the
purpose of increasing its net revenue and/or audience base, provided that such changes
shall not diminish the quality of or access to such offerings by Palo Alto residents. Such
changes shall be subject to CITY policies and procedures for space reservation and
requests for changes are to be submitted in writing to the Project Manager for approval
before any such changes are made.
(7) FISCAL YEAR DEFINED. The term "fiscal year" shall mean July 1 to June 30, although
CORPORATION is not required to use the same period for its own record-keeping and
reporting purposes.
(8) DAYS DEFINED. The term "days" shall mean calendar days.
(9) QUALIFICATIONS. CORPORATION represents that it is qualified to furnish the
services described under this agreement and shall be responsible for the performance of
this agreement.
REVISED 8/15/2011
(10) TICKET SALES:
(a) CORPORATION budget for the term of this agreement is attached hereto, marked
“ATTACHMENT 2” and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
(b) CORPORATION shall be responsible for sale of season tickets and single tickets,
depositing of revenue and reporting of revenue and expenditures, and shall place
available tickets for each production for sale at the theatre box office one hour prior
to each performance. CORPORATION shall not pre-sell seat numbers C1, C2, D1,
D2, D3, and D4. CORPORATION shall also not pre-sell either the block of seats
T2, T4, T6, T8, T10, U2, U4, U6, U8 and U10 or the block of seats T1, T3, T5, T7,
T9, U1, U3, U5, U7, and U9 but shall hold one of these blocks of seats for disabled
seating priorities. Said unsold seats may be released for sale one hour prior to
performance.
(C) CORPORATION agrees the price of admission for the season shall be as set forth
in ATTACHMENT 3.
(d) CORPORATION shall remit to CITY a surcharge for each ticket sold of $2.00 for
each and every ticket sold either through subscription, group, or individual. The
surcharge of $ 2.00 per ticket sold is due within 60 calendar days after the closing
date of the production. “Sold” is to include any tickets given in exchange for
monetary consideration. There will be a 10% surcharge levied for payments
received between 61 days and 90 days after the closing date of the production; a
15% surcharge levied for payments received between 91 days and 120 days after
the closing date of the production; and a 20% surcharge levied for payments
received in excess of 121 days of the closing date of the production. Payment must
be accompanied by the production report.
(e) CORPORATION shall provide CITY, when requested by the Project Manager or
his/her designee, with at least six (6) complimentary tickets for each production on
the date(s) requested, best available seating will be provided to CITY if any seats
are available at the time of the request.
(f) CORPORATION may operate an intermission snack concession during each
performance under this agreement. CORPORATION shall conduct such operation
in a safe, clean manner and shall hold CITY harmless from any claim or demand of
liability of any nature whatsoever which may arise out of such operation. If
alcoholic beverages are to be sold or distributed free of charge, CORPORATION
shall have on display a California State A.B.C. Permit and provide the Project
Manager with proof of liquor liability where CITY is named as co-insured with
liability of at least one million dollars ($l,000,000.00) (See Exhibit A (29) above).
It is the responsibility of the CORPORATION to ensure that no alcoholic beverage
is served to a minor by checking I.D.’s if the person appears to be under thirty
years of age. Food and drink may not be taken into the Auditorium or the
Light/Sound Booth at any time. CORPORATION shall remove all cups, glasses,
bottles, napkins and food from the lobby, green room, and any other affected areas,
including the courtyard, after each performance. CORPORATION is required to
adhere to CITY’S Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I).
REVISED 8/15/2011
(11) ORGANIZATION OF CORPORATION.
(a) Composition of Corporation. Throughout the term of this agreement,
CORPORATION shall remain an independent, non-profit corporation under the
laws of California governed solely by a Board of Directors. Any changes in
CORPORATION'S Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, or tax-exempt status shall
be reported by CORPORATION immediately to the Project Manager. Not more
than twenty-five percent (25%) of the persons serving on the governing board of
CORPORATION may be interested persons. "Interested persons" means any
person currently being compensated by the CORPORATION for services rendered
to it, whether as a full or part-time employee, independent or otherwise, but
excluding any reasonable compensation paid to a director as director.
(b) Meetings of Corporation. All meetings of the Board of Directors of
CORPORATION shall be open to the public, except meetings, or portions thereof,
dealing with personnel or litigation matters. Project Manager will serve as CITY
liaison to CORPORATION'S Board of Directors. Project Manager shall be notified
21 (twenty-one) days in advance of the dates, times, and locations of all Board of
Directors meetings. CORPORATION shall provide CITY with names, addresses
and telephone numbers of CORPORATION Board members, as well as your
Board’s meeting schedule to be attached to this agreement prior to its final
approval. CORPORATION shall provide an updated roster of Board of Directors
as changes may occur.
(a) Fiscal Agent. CORPORATION shall appoint a fiscal agent who shall be
responsible for the financial and accounting activities of CORPORATION,
including the receipt and disbursement of CORPORATION funds.
CORPORATION shall provide CITY with the name of fiscal agent
(ATTACHMENT 5) and notify the Project Manager within 24 hours of any
changes occurring during the contract period. CORPORATION shall have sole
responsibility for the safekeeping of CORPORATION tickets and monies.
(b) Fiscal Monitor. CORPORATION shall appoint from its Board an individual who
no less than monthly shall review and by signature acknowledge each monthly
financial report.
(c) System of Accounts. CORPORATION and its fiscal agent shall establish and
maintain a system of accounts that shall be in conformance with generally accepted
principles of accounting for budgeted funds. Such system of accounts shall be
subject to the review and approval of appropriate CITY staff.
(d) Financial Record. In support of its system of accounts, CORPORATION shall
maintain complete and accurate records of all financial transactions, including, but
not limited to, contracts, invoices, time cards, cash receipts, vouchers, canceled
checks, and bank statements. These records shall be made available to the CITY
upon request. NOTE: CORPORATION currency is not to be stored on the theatre
premises.
(e) Audits. CORPORATION shall provide for independent audit of its fiscal year
transactions, records, and financial reports. The audit shall be at the discretion of
CITY and, if required, shall be done by a certified public accountant. The certified
REVISED 8/15/2011
public accountant shall submit the report to both parties. The cost of this audit will
be borne by CORPORATION.
(f) Audit of surcharge payments. Corporation shall retain for a period of at least three
years ticket stubs, sales records, and a verified report of sold and unsold tickets
which must be made available to the city of Palo Alto Auditor upon request.
(13) PRODUCTION REPORTS AND RECORDS.
(a) Production Reports. CORPORATION shall keep accurate records of and shall file
with Project Manager or his/her designee Production Reports within thirty (30)
calendar days following the closing of each production, listing number of
performances, ticket sales, expense/revenue, number of paid and volunteer
participants and paid and volunteer participant hours worked. Each report shall be
prepared on the form provided by CITY or on a form approved by the Project
Manager. CORPORATION shall make every reasonable effort to supply such
other information as the Project Manager and/or CITY Auditor may request. On
reasonable notice and with reasons specified, CORPORATION shall grant the
Project Manager and/or CITY Auditor access to all CORPORATION records
relating to this agreement, including performance records, data, statements, and
reports.
(b) Evaluation of services. CORPORATION shall furnish all data, statements,
records, information, and reports requested by CITY to monitor, review, and
evaluate the performance of CORPORATION'S services hereunder.
(c) A copy of CORPORATION’S most recently filed California State Tax Form 199,
"California Exempt Organizations Annual Information Return" must be filed with
the Project Manager or his/her designee within fifteen days of when it is due to the
State of California and shall also be attached to this agreement prior to its final
approval.
(14) CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding the requirements of this
agreement, in the event CITY should determine from any source, including but not limited
to reports submitted by CORPORATION under this agreement or any evaluation report
from any source, that there is a condition which requires correction, CITY may forward to
CORPORATION a request for corrective action. Such request shall indicate the nature of
the condition(s) or issue(s) which require(s) corrective action and may include a
recommendation as to appropriate corrective action. Within fifteen (15) days of CITY'S
request, CORPORATION shall submit its response which shall include its view of the
problem and proposed action, if any. Upon request of either party, the parties shall meet
within five (5) days thereafter to discuss the problem and proposed corrective action.
(15) RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE. Either party may suspend or terminate the
agreement for any reason by giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party.
Upon the expiration of such notice, performance of the services hereunder shall be
immediately discontinued.
REVISED 8/15/2011
(16) SURRENDER OF MATERIALS. Upon suspension or termination, CORPORATION
shall immediately turn over to CITY all keys and proximity cards issued by CITY, copies
of studies, reports, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by
CORPORATION or its subcontractors, if any, in connection with this agreement. Such
materials shall become the property of CITY. CORPORATION, however, shall not be
liable for CITY'S use of incomplete materials nor for CITY'S use of complete documents if
used for other than the services contemplated by this agreement.
(17) CONTRACTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES. CORPORATION agrees not to enter into any
contract or agreement with another person or agency that will materially interfere with or
inhibit the full performance of the services to be provided by CORPORATION under this
agreement. CORPORATION agrees to terminate as soon as legally possible any contract
or agreement which will materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the
services to be provided by CORPORATION to CITY under this agreement. Nothing
herein is intended to prohibit CORPORATION from applying for, and receiving,
supplementary funding from other than CITY sources so long as any agreement required
for such funding does not materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the
services to be provided by CORPORATION under this agreement. CORPORATION is
specifically encouraged to seek such supplementary funding.
(18) INTEREST OF CORPORATION. CORPORATION covenants that it presently has no
interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services hereunder.
CORPORATION further covenants that, in the performance of this agreement, no
subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. It is expressly agreed
that, in the performance of the services hereunder, CORPORATION shall at all times be
deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.
(19) ASSIGNMENT. Both parties shall give their personal attention to the faithful
performance of this agreement and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose
of this agreement or any right, title, or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without
the prior written consent of the other party, and then only subject to such terms and
conditions as the other party may require. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed
to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment without such approval shall
be void and at the option of the other party, shall terminate this agreement and any license
or privilege granted herein. This agreement and interest herein shall not be assignable by
operation of law without the prior written consent of the other party.
(20) SUBCONTRACTORS: EMPLOYEES. CORPORATION shall be responsible for
employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CORPORATION
hereunder. No subcontractor of CORPORATION will be recognized by CITY as such,
rather, all subcontractors are deemed to be employees of CORPORATION and it agrees to
be responsible for their performance. CORPORATION shall give its personal attention to
the fulfillment of the provisions of this agreement by all of its employees, participants,
volunteers, and subcontractors, if any, and shall keep the work under its control.
(21) INDEMNITY. CORPORATION hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its
officers, agents, and employees of and from:
(a) Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers,
agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of any person or damage
suffered or sustained by any person or corporation caused by, or alleged to have
REVISED 8/15/2011
been caused by, any act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of CORPORATION,
its officers, employees, agents, participants, volunteers, or any subcontractor under
this agreement or of any of subcontractor's employees or agents.
(b) Any and all damage to, loss or destruction of the property of CITY, its officers,
agents, or employees occupied or used by or in the care, custody, or control of
CORPORATION caused by any act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of
CORPORATION, its officers, employees, agents, participants, volunteers or any
subcontractor under this agreement.
(c) Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers,
agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of or damage suffered or
sustained by any employee, participant, volunteer, or agent of CORPORATION or
any subcontractor under this agreement, however caused, excepting, however, any
such claims and demands which are the result of the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of CITY, its officers, agents or employees.
(d) Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers,
agents, or employees by reason of any infringement or alleged infringement of any
copyright or trademark caused by or alleged to have been caused by
CORPORATION or any subcontractor under this agreement.
(e) Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on account of the violation of
any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit in connection with
this Agreement.
(f) CORPORATION at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all suits,
actions, or other legal proceedings that may be brought or instituted by third
persons against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees on any such claim or
demand referred to in Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, of such third persons,
or to enforce any penalty referred to in Paragraph (e) above and pay and satisfy any
judgment or decree that may be rendered against CITY, its officers, agents, or
employees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding.
(g) Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers,
agents or employees for any loss or damage to materials and equipment owned,
rented or borrowed by CORPORATION, its employees, subcontractors,
participants, volunteers, sponsors or any others under its project management.
(22) INTOXICATION. CORPORATION agrees to be responsible for injuries or damage
caused by any of its employees, agents, patrons, subcontractors, or volunteers under the
influence of alcohol, drugs, hallucinogens or narcotics, whether or not legally prescribed.
CORPORATION as well as CITY shall not permit any of CORPORATION’S employees
or volunteers discovered to be under the influence from remaining in any facility used
under the terms of this contract and CITY reserves the right of denying such persons
further participation in Theatre activities. Consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of
illegal drugs is expressly forbidden by any person working for the CORPORATION, paid
or volunteer. This includes all staff, actors, crew and musicians while at the Lucie Stern
Community Center or any other CITY facility.
REVISED 8/15/2011
(23) WORKER'S COMPENSATION. CORPORATION certifies that it is aware of the
provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, which requires every employer to
be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance in
accordance with the provisions of the code, and it certifies that it will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.
(24) INSURANCE. CORPORATION, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain in
full force and effect throughout the entire term of this agreement insurance coverage
insuring not only Contractor and its subcontractors, if any, but also, with the exception of
workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance, CITY, its officers, agents, and
employees and each of them. CITY is to be named as co-insured with liability coverage of
at least one million dollars
($l,000,000.00) to be attached to this agreement prior to its final approval.
Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of
this agreement. Said certificate shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and
shall contain an endorsement stating that said insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with the City Clerk thirty (30) days'
written notice of such cancellation or alteration. Current certificates of such insurance
shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement.
(25) WEAPONS. No firearms or other weapons, whether loaded or not, shall be allowed in the
Lucie Stern Community Theatre or on any other CITY property. Stage weapons and
firearms designed solely for the use of blank cartridges will be allowed if they are being
used as a prop in the current production but must be stored, when not being used, in a
secure manner by the CORPORATION’S stage manager or his/her designee. (Please
reference the CITY’S Danger Policy, Appendix K)
(26) LEGAL COMPLIANCE. CORPORATION and all its paid employees, subcontractors,
and volunteer participants are required to abide by all Federal, State and Local laws and
ordinances.
REVISED 8/15/2011
EXHIBIT D
NON-DISCRIMINATION FORM
Certification of Nondiscrimination:
As suppliers of goods or services to the City of Palo Alto, the firm and individuals listed below certify that
they do not discriminate in employment with regards to age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
ancestry, disability, or sexual preference; that they are in compliance with all Federal, State, and local
directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in employment.
THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS CERTIFIED CORRECT BY SIGNATURE(S) BELOW.
Firm: ____________________________________________________________
Signature: ____________________________________________________________
Name: ____________________________________________________________
Signature: ____________________________________________________________
Name: ____________________________________________________________
Note: California Corporations Code Section 313 requires two corporate officers to execute contracts.
*The signature of First Officer* must be one of the following: Chairman of the Board;
President; or Vice President.
**The signature of the Second Officer** must be one of the following: Secretary; Assistant
Secretary; Chief Financial Officer; or Assistant Treasurer.
(In the alternative, a certified corporate resolution attesting to the signatory authority of the
individuals signing in their respective capacities is acceptable)
REVISED 8/15/2011
EXHIBIT E
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 HIGHER, 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 LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY,
INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED,
NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
NO
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
INCLUDING, ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN
APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED:
CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND
MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE
HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS
SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND
PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY,
ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN 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 CERTIFICATES(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 INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
REVISED 8/15/2011
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-PAYMENT 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
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2425)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2425)
Summary Title: Resolutions Amending Mgmt/SEIU Compensation Plans
Title: Adoption of Two Resolutions (1) Amending the 2010-2011
Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and
Council Appointees and (2) the Memorandum of Agreement for Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 521 to Add a Total of Six New
Positions Related to the Development Center Blueprint Project
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolutions amending (1) the 2010-
2011 compensation plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council
Appointees and (2) the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement for the Service
Employees International Union, Local 521 to add a total of six new positions
related to implementation of the Development Center Blueprint project.
Discussion
On December 5, 2011, Council approved a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO)
amending the FY 2012 Budget to provide the appropriations to fund the
implementation of the Development Center Blueprint process plan (CMR
ID#2364). Included in this BAO included the following staff additions: 1.0 FTE
Development Services Official, 1.0 FTE Permit Center Manager, 1.0 FTE
Development Project Coordinator I, 1.0 FTE Development Project Coordinator II,
1.0 Development Project Coordinator III and 1.0 FTE Plans Examiner. Article III
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2425)
of the Charter requires the Council to set all salary and wage scales and section
2.28.080 of the Municpal Code requires that new classifications be listed in the
table of organization in the budget and for the salaries to be listed in the
appropriate compensation plans. Salary tables for each city position are located
in the relevant compensation plans or memoranda of agreement.Because the
Council’s December 5 action did not include formally establishing the positions
and related salary tables, the final step necessary to implement these six new
classifications is for Council to adopt the attached resolutions.
A slight revision to the titles proposed on December 5 has been made for two of
the classifications, changing “Development Services Official” to “Development
Services Director” and “Permit Center Manager” to “Development Center
Manager”.
Resource Impact
These positions for the Development Center were addressed as part of Staff
Report 2364 and Budget Amendment 5134 and approved by City Council on
December 5, 2011. Staff Report 2364 and Budget Amendment Ordinance 5134
included a detailed breakout of costs associated with implementation of the
Development Center Blueprint Process and authorized the funding for these
positions. As described in the BAO, $398,087 is ongoing and will be included in
future year budgets to cover salary and benefit costs for these six positions.
Policy Implications
The action recommended by this report is consistent with City policies which
require Council approval of employee salaries and a listing of positions and
approved salaries in the relevant compensation plans.
Environmental Review
This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
January 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2425)
Attachments:
·RESO Amending Mgmt and Professional 2010-11 Compensation Plan (PDF)
·RESO Amending SEIU 2010-11 Memorandum of Agreement (PDF)
Prepared By:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources
Department
Department Head:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources
Department
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
* NOT YET APPROVED*
111024 sh 8261751
1
Resolution No. _______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by
Resolution No. 9156 to Add Two New Positions
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 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and
Professional Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9156, is hereby amended to add two new
positions, as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
effective with the pay period including January 10, 2012.
SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to
implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Human Resources
* NOT YET APPROVED*
111024 sh 8261751
2
EXHIBIT A
Amended Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes - Effective January 10, 2012
Job
Code
Classification Title Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx.
Annual
Hourly
TBD Development Services Director TBD 11,584 139,008 66.83
TBD Development Center Manager TBD 8,989 107,868 51.86
** NOT YET APPROVED **
111024 sh 8261752 1
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement
between the City of Palo Alto and Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 521 Adopted by
Resolution No. 9087 and Amended by Resolution No. 9194
to Add Four New Positions
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 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement for Classified
Personnel (SEIU), adopted by Resolution No. 9087 and amended by Resolution No. 9194, is
hereby amended to add four new positions as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including January 10, 2012.
SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to
implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Human Resources
** NOT YET APPROVED **
111024 sh 8261752 2
EXHIBIT A
Amended SEIU Compensation Plan Changes – Effective January 10, 2012
Job
Code
Classification Title Step Top Step
Monthly
Approx.
Annual
Hourly
TBD Plans Examiner 5 7,356 88,275 42.44
TBD Development Project Coordinator I 5 5,200 62,400 30.00
TBD Development Project Coordinator II 5 5,910 70,928 34.10
TBD Development Project Coordinator III 5 6,517 78,208 37.60
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2426)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2426)
Summary Title: Appointment of Public Works Director
Title: Confirmation of Appointment of James Michael Sartor as Public
Works Director and Approval of At-Will Employment Agreement
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council confirm the appointment of
James Michael Sartor as Public Works Director and approve the attached at-will
employment agreement.
BACKGROUND
Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 requires that the City Council confirm the City
Manager’s appointment of City department heads.
DISCUSSION
The City Manager is recommending appointment of James Michael Sartor to serve
as the Director of the Public Works Department.
A national search was conducted by the executive recruitment firm of Alliance
Resource Consulting and as a result, fifty (50) applications were received. Seven
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2426)
qualified individuals were selected to interview in December which involved two
panels including City department stakeholders, community leaders and members
of the City’s Executive Leadership Team. The panelists narrowed the candidate
list down to two finalists who were interviewed by the City Manager, who made
the final selection using input from the interview panels.
Mr. Sartor has served as Interim Public Works Director since November 2010 after
serving as Assistant Director of Public Works Engineering for eight years. Mr.
Sartor has been instrumental in several initiatives during his interim period as
Public Works Director. Mr. Sartor has worked extensively with the City’s
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission while at the same time, leading the
restructuring of the Public Works Department this past year, ultimately saving the
City several hundred thousand dollars in expenses and downsizing the
department from six divisions to three.
Mr. Sartor has extensive knowledge in public works, as an engineer and managing
projects and programs, in total over 24 years experience. Previously, Mr. Sartor
worked for the City of Mountain View for 6 years as a Public Works Capital
Program Manager and prior to that, worked for Woodward-Clyde Consultants as
an Environmental and Waste Remediation Program Manager for approximately
10 years. Mr. Sartor also worked for the City of San Jose in the Design and
Construction and Maintenance Division for eight years.
Mr. Sartor holds a Masters of Science from the College of Notre Dame in
Management and a Bachelor’s of Science Degree from San Jose State University in
Civil Engineering. Mr. Sartor is a registered Professional Civil Engineer.
Following this appointment, the City will move to fill two key Assistant Director of
Public Works positions due to a retirement and the vacancy in Mr. Sartor’s
previous position as Assistant Director. These complement of changes in staff will
be important in the City’s move to position Public Works as actively engaged with
January 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2426)
residents and getting things done as the year of infrastructure and renewal
unfolds.
Mr. Sartor will start effective immediately upon approval by City Council.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The annual base salary for the Director, Public Works will be $174,000. The
attached at-will employment for Mr. Sartor reflects that salary level, and all other
terms are consistent with the at-will agreement template that the Council
approved in 2004 when it transitioned to an at-will system for new department
heads.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies.
Attachments:
·Mike Sartor -PWD Director Employment Agreement (PDF)
Prepared By:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources
Department
Department Head:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources
Department
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2315)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 2315)
Summary Title: Weed Abatement Public Hearing
Title: Public Hearing: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of
Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council hold a public hearing to hear and consider any objections to the
proposed destruction and removal of weeds, and adopt the attached Resolution ordering the
abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto contracts with Santa Clara County Agriculture and Resource Management
to remove and destroy weeds, as defined in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This
hearing allows all those affected and listed on the County’s 2012 Weed Abatement Program
Commencement Report to be heard and have their objections and comments considered by
Council before the Council adopts a resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in
the City.
Background
The Council adopted Resolution 9213 on December 12, 2011 and declared weeds to be a
nuisance and ordered the abatement of that nuisance as called for in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. The Resolution provided for a public hearing date of January 9, 2012 and
required notice to interested property owners and the public.
Discussion
The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Resource Management administers the
contract for abatement of weeds within the City of Palo Alto. Upon notification of the City
Council’s December 12, 2011 action declaring weeds to be a nuisance and ordering abatement
thereof, the Department of Agriculture and Resource Management took proper steps to notify
each property owner by mail of the proposed weed abatement action on respective properties
and posted, on the public notice bulletin board, a list of the properties affected. The
Department of Agriculture and Resource Management has furnished copies of the property
listing to the City Clerk and the City Fire Marshal. The City Clerk also posted and published
notice of the hearing as required.
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 2315)
At this public hearing, property owners may appear and object to the proposed weed
destruction or removal. After the hearing and consideration of any objections, the council may
allow or overrule any or all objections. If objections are overruled, the Council is deemed to
have acquired jurisdiction to proceed with abatement of weed nuisances upon Council
Adoption of the attached resolution. The County will be asked to perform the abatement work
to destroy and remove any weeds.
Resource Impact
All Charges for the weed abatement services are included as a special assessment on bills for
property taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land, which are considered liens
on these properties.
Policy Implications
This procedure is consistent with existing City policies and Chapter 8.08 of the Municipal Code.
Environmental Review
Santa Clara County has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Sections
15308.
Attachments:
·8261783 RESO Ordering Weed Nusance Abated 121411 (PDF)
·2011ExhibitA (PDF)
Prepared By:Gordon Simpkinson,
Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
** NOT YET APPROVED **
111212 sh 8261783 1
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering
Weed Nuisance Abated
WHEREAS, this Council did on December 12, 2011, adopt its Resolution No. 9213
declaring weeds to be a nuisance and setting January 9, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard, in the Civic Center as the time and place for a hearing of objections
to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with said Resolution, notice of such hearing was given in
the manner provided by law, as appears from the affidavits on file in the Office of the City Clerk;
and
WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard,
and all matters and things pertaining to said weed abatement were fully heard and considered by
this Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Any and all objections to the proposed destruction and removal of
such weeds are overruled.
SECTION 2. The Fire Chief hereby is ordered to do all things necessary and
authorized in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to abate such nuisance, or cause the
same to be abated by contract with the County of Santa Clara.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
** NOT YET APPROVED **
111212 sh 8261783 2
SECTION 3. The County of Santa Clara as lead agency has determined that this
project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as an action by regulatory agencies authorized by state or
local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the
environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Fire Chief
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2012 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
~itu~ API::! EXHIBIT A ~lIX~TATE
931 GUINDA ST 003-34-006 GOUYET ALBERT AND CALISA C 931 GUINDA ST PALO ALTO CA 94301-3319
733 RAMONA ST 120-27-063 KODA, ROSS K TRUSTEE POBOX 156 SOUTH DOS PALOS, CA 93665
2021 WEBSTER ST 124-03-070 BEN EFRAIM, AMIR BEN EFRAIM 1664 OAKAV MENLO PARK, CA 94025
128 KINGSLEY AV 124-15-038 KHAN, ANWAR AND NA YY AR KHAN 2341 FALLINGWATERCT SANTA CLARA CA 95054-1316
2030 PARK BL\{124-27-002 KOFI, TETTEH TRlTR 2030 PARK BLVD PALO ALTO CA 94306-1142
420 CAMBRIDGE AV! 124-32-008 LUCCOINC
!
599 COLLEGE A V PALO ALTO, CA 94306
790 MONTROSE AV 127-16-028 TEICHER, ZELMA TRUSTEE PO BOX 899 PALO ALTO, CA 94302-0899
4064 SUTHERLAND DR 127-18-046 LAWS, KENNETH AND LILY LAWS 4064 SUTHERLAND DR PALO ALTO CA 94303-4728
739 COLORADO AV 127-34-101 HUANG, HSING HUANG ET AL 1113 TRINITY LN PALO ALTO CA 94303-0000
3101 MIDDLEFIELD RD 127-53-007 FISHERLLC 178ELYPL PALO ALTO CA 94306-4552
3085 MIDDLEFIELD RD 127-53-008 WINDY HILL PV 3 LP 1950 UNIVERSITY AVE UNIT EAST PALO ALTO CA 94303
2785 PARK BLV132-31-042 ESSEX PARK BLVD LLC 925 E MEADOW DR PALO ALTO, CA 94043
2865 PARK BL J132-32-004 HORBACH REALTY CO LP, HORBACH 29 LOWERY DR ATHERTON, CA 94027
i 375 OLIVE AV'132-32-026 HARRISON, MICHAEL HARRISON 375 OLIVEAV PALO ALTO, CA 94306
315 OLIVE A V 132-32-029 SMITH, BOYD C TR 301 COLERIDGE AVE PALO ALTO CA 94301-3608
LAND PARK Avi 132-32-037 SOUTH SAN JOSE INTS 10600 N DE ANZA BL STE 200 CUPERTINO CA 95014
2901 PARK BLV132-32-052 HORBACH REALTY CO LP, HORBACH 29 LOWERY DR ATHERTON, CA 94027
i ATHERTON, 195 PAGE MILL RD i 132-32-054 HORBACH REALTY CO LP, HORBACH 29 LOWERY DR CA 94027
I
3370 PARK BLV132-33-049 KUMANO, TADAHIKO
I
486 JAMES RD UNIT 11 PALO ALTO CA 94306
! 132-33-050 AT&T COMMUNICATIONS INC. 3475 NORTH FIRST STREET SAN JOSE CA 95134
405 CURTNER AV! 132-41-072 ELLIS, BESS TRUSTEE ETAL 6223 FRANCISCAN WY SAN JOSE, CA 95120-4420
4035 ELCAMINO W~ 132-43-139 4041 ELCAMINO WAY LLC 664 GILMAN ST PALO ALTO, CA 94301
4073 ELCAMINO ! 132-46-107 ETON CAPITAL LLC 1991 EDGEWOOD DR PALO ALTO CA 94303-3106 I
24 Records
j
Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 1
2012 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Situs ~!!!:i EXHIBIT A CITV,/:!TAIE
613 STANFORD AV 37-01-059 BAUMANN, JOHN R 613 STANFORDAV PALO ALTO, CA 94306-1412
3606 ELCAMINO 137-08-080 CAMINO REAL DEVELOPMENT LLC P.O. BOX 60177 PALO ALTO, CA 94306
3700 ELCAMINO 137-11-078 KSS INVESTMENT LLC 1380 MIRA VALLE A V LOS ALTOS, CA 94024-5744
4031 AMARANTA AV 137-21-034 ~ETT,MITLDRED 4031 AMARANTA A V PALO ALTO, CA 94306-3103
4197 BAKER AV 137-25-038 YANG, MICHAEL X TR 4197 BAKER AVE PALO ALTO CA 94306-3908
3460 HILLVIEW AV 142-16-059 LELAND STANFORD JR UNN THE BD 3155 PORTER DR PALO ALTO, CA 94304
3495 DEER CREEK RD 142-16-062 ECI DEER CR LLC 150 PORTOLA RD PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94025
3500 DEER CREEK RD i142-16-066 OFFICE OF STANFORD REAL ESTATE 2755 SAND HILL RD STE 100 MENLO PARK CA 94025
4237 MANUELA AV 175-02-045 VINCENT LUC MAURICE A & 4237 MANUELA A V PALO ALTO, CA 94306-3705
4247 MANUELA CT 175-02-051 WEAKLAND, JOHN AND ANNA 620 SAND HILL RD APT 300C PALO ALTO, CA 94304
4243 MANUELA CT 175-02-053 WEAKLAND, ANNA WU TRUSTEE 4243 MANUELA CT PALO ALTO, CA 94306-3731
4103 OLD TRACE RD 175-20-078 SMITHWICK, ALTON 0 & URSULA L PO BOX 60065 PALO ALTO, CA 94306
890 MOCKINGBIRD LN 175-20-082 COLBERT, JAMES L & MARIE K 1825 FARDON AV LOS ALTOS, CA 94024
900 MOCKINGBIRD LN i 175-20-083 LIVINGSTON, DANIEL S & CAROL M 900 MOCKINGBIRD LN PALO ALTO, CA 94306-3719
910 MOCKINGBIRD LN ! 175-20-084 SELKER EDWIN J & SHAY ELLEN M 910 MOCKINGBIRD LN PALO ALTO, CA 94306-3719
175-20-092 GROVE, ANDREW S & EVA R 171 MAIN ST #278 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022
3111 ALEXIS DR 1182-43-018 RADUCHEL, WILLIAM J TRUSTEE 615 KENTLAND DR GREAT FALLS VA 22066-1017
ALEXIS DR 1182-43-034 hwa, george & eileen 29 Ventris Rd B-4 9/f, San Hong Kong CH China
41 Records Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2157)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 1/9/2012
January 09, 2012 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 2157)
Summary Title: 935 Ramona Street-Remove from Historic Inventory
Title: Public Hearing: Approval of Request for Removal of a Category 4 Single-
Family Residential Building at 935 Ramona Street from the City’s Historic
Inventory
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the removal of the Category 4 residence at 935
Ramona Street from the Historic Inventory, based on staff’s findings that the residence has lost
its historic integrity.
The Historic Resources Board recommends that the City Council deny the owner’s request to
remove the Category 4 residence at 935 Ramona Street from the Historic Inventory, based on
the HRB’s findings that the residence retains its historic integrity.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The residential building at 935 Ramona Street is listed as a Category 4 building on the City’s
Historic Inventory. The current owner of the residence, Christopher Pickett, has requested that
the residence be removed from the Historic Inventory. Mr. Pickett submitted a Historic
Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared by Garavaglia Architectural, Inc, as part of his request. The
HRE concluded that the renovations, over many years, to the residence have resulted in a loss
of a significant amount of historic materials and the residence does not contain enough original
material to be considered a historic building at any level. Staff concurred with the findings of
the HRE and recommended to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) that the residence be
removed from the Historic Inventory. The HRB reviewed the HRE at a public hearing and
recommended to the Council that the front façade retains sufficient historic integrity, among
other findings, and the residence should remain on the Historic Inventory. Staff has presented
the City Council with both the staff and HRB recommendations for its consideration.
BACKGROUND
The property owner is requesting removal of the subject property from the City’s Historic
Inventory, based on the loss of the historic integrity that the property possessed when it was
designated as a Category 4 historic structure in 1980. Removal of the house from the Historic
January 09, 2012 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 2157)
Inventory would allow the owner to remodel the house and develop the site without
requirement for historic review.
The property was included in a 1978-1979 historic survey of the area of Palo Alto north of
Oregon Avenue that was conducted by two professional architectural historians, John Beach
and Paula Boghosian. The survey included a list of significant late 19th and early 20th century
structures that would comprise a Historic Inventory that would be regulated by a proposed
ordinance and a “citizen entity” review body. As early as 1976 the Comprehensive Plan had
adopted the concept of an incentive-based voluntary historic preservation program, and this
concept was further explored in the survey report. In early 1980, the City Council adopted the
Historic Inventory and a largely voluntary Historic Preservation Ordinance. The “citizen entity”
review body was also approved as the Historic Resources Board. The 935 Ramona Street
residence was included on the Historic Inventory as a Category 4 building.
The house at 935 Ramona Street was placed by the survey on the proposed Inventory for two
reasons: (1) it was a Queen Anne cottage house and the survey concluded that “the nineteenth
century is represented in Palo Alto almost exclusively by the Queen Anne and its variants,” and
(2) the house was considered to be unaltered as cited on the property’s 1978 Historic Inventory
form.
The building’s unaltered status did not last long. At the time of designation, a substantial
remodeling project had been approved in 1977 by the City. Remodeling and expansion has
continued since 1977 with a significant project in 1989 and an extensive project in 2005. None
of the remodeling up to the present has received any historic review for two reasons: (1) the
Historic Preservation Ordinance of 1980 (still in effect) provides no regulation or review for
Category 3 and 4 structures that are outside the downtown zone and historic districts, and (2)
no variances, exceptions, use permits or design review were required; consequently the
remodeling and expansion projects were all non-discretionary and did not trigger the
discretionary historic review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In this way, a number of impacts on the property’s original design have occurred with no
historic review. The current owner, who purchased the property in 2007, applied for removal of
the house from the Inventory and retained Garavaglia Architecture to prepare a Historic
Resource Evaluation (Garavaglia Report) to determine if the house had lost historic integrity
(Attachment B).
Historic Integrity Standards
The Garavaglia Report used the standard instrument for measuring levels of historic integrity,
the National Register “Seven Aspects of Integrity” published by the National Park Service. The
Garavaglia Report also evaluated the integrity of the house in the context of the provisions
relating to historic designation that are contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The
Ordinance defines historic structures as follows:
“Historic structure/site” means any structure or site within the city which has been
identified as having historic or architectural significance and has been placed on the
January 09, 2012 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 2157)
historic inventory of the city of Palo Alto, including structures and sites within categories
1, 2, 3 or 4, and all structures within historic districts.”
The Ordinance also contains six “Criteria for Designation” that provide details on the meaning
of historic and architectural significance:
1.The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important
events in the city, state or nation;
2.The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life
important to the city, state or nation;
3.The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is
now rare;
4.The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is
now rare;
5.The architect or building was important;
6.The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
Finally, the Ordinance contains definitions of the four Categories of properties into which the
Historic Inventory is divided. Category 1 properties are those of national or state importance;
Category 2 properties are those of major regional importance; and Category 3 and 4 properties
are those of local neighborhood importance. The definitions of the Categories describe the
extent of alteration that is allowed in each Category provided that historical or architectural
significance is retained. Categories 3 and 4 share a single definition; the Historic Inventory
forms for individual properties clarify that Category 3 properties possess greater significance
than Category 4 properties with respect to the Criteria for Designation. Category 3 and 4
properties are defined in the Ordinance as follows:
Category 3 or 4 (Contributing Building): “Contributing building” means any building or
group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate
to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other
factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to
the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural
details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
In summary, the Historic Preservation Ordinance requires Historic Inventory properties in all
four Categories to retain historical or architectural significance at a level consistent with the
Criteria for Designation. If the historic integrity of a property is called into question, then the
significance of the property and its eligibility for listing on the Historic Inventory are also in
question.
The definition of “integrity” is contained in “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property,” as
part of Section VIII of National Register Bulletin 15. This is the document that is recommended
January 09, 2012 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 2157)
by the State Historic Preservation Office for integrity review. The definition of integrity cited
therein reads:
“Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.”
Therefore, to maintain significance and remain on the Historic Inventory, Category 3 and 4
properties must possess integrity and any alteration must not result in loss of integrity. The
instrument of integrity analysis in Section VIII of Bulletin 15 is “The Seven Aspects of Integrity”
which are defined in the document as follows:
Location
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred.
Design
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property.
Setting
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
Materials
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic
property.
Workmanship
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period
of time.
Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In the September 21, 2011 HRB staff report (Attachment C), staff recommended that the HRB
recommend that the City Council remove 935 Ramona Street from the Historic Inventory, based
on loss of the majority of the historic fabric and character-defining features of the house as
described in the Garavaglia Report.
January 09, 2012 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 2157)
Prior to the submittal of the Garavaglia Report by the applicant, staff conducted an initial,
independent review of the integrity status of the property so that staff could evaluate the
Garavaglia Report in an informed manner. Staff began the review with the understanding that
buildings on the Historic Inventory were designated as whole buildings, that is, as four or more
facades organized under diverse roof forms to produce the distinctive shapes of the buildings
which in combination with different types of decorative detailing and materials, resulted in the
City’s diverse historic styles: Tudor, Craftsman, Shingle, Colonial Revival, Prairie, Mission and
Spanish Revival, and Queen Anne.
Staff then reviewed all available City records pertaining to alterations over time to the front,
side, and rear facades of 935 Ramona Street, and alterations to the original Queen Anne roof.
Staff found that the great majority of alterations to the house have occurred since 1976 and
that the largest alteration project occurred in 2005. Staff also made several inspection visits to
the property. City records and construction plan archives clarified that the interior had been
entirely rebuilt as modern spaces but staff did not further consider the interior because the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance excludes historic interiors from City review.
In order to evaluate the impacts of the cumulative alterations on the historic character of the
house, staff followed the recommendation of the State Historic Preservation Office to use “The
Seven Aspects of Integrity.” The alteration record since 1976 included the following changes:
·Substantial redesign of the original roof;
·Alteration of the entire rear façade;
·Incompatible additions at the rear;
·Alteration of the entire right side façade including substantial excavation near the
front corner of the house for a below-grade entry area serving the basement living
quarters and,
·Replacement with one exception of every historic window and door on the house
with modern windows and doors,
Because of these changes, staff tentatively concluded that the house no longer appeared to
possess overall integrity, even though the front façade retained several historic features.
The Garavaglia Report was submitted by the applicant after staff has completed its initial
review. Staff accepted the Report as adequate and accurate because the Report was based on
the same scope of research that staff had carried out and because staff concurred with
Garavaglia’s findings under each of the “Seven Aspects of Integrity,” summarized by staff as
follows:
Location
935 Ramona Street possesses a high degree of location integrity because it has not been
moved;
Design
January 09, 2012 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 2157)
The building has a low degree of integrity of design because even though the general
appearance of the street-facing façade remains intact (with a limited amount of original
decorative elements remaining), the significant expansion of the house toward the rear has
changed the overall shape of the building and created a roof form that is completely different
from the historical design. Whereas the original roof was hipped, the current roof includes an
extended gable over the back half of the building, and wall projections and secondary roof
forms have been added to the right side elevation.
Setting
The setting of the house has retained a moderate degree of integrity because although almost
half of the nearby houses are contemporary, they are compatible because they approximate
historical building patterns.
Materials
The house does not retain overall integrity of materials because the exterior finishes of the
house are largely new materials. All windows but one have been replaced by modern versions
whose style and reflective quality are not appropriate to the historical style of the building.
Some historic material is extant on the front façade including its diamond shingled gable end, a
bulls-eye bargeboard, the original corner brackets, a stained glass attic window, and the porch
floorboards and steps. Most of the siding and the water table are original at the left elevation.
Workmanship
The building does not retain integrity of workmanship because very few character-defining
features of the 1895 Queen Anne cottage remain.
Feeling
The building does not retain integrity of feeling because except for the front porch and the
presence of the window bay on the front façade, the experience of the building is that of new
construction.
Association
The building has a low degree of integrity of association because the design, rather than people
or events, is the primary potential for association and the house retains only a low integrity of
design.
The HRB staff report presented staff’s concurrence with the Garavaglia Report’s finding that
935 Ramona Street had lost integrity and consequently should be removed from the Historic
Inventory. Staff also recommended on page 3 of the staff report “that the HRB develop its own
findings on each of the seven aspects of integrity and reference these findings in its motion at
the HRB meeting.”
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The HRB, at its meeting on September 21, 2011, found that the house retains historic integrity
and unanimously recommended that the City Council deny the applicant’s request to remove
January 09, 2012 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 2157)
935 Ramona Street from the Historic Inventory. The meeting minutes for this discussion are
contained in Attachment D.
HRB Discussion
The HRB identified several original features retained on the front façade of the house. The HRB
emphasized that the front façade should be the focus of integrity findings rather than the sides
and rear. The HRB disagreed with the importance given in the Garavaglia Report to the
alterations on the right side and rear of the house in its integrity determination, and, therefore,
the board did not accept the conclusion of the Report that extensive alterations to the sides
and the rear had compromised the overall integrity of the house. The HRB did not deny that
those alterations had occurred but the Board stressed that the front façade conveyed a strong
historic sense to those driving or walking by. Therefore, the building retained historic integrity
from the standpoint of public street viewpoints which the board considered to be of primary
importance. The HRB concluded that the definition of Categories 3 and 4 in the Historic
Preservation Ordinance allows designation of properties with extensive alterations and that the
altered condition of 935 Ramona Street is consistent with the Category 3 and 4 definition.
The HRB Motion
The motion and vote of the HRB is found on pages 29-32 of the verbatim minutes of the HRB
meeting. In summary, the HRB moved and unanimously voted to recommend that the City
Council retain 935 Ramona Street on the Historic Inventory in Category 4 based on the
following findings and statements related to the “Seven Aspects of Integrity and/or the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:
1.Original historic fabric remains on the front façade including the shape of the façade,
the bargeboard, brackets, siding, stair treads and risers, and the shingles (at the gable);
2.The house remains in its original location;
3.The sense of feeling and history is apparent when driving or walking by the house;
4.The changes to the house comply with several of the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically Standard #1 because the property is being used
for its original purpose, Standard #3 because the property is a physical record of its
time, Standard #4 because the changes to the property over time have acquired
historical significance, Standard #6 because the property’s new features match the old
in color, texture, and other visual qualities, and Standard #10 because if the property’s
new features were removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the
property would be unimpaired;
5.The new features are differentiated from the old;
6.Architect Bill Busse, who lived in the house, will become increasingly well-known;
7.The HRB disagrees with the assertions in the Garavaglia Report and feels strongly that
the structure retains its integrity;
8.The existing house matches the definition of Categories 3 and 4 in the Historic
Ordinance;
9.The HRB considered only the exterior of the house, not the interior, consistent with the
mandate of the Historic Preservation Ordinance for exterior only review by the HRB.
January 09, 2012 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 2157)
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no impact on City fiscal resources associated with the recommended actions.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Approval of staff’s recommendation to remove the house from the Historic Inventory, based
upon the finding presented in this staff report, would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan,
in that staff believes that the house no longer qualifies to be designated a historic resource. City
Council approval of the HRB’s recommendation would be consistent with the polices and
programs of the Comprehensive Plan that encourage retention and maintenance of the City’s
historic resources, and the house has been on the inventory for over 30 years
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Maintenance of historic designation of a property or rescission of historic designation of a
property based on loss of historic integrity are not projects under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 21065.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (PDF)
·Attachment B: Historic Resource Evaluation Prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.
(PDF)
·Attachment C: HRB Staff Report, September 21, 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment D: HRB Verbatim Excerpt Minutes, September 21, 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment E: Public letters to the City Council (PDF)
Prepared By:Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
ACTION NO. 2012-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 935 RAMONA STREET: REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY 11PLN-
00301 (CHRISTOPHER PICKETT, APPLICANT)
On January 9, 2012 the Council approved the removal of
the residence at 935 Ramona Street, a Category 4 historic
building, from the Historic Inventory making the following
findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On August 15, 2011, Christopher Pickett requested
Historic Resources Board review for the removal of the residence
at 935 Ramona Street from the Historic Inventory. (“The
Project”).
B. Staff reviewed the materials submitted for the
Project, including Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared
by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. Staff concurred with the HRE
that the structure no longer retained historic integrity.
C. Following staff review, the Historic Resources
Board (HRB) reviewed the project on September 21, 2011, and
recommended denial of the Project (7-0). The HRB’s actions are
contained in the City Council Staff Report #2157.
D. On January 9, 2012, following the HRB review of the
project, staff presented the Council with a recommendation from
staff for approval of the Project and a recommendation from the
HRB for denial of the Project.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Removal of the
historic designation of a property is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 21065.
SECTION 3. Designation Findings
A. The following criteria shall be used as criteria for
designating historic structures/sites to the historic inventory:
1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of
historic people or with important events in the city, state or
nation;
2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an
architectural style or way of life important to the city, state
or nation;
3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building
which was once common, but is now rare;
4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use
which was once common, but is now rare;
5. The architect or building was important;
6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating
outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials
or craftsmanship.
B. The definition of Category 4 must be met to allow the
designation of the house.
Category 3 or 4 (Contributing Building): “Contributing building”
means any building or group of buildings which are good local
examples of architectural styles and which relate to the
character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials,
proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have
had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design,
such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos
or stucco.
C. If the historic integrity of a property is called into
question, then the significance of the property and its
eligibility for listing on the Historic Inventory are also in
question.
D. The Project does not meet any of the six criteria for
designation described above for the following reasons:
• The building no longer retains historic integrity due to
numerous alterations since 1976. These alterations have
changed the overall shape of the building and created a roof
form that is completely different from the historical design.
Whereas the original roof was hipped, the current roof
includes an extended gable over the back half of the building,
and wall projections and secondary roof forms have been added
to the right side elevation.
• The integrity of the building has been further diminished in
that the exterior finishes of the house are largely new
materials. All windows but one have been replaced by modern
versions whose style and reflective quality are not
appropriate to the historical style of the building. It should
be noted that the front façade does contain some historic
material, including its diamond shingled gable end, a bulls-
eye bargeboard, the original corner brackets, a stained glass
attic window, and the porch floorboards and steps. Most of the
siding and the water table are original at the left elevation.
• The building does not retain integrity of workmanship because
very few character-defining features of the 1895 Queen Anne
cottage remain.
• The building does not retain integrity of feeling because
except for the front porch and the presence of the window bay
on the front façade, the experience of the building is that of
new construction.
• The building has a low degree of integrity of association
because the design, rather than people or events, is the
primary potential for association and the house retains only a
low integrity of design.
The project does not meet the Category 3 and 4 definition for
the following reasons:
• The changes that have been allowed to the building have
resulted in the loss of approximately 90% of the historic
materials (interior and exterior) and a complete loss of the
interior design. The modifications to the north and east
elevations are extensive and have changed the form of the
building. What remains cannot be consider a historic shell,
but perhaps a historic window bay and front porch. This is not
enough material or character-defining features to be
considered a historic building at any level.
SECTION 4. Project Approval Granted. Application
11PLN-00301 is granted approval for the removal of the residence
at 935 Ramona Street from the City’s Historic Inventory.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO, CA
Historic Resource Evaluation
Prepared for
Chris Pickett
935 Ramona Street,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared by
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc
22 July 2011
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
1
INTRODUCTION
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. was contracted by Chris Pickett and Rebecca Geraldi
(Owners/Client) in July 2011 to assess the continued historical significance of the single-family
residence at 935 Ramona Street, Palo Alto. The building was originally surveyed in 1978 and
designated a Category 4 Historical Resource by the City of Palo Alto. Since that time, the
building has been extensively altered, warranting an evaluation of significance for continued
listing as a historic resource.
METHODOLOGY
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. Architectural Historian and Preservation Services Manager, Becky
Urbano, conducted a site visit and survey of the property’s interior and exterior on 7 July 2011.
The Client provided relevant documentation at the site visit. The building’s configuration and
architectural elements were documented with photographs and field notes. Archival research
did not produce any original drawings for the subject property. Plans and elevations from
previous approved alterations to the house were located and used to inform this evaluation.
Garavaglia Architecture Inc. also conducted additional archival research on the subject property
and surrounding area. Research repositories consulted include the Palo Alto Historical Society,
City of Palo Alto Building Optical Disc Storage System (BODS) archive database (Development
Center), the City of Palo Alto microfiche files (Development Center), the San Francisco Public
Library (SFPL) online research databases, the Palo Alto Public Library (PAPL) Main Library
holdings and online research databases, the Online Archive of California, and the California
Digital Newspaper Collection. (See References section for complete list of resources.)
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE1
The one-and-a-half story with basement wood v-groove siding clad, wood framed Queen Anne
cottage residence is dominated by its asymmetrical façade, anchored by a large three-window
bay and elevated front porch. The overall hip roof is broken up with an intersecting gable roof
over the bay window, a front-facing gable roof dormer, and a series of gable roof rear additions,
forming an overall rectangular plan with a series of shallow projecting window bays along the
east elevation. Projecting eaves, a wide plain-sawn bargeboard and cornice trim visually mark
the transition between the peaked roof sections and the main body of the building. Flat sawn
door and window trim outline all other wall openings. The building is raised off the ground,
allowing for a full basement with windows.
The front entry is through a covered porch running across half of the south elevation. The
integrated roof is supported by two (2) square wood columns that rest on a low beadboard wall
with a built-up top sill. Access is up a set of wood stairs flanked by stepped, beadboard clad
side walls. A modern wood handrail is at the western side of the staircase. The area below the
porch is covered with beadboard to match the sidewalls and supporting wall above. The front
gable over the curved bay of windows to the west is marked with a diamond pattern of shingles
and a slight flare at the bottom of the pediment. Centered in this space is an original stained-
1 For the purposes of this evaluation, the front of the building is considered as the south elevation.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
2
glass window, the only original window remaining. Below the flare, the front-facing gable is
visually supported by very simple corner brackets with squared-off finials at the corners. A
series of regularly spaced rosettes further decorate the bargeboard within the gable pediment.
The dormer above the porch is much simpler with horizontal v-groove wood siding below its
peak. The rest of this elevation is recessed beneath the porch roof and is marked by the front
door at the top of the stairs, and a pair of contemporary French patio doors, just east of the front
door.
The east elevation consists of a series of shallow window projections at the main floor level.
These projections overhang the basement, shading the windows and entry door at the lower
level. From front to back (south to north) there is a shed roof projection over a single-light
window in the front dining area. The rest of the house is projected out approximately 18” from
the original wall plane. An additional window projects further out in the middle of the façade,
marking the transition between the kitchen and living room areas on this level. A gable roof
dormer, similar to that on the front façade is near the center of the original hip roof section of
the building. At the basement a series of modern windows and an entry door are shaded by the
projections above. A wood deck extends from the north end of this elevation providing access
from the living room to the patio and yard below. The property is relatively open on this side,
and visible from the street as you approach downtown on Ramona Street. A barbeque area with
a brick patio, seating and landscaping is connected to the house. A covered parking area is
angled at 45-degrees to the house to the east of the patio. The remainder of the property on this
side is covered with grass and landscaping.
At the rear (south) elevation, a gable roof addition projects out into a small patio area,
dominating the eastern half of the façade. A large tri-partite patio door with sidelights is set to
the east and two fixed single light windows and louvered vents are symmetrically arranged
directly below the gable peak. The rest of the elevation is set back from this addition, forming
an “L” in plan. The elevation here consists of a narrow gable roof projection with a large,
narrow single light window topped with a 13-light fixed window. A small circular seating area
occupies the space between the house and a rear outbuilding.
The west elevation is built near the west property line and retains the most historic fabric and
original configuration. Here the windows are all flush with the wall plane. The wood v-groove
siding is mostly original and the original water table trim is clearly visible. (It is obscured on the
other elevations with the projecting elements.) There is evidence of a former access door to the
basement at the midpoint of this elevation.
The interior of the building has been altered and updated numerous times, most recently in
2005. It retains almost no features from the building’s original construction. See the
Construction Chronology below for more information.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
PALO ALTO
The origin of Palo Alto is unique among other cities on the Peninsula because of its strong tie to
Stanford University and its founders, Leland and Jane Lathrop Stanford. Desiring a town to
accompany his nascent academic institution, and deeming the unruly Mayfield as unfit for his
vision, Stanford began laying the foundations for the town of Palo Alto in the late 1880s. He
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
3
partnered with Timothy Hopkins, adopted son of Mark Hopkins, one of the Central Pacific
Railroad’s “Big Four” along with Stanford, to acquire and plat the lands that would form the
foundations of the new town. The original grid was platted by 1887 and lots were put on
auction in 1890. “University Park,” as it was originally dubbed, extended from present day
Embarcadero Road and the railroad to northeast of Middlefield Road.2.
The original grid was enlarged by numerous grid additions, usually with different orientations,
creating a typically patchwork pattern on either side of the railroad. These grids provided the
framework for most development in the city until the 1920s. The presence of 25-foot wide lots in
the original grid provided for dense urban development, not only in the commercial downtown
but in the adjoining residential areas as well. 3
Most of the earliest houses in Palo Alto were one and two-story wood-frame structures. From
the Sanborn maps, these were in a great variety of forms, typically with projecting wings, bay
windows, and porches, often on double lots, scattered throughout the grid. In some cases, two
or three similar houses stood adjacent to one another, as if built by a single builder. The houses
in this period were predominantly variations of the two basic types - square cottages and two-
story boxes. Professional architects designed very few of these houses. Rather, they followed
traditional patterns or published designs that were more or less modified by their builders.
They were built by agents of local lumberyards or by independent builders. The original
owners built many of these early houses themselves, at a time when many people in the
building trades had come to the area to work on the construction of Stanford University. In
many cases, these people could do most of the work by themselves using purchased plans or
published images.
Most early residences looked like single-family homes, but Stanford students and faculty
occupied many as lodging houses, boarding houses, and fraternities. In addition to these
renters, the early population consisted primarily of a mix of people affiliated with Stanford and
owners of local shops and businesses. By 1899, Palo Alto had 261 buildings and a mix of middle
class and working class residents. While Palo Alto’s predominant physical appearance in its
early years was ordinary, its origins as a university town were unusual and provided both a
distinctive population and the seeds of even greater distinctiveness in the future.
Significant transportation-related improvements brought more residents and increased
development to Palo Alto around the turn of the 20th century. As elsewhere, the automobile was
beginning to come into use by 1905, its presence gradually increasing after that time. More
significant to Palo Alto’s development, however, was the local streetcar and the interurban
railway to San Jose. In anticipation of the streetcar’s completion in November 1906, a number of
apartments and boarding houses were built along the projected streetcar route (University
Avenue and Waverley Street). The streetcar made denser development economical and practical
as well as more convenient for faculty, staff, and students at Stanford who wanted to live in
Palo Alto. Palo Alto became even more connected when the interurban railway opened in 1910,
allowing a greater number of residents to live in Palo Alto and commute to work in neighboring
communities.
2 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto: The Palo Alto
Historical Association, 1993), 35-41.
3 The remainder of this historical overview is adapted from “Historical Overview of Palo Alto’s Built Environment,” a
section of the Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (February 2001) by Michael Corbett and
Denise Bradley of Dames & Moore, pages 1-1 through 1-11.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
4
The 1906 earthquake affected Palo Alto in several ways. It caused substantial damage in and
around Palo Alto and Stanford. Buildings collapsed and others were severely damaged,
especially along University Avenue. This area had the highest concentration of brick buildings,
which were especially vulnerable. Another impact of the earthquake was the permanent
relocation of displaced people from San Francisco to outlying cities and towns. In the years just
after the earthquake the Palo Alto directories showed an increase in new residents associated
with professional and management jobs. Noticeably more residents were commuting by train to
San Francisco, especially owners and managers of industries and other businesses.
As Palo Alto’s population grew in the years following the earthquake, residential development
increased proportionally and the town’s socio-economic districts became more distinct. The
upper middle class was concentrated southeast of University Avenue, especially in
Professorville. Working-class and minority residents lived adjacent to Professorville especially
along High, Emerson, and Ramona streets. Elsewhere, especially northwest of University
Avenue, there was a large population of working- and middle class residents.
To accommodate the growing population, a number of single-family dwellings were
constructed in and around Palo Alto in the late teens and through the 1920s. Many of these
houses were constructed in various “period revival” styles, drawing on Colonial, Tudor,
Spanish and Mediterranean sources. Though many of these residences were built using
patterns, prominent local architects such as Birge and David Clark, Pedro de Lemos, John K.
Branner, Charles K. Sumner, and Leslie I. Nichols are known to have designed a significant
number of residential buildings as well.
The Great Depression of the 1930s forced many changes in the design, construction, and
financing of buildings. Atypical of most municipalities during the Depression, Palo Alto saw a
substantial amount of construction during the 1930s; more than 800 buildings were built
between 1931 and 1944, most of these before 1941. While previously a single builder might
undertake two or three houses, a new model of development arose in the 1930s. Green Gables
(1938) and Leland Manor (1939) were among the first subdivisions in Palo Alto built on this
new model, in which a single developer built a large number of houses. The first houses in
Green Gables were built in groups of ten on variations of standard plans with each home an
individual architectural design — generally Colonial Revival or English vernacular cottages.
These subdivisions were early examples of a type of development that would be the dominant
form of development in the city after World War II, and would characterize approximately half
of the city by the 1960s.
World War II produced a crisis in housing everywhere in the Bay Area, including Palo Alto.
Older houses were subdivided into apartments and homeowners were encouraged to rent out
rooms. By December 1945, the city building inspector reported a need for at least 1,000 new
houses. Once building materials and financing became available there was an explosion in
house construction, a boom epitomized by the Coastland subdivision of 1947.
The Coastland Subdivision was among the earliest post-war subdivisions in Palo Alto, and it
represents an important step in the business of subdivision developments between the earlier
Green Gables and the later subdivisions of Joseph Eichler. Like Green Gables, Coastland was
designed and built by a single development team and featured variations on a few architectural
models. Coastland was constructed in 1947 and was less complex than Green Gables. The
organization of streets was intended to discourage through-traffic. Neighborhoods like this
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
5
were promoted as safer for children at a time when two things were happening — more babies
than ever before were being born, and more people than ever before were driving cars.
While many new Palo Alto houses constructed through 1947 were built with traditional historic
stylistic references, new approaches to design that emerged in the 1930s were widely adopted.
Many of these were Modern Ranch Style houses. In general, these houses had open plans with
interior and exterior spaces designated for multiple purposes. Since the automobile had firmly
established itself in American culture by that time, many of these houses came with attached
garages. They emphasized the use of simple and natural materials such as adobe, stone, tile,
rough-sawn lumber and hand-split shakes. Ranch houses were bigger than their residential
predecessors and occupied larger lots. However, much simpler and smaller versions of these
houses were built in large numbers in tracts.
Since the 1950s, Palo Alto’s population and size have more than doubled. Though now
surrounded by sprawling suburban development the city retains a significant amount of its
historic built environment and maintains a large number of historic buildings and districts.
Whether nationally or locally significant, these buildings collectively represent Palo Alto’s
architectural heritage and contribute to the historic character of the city as a whole.
935 RAMONA STREET
935 Ramona Street is in the original grid platted by Timothy Hopkins in 1892 as part of the
“University Park” development. Officially, the property sits on Block E and consists of lots 40,
41, 42 and part of lot 43.4 (This was later amended to two lots which were officially combined
into a single lot in 1977.) When constructed in 1895, it was one of the only houses in the area,
but by 1901 about half of the block, including most of the Ramona Street side, was built up with
small one-story houses.5 The original deed included the provision that all production or sale of
alcoholic beverages is strictly forbidden.6
The single-family residence at 935 Ramona Street was built by building contractor Alfred W.
Caulkins for his wife, Flora. As originally constructed, the building was essentially square in
plan with a hip roof and an intersecting gable over the front bay window projection. It had a
small front porch as well as a rear porch. Two outbuildings were also on the lot by 1901,
consisting of a two-story building noted as 935 ½ Ramona Street at the northwest corner of the
property, and a one-story shed along the east property line. (It should be noted that this
property line marked the approximate center of the current property.) The house is noted as
having 1 bathroom.7 Boarders are listed at the property, presumably in the rear dwelling unit as
early as 1900.8
Caulkins sold the house prior to 1907 to a Mr. Diamond. It was transferred to his widow, Anne
M. Dimond, upon his death in 1907.9 By 1908, the 1-story shed had been removed.10 Dimond
4 1977 Title Report, City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto.
5 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map for the City of Palo Alto, 1901.
6 This was common in the early titles as Leland Stanford desired a dry-town to support his young University. Finding
Menlo Park and nearby Mayfield unwilling to meet these requirements, he started his own town on his own land,
calling it Palo Alto.
7 Sanborn, 1901.
8 Twelfth United States Federal Census, 1900. This Federal Census lists Andrew Bruint (spelling is unclear), 55, as a
boarder. 9 1977 Title Report
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
6
lived in the house with her son William, and a long-time boarder named George Mitchell, until
1922. At that point the house was sold to E.H. Hjelm and appears to have been used as a rental
property.11
By 1924, the secondary dwelling unit at the rear was converted to an auto garage. It is unknown
if any living quarters were retained on the second floor, as was common for the area. The 1949
Sanborn Map notes that the building is considered to have 2 floors. This may be a change in
how floors are defined by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company, or it may reflect the conversion
of the basement into a habitable space. 1967 assessor records show Hannah Johnson as the
owner of the property, but she may have acquired it as early as 1949. She does not appear to
have ever lived at this address.
In 1967, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic (PAMC) proposed construction of a new City-owned, 300-
bed hospital for a two-block site between Bryant and Waverley streets, near its primary Homer
Street clinic.12 It began purchasing nearby properties in anticipation of the new hospital
construction. At some point between 1967 and 1976, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic purchased the
two lots that comprise the current property.13 Opposition to the new hospital project was fierce
and the hospital failed to win favor with the local voters 1970.14 After this defeat, PAMC sold
much of their accumulated property in the area, including 935 Ramona Street. It was then
purchased by Sunrise Corp. a group of friends that pooled resources to purchase five houses on
the block from the medical clinic. Sunrise Corp. included William and Barabara Busse who
lived at 935 Ramona with two other friends, converting the building into three flats, one on each
floor.15 They also undertook legal proceeding to officially unite the two original building lots
into a single, double-width lot in 1977.16 Eventually, the Busses bought out their friends and
became the sole owners of the property.17 It was remodeled as a single-family residence over
time, with major work in 1989.18 They sold the property c. 2005 to the Shu family who
completely renovated the interior into is present configuration and appearance.19 It was
purchased by the Pickett family in April, 2007.
Associated Persons
There are many people who owned or lived in 935 Ramona Street since its construction in 1895.
Very little is known in the archival records about any of the individuals associated with the
building. The following is a summary of the known owners and occupants and the results of
archival research:
Alfred W. Caulkins: He was a building contractor who also sold architectural materials.
Flora Caulkins: no information was found
Anna M. Dimond: She was widowed in 1907 and cared for her 15 year old son into
10 Sanborn, 1908.
11 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, U.S. Federal Census Records
(1890 – 1930), Karmen Newman, DPR form for 935 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, 1978. 11 Winslow, 176-177.
12 Ibid.
13 Jocelyn Dong, “Bill and Barbara Busse: Long-time residents reflect on lucky breaks, Summerhill homes and the
state of the world,” (Palo Alto Weekly Online, c2004).
14 Winslow, 176-177
15 Busse, Palo Alto Weekly Online
16 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto
17 Busse, Palo Alto Weekly Online
18 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 19 Ibid.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
7
adulthood.
George Mitchell: He was a blacksmith who was a long-time employee of the City of Palo
Alto. He died of a heart attack while at work in 193320
E.H. Hjelm: no information was found
Peter Benson: long-time renter of the property, long-time Palo Alto resident, died in
193621
Gustava Benson: Peter Benson’s wife, long-time renter of the property, long-time Palo Alto
resident, died in 195222
William Busse: long-time owner of the property, respected community member, still
living
Barbara Busse: long-time owner of the property, respected community member, still
living
Construction Chronology
Date
Modification
1889 April 13 – property originally deeded by Timothy Hopkins) with restrictions
on the use of the property for the production or sale of alcohol23
1895 A.W. Caulkins constructs a small square-plan, 1-story cottage with a
basement and projecting bay.
1900-1907 Property sold to Anne Diamond and her husband, deeded to Anne on March
21, 1907.
1922 Property sold to E.H. Hjeim and used as rental property.
1949-1967 Property sold to Hannah Johnson at some point during this period.
1953 Garage demolished.24
1967-1977 Property sold to Palo Alto Medical Clinic at some point during this period.
1976
House converted to 3 flats by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. The building is
largely gutted at this point. Most of the first floor partitions are removed,
including the original center hallway and stair. The basement was also
reconfigured and the wood floor was replaced with a concrete slab. The attic
was converted into a studio apartment. The basic shape and form of the
building remains unchanged.
1977 Property sold to Sunrise Corp.
1977
William and Barbara Busse officially combine the building lots into the
current property. At this time, the rear porch appears to be enclosed with an
additional porch to the north.25
1989
The house is extensively modified again by the Busse family. The main floor
is reconfigured, the attic is converted to a bedroom and closet with a new
bathroom. The kitchen is removed and the stair is reconfigured. The basement
20 Palo Alto Times, 6/24/1933.
21 Palo Alto Times, 9/28/1936.
22 Palo Alto Times, 7/5/1952.
23 1977 Title Report
24 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 25 Ibid.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
8
is retained as a 2nd dwelling unit, and is remodeled with a new bath and
laundry at the rear. A small addition is planned for the rear to house a water
heater
1991 New 78 sq.ft. addition to the rear for a bathroom.
1993 Rear outbuilding constructed.
1998 Kitchen and bath remodeled.
2005 Property owned by the Shu family
Remodel extensively at this time: 225 sq.ft. addition to the rear to create the
current living/kitchen space. 16 sq. ft. addition to the east to form a window
seat. The basement is reconfigured to the present configuration. Most of the
first floor is reconfigured as well as is the 2nd floor room and bathroom. It is
assumed that the new wood siding dates to this renovation.
The 225 sq.ft. rear addition resulted in a dramatic change to the overall shape
of the roof. The original hip roof was removed at the rear and a new gable
roof over the addition was merged with the existing ridge, elongating the
entire building and uniting it under a single roof structure.
Current patio, angled driveway, and covered parking spaces are installed.
2007 April – Pickett family purchases property.
Master bathroom is altered with a raised roof and reconfigured interior.
Unknown
It is unknown when the original windows were removed. The windows
might have been replaced several times, but the current windows likely date
to the 1990s. Plans for the 2005 remodel note that many of the existing
windows were to remain at that time.
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY
The City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important
individual designers and architectural eras and traditions, as well as structures whose
background is associated with important events or trends in the history of the city, state, or
nation. The City has adopted specific definitions for the categorization properties on the
Inventory. These are used to classify buildings that are found to be significant at the local level.
The Inventory is organized under the following four Categories:
• Category 1 (Exceptional Building): "Exceptional building," means any building or group
of buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best
architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the
United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such
minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
9
• Category 2 (Major Building): "Major building," means any building or group of
buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an
outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture
in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the
original character is retained.
• Category 3 or 4 (Contributing Building): "Contributing building,” means any building or
group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which
relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or
other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes
made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
In addition to the classification categories listed above, the City has specific criteria for
designation of historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory:
(1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important
events in the city, state or nation;
(2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of
life important to the city, state or nation;
(3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building, which was once common,
but is now rare;
(4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use, which was once common,
but is now rare;
(5) The architect or building was important;
(6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. (Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986).
INTEGRITY
Once the significance of the resource has been established, integrity must be analyzed to
determine if the property’s current form retains enough of its original fabric to adequately
express why it should be considered historic. To retain integrity a property must have most of
the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The
seven aspects of integrity are quoted as follows:
• Location - Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred.
• Design - Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property.
• Setting - Setting is the physical environment of the historic property.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
10
• Materials - Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during
a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration form a historic
property.
• Workmanship - Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling - Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular period of time.
• Association – Association is the direct link between an important historic event or
person and a historic property.
According to the Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Series Bulletin #6:
Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the
criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their
significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to
meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for
listing in the California Register.26
FINDINGS
This section uses the information discussed above to evaluate 935 Ramona Street for historic
significance and continued eligibility for listing on the City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory as a
category 4 resource. The reason for listing is unclear from the 1978 DPR form but appears to be
a result of its architectural character. This section only evaluates the property for local listing on
the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.
PALO ALTO REGISTER
Category 1 (Exceptional Building)
An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the
overall appearance of the building is in its original character. The modifications that have taken
place at 935 Ramona Street render it ineligible for consideration as a Category 1 building for any
reason.
26 Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. California Register and National Register: A
Comparison. Technical Assistance Series No. 6.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
11
Category 2 (Major Building)
A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
The modifications that have taken place at 935 Ramona Street render it ineligible for
consideration as a Category 2 building for any reason.
Category 3 or 4 (Contributing Building)
In terms of style, form and massing, 935 Ramona Street is an appropriate design for its
neighborhood context. This is true of many of the buildings on this block of Ramona Street,
including the recently constructed homes to the west of the subject property. Style, form and
massing must be combined with historical significance and retention of historical integrity to
justify listing as a Category 3 or 4 building. Because 935 Ramona Street is currently listed as a
Category 4 building, its eligibility for continued listed is largely based on its historical integrity.
INTEGRITY EVALUATION
The evaluation of historic significance is a two-step process. First, the historic significance of the
property must be established. If the property appears to possess historic significance, then a
determination of its physical integrity is conducted; that is, its authenticity as evidenced by the
survival of physical characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Location
935 Ramona Street has not been moved from its original location. Therefore it possesses a high
degree of location integrity.
Design
935 Ramona Street has been extensively modified from its original form and design. The general
appearance of its street-facing façade remains intact with a limited amount of original
decorative elements remaining. However, its footprint has been expanded greatly to the north,
changing the overall shape of the building. This has resulted in a current roof form that is
completely different from the historical design, changing it from a hip roof to an extended gable
roof over the back half of the building. Historic porches were enclosed, then replaced with new
additions over the last 35 years. Non-historic projections have been added to the east elevation,
including the addition of secondary roof forms over at least one projection. All of the historic
windows have been replaced with modern windows.
On the interior, the original configuration of rooms and circulation within the building have
been altered or completely changed at least twice, and likely three times. No trace of the original
interior design remains.
The building appears like a contemporary building that is based on a historical design much
like the contemporary homes on the 900 block of Ramona Street. The introduction of
contemporary additions, features and forms has altered the building from a historical design
with some modern modifications, to a contemporary building that happens to have front façade
that retains a small number of historical design features.
The building has a low degree of integrity of design.
Setting
The neighborhood surrounding the subject property is within the original grid of Palo Alto. It
appears today much as it did at the beginning of the 20th century as a neighborhood of single-
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
12
family residences. However, almost half appear to be contemporary construction built on a
former parking lot on the western half of the 900 block of Ramona Street. What is present today
is largely an approximation of the historical building patterns, created with larger-scale
development. The setting is appropriate, but not entirely original. Therefore, it retains a
moderate degree of integrity of setting.
Materials
The exterior finishes are largely new materials used to match the historic materials. This blurs
the lines between what is new construction and what is original construction when viewing the
home. Upon close inspection, the west façade appears to be the most intact, although it is not
visible except from the narrow path along the west property line and is further obscured by
trees and other landscape features. The front (south) façade, retains its diamond shingled gable
end and a bulls-eye bargeboard. Original corner brackets also remain. The porch floorboards,
steps, location and size appear to be original, or at least date to very early in the building’s
history. However, all windows have been replaced with modern versions. They are of the same
approximate size, but their style and the reflective quality of the glazing are clearly modern and
are not appropriate to the historical style of the building. Combined with the new siding
materials, the overall impression of the building is that of a newly constructed home executed
in a historical style.
On the interior, no original materials remain. After passing through the front door, the history,
age and design of the 1895 cottage is non-existent.
935 Ramona Street does not retain integrity of materials.
Workmanship
Very few character-defining features of a 1895 Queen Anne cottage remain. The loss of
materials, room configurations, and all interior finishes has resulted in a loss of the details of
workmanship that are typically found within a historic building. The building doe not retain
integrity of workmanship.
Feeling
935 Ramona Street is thoroughly modern in design, materials and configuration. Except for the
front porch and the presence of the window bay on the front façade, the experience of the
building is that of new construction. It does not retain integrity of feeling.
Association
There is little association with important people or events in the history of 935 Ramona Street.
Its primary significance comes from its design and its relative place in the construction
continuum of Palo Alto. Under these two categories, it has a low degree of integrity of
association.
Overall, 935 Ramona Street does not retain historical integrity.
CONCLUSION
935 Ramona Street has been extensively modified over time and does not appear to qualify for
continued listing on the Palo Alto Historical Inventory as a Category 4 historical resource. Even
though a Category 4 resource can have “extensive or permanent changes made to the original
design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
13
facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco,” there must still be some historical significance and
integrity remaining to qualify for listing. The changes that have been allowed to the building
have resulted in the loss of approximately 90% of the historic materials (interior and exterior)
and a complete loss of the interior design. The modifications to the north and east elevations are
extensive and have changed the form of the building. What remains cannot be consider a
historic shell, but perhaps a historic window bay and front porch. This is not enough material or
character-defining features to be considered a historic building at any level.
Based on these findings, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. recommends that 935 Ramona Street be
removed from the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. There are many other examples of early Queen
Anne style cottages within the City that retain a much higher degree of historical integrity and
that would serve as superior representatives of this type and style.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
14
BIBLIOGRAPHY & RESOURCES
Dames & Moore, Inc. Final Survey Report, Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, August 1997-August
2000. Palo Alto, California: Palo Alto Planning Department. 2000.
DPR set for “935 Ramona Street,” by Karmen Newman, Palo Alto Historic Resource Board,
1978, 1984.
Gullard, Pamela and Nancy Lund. History of Palo Alto: The Early Years. San Francisco: Scotwall
Associates, 1989.
Historic Buildings Inventory. Palo Alto, California: Palo Alto Planning Department. 1979, 1982.
Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto: Inventory and Report. Palo Alto
Planning Department, 1979.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
2002.
National Register of Historic Places, National Parks Service. How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation. Technical Bulletin No. 15. 1997.
Palo Alto Municipal Code: <http://www.amlegal.com/library/ca/paloalto.shtml>
Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, California: 1904, 1908, 1924 and 1949 Update.
United States Federal Census Records (1870-1930). Ancestry.com. <http://www.ancestry.com>.
Winslow, Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo
Alto, California: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993.
USEFUL WEBSITES
California Historical Society
http://www.californiahistoricalsociety.org/collections/index.html
California State Historical Building Code:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/
National Park Service: Technical Preservation Services:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/index.htm
National Register Bulletins:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins.htm
Office of Historic Preservation:
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
15
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/
Online Archive of California
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/
Preservation Briefs:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm
Preservation Tech Notes:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/technotes/tnhome.htm
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Becky Urbano is a talented architectural conservator with a solid background in historic
preservation, materials investigation and historic documentation. Recognized for laboratory
expertise as well as research, leadership and project management skills, her experience includes
architectural conservation management plans, existing condition analysis, repair
recommendations and documentation, construction specifications and identification of historic
resources through field surveys and archival research.
Ms. Urbano is an active professional and currently manages Garavaglia Architecture Inc.’s
Preservation Services department. Her professional work includes historic structure reports,
resource evaluations, material analysis, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Reviews, and
historic context statements. Her thorough research capabilities have been complemented by her
superior report and writing skills.
Ms. Urbano educational background includes a Masters of Science in Historic Preservation from
Columbia University and a Bachelor of Arts in Physics from Middlebury College with
Departmental Honors. She is a Conservation Assessment Program (CAP) Assessor and is
currently listed in the national database maintained by Heritage Preservation, the National
Institute for Conservation, as a qualified conservator. Ms. Urbano exceeds the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Standards for Architectural History and is also listed as a qualified
Architectural Historian with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
and with Nevada SHPO.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
16
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOGRAPHS
All photos by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. (July 2011), except where noted.
Figure 1. Primary (south) elevation facing Ramona Street. The shingles in the front gable, the stained
glass window in the gable and the roof bracket are original. The date of the siding is unknown. It
could be original or it could date to c.1977 when the first major modification to the building took
place.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
17
Figure 2. Closer view of the south elevation.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
18
Figure 3. Detail of the shingled gable over the three-window bay. The rosettes on the bargeboard are
visible.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
19
Figure 4. Aerial view of the 900 Block of Ramona Street. (Bing maps)
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
20
Figure 5. Southeast corner of the building showing the view of the house as you walk west on
Ramona Street. Note how prominent this side elevation is from the street.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
21
Figure 6. East elevation (partial) as viewed from the property line. The various projections and
secondary roof forms are all visible in this image.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
22
Figure 7. Detail of a replaced window and area of modification. The wood siding to the left of the
window bay is believed to be original. The siding under the window and beyond the corner board at
the right of the image are modern. They are nearly identical, blurring the lines between what is
original fabric and what is very recent in origin.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
23
Figure 10. Rear (north) elevation (partial.) This is the end of the 2005 living room addition. It has no
historical reverence beyond its choice of siding materials.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
24
Figure 11. Rear (north) elevation (partial.) This image shows part of the 2005 living room addition as
well as the 2007 master bathroom modification that resulted in the gabled window bay at the right.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
25
Figure 12. West elevation. This is the most intact elevation with a high percentage of original
materials. The windows have been changed but the locations appear to be original. The watertable is
clearly visible here as is the former basement access. None of this elevation is visible from the street.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
26
Figure 13. West elevation, detail. This is a close-up of the original watertable and corner trim. This
marks the original northwest corner of the building.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO, CA
Historic Resource Evaluation
Prepared for
Chris Pickett
935 Ramona Street,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared by
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc
22 July 2011
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
1
INTRODUCTION
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. was contracted by Chris Pickett and Rebecca Geraldi
(Owners/Client) in July 2011 to assess the continued historical significance of the single-family
residence at 935 Ramona Street, Palo Alto. The building was originally surveyed in 1978 and
designated a Category 4 Historical Resource by the City of Palo Alto. Since that time, the
building has been extensively altered, warranting an evaluation of significance for continued
listing as a historic resource.
METHODOLOGY
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. Architectural Historian and Preservation Services Manager, Becky
Urbano, conducted a site visit and survey of the property’s interior and exterior on 7 July 2011.
The Client provided relevant documentation at the site visit. The building’s configuration and
architectural elements were documented with photographs and field notes. Archival research
did not produce any original drawings for the subject property. Plans and elevations from
previous approved alterations to the house were located and used to inform this evaluation.
Garavaglia Architecture Inc. also conducted additional archival research on the subject property
and surrounding area. Research repositories consulted include the Palo Alto Historical Society,
City of Palo Alto Building Optical Disc Storage System (BODS) archive database (Development
Center), the City of Palo Alto microfiche files (Development Center), the San Francisco Public
Library (SFPL) online research databases, the Palo Alto Public Library (PAPL) Main Library
holdings and online research databases, the Online Archive of California, and the California
Digital Newspaper Collection. (See References section for complete list of resources.)
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE1
The one-and-a-half story with basement wood v-groove siding clad, wood framed Queen Anne
cottage residence is dominated by its asymmetrical façade, anchored by a large three-window
bay and elevated front porch. The overall hip roof is broken up with an intersecting gable roof
over the bay window, a front-facing gable roof dormer, and a series of gable roof rear additions,
forming an overall rectangular plan with a series of shallow projecting window bays along the
east elevation. Projecting eaves, a wide plain-sawn bargeboard and cornice trim visually mark
the transition between the peaked roof sections and the main body of the building. Flat sawn
door and window trim outline all other wall openings. The building is raised off the ground,
allowing for a full basement with windows.
The front entry is through a covered porch running across half of the south elevation. The
integrated roof is supported by two (2) square wood columns that rest on a low beadboard wall
with a built-up top sill. Access is up a set of wood stairs flanked by stepped, beadboard clad
side walls. A modern wood handrail is at the western side of the staircase. The area below the
porch is covered with beadboard to match the sidewalls and supporting wall above. The front
gable over the curved bay of windows to the west is marked with a diamond pattern of shingles
and a slight flare at the bottom of the pediment. Centered in this space is an original stained-
1 For the purposes of this evaluation, the front of the building is considered as the south elevation.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
2
glass window, the only original window remaining. Below the flare, the front-facing gable is
visually supported by very simple corner brackets with squared-off finials at the corners. A
series of regularly spaced rosettes further decorate the bargeboard within the gable pediment.
The dormer above the porch is much simpler with horizontal v-groove wood siding below its
peak. The rest of this elevation is recessed beneath the porch roof and is marked by the front
door at the top of the stairs, and a pair of contemporary French patio doors, just east of the front
door.
The east elevation consists of a series of shallow window projections at the main floor level.
These projections overhang the basement, shading the windows and entry door at the lower
level. From front to back (south to north) there is a shed roof projection over a single-light
window in the front dining area. The rest of the house is projected out approximately 18” from
the original wall plane. An additional window projects further out in the middle of the façade,
marking the transition between the kitchen and living room areas on this level. A gable roof
dormer, similar to that on the front façade is near the center of the original hip roof section of
the building. At the basement a series of modern windows and an entry door are shaded by the
projections above. A wood deck extends from the north end of this elevation providing access
from the living room to the patio and yard below. The property is relatively open on this side,
and visible from the street as you approach downtown on Ramona Street. A barbeque area with
a brick patio, seating and landscaping is connected to the house. A covered parking area is
angled at 45-degrees to the house to the east of the patio. The remainder of the property on this
side is covered with grass and landscaping.
At the rear (south) elevation, a gable roof addition projects out into a small patio area,
dominating the eastern half of the façade. A large tri-partite patio door with sidelights is set to
the east and two fixed single light windows and louvered vents are symmetrically arranged
directly below the gable peak. The rest of the elevation is set back from this addition, forming
an “L” in plan. The elevation here consists of a narrow gable roof projection with a large,
narrow single light window topped with a 13-light fixed window. A small circular seating area
occupies the space between the house and a rear outbuilding.
The west elevation is built near the west property line and retains the most historic fabric and
original configuration. Here the windows are all flush with the wall plane. The wood v-groove
siding is mostly original and the original water table trim is clearly visible. (It is obscured on the
other elevations with the projecting elements.) There is evidence of a former access door to the
basement at the midpoint of this elevation.
The interior of the building has been altered and updated numerous times, most recently in
2005. It retains almost no features from the building’s original construction. See the
Construction Chronology below for more information.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
PALO ALTO
The origin of Palo Alto is unique among other cities on the Peninsula because of its strong tie to
Stanford University and its founders, Leland and Jane Lathrop Stanford. Desiring a town to
accompany his nascent academic institution, and deeming the unruly Mayfield as unfit for his
vision, Stanford began laying the foundations for the town of Palo Alto in the late 1880s. He
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
3
partnered with Timothy Hopkins, adopted son of Mark Hopkins, one of the Central Pacific
Railroad’s “Big Four” along with Stanford, to acquire and plat the lands that would form the
foundations of the new town. The original grid was platted by 1887 and lots were put on
auction in 1890. “University Park,” as it was originally dubbed, extended from present day
Embarcadero Road and the railroad to northeast of Middlefield Road.2.
The original grid was enlarged by numerous grid additions, usually with different orientations,
creating a typically patchwork pattern on either side of the railroad. These grids provided the
framework for most development in the city until the 1920s. The presence of 25-foot wide lots in
the original grid provided for dense urban development, not only in the commercial downtown
but in the adjoining residential areas as well. 3
Most of the earliest houses in Palo Alto were one and two-story wood-frame structures. From
the Sanborn maps, these were in a great variety of forms, typically with projecting wings, bay
windows, and porches, often on double lots, scattered throughout the grid. In some cases, two
or three similar houses stood adjacent to one another, as if built by a single builder. The houses
in this period were predominantly variations of the two basic types - square cottages and two-
story boxes. Professional architects designed very few of these houses. Rather, they followed
traditional patterns or published designs that were more or less modified by their builders.
They were built by agents of local lumberyards or by independent builders. The original
owners built many of these early houses themselves, at a time when many people in the
building trades had come to the area to work on the construction of Stanford University. In
many cases, these people could do most of the work by themselves using purchased plans or
published images.
Most early residences looked like single-family homes, but Stanford students and faculty
occupied many as lodging houses, boarding houses, and fraternities. In addition to these
renters, the early population consisted primarily of a mix of people affiliated with Stanford and
owners of local shops and businesses. By 1899, Palo Alto had 261 buildings and a mix of middle
class and working class residents. While Palo Alto’s predominant physical appearance in its
early years was ordinary, its origins as a university town were unusual and provided both a
distinctive population and the seeds of even greater distinctiveness in the future.
Significant transportation-related improvements brought more residents and increased
development to Palo Alto around the turn of the 20th century. As elsewhere, the automobile was
beginning to come into use by 1905, its presence gradually increasing after that time. More
significant to Palo Alto’s development, however, was the local streetcar and the interurban
railway to San Jose. In anticipation of the streetcar’s completion in November 1906, a number of
apartments and boarding houses were built along the projected streetcar route (University
Avenue and Waverley Street). The streetcar made denser development economical and practical
as well as more convenient for faculty, staff, and students at Stanford who wanted to live in
Palo Alto. Palo Alto became even more connected when the interurban railway opened in 1910,
allowing a greater number of residents to live in Palo Alto and commute to work in neighboring
communities.
2 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto: The Palo Alto
Historical Association, 1993), 35-41.
3 The remainder of this historical overview is adapted from “Historical Overview of Palo Alto’s Built Environment,” a
section of the Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (February 2001) by Michael Corbett and
Denise Bradley of Dames & Moore, pages 1-1 through 1-11.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
4
The 1906 earthquake affected Palo Alto in several ways. It caused substantial damage in and
around Palo Alto and Stanford. Buildings collapsed and others were severely damaged,
especially along University Avenue. This area had the highest concentration of brick buildings,
which were especially vulnerable. Another impact of the earthquake was the permanent
relocation of displaced people from San Francisco to outlying cities and towns. In the years just
after the earthquake the Palo Alto directories showed an increase in new residents associated
with professional and management jobs. Noticeably more residents were commuting by train to
San Francisco, especially owners and managers of industries and other businesses.
As Palo Alto’s population grew in the years following the earthquake, residential development
increased proportionally and the town’s socio-economic districts became more distinct. The
upper middle class was concentrated southeast of University Avenue, especially in
Professorville. Working-class and minority residents lived adjacent to Professorville especially
along High, Emerson, and Ramona streets. Elsewhere, especially northwest of University
Avenue, there was a large population of working- and middle class residents.
To accommodate the growing population, a number of single-family dwellings were
constructed in and around Palo Alto in the late teens and through the 1920s. Many of these
houses were constructed in various “period revival” styles, drawing on Colonial, Tudor,
Spanish and Mediterranean sources. Though many of these residences were built using
patterns, prominent local architects such as Birge and David Clark, Pedro de Lemos, John K.
Branner, Charles K. Sumner, and Leslie I. Nichols are known to have designed a significant
number of residential buildings as well.
The Great Depression of the 1930s forced many changes in the design, construction, and
financing of buildings. Atypical of most municipalities during the Depression, Palo Alto saw a
substantial amount of construction during the 1930s; more than 800 buildings were built
between 1931 and 1944, most of these before 1941. While previously a single builder might
undertake two or three houses, a new model of development arose in the 1930s. Green Gables
(1938) and Leland Manor (1939) were among the first subdivisions in Palo Alto built on this
new model, in which a single developer built a large number of houses. The first houses in
Green Gables were built in groups of ten on variations of standard plans with each home an
individual architectural design — generally Colonial Revival or English vernacular cottages.
These subdivisions were early examples of a type of development that would be the dominant
form of development in the city after World War II, and would characterize approximately half
of the city by the 1960s.
World War II produced a crisis in housing everywhere in the Bay Area, including Palo Alto.
Older houses were subdivided into apartments and homeowners were encouraged to rent out
rooms. By December 1945, the city building inspector reported a need for at least 1,000 new
houses. Once building materials and financing became available there was an explosion in
house construction, a boom epitomized by the Coastland subdivision of 1947.
The Coastland Subdivision was among the earliest post-war subdivisions in Palo Alto, and it
represents an important step in the business of subdivision developments between the earlier
Green Gables and the later subdivisions of Joseph Eichler. Like Green Gables, Coastland was
designed and built by a single development team and featured variations on a few architectural
models. Coastland was constructed in 1947 and was less complex than Green Gables. The
organization of streets was intended to discourage through-traffic. Neighborhoods like this
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
5
were promoted as safer for children at a time when two things were happening — more babies
than ever before were being born, and more people than ever before were driving cars.
While many new Palo Alto houses constructed through 1947 were built with traditional historic
stylistic references, new approaches to design that emerged in the 1930s were widely adopted.
Many of these were Modern Ranch Style houses. In general, these houses had open plans with
interior and exterior spaces designated for multiple purposes. Since the automobile had firmly
established itself in American culture by that time, many of these houses came with attached
garages. They emphasized the use of simple and natural materials such as adobe, stone, tile,
rough-sawn lumber and hand-split shakes. Ranch houses were bigger than their residential
predecessors and occupied larger lots. However, much simpler and smaller versions of these
houses were built in large numbers in tracts.
Since the 1950s, Palo Alto’s population and size have more than doubled. Though now
surrounded by sprawling suburban development the city retains a significant amount of its
historic built environment and maintains a large number of historic buildings and districts.
Whether nationally or locally significant, these buildings collectively represent Palo Alto’s
architectural heritage and contribute to the historic character of the city as a whole.
935 RAMONA STREET
935 Ramona Street is in the original grid platted by Timothy Hopkins in 1892 as part of the
“University Park” development. Officially, the property sits on Block E and consists of lots 40,
41, 42 and part of lot 43.4 (This was later amended to two lots which were officially combined
into a single lot in 1977.) When constructed in 1895, it was one of the only houses in the area,
but by 1901 about half of the block, including most of the Ramona Street side, was built up with
small one-story houses.5 The original deed included the provision that all production or sale of
alcoholic beverages is strictly forbidden.6
The single-family residence at 935 Ramona Street was built by building contractor Alfred W.
Caulkins for his wife, Flora. As originally constructed, the building was essentially square in
plan with a hip roof and an intersecting gable over the front bay window projection. It had a
small front porch as well as a rear porch. Two outbuildings were also on the lot by 1901,
consisting of a two-story building noted as 935 ½ Ramona Street at the northwest corner of the
property, and a one-story shed along the east property line. (It should be noted that this
property line marked the approximate center of the current property.) The house is noted as
having 1 bathroom.7 Boarders are listed at the property, presumably in the rear dwelling unit as
early as 1900.8
Caulkins sold the house prior to 1907 to a Mr. Diamond. It was transferred to his widow, Anne
M. Dimond, upon his death in 1907.9 By 1908, the 1-story shed had been removed.10 Dimond
4 1977 Title Report, City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto.
5 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map for the City of Palo Alto, 1901.
6 This was common in the early titles as Leland Stanford desired a dry-town to support his young University. Finding
Menlo Park and nearby Mayfield unwilling to meet these requirements, he started his own town on his own land,
calling it Palo Alto.
7 Sanborn, 1901.
8 Twelfth United States Federal Census, 1900. This Federal Census lists Andrew Bruint (spelling is unclear), 55, as a
boarder. 9 1977 Title Report
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
6
lived in the house with her son William, and a long-time boarder named George Mitchell, until
1922. At that point the house was sold to E.H. Hjelm and appears to have been used as a rental
property.11
By 1924, the secondary dwelling unit at the rear was converted to an auto garage. It is unknown
if any living quarters were retained on the second floor, as was common for the area. The 1949
Sanborn Map notes that the building is considered to have 2 floors. This may be a change in
how floors are defined by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company, or it may reflect the conversion
of the basement into a habitable space. 1967 assessor records show Hannah Johnson as the
owner of the property, but she may have acquired it as early as 1949. She does not appear to
have ever lived at this address.
In 1967, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic (PAMC) proposed construction of a new City-owned, 300-
bed hospital for a two-block site between Bryant and Waverley streets, near its primary Homer
Street clinic.12 It began purchasing nearby properties in anticipation of the new hospital
construction. At some point between 1967 and 1976, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic purchased the
two lots that comprise the current property.13 Opposition to the new hospital project was fierce
and the hospital failed to win favor with the local voters 1970.14 After this defeat, PAMC sold
much of their accumulated property in the area, including 935 Ramona Street. It was then
purchased by Sunrise Corp. a group of friends that pooled resources to purchase five houses on
the block from the medical clinic. Sunrise Corp. included William and Barabara Busse who
lived at 935 Ramona with two other friends, converting the building into three flats, one on each
floor.15 They also undertook legal proceeding to officially unite the two original building lots
into a single, double-width lot in 1977.16 Eventually, the Busses bought out their friends and
became the sole owners of the property.17 It was remodeled as a single-family residence over
time, with major work in 1989.18 They sold the property c. 2005 to the Shu family who
completely renovated the interior into is present configuration and appearance.19 It was
purchased by the Pickett family in April, 2007.
Associated Persons
There are many people who owned or lived in 935 Ramona Street since its construction in 1895.
Very little is known in the archival records about any of the individuals associated with the
building. The following is a summary of the known owners and occupants and the results of
archival research:
Alfred W. Caulkins: He was a building contractor who also sold architectural materials.
Flora Caulkins: no information was found
Anna M. Dimond: She was widowed in 1907 and cared for her 15 year old son into
10 Sanborn, 1908.
11 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, U.S. Federal Census Records
(1890 – 1930), Karmen Newman, DPR form for 935 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, 1978. 11 Winslow, 176-177.
12 Ibid.
13 Jocelyn Dong, “Bill and Barbara Busse: Long-time residents reflect on lucky breaks, Summerhill homes and the
state of the world,” (Palo Alto Weekly Online, c2004).
14 Winslow, 176-177
15 Busse, Palo Alto Weekly Online
16 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto
17 Busse, Palo Alto Weekly Online
18 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 19 Ibid.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
7
adulthood.
George Mitchell: He was a blacksmith who was a long-time employee of the City of Palo
Alto. He died of a heart attack while at work in 193320
E.H. Hjelm: no information was found
Peter Benson: long-time renter of the property, long-time Palo Alto resident, died in
193621
Gustava Benson: Peter Benson’s wife, long-time renter of the property, long-time Palo Alto
resident, died in 195222
William Busse: long-time owner of the property, respected community member, still
living
Barbara Busse: long-time owner of the property, respected community member, still
living
Construction Chronology
Date
Modification
1889 April 13 – property originally deeded by Timothy Hopkins) with restrictions
on the use of the property for the production or sale of alcohol23
1895 A.W. Caulkins constructs a small square-plan, 1-story cottage with a
basement and projecting bay.
1900-1907 Property sold to Anne Diamond and her husband, deeded to Anne on March
21, 1907.
1922 Property sold to E.H. Hjeim and used as rental property.
1949-1967 Property sold to Hannah Johnson at some point during this period.
1953 Garage demolished.24
1967-1977 Property sold to Palo Alto Medical Clinic at some point during this period.
1976
House converted to 3 flats by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. The building is
largely gutted at this point. Most of the first floor partitions are removed,
including the original center hallway and stair. The basement was also
reconfigured and the wood floor was replaced with a concrete slab. The attic
was converted into a studio apartment. The basic shape and form of the
building remains unchanged.
1977 Property sold to Sunrise Corp.
1977
William and Barbara Busse officially combine the building lots into the
current property. At this time, the rear porch appears to be enclosed with an
additional porch to the north.25
1989
The house is extensively modified again by the Busse family. The main floor
is reconfigured, the attic is converted to a bedroom and closet with a new
bathroom. The kitchen is removed and the stair is reconfigured. The basement
20 Palo Alto Times, 6/24/1933.
21 Palo Alto Times, 9/28/1936.
22 Palo Alto Times, 7/5/1952.
23 1977 Title Report
24 City of Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 25 Ibid.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
8
is retained as a 2nd dwelling unit, and is remodeled with a new bath and
laundry at the rear. A small addition is planned for the rear to house a water
heater
1991 New 78 sq.ft. addition to the rear for a bathroom.
1993 Rear outbuilding constructed.
1998 Kitchen and bath remodeled.
2005 Property owned by the Shu family
Remodel extensively at this time: 225 sq.ft. addition to the rear to create the
current living/kitchen space. 16 sq. ft. addition to the east to form a window
seat. The basement is reconfigured to the present configuration. Most of the
first floor is reconfigured as well as is the 2nd floor room and bathroom. It is
assumed that the new wood siding dates to this renovation.
The 225 sq.ft. rear addition resulted in a dramatic change to the overall shape
of the roof. The original hip roof was removed at the rear and a new gable
roof over the addition was merged with the existing ridge, elongating the
entire building and uniting it under a single roof structure.
Current patio, angled driveway, and covered parking spaces are installed.
2007 April – Pickett family purchases property.
Master bathroom is altered with a raised roof and reconfigured interior.
Unknown
It is unknown when the original windows were removed. The windows
might have been replaced several times, but the current windows likely date
to the 1990s. Plans for the 2005 remodel note that many of the existing
windows were to remain at that time.
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY
The City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important
individual designers and architectural eras and traditions, as well as structures whose
background is associated with important events or trends in the history of the city, state, or
nation. The City has adopted specific definitions for the categorization properties on the
Inventory. These are used to classify buildings that are found to be significant at the local level.
The Inventory is organized under the following four Categories:
• Category 1 (Exceptional Building): "Exceptional building," means any building or group
of buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best
architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the
United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such
minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
9
• Category 2 (Major Building): "Major building," means any building or group of
buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an
outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture
in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the
original character is retained.
• Category 3 or 4 (Contributing Building): "Contributing building,” means any building or
group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which
relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or
other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes
made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
In addition to the classification categories listed above, the City has specific criteria for
designation of historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory:
(1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important
events in the city, state or nation;
(2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of
life important to the city, state or nation;
(3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building, which was once common,
but is now rare;
(4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use, which was once common,
but is now rare;
(5) The architect or building was important;
(6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. (Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986).
INTEGRITY
Once the significance of the resource has been established, integrity must be analyzed to
determine if the property’s current form retains enough of its original fabric to adequately
express why it should be considered historic. To retain integrity a property must have most of
the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The
seven aspects of integrity are quoted as follows:
• Location - Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred.
• Design - Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property.
• Setting - Setting is the physical environment of the historic property.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
10
• Materials - Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during
a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration form a historic
property.
• Workmanship - Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling - Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular period of time.
• Association – Association is the direct link between an important historic event or
person and a historic property.
According to the Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Series Bulletin #6:
Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the
criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their
significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to
meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for
listing in the California Register.26
FINDINGS
This section uses the information discussed above to evaluate 935 Ramona Street for historic
significance and continued eligibility for listing on the City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory as a
category 4 resource. The reason for listing is unclear from the 1978 DPR form but appears to be
a result of its architectural character. This section only evaluates the property for local listing on
the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.
PALO ALTO REGISTER
Category 1 (Exceptional Building)
An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the
overall appearance of the building is in its original character. The modifications that have taken
place at 935 Ramona Street render it ineligible for consideration as a Category 1 building for any
reason.
26 Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. California Register and National Register: A
Comparison. Technical Assistance Series No. 6.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
11
Category 2 (Major Building)
A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
The modifications that have taken place at 935 Ramona Street render it ineligible for
consideration as a Category 2 building for any reason.
Category 3 or 4 (Contributing Building)
In terms of style, form and massing, 935 Ramona Street is an appropriate design for its
neighborhood context. This is true of many of the buildings on this block of Ramona Street,
including the recently constructed homes to the west of the subject property. Style, form and
massing must be combined with historical significance and retention of historical integrity to
justify listing as a Category 3 or 4 building. Because 935 Ramona Street is currently listed as a
Category 4 building, its eligibility for continued listed is largely based on its historical integrity.
INTEGRITY EVALUATION
The evaluation of historic significance is a two-step process. First, the historic significance of the
property must be established. If the property appears to possess historic significance, then a
determination of its physical integrity is conducted; that is, its authenticity as evidenced by the
survival of physical characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Location
935 Ramona Street has not been moved from its original location. Therefore it possesses a high
degree of location integrity.
Design
935 Ramona Street has been extensively modified from its original form and design. The general
appearance of its street-facing façade remains intact with a limited amount of original
decorative elements remaining. However, its footprint has been expanded greatly to the north,
changing the overall shape of the building. This has resulted in a current roof form that is
completely different from the historical design, changing it from a hip roof to an extended gable
roof over the back half of the building. Historic porches were enclosed, then replaced with new
additions over the last 35 years. Non-historic projections have been added to the east elevation,
including the addition of secondary roof forms over at least one projection. All of the historic
windows have been replaced with modern windows.
On the interior, the original configuration of rooms and circulation within the building have
been altered or completely changed at least twice, and likely three times. No trace of the original
interior design remains.
The building appears like a contemporary building that is based on a historical design much
like the contemporary homes on the 900 block of Ramona Street. The introduction of
contemporary additions, features and forms has altered the building from a historical design
with some modern modifications, to a contemporary building that happens to have front façade
that retains a small number of historical design features.
The building has a low degree of integrity of design.
Setting
The neighborhood surrounding the subject property is within the original grid of Palo Alto. It
appears today much as it did at the beginning of the 20th century as a neighborhood of single-
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
12
family residences. However, almost half appear to be contemporary construction built on a
former parking lot on the western half of the 900 block of Ramona Street. What is present today
is largely an approximation of the historical building patterns, created with larger-scale
development. The setting is appropriate, but not entirely original. Therefore, it retains a
moderate degree of integrity of setting.
Materials
The exterior finishes are largely new materials used to match the historic materials. This blurs
the lines between what is new construction and what is original construction when viewing the
home. Upon close inspection, the west façade appears to be the most intact, although it is not
visible except from the narrow path along the west property line and is further obscured by
trees and other landscape features. The front (south) façade, retains its diamond shingled gable
end and a bulls-eye bargeboard. Original corner brackets also remain. The porch floorboards,
steps, location and size appear to be original, or at least date to very early in the building’s
history. However, all windows have been replaced with modern versions. They are of the same
approximate size, but their style and the reflective quality of the glazing are clearly modern and
are not appropriate to the historical style of the building. Combined with the new siding
materials, the overall impression of the building is that of a newly constructed home executed
in a historical style.
On the interior, no original materials remain. After passing through the front door, the history,
age and design of the 1895 cottage is non-existent.
935 Ramona Street does not retain integrity of materials.
Workmanship
Very few character-defining features of a 1895 Queen Anne cottage remain. The loss of
materials, room configurations, and all interior finishes has resulted in a loss of the details of
workmanship that are typically found within a historic building. The building doe not retain
integrity of workmanship.
Feeling
935 Ramona Street is thoroughly modern in design, materials and configuration. Except for the
front porch and the presence of the window bay on the front façade, the experience of the
building is that of new construction. It does not retain integrity of feeling.
Association
There is little association with important people or events in the history of 935 Ramona Street.
Its primary significance comes from its design and its relative place in the construction
continuum of Palo Alto. Under these two categories, it has a low degree of integrity of
association.
Overall, 935 Ramona Street does not retain historical integrity.
CONCLUSION
935 Ramona Street has been extensively modified over time and does not appear to qualify for
continued listing on the Palo Alto Historical Inventory as a Category 4 historical resource. Even
though a Category 4 resource can have “extensive or permanent changes made to the original
design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
13
facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco,” there must still be some historical significance and
integrity remaining to qualify for listing. The changes that have been allowed to the building
have resulted in the loss of approximately 90% of the historic materials (interior and exterior)
and a complete loss of the interior design. The modifications to the north and east elevations are
extensive and have changed the form of the building. What remains cannot be consider a
historic shell, but perhaps a historic window bay and front porch. This is not enough material or
character-defining features to be considered a historic building at any level.
Based on these findings, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. recommends that 935 Ramona Street be
removed from the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. There are many other examples of early Queen
Anne style cottages within the City that retain a much higher degree of historical integrity and
that would serve as superior representatives of this type and style.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
14
BIBLIOGRAPHY & RESOURCES
Dames & Moore, Inc. Final Survey Report, Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, August 1997-August
2000. Palo Alto, California: Palo Alto Planning Department. 2000.
DPR set for “935 Ramona Street,” by Karmen Newman, Palo Alto Historic Resource Board,
1978, 1984.
Gullard, Pamela and Nancy Lund. History of Palo Alto: The Early Years. San Francisco: Scotwall
Associates, 1989.
Historic Buildings Inventory. Palo Alto, California: Palo Alto Planning Department. 1979, 1982.
Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto: Inventory and Report. Palo Alto
Planning Department, 1979.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
2002.
National Register of Historic Places, National Parks Service. How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation. Technical Bulletin No. 15. 1997.
Palo Alto Municipal Code: <http://www.amlegal.com/library/ca/paloalto.shtml>
Palo Alto Building Department Records, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, California: 1904, 1908, 1924 and 1949 Update.
United States Federal Census Records (1870-1930). Ancestry.com. <http://www.ancestry.com>.
Winslow, Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo
Alto, California: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993.
USEFUL WEBSITES
California Historical Society
http://www.californiahistoricalsociety.org/collections/index.html
California State Historical Building Code:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/
National Park Service: Technical Preservation Services:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/index.htm
National Register Bulletins:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins.htm
Office of Historic Preservation:
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
15
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/
Online Archive of California
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/
Preservation Briefs:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm
Preservation Tech Notes:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/technotes/tnhome.htm
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Becky Urbano is a talented architectural conservator with a solid background in historic
preservation, materials investigation and historic documentation. Recognized for laboratory
expertise as well as research, leadership and project management skills, her experience includes
architectural conservation management plans, existing condition analysis, repair
recommendations and documentation, construction specifications and identification of historic
resources through field surveys and archival research.
Ms. Urbano is an active professional and currently manages Garavaglia Architecture Inc.’s
Preservation Services department. Her professional work includes historic structure reports,
resource evaluations, material analysis, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Reviews, and
historic context statements. Her thorough research capabilities have been complemented by her
superior report and writing skills.
Ms. Urbano educational background includes a Masters of Science in Historic Preservation from
Columbia University and a Bachelor of Arts in Physics from Middlebury College with
Departmental Honors. She is a Conservation Assessment Program (CAP) Assessor and is
currently listed in the national database maintained by Heritage Preservation, the National
Institute for Conservation, as a qualified conservator. Ms. Urbano exceeds the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Standards for Architectural History and is also listed as a qualified
Architectural Historian with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
and with Nevada SHPO.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
16
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOGRAPHS
All photos by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. (July 2011), except where noted.
Figure 1. Primary (south) elevation facing Ramona Street. The shingles in the front gable, the stained
glass window in the gable and the roof bracket are original. The date of the siding is unknown. It
could be original or it could date to c.1977 when the first major modification to the building took
place.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
17
Figure 2. Closer view of the south elevation.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
18
Figure 3. Detail of the shingled gable over the three-window bay. The rosettes on the bargeboard are
visible.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
19
Figure 4. Aerial view of the 900 Block of Ramona Street. (Bing maps)
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
20
Figure 5. Southeast corner of the building showing the view of the house as you walk west on
Ramona Street. Note how prominent this side elevation is from the street.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
21
Figure 6. East elevation (partial) as viewed from the property line. The various projections and
secondary roof forms are all visible in this image.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
22
Figure 7. Detail of a replaced window and area of modification. The wood siding to the left of the
window bay is believed to be original. The siding under the window and beyond the corner board at
the right of the image are modern. They are nearly identical, blurring the lines between what is
original fabric and what is very recent in origin.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
23
Figure 10. Rear (north) elevation (partial.) This is the end of the 2005 living room addition. It has no
historical reverence beyond its choice of siding materials.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
24
Figure 11. Rear (north) elevation (partial.) This image shows part of the 2005 living room addition as
well as the 2007 master bathroom modification that resulted in the gabled window bay at the right.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
25
Figure 12. West elevation. This is the most intact elevation with a high percentage of original
materials. The windows have been changed but the locations appear to be original. The watertable is
clearly visible here as is the former basement access. None of this elevation is visible from the street.
935 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO
Historic Resource Evaluation
26
Figure 13. West elevation, detail. This is a close-up of the original watertable and corner trim. This
marks the original northwest corner of the building.
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 1 of 32
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1
REGULAR MEETING – 8:00 A.M. 2
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 3
250 Hamilton Avenue 4
Palo Alto, California 94301 5
6
ROLL CALL: 7
Board members: Staff: 8
David Bower (Chair) Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 9
Scott Smithwick Dennis Backlund, Historic Pres. Planner 10
Martin Bernstein Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 11
Roger Kohler 12
Patricia DiCicco 13
Beth Bunnenberg 14
Michael Makinen 15
16
AGENDIZED ITEMS: 17
1. 935 Ramona Street [11PLN-00301]: Application by Christopher Pickett, owner, for 18
Historic Resources Board review and recommendation to the City Council of a proposal 19
to remove a Category 4 Queen Anne residence, constructed in 1895 and located in the R-20
2 zone district, from the City’s Historic Inventory based on loss of historic integrity. 21
22
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of July 6, 2011 23
24
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda 25
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a 26
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and 27
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 28
minutes. 29
30
31
Chair Bower: Good evening everyone. Since we have our full contingent of Board Members 32
who are available today we’ll go ahead and start the meeting. Diana, if you can call the roll. 33
34
Ms. Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate: Board Member Bower, Board Member 35
Smithwick, Board Member Bernstein, Board Member Kohler, Board Member DiCicco, Board 36
Member Bunnenberg, Board member Makinen. Thank you. 37
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 2 of 32
1
Chair Bower: Thank you Diana. At the beginning of each meeting we provide an opportunity 2
for anyone who wants to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. I don’t have any cards so 3
we’ll move right beyond there. I want to welcome Nancy Shepherd, our City Council 4
Representative to the Historic Resources Board. Thank you for coming out early in the morning. 5
6
We have no agenda changes, do we? There are none. Okay, so we have two items on our 7
agenda. Item number 1 is an application by Christopher Pickett, the owner of 935, oops, I think 8
I’m going to put a hold on this. I now have a card. So let’s go back to our Public Statement. 9
This is for Ramona. Okay, I’m sorry. Let’s stay with Item Number 1. So as I was saying, 10
Application by Christopher Pickett, owner of 935 Ramona Street, for Historic Resources Board 11
review and recommendation to the City Council of a proposal to remove a Category 4 Queen 12
Anne residence, constructed in 1895 and located in the R-2 zone district, from the City’s Historic 13
Inventory based on loss of historic integrity. 14
15
Let’s hear from Staff. 16
17
Mr. Dennis Backlund, Historic Pres. Planner: Good Morning Chair Bower and Members of the 18
Board. Our single item today is 935 Ramona Street which is currently designated Category 4 of 19
the Historic Inventory and we are looking at a proposal to remove that from the Inventory, an 20
item proposed by the owner of the property based on a loss of historic integrity that has occurred 21
since the house was originally designated. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 3 of 32
1
We always require a proposal to de-designate a property as a serious matter. It was designated 2
originally by the City Council when they approved the formation of the Historic Resources 3
Board and approved the original Historic Preservation Ordinance in 1980 and as part of that 4
approval, adopted a list of properties that had been compiled by two qualified Historic 5
Preservation Consultants and Architectural Historians, which were Beech and Begosian. This 6
was one of the properties that was included on that list. The Council adopted a list of 7
approximately 500 properties in a single vote in 1980 and that formed the Historic Inventory 8
including this property. 9
10
In the years since I have served with this Board between 10 and 15 years, we have had only one 11
property that has been removed from the Historic Inventory based on loss of historic integrity. 12
That was the case of a property on Colorado, Category 3 that had its entire front façade removed 13
and rebuilt into a modern style. That was a rather clear cut example of a house that lost integrity 14
because from the street there was no sign of a historic house that was completely modern at that 15
point. 16
17
The case at 935 Ramona involves more changes to consider that are accomplished throughout 18
this house and in most cities with a Historic Preservation Ordinance there isn’t anything in the 19
ordinance as a rule that would facilitate developments of a property over time that would result 20
in the loss of integrity. These scenarios will usually happen in cities where properties are known 21
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 4 of 32
and are on lists of non-profit groups as valuable to the city but there is not a Historic Preservation 1
Ordinance to protect them. 2
3
Palo Alto is somewhat unique because from the very first proposal of how the Historic 4
Preservation would be done 4 years before the Historic Ordinance in 1976 it was laid out in the 5
comprehensive plan for an incentive based program that is usually voluntary when it is incentive 6
based and this has always been the program in Palo Alto reflected in our Preservation Ordinance 7
of an incentive based voluntary program where properties maintain their integrity because for 8
those who do so the city returns benefits to the owner that usually have financial rewards 9
connected. 10
11
So that is the case in Palo Alto and it is particularly reflected in the Ordinance in the fact that the 12
provision in the Ordinance is a mandatory review such as we are having this morning which is 13
intended to be for educational purposes to the community, to the owner, the Applicant and all 14
interested parties to become acquainted with the historic issues so that when decisions are 15
ultimately made they will be based on that educational procedure and a lot of good information 16
that has been vetted publicly at the Historic Resources Board but the compliance in the 17
Ordinance is voluntary. 18
19
Those are the review provisions for Category 1 and 2 properties of mandatory review. Category 20
3 and 4 are laid out in the Ordinance only for a designation procedure. Once designated, those 21
properties are structures of merit. They are honorary designations that have no regulations 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 5 of 32
whatever regarding the maintenance of integrity and therefore the needs for an educational 1
program, an incentive program to work toward the persuasion of the public to preserve Category 2
3 and 4 properties, those are essential. By and large, this has worked. The great majority the 3
inventory including Category 3 and 4 have been maintained in their original integrity over the 4
decades. But it is an axiom that is universally acknowledged in cities that when you have a 5
voluntary incentive based program you can expect that a few properties over long periods of time 6
will lose their integrity and become no longer historic. A few. There cannot be a guarantee that 7
there will be none. In Palo Alto, there have been very few. This is the second one we have 8
reviewed in the last 12 years. 9
10
So those are the general provisions of the Ordinance. As you noticed on Page 9 of the Historic 11
Resource Evaluation by Garavaglia Architecture, they are Qualified Architectural Historians and 12
Staff has accepted this report as professional. On Page 9, there is a definition of Category 4 that 13
will be our baseline. The definition is very, very generous in allowing alterations so I will first 14
read it and then comment how we traditionally work with this designation when we consider 15
alterations to Category 3 and 4 properties. Category 3 and 4 are also defined as contributing 16
buildings in the city which means that they contribute to the historic character of Palo Alto or if 17
they are in a historic district they contribute to the historic character of that district. So the 18
definition proceeds as follows: Contributing building means any building or group of buildings 19
which are good local examples of architectural styles in which we link to the character of a 20
neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. The contributing building 21
may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design such as inappropriate 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 6 of 32
additions, extensive removal of architectural details or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or 1
stucco. 2
3
Does this mean that a property does not have to be historic? That it can have completely lost its 4
integrity and, therefore, in a way is more modern than it is historic? The answer from the 5
policies that we have observed is that all structures listed on our inventory, the Historic 6
Inventory, were designated by the City Council for their historic factors apart from any 7
alterations that may have occurred. It happens that nearly all the Category 3 and 4 properties 8
when designated completely retained their integrity and had not had any inappropriate additions 9
or extensive or permanent changes but the definition of the ordinance makes it clear that some 10
change can occur that is beyond what is simply minor and it could still retain its position on our 11
Historic Inventory list. One way to look at this definition is the other factor in the Historic 12
Preservation Ordinance which are the six criteria for designating a property to the Inventory. 13
Number six of those criteria also found on Page 9 of the Historic Resource Evaluation is this 14
criterion the structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to 15
architectural detail or architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. There has to be 16
significant historic features present on that property apart from the changes that have been made. 17
18
As a matter of policy we have always held that a property should be predominantly historic 19
despite alterations for it to be worthy of a place on the Historic Inventory otherwise it would be a 20
traditional building that retains a few features but does not stand out from several thousand 21
traditional properties in Palo Alto to be worthy of a place among the 500 on the Inventory. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 7 of 32
When the Consultant designated the Inventory one of the standards was to choose approximately 1
500 properties to control how many would be regulated in some way. The 500 best ones in the 2
city. 3
4
This property designated in 1980 as you saw in the attachment which is Attachment B in your 5
Staff Report, the property is described on the Historic Inventory form and they have checked the 6
box that it was unaltered at the time that it was designated. That is a typical policy that was 7
followed in 1980 in designating properties. They are generally unaltered or they are completely 8
unaltered. This one checked the box unaltered. They described it in one sentence, a standard 9
format cool land cottage with porch and angled bay enriched by unusual bracketing and over 10
scaled dormers. These are features occurring on the street facing façade. 11
12
So on that basis the house was designated but over the years there was no review of any of 13
several large projects. I went into the building records and found that the total valuation of all of 14
these projects is approximately a half million dollars of alterations that have occurred to a 15
cottage structure. That would indicate some large scale alterations. We wouldn’t determine the 16
scope of those by valuation, it’s just an indicator there have been large projects at this property in 17
1976 to 77 and 1989, in the 1990s and a very large one in 2005. We received a question from a 18
Historic Board member, a large scale alteration as recently as 2005, wouldn’t the HRB have 19
approved that? The answer again is Category 3s and 4s that are not in the Historic District are 20
honorary designations. There is no regulation of any kind. None of those projects are required 21
to go to the Historic Resources Board nor can they lawfully be reviewed and regulated by Staff 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 8 of 32
because there is no regulation. And yet, we have looked at a few in Category 3 and 4. How did 1
that happen? That is because there is a second layer of historic regulation when one resides in 2
California. 3
4
1992, the California Environmental Quality Act required a historic section. We’ve been 5
practicing ever since. They require cities to follow that state law but the review is triggered only 6
by special planning projects, not regular building permits. The usual ones are design review, like 7
individual review for second story development or a variance or a home improvement exception. 8
The city has to exercise special discretion and our city is not required to approve those. But the 9
city can on appropriate discretionary decision making. When a project is like that it triggers the 10
California Environmental Quality Act and that compliance is mandatory, not voluntary. We 11
can’t grant the discretionary permit until the city has found that the project is appropriately 12
historic. 13
14
In the case of 935 Ramona it is on a big lot. It is nearly 10,000 square feet and we were working 15
with a base line of a cottage structure where most of the alterations happened on the right hand 16
side of the house very visible from the street and there are no setback issues there. The setback 17
is many, many, many feet. Also, the alterations didn’t affect the height of the structure and those 18
additions, the same thing, so they were all ministerial or non-discretionary projects. They did not 19
trigger the California Environmental Quality Act so they were regulated by the Ordinance which 20
is to say that projects were not regulated at all. They didn’t come to staff, they didn’t come to 21
the HRB. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 9 of 32
1
So that is the general structure of review or in this case non-review that allowed the alterations to 2
happen that we are considering this morning. As I said at the beginning, staff sees the removal 3
from the Inventory as a very serious issue and therefore we gave this exhausted review, not only 4
by asking for a Qualified Historic Study but staff independently reviewed this study and 5
conducted its own review in city records in conjunction with several site visits to the property 6
and we confirmed the information that is in the historic report that starting on the front façade 7
and working along the side facades and in the rear there has been extensive alteration in all of 8
these areas. 9
10
The left hand side of the house is the most intact. The window openings are original but every 11
single window in the entire house and every single door has been replaced with modern windows 12
and doors with the exception of a small gable window on the front that was just a decorative 13
added window dating from the time the attic was not living space and it has got colored glass in 14
it and it was rather attractive and it was saved so that one little window is it for historic features. 15
The massing on the front of the house, some of that has been preserved but we are looking not 16
only at massing but historic materials on the wall surfacing and that has not been preserved. 17
18
So your Historic Resource Evaluation detailed all of these changes for your consideration. Then 19
staff’s evaluation did go beyond the historic resource evaluation by Garavaglia. What we found 20
was there is evidence that even the dormers on the house that were included in the original 21
designation appear not to be original as the inventory thought. They are in a very compatible 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 10 of 32
style but we studied the Sanborn maps that are updated to 1962 and as late as that year the 1
Sanborn maps indicated this is a one story house with basement. It is not a one and a half story 2
house which is their indicator when the attic has been converted to living space which happened 3
to this house later. They indicate a modern composition roof but still one story and that it’s got 4
several units in it by that time but mostly because of work on the basement that doesn’t show 5
from the street converted to living area. It doesn’t show a development of the attic. 6
7
By 1976 we see a project where those large dormers are appearing. It now looks that that may 8
have been a remodel of an earlier development of the attic and so given the Sanborn maps we 9
believe these dormers on the house went in between 1962 and 1976. They are compatible but 10
they are changes. While they alone would not have invalidated this house from the Inventory we 11
also work with cumulative effects so the dormers represent a change and then cumulatively with 12
all the changes in your Historic Resource Evaluation staff included on the last page of our report 13
that we believe the house does not retain integrity and we concurred with the statement of 14
Garavaglia that the overall visual impression of the property is of a modern house rebuilt in a 15
historic traditional style but most of the authentic original fabric and materials have been lost and 16
the historic looking appearance is composed of modern materials. 17
18
For instance, at the porch, there is a modern French front door and the porch windows were 19
changed to French doors in a highly traditional style so they look historic but they are not 20
authentic. So the final statement is that staff recommends to the Board that our assessment of the 21
integrity of the house is based not on a traditional appearance of the house but rather on the 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 11 of 32
survival of authentic genuine historic materials. Those that went in originally or were put in in 1
the teens, the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s could all be considered period materials but the 2
materials we are looking at here appear almost all to date from the 1970s on and therefore they 3
are not yet in a historic period and must be considered modern. 4
5
So that’s our basic outline and staff will welcome questions anywhere during this meeting. 6
Thank you very much. 7
8
Chair Bower: Thank you Dennis. Let me ask just a couple of questions. So I’m sure that 9
everybody here understands why we’re actually looking at this. This building is not in 10
Professorville District, is that correct? 11
12
Mr. Dennis Backlund: it is not in Professorville. Professorville is the next door properties to the 13
rear. This is outside the district. 14
15
Chair Bower: Okay. I want to be clear this is not in Professorville. Second, this is in front of us 16
because they are asking for an [HIE], is that correct? 17
18
Mr. Dennis Backlund: No, it is in front of us because they are asking to be removed from the 19
Inventory. Only the City Council can change the Historic Inventory by adding and taking 20
properties off. When there is Council review the Ordinance requires the HRB to make a 21
recommendation to the City Council. That’s why we are here. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 12 of 32
1
Chair Bower: Category 3 and 4 buildings. What is the distinction between 3 and 4. 2
3
Mr. Dennis Backlund: That is not clearly laid out in the Ordinance. The properties are grouped 4
together under the definition I read so we have consulted people involved in the original 5
designation in 1980 and they recommended that we read the Historic Inventory forms. One can 6
see from the text that Category 3 are properties that are more significant design wise than 7
Category 4s and it was a decision made at the time and we have looked at a few of those as staff 8
and we agree that that is the general distinction. Both are historic, but 3s are more distinctive 9
than 4s are. 10
11
Chair Bower: Perhaps in a future hearing, we ought to redefine 3 and 4 and make 1, 2 and 3, 3 12
being the only one, let’s make this clear for the Council. That’s another meeting. So those are 13
my questions right now. Let’s start with Beth. 14
15
Commissioner Bunnenberg: I had a question because the Garavaglia report obviously used 16
Secretary of Interior standards and then we also have the layer of the local ordinance and there 17
were a number of references to interior changes. Could we clarify whether our ordinances deal 18
at all with interior changes? 19
20
Mr. Dennis Backlund: No. The process for a Historic Resource Evaluation which are standards 21
for such reports that are observed by the California government and the Federal government do 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 13 of 32
not categorically exclude interiors so these Historic Resource Evaluations typically cover those 1
but for our purposes, our Historic Preservation Ordinance is restricted to exterior review and so 2
the staff report looked only at exterior alterations, all of which are also in that report but the 3
Board can restrict itself just to exterior changes. 4
5
Commissioner Bunnenberg: In addition to that, do we think about such factors as… First of all, 6
will the Applicant be making a presentation? 7
8
Mr. Dennis Backlund: I’m not sure. If the Applicant is here they are welcome to speak and also 9
any interested members of the public or owners of neighboring properties are welcome to speak 10
after the Board questions. 11
12
Commissioner Bunnenberg: Because I had a question whether we could get some understanding 13
of whether there was a special reason for requesting the removal of this property from the 14
Inventory but I guess that would be something important to check with if someone appears. 15
16
Mr. Dennis Backlund: Typically a property is proposed for removal because there is some type 17
of development taking place in the near future where a historic designation could be restrictive 18
however, the Owner presented to staff has not settled on what type of project they would like to 19
do. There was originally a conception of a rebuild of the property but subsequently on 20
consideration of the large amount of funding that went into the renovation of this house as we 21
mentioned, hundreds of thousands of dollars just in the last few years, there is reconsideration on 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 14 of 32
that but the process to visit the HRB this morning was already begun and so they decided to 1
continue but it does not mean that we have received a statement that the property is going to be 2
demolished. We have not received the Owner’s final decision. 3
4
Commissioner Bunnenberg: Then could you review for me a little bit about what R-2 zoning 5
entails. 6
7
Mr. Dennis Backlund: R-2 zoning, we have had some Owners at neighboring properties 8
interested in that subject because they are considering what type of development might take 9
place. R-2 zoning simply means that you can develop the property beyond a single family home. 10
You can build a duplex or you can build a second living unit on the property if the property is 11
large enough and this one is. It’s nearly 10,000 square feet and it has room to build a compliant 12
second unit so both of those are possible. 13
14
We’ve gotten questions on everybody is fairly familiar with what a single family zone 15
development looks like because we’ve seen the thousands of single family homes so I can say 16
that I’ve got a table here on R-2. The regulations are almost the same. The building cannot be 17
higher than a single family home could be at the maximum which is 30 feet. The setbacks 18
cannot be more intrusive than a single family home would do. It is 6 feet in this zone and the 19
other rules of zoning are pretty much the same. The main difference is the structure can maintain 20
two units in it or it can be divided into two units on the property but the physical intrusiveness 21
cannot be any larger than what a single family home would do. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 15 of 32
1
Chair Bower: Since it is going to be a Board discussion without an Applicant, I thought it might 2
be useful to consider the ten items that the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 3
define. I printed them off and looked at them last night. Of the ten, two of them don’t really 4
apply. They are chemical or physical treatments or archaeological resources. We aren’t really 5
being asked to talk about that but item number two states that the historic property where 6
materials should be preserved, we’ve already established that some of that is gone. But I can see 7
in item 1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and maybe 5 that I could have written the report in completely opposite tone 8
based on exactly the same information presented to us. 9
10
I find that somewhat problematic because we are being asked to take this off the register whereas 11
I’d think in certain cases some people might have come with the same building to us and said 12
please add this building to the register as a Category 4. As an example, on number one it says 13
the building should be used for its historic purpose. It was a single family dwelling and it still is 14
so I think it qualifies in that sense. Item three is that it’s a physical record of its time despite the 15
fact it has been modified significantly from the street façade, with the ability to see the building 16
from the street. There is a substantial amount of original material that I can see even though I 17
will grant you that there are changes. 18
19
Number four it says most properties change over time. This building is 116 years old. My 20
daughter’s 133 year old building in San Francisco has retained most of its character but it has 21
changed substantially over that period of time. Every building to survive would have to but this 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 16 of 32
still could be characterized as a building that has retained enough of its character. There are 1
some unique characteristic features on the front. 2
3
On item six it says features should be repaired rather than replaced and that the new features 4
should match the others in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Despite the fact that 5
the siding for instance on the additions is new, it still seems to me to be compatible in that 6
general sense with the original material what can be seen of it but again I would say of a 116 7
year old building you can’t expect wood or any other material to last forever. 8
9
Finally, in item ten, it says that if new additions are constructed that they be undertaken in a 10
manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the property and 11
environment would be unimpaired. You could argue that you could take the dormers off if they 12
weren’t original, patch the roof, you could even take the rear portions of the building off, have 13
the basic form in front which is as I understand it from the materials presented to us, pretty close 14
to the original form and you would be back to close to what was there. Can’t get back there 15
entirely, but you could get back fairly closely to that. 16
17
So, that said, I’ll let the rest of the Board members speak. I don’t think we have an Owner’s 18
representative. Not required. I don’t see one. 19
20
Mr. Dennis Backlund: I don’t believe so. If I can just interject a statement that the Board may 21
wish to comment on. Everything that Chair Bower has said in stating those standards that were 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 17 of 32
cited is correct. I will point out one thing. The Board has reviewed many alteration projects. If 1
the uses remain the same, like a single family, when we review these alteration projects over the 2
years, there are two of the standards, standard number two and standard number five are the 3
primary focus of review because alteration projects are proposing to alter historic features and 4
the overall character so standards two and five are guidelines that the city has adopted to evaluate 5
those changes and so those were two of the standards that staff had in mind and also the 6
Garavaglia report is stating that they understand their task to assess whether the integrity of a 7
property has been retained. 8
9
On Page 10 of the report in the middle of the page they make a sentence. Integrity is the 10
authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of 11
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance which is generally its 12
historic period more than 50 years ago and so they looked at the property under that definition 13
which they got from the National Register. But in our practice here its basically standards two 14
and five that we use most heavily in trying to decide whether to approve an alteration product or 15
not. 16
17
Chair Bower: The end of that paragraph you just read says it is possible that historical resources 18
may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register but they 19
may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. So even in their own report they are 20
suggesting that lack of original materials and characteristics would not per se eliminate an 21
application to a state register. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 18 of 32
1
Mr. Dennis Backlund: That is true. The National Register is the official list of historic 2
properties as determined by the government of the United States. Those criteria for retaining 3
integrity are very high. If we use those criteria at local city levels or at the level of the California 4
Register it would be hard to designate many properties that we have. The National Register is 5
reserved for those properties that are nearly in original condition. We have a criterion like that in 6
our local ordinance. Category 1 is looking for basically no alteration at all but that doesn’t mean 7
you can’t get on the Inventory because we have those other Categories 2, 3 and 4 that would 8
allow you to get on. 9
10
California Register is the same way. It would correspond most closely to our Category 2 11
definition of the California Register and the National Register would confirm most closely to our 12
Category 1. 13
14
Chair Bower: Thank you Dennis. Beth would you like to start? We are going to have a 15
discussion between Board Members and Staff because we don’t have an Applicant. So let’s have 16
a discussion and then we’ll go to the public. 17
18
Commissioner Bunnenberg: We did receive a letter from the public. We’ll discuss this after we 19
do some discussion. 20
21
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 19 of 32
I struggled with this and found that there are certainly some aspects of integrity that were found 1
to be quite high having to do with the setting and the architectural for the massing and certainly 2
materials was down but it seems to me that we have in a number of cases allowed additions on 3
the rear of properties and in many ways that’s something that the Secretary of Interior’s 4
standards seem to favor. If you are going to put an addition on the rear see that it doesn’t 5
overpower the rest of the structure. 6
7
Chair Bower: We’ve had a brief discussion about procedure here. We should hear from the 8
public first. Hold that thought. We do have one public comment. Richard Brand. 9
10
Mr. Richard Brand: Good morning Board Members. I’m Richard Brand and I live at 281 11
Addison in a Category 2 house on the same block as this house sits. My wife and I, you’ve read 12
I wrote up something because I felt it was important to express positions and I’m not going to go 13
through that because of time. I am concerned that the Owners don’t feel it important to be here 14
to answer some questions and I’m more concerned here about the Staff process in fact. 15
16
I’ve lived in our house for 20 years. It’s been extensively modified in the back. If you see the 17
façade in the front of our house, it’s the yellow one by the roundabout by the big redwood tree… 18
By the way, my wife and I have been very active in the past for some time. So I’m not an anti-19
historical person. I’ve really worked hard to maintain the integrity of the housing in Palo Alto. 20
I’ve lived here since I went to school at Stanford in ’67 so I’ve seen a lot of the inventory 21
disappear. That’s what I’m worried about here. I’m worried about the fact that while this house 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 20 of 32
has been changed, I picked this up on the way today, we’ve got to change the doors and windows 1
of our houses because utility issues are killing us. 2
3
My wife and I talked about this the other day. We put in doors, with permits, doors that are 4
double glass. They don’t look like 1895 or in our case 1903 so I think if you look at the front of 5
this house and Dennis was kind enough to send me a copy last night of the Staff Report, when 6
you look at the pictures, it’s actually a very nice façade in the front of that. In fact, when the 7
Summer Hill Project was going through, the Busses who lived in this house, their house was 8
used as an example of what Summer Hill should do with their architecture in order to, it was 9
used as a reference point for Summer Hill for the three additional houses that were built to the 10
north of this one. 11
12
While I don’t recommend the architecture of those houses because they went above, and this was 13
one of the arguments that people on that block complained about. Those houses were too high 14
and it limited our viewpoint so I guess, it’s the old issue that we don’t live in museum pieces so 15
the Department of Interior recommendations are nice for places where we are in museums but 16
the house needs to be functional. In fact, I did watch because my office looks out at the back of 17
this property. It’s a big lot, you’re right. In fact, they did spend a lot of money with an addition 18
right at the back and while I don’t like the looks, it is in the back so from the street level where 19
our historical issues are, we want people to drive by and see a property that looks historic and 20
doesn’t look like something they built on Scott Street. Scott Street has two new houses going up 21
and the neighbors are not happy about the changes going on there. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 21 of 32
1
There are plans for demolition of this house. We’re a tight knit neighborhood. We already know 2
there are architectural drawings to replace this so I’m very concerned that if this gets removed 3
you start the domino effect. This house is not in the historic district because previous to this time 4
the clinic had some properties over there that they didn’t want to allow into Professorville so this 5
is right at the edge of that at the back. 6
7
What else do I want to say? Again, I recommend visually… I did check last night and I can see 8
the mountains from my house, a two and a half story house. I can tell you that there was fog in 9
the mountains last night. Hopefully it will cool off today. I don’t want to lose my view, its 10
something I treasure from my house. I think that basically I recommend as I say that I’ve been in 11
the area for 20 years. We are working with Karen Holman on the museum piece. The 12
neighborhood needs to maintain its integrity. I don’t want to see this house go. Thank you for 13
your help. 14
15
Commissioner DiCicco: I just have to ask you a quick question. Judith Palley? 16
17
Mr. Brand: No. I grew up down south at Stanford. But I do remember all the houses that were 18
on Lytton, remember? In 1976 we all got pretty upset about the loss of properties. In fact that’s 19
a good point, because within all of Palo Alto we have old houses. Dennis mentioned the one on 20
Colorado. I used to live on Colorado so that was a real mistake. It’s not just Professorville. 21
We’re not just a museum. We like to see old parts of Palo Alto maintained throughout the city 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 22 of 32
and that is why we have Category 3 and 4 and that is important to maintain and not start a 1
domino effect. 2
3
Commissioner DiCicco: I can reinforce your example. We were on the ARB Committee and 4
HRB was sort of on one end of each spectrum and we were dealing with the ARB folks who 5
wanted high tech contemporary homes and fortunately we did get, but I remember that’s why I 6
was looking at this house when we got the reports. It looks like the homes that they built and it’s 7
true. That was one of the examples that was used so it’s interesting. 8
9
Mr. Brand: A lot of us went to those meetings with Ed Goth, who at the time was the City 10
Planner and we fought. They wanted to build a huge house on the corner of Channing and 11
Ramona. In fact, the lot was set up and we successfully fought that to maintain the integrity of 12
the neighborhood. This is a big lot. If it is taken off the register I foresee a big house being 13
built. I haven’t seen the plans but I’ve heard about the plans and so this concerns be so that is 14
why I’m here this morning at 8:00 in the morning. 15
16
Chair Bower: Thank you for coming down and talking to us. Okay, Beth. Would you like to 17
begin again? 18
19
Commissioner Bunnenberg: I just want to note for the record that Bill Busse, perhaps is the most 20
significant person who has lived in the house because he was the architect of the downtown Palo 21
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 23 of 32
Alto Library and also the Palo Alto Baylands Center and both of those are becoming very 1
treasured architectural pieces in our city. 2
3
When we were talking about the different aspects of integrity and I said materials have certainly 4
been replaced but I agree with Chair Bower that after a number of years they forge wear out. In 5
terms of feeling, I do still feel that it conveys the feeling of a historic property so I think those 6
are sort of my early thoughts. Thank you. 7
8
Chair Bower: Thank you Beth. Martin? I guess we’ll just go down the list. 9
10
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you Chair Bower. I stood on the public right away of the 11
sidewalk last night looking at the property and trying to get a sense of whether the historic 12
structure was still intact. I noted the barge board is original, the shape is original, the front 13
brackets are original, there is existing siding original, locations are existing, treads and risers are 14
old, the gable is old. So my understanding from the City of Palo Alto’s review process, the 15
primary concern would be the street presence. 16
17
I know there is a lot of documentation on the back and the sides so my sense just walking and 18
getting a street presence there is a lot of intact structure that is still there. There is even a nice 19
large plaque there proudly announcing this house was built in 1895 so it looks like there is some 20
pride of ownership from the previous owners at least. 21
22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 24 of 32
The water table material looks original so I think there is still a lot of fabric. The changes that 1
have been made that are visible from the street, one of the other criteria we use to review things 2
is the differentiation between old and new so it is clear that the differentiation is met because you 3
can tell what is historic and what is not. I think Chair Bower made reference to this. If this 4
property were not on the register and it came before us for discussion and perhaps a motion, 5
could it be placed on the Historical Register and I could be thinking the answer might be yes that 6
it could qualify for that so looking at it from both ways, I think there is enough historical 7
integrity. So those are my comments. 8
9
Commissioner Kohler: I was looking at the data and if you go to the photograph that staff 10
provided in 1978, when I first started looking at this I thought, gee, its pretty creative that they 11
had the house up so high they were able to use the lower floor and that didn’t occur to me that it 12
might have been new but then I looked here and you can see if the fuzzy photograph that it 13
wasn’t livable space. I then saw the Staff Report that it has been added. In this case it was 14
probably a relatively straightforward basement because the existing house was already up it 15
looks like five feet at least and David and I worked on a couple of projects where we’ve added 16
basements under homes and we would have loved to build that five foot height so when you look 17
at the photograph when I drove by… 18
19
The other question I had for staff that I forgot to ask, what about the houses across the street 20
from this one? Are any of those, when I drove by, a number of them look relatively old. Are 21
they on the 3 and 4 Categories as well? 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 25 of 32
1
Mr. Backlund: There are a row of older houses across the street. 935 Ramona and those across 2
the street are in the [SOFA] 1 plan area and so those houses across the street are on the list as 3
potential historic resources. They are not designated but if somebody was to change those under 4
the [SOFA] 1 plan that the city would first look to see whether they should be placed on the 5
[SOFA] historic list or not. 6
7
Commissioner Kohler: Okay and then just to pick up on what Martin was saying is that when 8
you drive by it looks pretty much like an older home with existing features in the front. I agree it 9
seemed to me the report here seemed to have based a lot of their statements on the rear end of the 10
house and the sides rather than the drive by and the front so I’m not sure I agree with this report. 11
Yes, in the rear part of the home it’s lost a lot of it’s, a lot of its gone, but as Martin just pointed 12
out, the description is really from the front which is a view from the street. I’ve added two 13
basements in Professorville homes and I recently wanted 1128 Webster which was apparently 14
one of the older homes in Palo Alto which got moved from where it is today and if you drive by 15
that house now, thanks to Dennis’ help is a brand new very old home. But it is basically all old. 16
17
I’m not sure I can say that this is a slam dunk so I’m hesitating on agreeing with staff. 18
19
Commissioner Makinen: Thank you Chair Bower. I share similar feelings to the rest of the 20
Board Members right here. I would like to go back to the basis for the definition for Category 3 21
or 4 and I’ll read this off again. Category 3 or 4: A contributing building that may have had 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 26 of 32
extensive or permanent changes made to the original design such as inappropriate additions, 1
extensive removal of architectural details or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. 2
3
I think that definition exactly applies to this building. It fully meets the requirements for 4
Category 4, maybe Category 3 so over and above that I think as the rest of my fellow Board 5
Members have stated, when you go by this building it has a very strong feeling of historical 6
significance and compatibility with the neighborhood so the feeling and association features and 7
integrity which I believe are the strongest aspects of the seven aspects of historic integrity for 8
this project are very strong and the project still maintains historic integrity. 9
10
Chair Bower: Thank you. Scott, last but not least. 11
12
Commissioner Smithwick: Thank you. I concur with everything that has been said and I would 13
like to just comment additionally focused on Pages 11 and 12 of the report where they talk about 14
integrity evaluation, in those subcategories, location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 15
feeling, and association. Location is straightforward since the house has been there and always 16
been there and the setting of the neighborhood has largely remained intact. 17
18
The last category under association and this house has never been associated with anyone of 19
huge importance and maybe history with the last owner in Bill Busse might change that but since 20
he is still living and history won’t consider him important yet. So under design it seems to me 21
that this report’s focus is like what has been said is on the interior and rear additions. Materials, 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 27 of 32
it’s hard to tell. I wasn’t able to go by the house but whether the materials on the street façade 1
were replaced, repaired, it still meets the historic character even if it has been replaced. The 2
workmanship section is largely based on the loss of interior spaces and I think the interior spaces 3
are the last item that we would ever look at in terms of historic integrity. 4
5
I agree that the feeling of this particular structure I completely disagree with the statement that 6
935 is thoroughly modern in design, material and configuration. I don’t understand that 7
statement whatsoever and there is another statement under design. The last paragraph there. The 8
building appears like a contemporary building that is based on historical design. I completely 9
disagree with that statement as well so those are my comments. Thank you. 10
11
Commissioner Kohler: When you think about it, the reason it looks like a contemporary design 12
is that it’s with old features because a lot of those features are old. It just doesn’t make sense. 13
14
Chair Bower: Another way of putting it is that contemporary design is so good at replicating 15
older architectural style that the new buildings now make the old buildings look new. It confuses 16
things. I was thinking as I read these exact same things that the focus of this report is largely 17
interior and when they make the comment that 90% of the original materials are gone, its 100% 18
on the inside so that’s a bigger volume that’s an easy statement made but we don’t address the 19
interior, we address the exterior. And I had the same problem with their conclusion. 20
21
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 28 of 32
In fact, I even thought at one point that maybe this report focused on the building next door to 1
the north which is actually a new building. 2
3
So we’ve now heard from the public. We’ve all had comments. We don’t have an Applicant to 4
make a closing statement so I guess unless someone else wants to make a comment and close 5
Public Hearing we can now make recommendations or motions. 6
7
Commissioner Kohler: So Staff, what is it exactly you are looking for? It would be nice to hear 8
it now. 9
10
Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: We are seeking a recommendation from the 11
HRB on whether or not to remove 935 Ramona from the Historic Inventory and so Staff would 12
take a Motion and a Second on that issue. 13
14
Mr. Backlund: Also, you’ve talked a lot about the subject of integrity. If you could make a 15
recommendation to City Council on how to handle the inventory presence of this house based on 16
statements of your choice why if it is to be retained some statements to guide the Council on 17
your conclusions, why the Council itself should reach a similar decision. 18
19
Commissioner Kohler: Maybe Martin can read his initially and maybe we can add to that. I 20
though I was being very careful because this was so loud. I was saying Martin had a fairly good 21
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 29 of 32
list to start off of what would be the reasons for the façade. Maybe we can contribute to that 1
because he had it well laid out on his scrap paper there. 2
3
Chair Bower: Okay, Motions. It’s a Motion to the City Council as to what we recommend. I’m 4
happy to have anyone do it. I can create one but I think Martin. 5
6
MOTION 7
8
Commissioner Bernstein: Okay I would like to propose a Motion that the Application for 935 9
Ramona Street, that it does not get removed from the City’s Historic Inventory and the basis of 10
that is that based on the observation that the existing historic fabric that still remains of the barge 11
board, the shape, the brackets, the location, the siding, treads, risers, shingles on the dormer, the 12
sense of feeling driving by and walking through the neighborhood, a sense of history is still there 13
and that’s the basis of the Motion. 14
15
AMENDMENT TO MOTION 16
17
Chair Bower: If I can make a friendly amendment or addition to that I would like to refer to the 18
Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in particular note that the discussion 19
we’ve had today, I think that during that discussion the Board feels that this current property 20
meets Item 1, and Items 3, that it is used for its original purpose, that it is a physical record of its 21
time, not exact, that it says in number 4, properties change over time so it has acquired historical 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 30 of 32
significant just in that purpose. That the new features match the old design in color and texture 1
and other visual qualities which is number 6 and in number 10 that if the new features were 2
removed that the essential form and integrity of the property would be unimpaired if that is 3
acceptable. 4
5
Commissioner Bernstein: I’ll accept that. I’d also like to add two more statements in support of 6
my Motion. The differentiation between old and new is evident. That’s another one of Palo 7
Alto’s standards and that the definition of Categories 3 and 4 it seems like it’s the perfect match 8
with this house so I think that in between all those items there is very adequate support that this 9
house should remain on the historical list and not be removed from the Historical List. 10
11
Commissioner Kohler: I might add that Bill Busse and still is a well known architect in time in 12
Spencer, Lee and Bussey and there work is around. They did several things for the City of Palo 13
Alto. He did remodel the Hoover Dam but at some point his name will keep coming up in the 14
future. Not that he is well known by everybody, but worth mentioning. 15
16
Chair Bower: Any other additions or modifications? There just needs to be a second to that 17
Motion. I want to make sure we are finished adding to Martin’s Motion. 18
19
Commissioner Makinen: I would just add that it does maintain integrity. Be very specific with 20
that statement for the following reasons. Especially since we all feel strongly that we are 21
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 31 of 32
disagreeing with the assertions that are in the HRB Report and that we feel strongly that this 1
structure does retain its integrity. 2
3
Chair Bower: Staff, do you need any clarification on what you’ve heard so far? 4
5
Mr. Backlund: No. I think that covers the essence of what you talked about. What you might 6
want to include in your Motion because you emphasized it is that you are restricting your review 7
to integrity issues pertaining only to the exterior consistent with the provision for exterior only 8
review in your Historic Ordinance. That will clarify to the Council when they look at the HRE 9
on the interior that you have covered that issue. 10
11
Chair Bower: That’s a good point. The focus of the comments are the sense of the house and 12
not the interior. 13
14
Commissioner Kohler: Doesn’t the Secretary mention that in their standards? 15
16
Chair Bower: It could be Category 1 and 2 include interiors I think but we’re not considered, 17
Category 3 and 4 don’t consider interiors. 18
19
Mr. Backlund: I think it might be helpful if you remind the Council that your exterior emphasis 20
is consistent with the terms of the Historic Ordinance so they know that is the connecting point. 21
The Historic Ordinance mandates exterior only review, not interior. 22
City of Palo Alto September 21, 2011 Page 32 of 32
1
SECOND 2
3
Chair Bower: Alright, if there are no further amendments, do I hear a Second? Okay, we have a 4
Second Motion, I’m not going to repeat it. It’s too long but I think Staff has made extensive 5
notes and we can go back to that. So, all in favor, opposed. It is unanimous and I would like to 6
say I think strongly unanimous motion. Thank you Dennis and Steven and Mr. Brand for 7
coming and talking to us. 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16