HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-21 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
May 21, 2012
7:00 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 May 21, 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
Special Orders of the Day
1. National Public Works Week May 20-26, 2012
2. Resolution of the Council Expressing Appreciation to Terry Acebo-Davis on the
Completion of Two Terms on the Public Art Commission
3. Resolution of the Council Expressing Appreciation to Michael Smit on the
Completion of One Term Serving on the Public Art Commission
4. Resolution of the Council Expressing Appreciation to Roger Bloom Upon his
Retirement
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
February 13, 2012
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
5. Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Execute the Northern California
Power Agency Legislative and Regulatory Program Agreement
2 May 21, 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.
6. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $249,918 to
Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Electrical/Mechanical Systems
Upgrade Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (WQ-80021); and
Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with DTN
Engineers, Inc. in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $249, 918 for
Electrical/Mechanical Systems Design at the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant-Capital Improvement Program WQ-80021
7. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to an Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto
and Casa Olga Relating to the University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking
Assessment District
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.
8. Selection of Option for Connectivity Between the Art Center and the Main
Library (CIPs PE-11000, PF-07000)
9. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan Incorporating the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan and Approval of a Negative Declaration (Staff Requests
This Item be Continued to July 9, 2012)
10. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Pursue a Carbon-Neutral
Electric Portfolio and Develop a Plan by December 2012
11. Approval of Policy & Services Committee Recommendations on Infrastructure
Funding
3 May 21, 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.
12. Rail Committee Status Report on Current High Speed Rail and Caltrain
Electrification Submitted for Council Review and Comment
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
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 May 21, 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
Standing Committee Meetings
REVISED Finance Committee Agenda 05-17-12 6PM
Finance Committee Agenda 05-22-12 6PM
City Council Rail Committee 05-24-12 8:30 AM
Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee 05-24-12 2 PM
Action Agenda
Action Agenda
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Finance Committee Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Fourth Quarter Sales (October –
December 2011)
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - November 6, 2012 - Fees and Length of
Candidates Statements
Public Letters to Council
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK MAY 20-26, 2012
WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our
citizens' everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient
implementation and operation of public works systems and programs such as streets, public
buildings, storm drains, wastewater and solid waste collection; and environmental programs; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these
facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design,
construction, and maintenance is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works
staff; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public works
departments is influenced by the people's attitude and understanding of the importance of the
work they perform; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, do hereby proclaim
the week of May 20-26, 2012, as "National Public Works Week" within the City of Palo Alto,
and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues
involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which public works
staff make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life.
Presented: May 2012
________________________
Yiaway Yeh
Mayor
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO TERRY ACEBO-DAVIS ON THE COMPLETION OF TWO TERMS
SERVING ON THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Terry Acebo-Davis served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art Commission from
April 2006 to April 2012, including serving as Chair and Vice-Chair; and
WHEREAS, Terry has given her time, artistic talents and expertise unselfishly for the benefit of the public in
shaping policy and procedures, advocated for the maintenance and restoration of the City collection and
contributed to creating the Municipal Arts Plan; and
WHEREAS, Terry was instrumental in numerous completed public art projects around the City of Palo Alto,
including Fletcher Benton’s Tilted Donut #5, Samuel Yates’ Color of Palo Alto, Ceevah Sobel’s Streaming,
Michael Szabo’s Arch-Cradle, the mural triptych on California Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Terry has been involved in the process of multiple projects soon to be installed including the
Bruce Beasley, Brad Oldham and Mark Verlander artworks at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
and the Michael Szabo fountain at California Avenue, and the upcoming artwork at Hoover Park; and
WHEREAS, Terry has been extremely engaged with the public of Palo Alto through her advocacy for
programs such as the Public Art Commission’s Youth Art Awards, Breaking Through the Static, Public Art
lecture series, and her outreach to numerous neighborhood associations and community groups; and
WHEREAS, Terry has demonstrated extraordinary talents in her abilities to plan and execute special events,
sometimes arranging for loans of incredible artworks for parties and gatherings for the benefit and enjoyment of
the public; and
WHEREAS, Terry has approached challenges with good humor, even temper, and has the ability to inspire
those around her.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, hereby commends
the outstanding public service of Terry Acebo-Davis and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the
citizens of this community for the service and contribution rendered during her terms on the Public Art
Commission.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: May 21, 2012
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_______________ _______________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________ _______________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MICHAEL SMIT ON THE
COMPLETION OF ONE TERM SERVING THE PUBLIC ART
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Michael Smit served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Public Art Commission
from October 2009 to April 2012; and
WHEREAS, Michael has given his time, artistic talents, international perspective and expertise
unselfishly for the benefit of the public in shaping policy and procedures, and contributed to updating
and maintaining the Municipal Arts Plan; and
WHEREAS, Michael worked tirelessly to create a database of potential sites for public art
throughout the City of Palo Alto and has been an excellent advocate and supporter of the temporary
public art program; and
WHEREAS, Michael has been involved in the implementation of multiple projects soon to be
installed including the Joe O’Connell and Blessing Hancock installation of artworks for the Main
Library and Art Center site, the artwork at Hoover Park, and the Roger Stoller sculpture at the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center; and
WHEREAS, Michael has worked diligently to research, advocate for, and implement an artist in
residence program in Palo Alto, which is set to launch in Fall 2012; and
WHEREAS, Michael has been engaged with the youth and community groups of Palo Alto through
his involvement in the Youth Art Awards, outreach to the Midtown Residents Association and Palo Alto
Neighborhoods.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, hereby
commends the outstanding public service of Michael Smit and records its appreciation as well as the
appreciation of the citizens of this community for the service and contribution rendered during his term
on the Public Art Commission.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: May 21, 2012
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________ __________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ __________________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO
ROGER BLOOM UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Roger Bloom served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member of the Palo Alto
Fire Department for 21 years, becoming a Firefighter/EMT in August 1991, promoting to the rank of
Driver/Operator in September 1992, Captain in July 1997, and Deputy Chief January 2007; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Bloom has served as a Training Captain, Chairman of the Emergency
Preparedness Working Group, Department Representative for FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task
Force 3, Instructor at the Joint Fire Academy, Truck 6 Training Captain, state certified Strike Team
Leader, and worked closely with labor unions to negotiate fair and equitable contracts; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Bloom developed the technical rescue training program that was taught
throughout the City of Palo Alto and to various Fire Departments all over the State of California. He
worked on a number of significant projects including the design and purchase of six new fire engines
and authored a number of grants enabling the Fire Department to purchase much-needed Breathing
Apparatus, Thermal Imaging devices, communications equipment and a wild-land fire engine; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Bloom was elected and served as the President of the Santa Clara County
Training Officers’ Association, and coordinated the Countywide High Rise Drill and was recognized by
the Santa Clara County Fire Training Officers’ Association as the Training Officer of the Year in 2010;
and
WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Bloom routinely created an atmosphere of consistency and accountability,
while demonstrating tremendous proficiency in administrative, personnel and operational matters. He
made it a habit to put the needs of the community, the Fire Department and his co-workers before
himself while he consistently sought to personify the core values of the Fire Service.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
commends the outstanding public service of Roger Bloom and records its appreciation, as well as the
appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: May 21, 2012
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________ _________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________ _________________
City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2764)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/21/2012
May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2764)
Summary Title: NCPA Legislative and Regulatory Program
Title: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Execute the Northern
California Power Agency Legislative and Regulatory Program Agreement
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution delegating authority to the City
Manager to execute the Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program Agreement with the
Northern California Power Agency.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) and
participates in NCPA’s Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program (L&R Program). The L&R
Program benefits all NCPA members through its support of NCPA’s core purpose of managing
public investments and resources, and protecting the public power business model. While all
NCPA members participate in and fund the L&R Program, there is currently no formal
agreement in place. The attached L&R Program Agreement has been developed to formalize
the contractual relationship between NCPA and NCPA Members with regards to the role, scope,
governance, and the equitable allocation of costs associated with the L&R Program. This is in
line with NCPA’s efforts to offer all of its services via formal program agreements. Palo Alto has
executed a number of these program agreements and now the L&R Program will also be
covered by a program agreement.
Approval of the NCPA L&R Program Agreement will not change the current allocation of L&R
Program costs to the City or other NCPA members. The agreement will provide the City
flexibility related to future costs by ensuring that only those members participating in new
public benefits projects and judicial action initiatives cover the associated costs. Additionally,
the agreement protects the City from cost shifts should another NCPA member dispute NCPA’s
authority to allocate the L&R program costs.
Background
The City’s membership and participation in NCPA includes substantial electric generation
May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2764)
investments, a wide range of scheduling and load management services that enable the City’s
electric utility to provide power to the community, and the legislative and regulatory support to
protect NCPA members’ significant collective resource investments.
In addition to the value the NCPA L&R Program provides by optimizing and protecting the City’s
energy-related investments, the program also offers a critical line of defense against state and
federal intrusions on local decision-making, and helps preserve the City’s control and oversight
of matters impacting electric utility programs and rates for customers while balancing
statewide climate protection goals. It also provides services to ensure the City’s compliance
with state policy requirements related to greenhouse gases, renewable energy, and energy
efficiency.
The provisions of this L&R Program Agreement are the outgrowth of extensive NCPA member
discussions and review. The agreement provides certainty for members by providing stability
for the program and protecting against unanticipated cost-shifts. Importantly, the agreement
also helps ensure NCPA member flexibility by establishing a “beneficiaries pay” structure for
public benefits projects, and providing for increased local discretion related to participation in
judicial action initiatives.
Discussion
The NCPA L&R Program Agreement is an important step toward ensuring clear and consistent
agreements for programs throughout NCPA. There are a number of key NCPA-wide governance
issues that have been previously addressed during membership deliberations resulting in new
or revised program agreements to which we are a party, such as the Metered Subsystem
Aggregator Agreement, Facilitates Agreement, Pooling Agreement, and the Meter Maintenance
Program. Until now, the structure of the NCPA L&R Program area has not been formalized in
the same way. As a result, it was necessary to establish a clear understanding of NCPA and
member roles and responsibilities in this program area. The proposed L&R Program Agreement
follows the model established by the other agreements, and is the last of the major cost
category/programs that will now be covered by an agreement. The L&R Program agreement
provides this needed programmatic structure by:
Ensuring that all NCPA members, because of their shared interest in protecting agency
assets and the public power business model, participate in the L&R Program as outlined
under the terms of this agreement. Termination of this agreement is concurrent with
terminating membership in NCPA.
Establishing three program areas: 1) the General Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
Program; 2) the Specific Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program, and; 3) the Member
Services Program. All members support the General Program which includes Legislative,
Regulatory and Judicial Action. The Specific Program allows for the costs of project-
specific Public Benefits and Judicial Action activities to be paid for by project participants
only. The Member Services Program ensures all members support the costs of one staff
person for this program, and provides flexibility to initiate public benefits projects paid
May 21, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2764)
for by the beneficiaries of the project.
Requiring NCPA Commission approval of new Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Judicial
Action initiatives, and ensuring that NCPA members can opt out of these initiatives as
they are formed, or withdraw during the proceeding with appropriate notice and
fulfillment of contractual financial obligations related to the initiative that were entered
into prior to withdrawal.
Providing the NCPA Commission with discretion to allow for exemptions or special terms
under this agreement for new NCPA members due to unique, special, or legal
circumstances.
Resource Impact
The City is a participant in the L&R Program by virtue of its membership in NCPA. The L&R
Program Agreement will not change the current cost allocation methodology to the City for the
L&R Program that was approved by the NCPA Commission in December 2010. In fact, the L&R
Program Agreement establishes increased flexibility related to costs by ensuring that only those
members participating in public benefits projects and judicial action initiatives cover the
associated costs. Additionally, the agreement provides stability and protects the City from
unanticipated cost-shifts should another NCPA member dispute NCPA’s authority to allocate
the L&R program costs.
Environmental Review
This activity would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the
physical environment and is therefore not a “project” for purposes of Section 21065 of the
California Environmental Quality Act. No environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution to Approve the NCPA L&R Program Agreement (PDF)
Attachment B: NCPA Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program Agreement (PDF)
Prepared By: Debra Lloyd, Manager
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APROVED*
120423 dm 0073760
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving The
Execution of the Northern California Power Agency Legislative
And Regulatory Affairs Program Agreement
A. The City of Palo Alto is a member (“Member”) of the Northern California
Power Agency (“NCPA”).
B. NCPA’s joint powers agreement provides that, in general, a member of
NCPA is responsible for the costs of any NCPA program in which the member has agreed to
participate.
C. NCPA maintains a Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program (the “NCPA
Program”) on behalf of the Members.
D. The NCPA Program engages in representation and advocacy on behalf of
the Members at the regional, state and federal level to protect the investments that NCPA and its
Members have made in their public power assets.
E. The NCPA Program also provides support and expertise to the Members
involved in particular NCPA projects and programs.
F. The NCPA Program also provides assistance to the Members with
implementation, reporting and compliance with various state and federal programs and
requirements.
G. Following extensive review and consultation, NCPA and the Members have
developed a Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program Agreement (the “Agreement”) to be
entered into by the Members.
H. The Agreement formalizes the contractual relationship between NCPA and
the Members with regards to the role, scope, governance, and the equitable allocation of costs
associated with the NCPA Program.
I. The Agreement affords the Members with greater discretion regarding the
Members’ participation in Member Services Programs and Judicial Action Initiatives.
J. The Agreement provides the Members with stability against unanticipated
cost-shifts within the NCPA Program.
K. The NCPA Commission approved the Agreement on March 22, 2012.
*NOT YET APROVED*
120423 dm 0073760
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the execution of the Northern
California Power Agency Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program Agreement. The Council
hereby authorizes the City Manager to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION 2. 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 Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Utilities
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PROGRAM AGREEMENT
This LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PROGRAM
AGREEMENT (“this Agreement”) is made as of July 1, 2012, by and among the
Northern California Power Agency, a joint powers agency of the State of
California (“NCPA”) and its Members. NCPA and the Members are referred to
herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
A. NCPA maintains a Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program by
which NCPA provides its Members with: (1) representation and advocacy in
areas of common interest to all, or nearly all Members at the regional, state and
federal level, including, but not limited to, representation and advocacy before
the California Legislature, U.S. Congress, the CAISO, state and federal
environmental and energy agencies, state and federal commissions and other
regulatory bodies; (2) support and expertise for Members involved in particular
NCPA Projects and Programs; and (3) programmatic support for
implementation, reporting, and compliance with various state and federal
programs and requirements.
B. The Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Program consists of three
Program Areas: (1) the General L&R Program; (2) the Specific L&R Program; and
(3) the Member Services Program. The General L&R Program, Specific L&R
Program and Member Services Program are together referred to as the ʺL&R
Program.ʺ
C. An agreement is necessary to formalize the contractual
relationships between NCPA and Members with regard to the role, scope,
1
governance, and the equitable allocation of costs associated with the L&R
Program. Each Member agrees to pay its equitable share of costs associated with
the L&R Program in accordance with its L&R Program Cost Allocation.
D. The L&R Program benefits all Members. It is an integral portion of
NCPA’s core function and is necessary in order to protect the investments NCPA
and its Members have made in their public power assets. It is therefore
mandatory for all Members of NCPA to become a signatory to this Agreement,
except in such limited circumstances where the Commission exempts a Member
from this requirement in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of this Agreement.
E. This Agreement includes provisions for the L&R Judicial Action
Program, but does not affect or modify the Judicial Action program administered
by NCPAʹs Power Management Division, nor affect the cost allocations for the
Power Management Judicial Action Program.
F. Each Member agrees to pay its equitable share of costs associated
with the L&R Program, as determined by the L&R Program Cost Allocation,
which accounts for the cost allocation principles set forth in this Agreement.
G. The L&R Program shall operate in accordance with the guidance
set forth in the Annual L&R Program Strategic Plan and the Annual Budget. All
L&R Program functions are overseen by the NCPA Legislative and Regulatory
Affairs Committee (“L&R Committee”) and the NCPA Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions.
1.1 Definitions. Whenever used in this Agreement (including the
Recitals hereto), the following terms shall have the following
respective meanings:
1.1.1 “Agreement” means this Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
Program Agreement, as the same may be amended from
2
time to time in accordance with the terms and conditions
hereof.
1.1.2 “All Resources Bill” means the single, combined monthly
bill from NCPA to a Member with respect to all NCPA
programs and projects.
1.1.3 “Annual Budget” means the NCPA budget for the ensuing
Fiscal Year adopted by the Commission, as it may be
amended from time to time.
1.1.4 “Annual L&R Program Strategic Plan” means the strategic
plan for the L&R Program adopted by the L&R Committee
and the Commission, as it may be amended from time to
time.
1.1.5 “Associate Member” means an associate member of NCPA.
1.1.6 “Base Resource Share” means an individual Member’s Base
Resource Share from Western.
1.1.7 “Bureau” means the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
1.1.8 “Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday,
or a Federal Reserve Bank holiday. A Business Day shall
open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time.
1.1.9 “CAISO” means the California Independent System
Operator Corporation, or any successor entity.
1.1.10 “California Refund Proceeding” means filings and
proceedings, whether regulatory or judicial, in connection
with the California energy crisis of 2000‐2001.
1.1.11 “CARB” means the California Air Resources Board.
1.1.12 “CEC” means the California Energy Commission.
1.1.13 “Claims” has the meaning set forth in Section 10.2.
3
1.1.14 “Commission” means the NCPA Commission.
1.1.15 “Constitutive Documents” means, with respect to NCPA,
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 6500, et
seq.), the Joint Powers Agreement, and the NCPA Rules of
Procedure, and such resolutions of general applicability and
governance as may be adopted by the Commission; and,
with respect to each Member, the California Government
Code and other statutory provisions applicable to such
Member, any applicable agreements, charters, contracts or
other documents concerning the formation, operation or
decision making of such Member, including, if applicable, its
City Charter, and any codes, ordinances, bylaws, and
resolutions adopted by such Member’s governing body.
1.1.16 “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission.
1.1.17 “Effective Date” means the later of (i) the date set forth in the
preamble of this Agreement; or (ii) the date this Agreement
is executed by all Members.
1.1.18 “FERC” means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
1.1.19 “Fiscal Year” means the NCPA fiscal year; currently the
twelve month period beginning July 1 and ending on the
next following June 30.
1.1.20 “General Manager” means the General Manager of NCPA.
1.1.21 “General L&R Program” means the (1) Legislative
Representation, (2) Regulatory Representation, (3) Western
Representation; and (4) Judicial Action Program areas as set
forth in Section 3.
4
1.1.22 “Joint Powers Agreement” means that certain Amended and
Restated Northern California Power Agency Joint Powers
Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2008, establishing NCPA,
as the same may be amended from time to time.
1.1.23 “Judicial Action Program” has the meaning set forth in
Section 3.2.3.
1.1.24 “L&R” means legislative and regulatory affairs.
1.1.25 “L&R Committee” means the NCPA Legislative and
Regulatory Committee, as established by the NCPA Rules of
Procedure.
1.1.26 “L&R Program” has the meaning set forth in Recital B.
1.1.27 “L&R Program Cost Allocation” means the cost allocation
methodology approved by the NCPA Commission on
December 2, 2010, as set forth in Schedule 1.00, as amended
from time to time.
1.1.28 “L&R Program Schedule” means the procedures, protocols
and guidelines, appended to and part of this Agreement,
which are subject to change or amendment from time to time
by the Commission, as set forth in Section 10 of this
Agreement.
1.1.29 “Legislative Program” has the meaning set forth in Section
3.1.1.
1.1.30 “Member” means any Member of NCPA or Associate
Member of NCPA.
1.1.31 “Member Services Program” has the meaning set forth in
Section 5.
1.1.32 “NCPA” has the meaning set forth in the preamble hereto.
5
1.1.33 “NCPA Rules of Procedure” means the Rules of Procedure
for the Commission of the Northern California Power
Agency, sometimes referred to as the NCPA By‐laws, as
amended from time to time.
1.1.34 “NERC” means the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation.
1.1.35 “Party” or “Parties” has the meaning set forth in the
preamble hereto; provided that ʺthird partyʺ or “third
parties” are entities that are not a Party to this Agreement.
1.1.36 “PG&E” means Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
1.1.37 “Pooling Agreement” means that certain Amended and
Restated Pooling Agreement dated as of October 29, 2008, as
the same may be amended from time to time.
1.1.38 “Power Management Cost Allocation Methodology” means
the methodology adopted by the Commission from time to
time to allocate power management costs. As of the
Effective Date, such methodology is based upon a consultant
study referred to by the Parties as the ʺNexant Study.ʺ
1.1.39 “Regulatory Program” has the meaning set forth in Section
3.1.2.
1.1.40 “Specific L&R Program” means activities or initiatives
undertaken relative to a specific NCPA Project, NCPA
Pooling Agreement matter, or other NCPA agreement as set
forth in Section 4.
1.1.41 “Term” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.
1.1.42 “Utility Director” means the most senior Member employee
with day‐to‐day authority to direct, manage and control
6
operation of Member’s utility, or if the Member does not
have a utility, the most senior Member employee with
authority to direct, manage and control acquisition and use
of electric power on behalf of that Participant.
1.1.43 “WECC” means the Western Electricity Coordinating
Council.
1.1.44 “Western” means the Western Area Power Administration.
1.1.45 “Western Program” has the meaning set forth in Section
3.1.3.
1.2 Rules of Interpretation. As used in this Agreement (including the
Recitals hereto), unless in any such case the context requires
otherwise: the terms “herein,” “hereto,” “herewith” and “hereof”
are references to this Agreement taken as a whole and not to any
particular provision; the term “include,” “includes” or “including”
shall mean “including, for example and without limitation;” and
references to a “Section,” “subsection,” “clause,” or “Exhibit” shall
mean a Section, subsection, clause or Exhibit of this Agreement, as
the case may be. All references to a given agreement, instrument or
other document shall be a reference to that agreement, instrument
or other document as modified, amended, supplemented and
restated through the date as of which such reference is made, and
reference to a law, regulation or ordinance includes any
amendment or modification thereof. A reference to a “person”
includes any individual, partnership, firm, company, corporation,
joint venture, trust, association, organization or other entity, in each
case whether or not having a separate legal personality and
includes its successors and permitted assigns. The singular shall
7
include the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine,
and vice versa.
Section 2. L&R Program Structure. The L&R Program consists of three (3)
Programs: (1) the General L&R Program; (2) the Specific L&R Program; and (3)
the Member Services Program. Each Program Area shall operate in accordance
with the guidance set forth in the Annual Budget and the Annual L&R Program
Strategic Plan. To the extent practicable, and except as otherwise provided for in
this Agreement, NCPA shall endeavor to allocate L&R Program costs in an
equitable manner, taking into account factors such as cost causation, Member
size (including load, population, and number of customers), annual percentage
increase in Member allocation, level of Member participation in NCPA Programs
and Projects, and other relevant factors. Each Member shall be responsible for
paying its fair share of the costs of the L&R Program, as determined by the L&R
Program Cost Allocation set forth in Schedule 1.00.
Section 3. General L&R Program. The General L&R Program includes the
following four (4) areas: (1) a Legislative Program focused on broad policy issues
of general significance to all, or nearly all Members; (2) a Regulatory Program
focused on broad policy issues of general significance to all, or nearly all
Members; (3) Western Program; and (4) L&R Judicial Action.
3.1 General L&R Program Areas.
3.1.1 Legislative Program. The Legislative Program addresses
broad policy issues of general significance. The Legislative
Program provides legislative advocacy and lobbying of both
the state and federal government. The Legislative Program
is divided into three separate budget centers:
3.1.1.1. State legislative. This budget center includes
advocacy efforts focused on representing the
8
needs of public power systems and electricity
ratepayers before members of the state Senate
and Assembly, the Office of the Governor, and
state energy and environmental agencies;
3.1.1.2. U.S. Congress. This budget center includes
advocacy efforts focused on the potential
impacts of national energy and environmental‐
related legislation on public power systems
and representing the needs of public power
systems and electricity ratepayers before
Members of Congress, the Executive Branch,
and federal energy and environmental
agencies; and
3.1.1.3. Advocacy groups. This budget center includes
NCPA’s participation in, and associated
financial support for, advocacy groups and
national associations, which lobby on behalf of
and share NCPA’s state, federal and regional
policy goals.
3.1.2 Regulatory Program. The Regulatory Representation Program
addresses broad policy issues of general significance.
NCPA’s regulatory program is responsible for advocacy and
litigation or participation in proceedings before state,
federal, and regional regulatory agencies, including, but not
limited to the CARB, CEC, CPUC, FERC, NERC, WECC and
the CAISO.
9
3.1.3 Western Program. The Western Program is an advocacy
program which provides legislative and regulatory
advocacy before representatives of Western and the Bureau
and works with these agencies and the United States
Congress to maximize the value of the Western power
resource for Members having Western power allocations.
The Western Program does not include activities or
initiatives engaged in solely for the benefit of signatories to a
Western Assignment Contract with Western, and a
concomitant Assignment Administration Program
Agreement with NCPA by which certain Members (as
assignor) have assigned their Base Resource Share to NPCA
(as assignee) to permit NCPA to create a power resource
portfolio administered through the Pooling Agreement.
3.1.4 L&R Judicial Action. The L&R Judicial Action Program
involves participation in particular litigation and in discrete
regulatory or legislative dockets, proceedings or cases
pending at CARB, CEC, CPUC, FERC or other regulatory
agencies, where such proceedings affect public power. In
the Commission’s discretion, and only under special and
limited circumstances, major policy matters that are
sufficiently unique, discrete and identifiable may be
identified as part of and fall within the L&R Judicial Action
Program, rather than other areas of the L&R Program (and
rather than within Power Management Judicial Action).
3.1.4.1. Judicial Action Programs – Notice and Commission
Approval Requirements. NCPA has an
10
obligation to provide notice to Members and
secure Commission approval when NCPA
proposes to undertake a L&R Judicial Action
Program initiative. NCPA shall provide notice
concerning any L&R Judicial Action Program
initiative it plans to undertake on the
Commission agenda and secure Commission
approval before NCPA undertakes that
Judicial Action Program initiative; provided,
however, that once NCPA has secured NCPA
Commission approval of its participation in a
Judicial Action Program initiative, it is not
necessary for NCPA to provide notice in
advance of each individual filing, action, or
activity associated with that L&R Judicial
Action Program initiative.
3.1.4.2. Member Participation in L&R Judicial Action
Program Initiatives. Once NCPA has provided
Members with notice of its intent to participate
in a L&R Judicial Action Program initiative on
a NCPA Commission Agenda and secured
NCPA Commission approval to participate in
the Judicial Action Program initiative ,
Members must affirmatively opt‐out of such
initiative by providing written notice to the
General Manager of that Member’s intent to
opt‐out of the Judicial Action Program
11
initiative within thirty (30) days of the NCPA
Commission’s approval of the Judicial Action
Program initiative, otherwise such Member
will be considered a part of the L&R Judicial
Action Program initiative. The General
Manager may extend the thirty (30) day time
period for a Member to opt‐out of a Judicial
Action Program initiative for an additional
thirty (30) days, as necessary, upon written
request submitted by the Member to the
General Manager.
3.1.4.3. Withdrawal from L&R Judicial Action Program
Initiatives. Once a Member has failed to opt‐
out of an L&R Judicial Action Program
Initiative that involves formal filing of
pleadings before any court or regulatory
agency, that Member may only withdraw from
such Judicial Action Program initiative after
providing sixty (60) days written notice to the
General Manager. Any such withdrawal from
all or part of any L&R Judicial Action Program
initiative shall in no way relieve that Member
from obligations and costs incurred on behalf
of that Member prior to that Member
providing notice of its intent to withdraw,
including any and all attorneys fees, consultant
or witness fees, or any other costs incurred or
12
contracts entered into prior to that Member’s
withdrawal.
3.1.4.4. Joint Defense and Litigation Privileges.
Notwithstanding any agreement or provision
to the contrary, each Member in the L&R
Judicial Action Program agrees that it intends a
Joint Defense and Joint Litigation privilege to
apply to all litigation and regulatory
proceedings to which NCPA becomes a party
as a consequence, and that such joint defense
and joint litigation privilege is in addition to
such attorney client or other privileges as may
apply as a consequence of the Joint Powers
Agreement, or otherwise.
3.1.4.5. Agreement as Not Affecting Power Management
Judicial Action.
This Agreement provides for judicial action
only within the context of the L&R Program. It
does not affect such judicial action as may be
undertaken by NCPAʹs Power Management
Division, the costs of which shall continue to
be allocated by NCPA in accordance with the
power management cost allocation
methodology, as may be amended by the
Commission or such other methodology as the
Commission may establish.
13
3.2 Cost Allocation Principles for the General L&R Program. Costs
associated with the General L&R Program shall be allocated in
accordance with the following principles:
3.2.1 Legislative Program and Regulatory Program. Costs associated
with the Legislative Program and Regulatory Program
under the General L&R Program shall be allocated to all
Members in accordance with the L&R Program Cost
Allocation set forth in Schedule 1.00. The Commission may,
in its sole discretion, utilize funds collected from Members
pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(a) of the Joint Powers
Agreement to offset Member costs associated with the
General L&R Program.
3.2.2 Western Program. Costs associated with the Western
Program shall be allocated based on each Member’s Western
Base Resource Share relative to other Members with Western
allocations.
3.2.3 L&R Judicial Action. Costs associated with the L&R Judicial
Action Program shall be borne only by Members that elect to
participate (or fail to opt‐out of a particular L&R Judicial
Action initiative, as applicable) and shall be allocated
amongst such Members on a case‐by‐case basis by the
Commission as appropriate; provided however:
3.2.3.1. Rates & Tariffs. The costs associated with
activities and initiatives related to CAISO Rates
and Tariffs and PG&E Rates and Tariffs are not
governed by this Agreement. Such costs are a
part of the Power Management L&R Program
14
and shall be allocated pursuant to the Power
Management Cost Allocation Methodology, as
adopted or amended by the Commission from
time to time; and
3.2.3.2. Western – Pool Members. The costs associated
with activities and initiatives related to
Western undertaken solely for the benefit of
signatories to a Western Assignment Contract
with Western, and a concomitant Assignment
Administration Program Agreement with
NCPA by which certain Members (as assignor)
have assigned their Base Resource Share to
NPCA (as assignee) to permit NCPA to create
a power resource portfolio administered
through the Pooling Agreement shall be borne
exclusively by those signatories to the Pooling
Agreement, based on each signatory’s relative
Western Base Resource Share; and
3.2.3.3. California Refund Proceeding. The costs
associated with activities and initiatives related
to the California Refund Proceeding shall be
allocated in accordance with the refund
methodology approved by the Commission
from time‐to‐time for that matter.
Section 4. Specific L&R Program. In addition to the General L&R Program,
NCPA also undertakes activities and initiatives from time‐to‐time on behalf of
15
particular subsets of NCPA Members that may or may not be of benefit to all
Members.
4.1 Specific L&R Program Areas. The Specific L&R Program includes
legislative, regulatory and judicial activities and initiatives
undertaken solely for the benefit of a specific NCPA Project,
signatories to the Pooling Agreement, or a signatory to a separate
agreement with NCPA.
4.2 Cost Allocation Principles for the Specific L&R Program. Costs
associated with the Specific L&R Program shall not be borne by
Members in general. Such costs shall be allocated among specific
Members in the relevant NCPA Project, Pooling Agreement or
other agreement in accordance with the terms of the applicable
agreements.
Section 5. Member Services Program. The Member Services Program
generally undertakes activities or initiatives on behalf of particular subsets of
NCPA Members that may or may not be of benefit to all Members.
5.1 Member Services Program Areas. The Members Services Program:
5.1.1 Provides data and information to Members needed to
comply with statutory energy and environmental reporting
obligations;
5.1.2 Undertakes joint projects to promote the adoption of best
utility practices among Members; and
5.1.3 Collaborates with, and provides leadership for, statewide
compliance efforts by public power agencies to ensure that
credible and consistent data is provided to State agencies in
a manner that will help prevent future legislative intrusions
16
on local control of publicly‐owned generation, transmission
and distribution of electric energy.
5.2 Cost Allocation Principles for the Member Services Program. Cost
associated with the Member Services Program shall be allocated in
accordance with the following principles:
5.2.1 Member Services Staff. The costs associated with the
provision of services noted in section 5.1 , and the cost
(including all allocated overheads) of one (1) dedicated
NCPA Member Services Program staff person, shall be
allocated amongst all Members in accordance with the L&R
Program Cost Allocation set forth in Schedule 1.00, as
amended from time to time.
5.2.2 Other Member Services Program Costs. Costs associated with
other Member Services projects, activities and initiatives
shall be allocated based on each Member’s involvement in a
particular Member Services project, activity or initiative,
and where applicable, the terms and conditions of any
applicable agreements by and among Members and NCPA
for discrete Member Services Program projects, activities or
initiatives.
Section 6. Member Commitments.
6.1 Existing Members. The L&R Program benefits all Members. It is
an integral portion of NCPA’s core function and is necessary in
order to protect the investments NCPA and its Members have
made in their public power assets. It is therefore mandatory for all
Members of NCPA to become a signatory to this Agreement.
17
6.2 New Members. Following the Effective Date of this Agreement,
any new Member of NCPA who becomes a signatory to the Joint
Powers Agreement must also concurrently become a signatory to
this Agreement, except as provided in Section 6.2.1.
6.2.1 Exceptions. The Commission may, by a unanimous vote and
due to a special, unique or legal circumstance, exempt a
Member from the requirement that it become a signatory to
this Agreement when it becomes a signatory to the Joint
Powers Agreement, and approve a Resolution setting forth
the specific terms of that individual Member’s participation
in and cost allocation under the L&R Program; provided
however, that the Commission may concurrently limit the
authority to participate in the L&R Program for any Member
granted such an exemption, including that Member’s voting
authority on the L&R Committee as set forth in Section 8.2.
6.3 L&R Program Costs. Each Member agrees to and acknowledges its
mandatory obligation to pay its L&R Program Cost Allocation
invoiced in its All Resources Bill.
6.3.1 Participation and Costs. Any Member may elect to represent
itself, or not participate in whole or in part in any portion of
the General L&R Program, Specific L&R Program or
Member Services Program; provided however, that any such
decision shall not relieve any Member of its mandatory
obligation to pay its L&R Program Cost Allocation.
6.3.2 Exceptions to Cost Obligation. The Commission may, by a
unanimous vote and due to a special, unique or legal
circumstance, adopt a resolution which exempts a Member
18
from paying all or a portion of the costs associated with the
General L&R Program, Specific L&R Program and Member
Services Program, and setting forth the terms of that
individual Member’s cost allocation under the L&R
Program; provided however, that such an adjustment to a
Member’s cost allocation may, in the Commission’s
discretion, concurrently limit that Member’s authority to
participate in the L&R Program, including that Member’s
voting authority on the L&R Committee as set forth in
Section 8.2. Exceptions granted pursuant to this Section
shall be reflected in that Member’s L&R Program Cost
Allocation.
Section 7. Strategic Plan and Annual Budget.
7.1 Each year, NCPA shall present to the L&R Committee a proposed
Annual L&R Program Strategic Plan. The proposed Annual L&R
Program Strategic Plan shall outline proposed: (1) initiatives, goals,
priorities and objectives for the L&R Program, including
identification of those that fall within the General L&R Program,
Specific L&R Program and the Member Services Program; and (2)
budgets for the L&R Program, including individual budgets for the
General L&R Program, Specific L&R Program and the Member
Services Program.
7.2 Following approval by the L&R Committee, the proposed Annual
L&R Program Strategic Plan shall be presented to the Commission
for its consideration and adoption as part of NCPA’s Annual
Budget review process.
19
7.3 The Annual L&R Program Strategic Plan adopted by the
Commission shall serve as the basis for the Commission’s
development of the L&R Program’s budget which shall be a part of
the Annual Budget.
7.4 The Commission shall apply the L&R Program Cost Allocation set
forth in Schedule 1.00 to the L&R Program’s budget to determine
each Member’s equitable share of L&R Program costs, except as
otherwise provided for in this Agreement.
7.5 NCPA shall operate the L&R Program in accordance with the
adopted L&R Program Strategic Plan and within the monetary
parameters of the Annual Budget adopted by the Commission.
Section 8. L&R Committee. The L&R Committee shall consider and report
upon all matters relating to state and federal law referred to it by the NCPA
Commission or by the General Manager and shall serve as an advisory
committee on L&R matters in accordance with the NCPA Rules of Procedure.
8.1 Establishment of the L&R Committee. The L&R Committee exists
in accordance with the provisions of the NCPA Rules of Procedure.
The L&R Committee shall consist of one or more representatives
appointed by each Member, which representatives shall be the
Member’s designated voting representative on the NCPA
Commission, that Member’s Utility Director, or a designated
Alternate NCPA Commissioner of that Member.
8.1.1 Designation of Alternate Representative. Each Member may
also designate a temporary alternate representative for an
L&R Committee meeting, in accordance with the following
procedure:
20
8.1.1.1. A Member must notify the General Manager in
writing of the identity of its alternate
representative in advance of the L&R
Committee meeting at which that alternate
representative intends to participate and vote.
Such notification must be signed by either the
Member’s designated voting representative on
the NCPA Commission or that Member’s
Utility Director;
8.1.1.2. In advance of the L&R Committee meeting at
which that alternate representative intends to
participate and vote, the Member must sign
and submit a form to NCPA, using a form to be
prepared by NCPA specifically for that
purpose, to the General Manager, stating that
the alternate representative’s vote on L&R
Committee matters is binding on that Member,
and such form must be signed by the alternate
representative and the Member’s designated
voting representative on the NCPA
Commission or that Member’s Utility Director.
8.2 Voting. Except as provided in section 8.2.1, each Member shall be
entitled to cast one vote. If a Member has designated more than
one L&R Committee Representative, then the voting representative
shall be first the Memberʹs Commissioner, or in the absence of the
Commissioner, the Utility Director, or in the absence of both the
Commissioner and the Utility Director, a Member’s Alternate
21
Commissioner, and in the absence of all the prior positions, the
temporary alternate designated pursuant to Section 8.1.1.
8.2.1 Limitations.
8.2.1.1. Specific L&R Program. Only Members
participating in the relevant project, Pooling
Agreement, or other agreement shall be
entitled to vote, in accordance with the
applicable Project Agreement, Pooling
Agreement or other agreement.
8.2.1.2. Member Services Projects, Activities, & Initiatives.
Only Members participating in a particular
Member Services Program project, activity or
initiative (pursuant to section 5.2.2) shall be
entitled to vote on matters related to that
project, activity or initiative.
8.2.1.3. Limited Members. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, and except as otherwise provided
by the Commission resolution granting an
exception, any Member that has been granted
an exception pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of this
Agreement shall not be entitled to voting
representation on the L&R Committee, but
may designate one non‐voting representative
and one or more non‐voting alternates. Such
Members shall be entitled to receive notices of
and to attend all regular and special meetings
of the L&R Committee.
22
8.3 L&R Committee Rules of Procedure. The Commission in its
discretion may establish rules of procedure for the L&R Committee.
Section 9. Administration of Agreement. The Commission has sole overall
responsibility and authority for the administration of this Agreement. NCPA
shall undertake L&R Program activities in accordance with the Annual Budget
and Annual L&R Program Strategic Plan adopted by the Commission. Any acts,
decisions or approvals taken, made or sought by NCPA under this Agreement
shall be taken, made or sought, as applicable, in accordance with NCPA’s
Constitutive Documents.
Section 10. L&R Program Schedules. L&R Program Schedules may be
established for the implementation of this Agreement. L&R Program Schedules
can provide detailed descriptions, procedures, protocols and guidelines
(including operating and cost recovery procedures) for the operation of the L&R
Program. The L&R Program Schedules may be adopted, amended or deleted by
the NCPA Commission after receiving the recommendation of the L&R
Committee. Upon Commission approval, adoptions, amendments, or deletions
of L&R Program Schedules shall be effective immediately without the necessity
of approval by the governing board or commission of any Member. NCPA shall
upon adoption, amendment or deletion of an L&R Program Schedule ensure that
each Member is promptly provided notice of such adoption, amendment or
deletion. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and any L&R
Program Schedule, this Agreement shall govern.
Section 11. Effectiveness of Agreement. This Agreement became effective on
the Effective Date.
Section 12. Term and Termination. The Term of this Agreement for each
Member is concurrent with each Member’s membership in NCPA. If a Member
withdraws from NCPA, then this Agreement shall terminate as to that Member,
23
but shall remain in effect for all other Members. Any cost or liability arising
prior to withdrawal from membership and remaining undischarged as of the
effective date of withdrawal from NCPA shall continue and the withdrawing
Member shall be required to satisfy such costs or liabilities as a condition of
withdrawal from NCPA.
Section 13. Miscellaneous
13.1 Confidentiality. All Parties acknowledge that, from time to time,
the information provided to them as a part of the L&R Program
will be politically and commercially sensitive and may be
confidential or trade secret information. The Parties will keep
confidential all confidential or trade secret information made
available to them in connection with this Agreement or the L&R
Program to the extent possible, consistent with applicable laws,
including the California Public Records Act. It shall be the
responsibility of the holder of the claim of confidentiality or trade
secret to defend at its expense against any request that such
information be disclosed. Confidential or trade secret information
shall be marked or expressly identified as such.
13.2 Indemnification and Hold Harmless. To the maximum extent
permitted by law and subject to the provisions of Section 13.4, each
Member agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless NCPA and
its Members, including their respective governing officials, officers,
agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, suits,
losses, costs, damages, expenses and liability of any kind or nature,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation,
including experts (“Claims”), to the extent caused by any acts,
omissions, breach of contract, negligence (active or passive), gross
24
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of a Member, its
governing officials, officers, employees, subcontractors or agents
arising out of or connected with this Agreement.
13.3 Separate Liabilities. No Member shall be liable under this
Agreement for the obligations of any other Member, and each
Member shall be solely responsible and liable for performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, except as otherwise provided for
herein. The obligation of each Member under this Agreement is a
separate obligation and not a joint obligation with those of the
other Members.
13.4 No Consequential Damages. FOR ANY BREACH OF ANY
PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR WHICH AN EXPRESS
REMEDY OR MEASURE OF DAMAGES IS PROVIDED IN THIS
AGREEMENT, THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFAULTING PARTY
SHALL BE LIMITED AS SET FORTH IN SUCH PROVISION, AND
ALL OTHER DAMAGES OR REMEDIES ARE HEREBY WAIVED.
IF NO REMEDY OR MEASURE OF DAMAGE IS EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED, THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFAULTING PARTY
SHALL BE LIMITED TO ACTUAL DAMAGES ONLY AND ALL
OTHER DAMAGES AND REMEDIES ARE HEREBY WAIVED. IN
NO EVENT SHALL NCPA OR ANY MEMBER OR THEIR
RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, REPRESENTATIVES,
DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES BE LIABLE
FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL LOSSES
OR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF
GOODWILL, LOST REVENUES, LOSS OF PROFIT OR LOSS OF
25
CONTRACTS EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, AND NCPA AND
EACH MEMBER EACH HEREBY WAIVES SUCH CLAIMS AND
RELEASES EACH OTHER AND EACH OF SUCH PERSONS
FROM ANY SUCH LIABILITY.
The Parties acknowledge that California Civil Code section
1542 provides that: “A general release does not extend to claims
which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her
favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or
her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the
debtor.” The Parties waive the provisions of section 1542, or other
similar provisions of law, and intend that the waiver and release
provided by this section of this Agreement shall be fully
enforceable despite its reference to future or unknown claims.
13.5 Amendments. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement,
this Agreement may be amended only by written instrument
executed by all of the Parties with the same formality as this
Agreement.
13.6 Severability. In the event that any of the terms, covenants or
conditions of this Agreement or the application of any such term,
covenant or condition, shall be held invalid as to any person or
circumstance by any court having jurisdiction, all other terms,
covenants or conditions of this Agreement and their application
shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in force and effect
unless the court holds that such provisions are not severable from
all other provisions of this Agreement.
26
13.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, governed by,
and construed under the laws of the State of California.
13.8 Headings. All indices, titles, subject headings, section titles and
similar items are provided for the purpose of convenience and are
not intended to be inclusive, definitive, or affect the meaning of the
contents of this Agreement or the scope thereof.
13.9 Notices. Any notice, demand or request required or authorized by
this Agreement to be given to any party shall be in writing, and
shall either be personally delivered to a Member’s Utility Director,
or in the case of NCPA to its General Manager, or transmitted to
the Member and NCPA at the address shown on the signature
pages hereof. The designation of such address may be changed at
any time by written notice given to the Secretary of the
Commission who shall thereupon give written notice of such
change to each Member.
13.10 Warranty of Authority. Each Party represents and warrants that it
has been duly authorized by all requisite approval and action to
execute and deliver this Agreement and that this Agreement is a
binding, legal, and valid agreement enforceable in accordance with
its terms as to the Member, and as to NCPA. Upon execution of
this Agreement, each Member shall deliver to NCPA a resolution of
the governing body of such Member evidencing approval of and
authority to enter into this Agreement and an opinion of legal
counsel that such authority was duly exercised in accordance with
such Member’s Constitutive Documents.
13.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, and each executed counterpart shall have the same
27
force and effect as an original instrument and as if all the
signatories to all of the counterparts had signed the same
instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be
detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without
impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be
attached to another counterpart of this Agreement identical in form
hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages.
13.12 Assignment. No Member may assign or otherwise transfer their
rights and obligations under this Agreement without the express
written consent of NCPA.
28
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Member has executed this Agreement with
the approval of its governing body, and NCPA has authorized this Agreement in
accordance with the authorization of its Commission.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
POWER AGENCY
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: __________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: General Counsel
Date:
CITY OF ALAMEDA
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: __________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
29
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: General Counsel
Date:
CITY OF BIGGS
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: __________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
CITY OF GRIDLEY
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
30
CITY OF LODI
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
CITY OF LOMPOC
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
PLUMAS‐SIERRA RURAL
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: General Counsel
Date:
31
CITY OF OAKLAND, acting by and
through its BOARD OF PORT
COMMISSIONERS
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: General Counsel
Date:
CITY OF REDDING
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
32
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: General Counsel
Date:
CITY OF UKIAH
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Facsimile]
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Title: ________________________
Date:
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
By:__________________________
Its: City Attorney
Date:
1830525.2
33
INDEX OF L&R PROGRAM SCHEDULES
Schedule Page
0‐00 Introduction to L&R Program Schedules
1‐00 L&R Program Cost Allocation
34
L&R PROGRAM AGREEMENT
L&R Program Schedule 0‐00
INTRODUCTION TO L&R PROGRAM SCHEDULES
Separate L&R Program Schedules will be established for this Agreement and
related purposes, as appropriate, pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement. L&R
Program Schedules will provide detailed descriptions, protocols, principles,
guidelines and procedures (including operating and cost recovery procedures)
for the L&R Program pursuant to this Agreement.
For NCPA Projects and Activities for which another Agreement is executed
between NCPA and its Members, the L&R Program Schedule will supplement,
and not supersede, such Agreements with respect to the L&R Program.
NCPA L&R Program Schedules shall provide for:
o L&R Program Cost Allocation; and
o Other topics as needed in the future.
Additional L&R Program Schedules may be established to provide guidance
regarding the L&R Program, or for other aspect of the implementation of this
Agreement.
Definitions as set forth in Section 1 of this Agreement shall have the same
meaning in the L&R Program Schedules.
35
NCPA L&R PROGRAM AGREEMENT
L&R Program Schedule 1‐00
L&R PROGRAM ALLOCATION
Approved Allocation Methodology for the Legislation and Regulatory Program
Per Commission Action on November 18, 2010
Resolution 10-106
Five Year Phase in Plan
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Legislative Program (State and Federal)
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Equal Shares among all participating members 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Energy Shares from previous calendar year 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00%
Regulatory Program (State and Federal)
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Equal Shares among all participating members 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Energy Shares from previous calendar year 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00%
Member Services
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Equal Shares among all participating members 41.86% 56.39% 70.93% 85.46% 100.00%
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Energy Shares from previous calendar year 58.14% 43.61% 29.07% 14.54% 0.00%
Judicial Action - Green House Gas Reduction Initiative (same as Regulatory
Program)
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Equal Shares among all participating members 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
50% of costs (non pass through) allocated by Energy Shares from previous calendar year 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00%
Western
Costs of program allocated based on adjusted share of Western Base Resource Percentages
Source: NCPA Commission Resolution 10‐106.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2761)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/21/2012
May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 2761)
Summary Title: BAO and Contract with DTN Engineers for Electrical/Mechanical
Systems Design
Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $249,918
to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Electrical/Mechanical Systems
Upgrade Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (WQ-80021); and
Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with DTN
Engineers, Inc. in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $249, 918 for
Electrical/Mechanical Systems Design at the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant-Capital Improvement Program WQ-80021
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $249,918
(Attachment A) to provide an additional appropriation for the
Electrical/Mechanical Systems Upgrade Project at the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (WQ-80021); and
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached contract with DTN Engineers, Inc. (Attachment B) in a not to
exceed amount of $249,918 for engineering services for the
Electrical/Mechanical Building Systems Upgrade Project at the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-
80021; including $223,118 for basic services and $26,800 for additional
services.
Discussion
May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 2761)
The Administration Building was originally constructed in 1975 to house advanced
wastewater treatment systems for recycled water treatment. The advanced
wastewater treatment system was decommissioned in 1986 and subsequently
removed. Important recycled water pumps, motor controls, electrical,
mechanical, and control systems still reside in the Administration Building. The
Administration Building has undergone several modifications in recent years. The
existing electrical systems are deficient in several aspects: (a) the existing
electrical system is the original system and original manufacturer parts are no
longer available, (b) the system does not meet the latest building code
regulations, and (c) lacks standby emergency power backup in the event of a
power disruption. Emergency power, in particular, is needed to support operation
of the recycled water system as well as compressed air systems used to operate
wastewater treatment equipment. Additional shortcomings include: (a) the
recycled water distribution pumps being fed from a single source of water with no
emergency backup supply and (b) the SCADA system, which provides
communication and control of equipment, consists of wiring that is terminated on
open terminal strips, which subjects the panel to dust and risk of water damage.
This project will improve the reliability of the existing systems by providing
emergency backup supplies and protective enclosures. The upgraded electrical
system will meet code requirements, be above the flood elevation, include a
back-up power source, and be properly sized for current and possible future
needs.
Scope of Services Description
The scope of work includes design of a new electrical system with emergency
backup power supply, a second source of water supply to the recycled
distribution pumps, and protection for the SCADA system. The work also includes
assisting the City during bidding, providing technical support during construction,
and preparing the as-constructed record drawings for the project.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Proposal Title/Number Consulting Services for Administration
Building Systems Upgrade Project At
The Regional Water Quality Control
Plant - RFP No. 144855
Proposed Length of Project 18 months
May 21, 2012 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 2761)
Number of Solicitations for Proposal
mailed &/or emailed
10
Total Days to Respond to Proposal 36
Pre-proposal Meeting Date February 15, 2012
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-
proposal Meeting
7 firms
Number of Proposals Received: 6
Number of Companies Interviewed 4
Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted $182,590 to $263,608
Evaluation of Proposals
An evaluation committee consisting of the RWQCP staff reviewed the proposals.
Four firms were invited to participate in oral interviews on March 26, 2012. The
committee carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications and submittal in response
to the criteria identified in the RFP. The criteria used to evaluate the proposing
firms included: quality and completeness of proposal; quality, performance, and
effectiveness of the work plan; proposer's experience; proposer's ability to
perform the work within the time specified; cost; proposer's financial stability;
proposer's prior record of performance with the City; and proposer's compliance
with applicable laws and regulations. DTN Engineers, Inc. was selected because of
its innovations, understanding of project requirements, relevant project
experience, and knowledge of project solutions.
Resource Impact
Funding of $249,918 from CIP Project WQ-04011, Facility Condition Assessment
and Retrofit, will be transferred to CIP Project WQ-80021 via the attached Budget
Amendment Ordinance (BAO). The additional funds from the BAO will cover the
cost of the contract with DTN Engineers, Inc. There is no net change in the
reserves of the Wastewater Treatment Fund.
Policy Implications
Authorization of this project does not represent a change in existing policies.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (b), which includes repair and
May 21, 2012 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 2761)
maintenance of publicly-owned wastewater facilities involving negligible
expansion.
Attachments:
A: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOC)
B: DTN Engineers Contract (PDF)
Prepared By: James S. Allen, Manager, WQCP
Department Head: J. Michael Sartor, 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 THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $249,918 TO
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER WQ-80021
PLANT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
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. In fiscal year 2012, the Council did not adopt a
budget for CIP Project WQ-80021, Plant Equipment Replacement,
within the Wastewater Treatment Fund; and
C. Included in CIP Project WQ-80021 is the project at the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant for upgrading the
electrical system in the administration building. This project
will improve the reliability of the existing systems by
providing emergency backup supplies and protective enclosures;
and
D. A Request for Proposal was solicited for the design
of a new electrical system. Bids were received from six
qualified vendors and DTN Engineers, Inc. was selected with a
bid of $223,118 for basic services, and $26,800 for additional
services; and
E. The existing appropriation balance of CIP Project WQ-
80021 includes amounts carried forward from the prior fiscal
year for other items and is not sufficient to cover the costs
of the contract with DTN Engineers, Inc. An additional
appropriation of $249,918 is needed; and
F. Funding of $249,918 from CIP Project WQ-04011,
Facility Condition Assessment and Retrofit, will be
transferred to CIP Project WQ-80021, Plant Equipment
Replacement.
G. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012
budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. The sum of Two Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand
Nine Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($249,918) is hereby transferred
from CIP Project WQ-04011, Facility Condition Assessment and
Retrofit, to CIP Project WQ-80021, Plant Equipment
Replacement.
SECTION 3. The sum of Two Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand
Nine Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($249,918) is hereby
appropriated to CIP Project WQ-80021, Plant Equipment
Replacement.
SECTION 4. 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 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
SECTION 6. This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (b), which includes maintenance of
publicly-owned wastewater facilities involving negligible
expansion.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Sr. Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works
Department
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2535)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/21/2012
May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 2535)
Summary Title: Approval of Amendment to Agreement with Casa Olga
Title: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to an Agreement Between the City of Palo
Alto and Casa Olga Relating to the University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking
Assessment District
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Background
In Fiscal Year 2000-01, a downtown parking assessment district was formed to
build two new, multistory garages in the downtown area and to refinance prior
district debt. The garages (one on High Street and one on Bryant Street) were
built to accommodate additional parking demand in the downtown from
employees and shoppers and to alleviate parking in residential areas. Property
owners within the assessment district voted to self-assess themselves under
Proposition 218 guidelines in order to pay for the bonds to construct the garages.
One property owner, Casa Olga, made a reasonable claim at that time that the
formula used for allocating assessment costs (requirement of 1 parking space per
250 square feet) did not properly reflect parking needs since its building was
structured as a convalescent care facility. In order for the assessment district to
move forward, an agreement was reached with Casa Olga that of the 195 spaces
assessed, Casa Olga would be reimbursed on an annual basis for 117 spaces and
Casa Olga would pay for 78 spaces. This agreement was approved by Council on
March 19, 2001 (CMR: 177:01). With Bond Counsel approval, the annual
reimbursement to Casa Olga has been paid using proceeds from the 2001 bond
issue.
May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 2535)
Discussion
Recently, Casa Olga has entered into a 50 year lease agreement with a hotel
company, Joie de Vivre. There is an opportunity to terminate the current
agreement with Casa Olga by using available proceeds to pay the net present
value of the future stream of payments to Casa Olga. This value is $466,452. This
payment will eliminate the burden of administering the agreement since Joie de
Vivre would then pay the full annual assessment for 195 spaces. Staff
recommends that the old agreement with Casa Olga be ended by approving the
attached document.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Agreement for Casa Olga Off Street Parking Assessment (PDF)
Prepared By: Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services
Department Head: Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2039)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/21/2012
May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 12
(ID # 2039)
Summary Title: Art Center/Main Library Connectivity
Title: Selection of Option for Connectivity Between the Art Center and the Main
Library (CIPs PE-11000, PF-07000)
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve the removal of a redundant driveway in front of the Art Center,
installation of a plaza area between the Art Center and Main Library,
removal of a parking lot shed (Component I of Options A, B C and D,
defined below); and
2.Approve the construction of a vehicular connector and an accessible path
between the Art Center and Main Library parking lot and removal and
relocation of impacted community garden plots. (Component II of Option A
defined below). An existing redwood tree would be retained and the
connector driveway would be curved as much as feasible so as to slow
traffic.
(Recommendation 1 and 2 together form Option A, discussed herein).
Or, as an alternative to Recommendation No. 2,one of the following three
Options:
4.Approve the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian connection and an
accessible path between the Art Center and Main Library parking lot and
removal and replacement of impacted community garden plots.
(Component II of Option B defined below).
May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 12
(ID # 2039)
5.Direct staff to design and construct a bicycle/pedestrian connecting path
which is adjacent to, (but not impacting) the Community garden plots
(Option C).
6.Direct staff not to construct a new connector between the Arts Center and
Library parking lot (Option D).
Executive Summary
Staff is recommending approval of a project to connect the Art Center and Main
Library into a more cohesive campus, restructuring the space between the two
buildings to improve pedestrian links and safety, and to create a visually pleasing
landscaped area (Component I).Staff is also recommending linking the parking
lots for the two buildings with a connecting driveway to enhance visitor parking
and reduce the search time for parking (Option A of Component II).Alternative
types of connectors are also included in which the link is a path for pedestrians
and cyclists, but not cars.
Background
Measure N approved $76 million in funding for improvements to the Downtown
Library (PE-09005), Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (PE-09006),and
the Main Library (PE-11000). Of the total funding, $18 million was allocated for
the design and construction of the Main Library improvements and expansion.
At a November 2010 Architectural Review Board and at a community meeting,
questions were raised as to whether the Main Library site could be better
integrated with the adjacent Art Center. In responding to these requests for a
more campus-like feel, on July 25, 2011, Council directed Group 4 Architecture to
develop conceptual options for a redesign of the landscaping and parking areas
on the south side of the Main Library to provide improved parking and circulation
as well as a visual connecting link with the adjacent Art Center (staff report 1438).
Over the last few months, these conceptual options have been presented to the
community,boards and commissions.
Although these parking and circulation improvements were not included in the
original cost estimates or preliminary designs in existence at the time Measure N
was submitted to the voters, they fall reasonably within the scope of renovations
and improvements to Main library and, to the extent they relate to the library, are
expenses that may be covered by bond funds. To the extent the improvements
May 21, 2012 Page 3 of 12
(ID # 2039)
are proposed on Art Center property or for access to the Art Center, costs would
be attributable to the general fund. Thus, the design fee for the Main Library/Art
Center was shared equally between the general fund (PF-07000) and the Measure
N funds for the Main Library (PE-11000). Depending upon the design option, if
any, chosen by Council, the construction cost would also be shared between the
general fund and the Measure N library/community center funds. Based on
conceptual design of the square footage and materials for construction, costs are
to be in the range of $400,000 to $500,000 for the general fund (for the Art
Center’s share of the improvements) and $400,000 to $500,000 from Measure N
library bond proceeds for the Main Library’s share of improvements.
The design of the Main Library is nearing completion and has been reviewed at
community, Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board and Library
Advisory Commission meetings. The Main Library improvements will include
small group study rooms that are acoustically separated from the rest of the
existing building, and a new adjacent program space that will seat 100 people. To
accommodate the new program space, the Main Library will expand by
approximately 4,000 square feet from the current 21,000 square feet on the
ground floor of the building (CMR:434:06). The interior of the existing library will
also be reconfigured to make better use of the space. Lighting and other existing
building systems will also be upgraded. All of the improvements will be made with
consideration for the historic nature of the existing building. The building will be
designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design “Silver” level.
Improvements to the Main Library will be the final component of the Measure N
Bond measure projects. During the recent reviews of the Main Library, the Art
Center parking and integration options were also discussed.
Discussion
Parking and Circulation Improvements Between the Art Center and Main Library
The issue of integrating the Main Library and Art Center had originally been
explored during the previous 2002 library bond, Measure D. Years later, however,
renovations for the Main Library and Art Center sites later began the design
process as separate projects. Because these renovations were being planned
separately, under different design firms and project managers, little attention was
paid to the overall integration of the campus. It was only during design
development presentations of the Main Library project to the Architectural
Review Board and at a community meeting in November 2010 that the issue of
May 21, 2012 Page 4 of 12
(ID # 2039)
improving the connection of the Art Center, Main Library and Community gardens
into an overall campus site was raised again.
As a result of these inquiries, Group 4 Architecture was asked to make a cursory
exploration of the feasibility and cost related to making the site have a more
campus-like feel. These initial designs were discussed in a joint exploratory
meeting between the library and Art Center stakeholders and staff in the spring of
2011. Both groups recommended exploring the concept further. On July 25,
2011, Council approved Contract Amendment Four with Group 4 Architecture to
better develop the initial designs, gather input and report the findings back to
Council for further direction (staff report 1438). Group 4 Architecture and staff
then met with a task force of community gardeners to gather more input and
took those comments into consideration in the development of two design
options. The updated design concepts, Option A and Option B, were subsequently
presented to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board
(HRB), Library Bond Oversight Committee (LBOC), Library Advisory Commission
(LAC), Parks and Recreation Committee (PARC) and at community meetings.
These two options, discussed in more detail below (and shown in Attachment A)
are very similar with the exception being the driveway that would connect the
two sites. The driveway in Option A is wide enough to allow cars on the driveway.
The driveway in Option B is narrower and only wide enough for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Site Issues
Several issues related to connecting the two sites were identified as a result of the
exploration of design options:
Safety:
-The existing driveway in front of the Art Center is used by cut-
through traffic avoiding the traffic signal at Embarcadero and Newell.
Combined with reduced visibility due to landscaping, this creates
unsafe conditions for people accessing the parking lot.
-There is little to no sight lighting provided on the campus which
makes traversing the campus on foot or bicycle after daylight hours
unsafe and challenging.
May 21, 2012 Page 5 of 12
(ID # 2039)
-The storage shed in one of the parking lots between the two sites is
dark and attractive to vagrants. People are unclear if the area under
the shed roof is open to the public.
-During high-participation events, drivers jog from parking lot to
parking lot via Newell Road, creating increased traffic and impacting
a bicycle lane.
Access:
-No easy and clear access between sites for pedestrians or drivers
Wayfinding:
-Visitors new to the site often cannot easily locate individual facilities
-Campus lacks an overall, cohesive plan with walkways and gathering
spots
-Parking: The community has expressed concerns about insufficient
site parking during large events. With a new community room
planned for the Main Library and anticipated increased visitors to the
Art Center, parking demands may increase. In addition, no additional
parking was ever provided for gardeners with the creation of the
Community Gardens. There are four separate parking lots on the
campus, three of which are linked (Art Center side) and one of which
is not (Library side).
Site Utilization:
-There are significant areas of the campus that are underutilized by
the community because they are inaccessible and the landscaping is
not inviting
Design Options
Several conceptual design options were originally developed by Group 4
Architecture in response to the site issues and presented to Council in July 2011
(see staff report 1438). Since that time and working with library and Art Center
staff and gardeners,two options have been refined as follows:
-Option A:
- Component I:Remove the redundant driveway in front of the Art
Center to reduce hazards caused by speeding and cut-through traffic
May 21, 2012 Page 6 of 12
(ID # 2039)
from Embarcadero and Newell; reconfigure the parking area between
the Art Center and Main Library entrances into a curved design to slow
traffic and better align the entrances to the Art Center and Main Library;
create pedestrian plazas and integrate new trees and other landscaping
between the two sites; remove a storage shed in one of the parking lots
in order to increase parking,
- Component II: Add a new connector roadway accessible by cars, to
connect the Main Library and Art Center parking areas.Removable
bollards will be included in the connector design and can be inserted to
restrict cars as needed for special events.
-Option B:
- Component I:is the same as Option A,
- Component II:differs from Option A in that the driveway connecting
the Main Library and Art Center sites would not be accessible to cars
and could therefore be narrower.
-Option C:
-Component I: is the same as Option A,
-Component II: following an April 19, 2012 community meeting, another
option was identified, namely,the creation of an accessible, non-
vehicular footpath connector adjacent to (but not impacting) the
community Garden. Component II differs from Option A and Option B in
that there would be no impact to the community gardens.
-Option D:
-Component I: is the same as Option A,
-Component II: No connector between the Arts Center and the Main
Library Parking Lot.The initial design and construction cost estimate for
the Main Library improvements did not include any connectivity
elements for the Main Library and the Art Center.
-Other: Council may decide to direct staff to make some modifications to
the site, such as removal of the shed in the smaller parking lot between
the Art Center and Main Library,but likely not to the extent of either
Option A or B.
May 21, 2012 Page 7 of 12
(ID # 2039)
Main Library/Art Center Integration-Summary
Driveway
accessible
by cars?
Boards and
Comm.
Favoring
Construction
Cost –
Measure N
portion Only
Parking
Difference
Garden
Plot
Gain/Loss
Option A Yes LAC, HRB,
ARB
$400-500K.
Of this, the
‘car
connector’
driveway is
approx $100K
-2
(less
spaces
than
Option B)
Loss and
relocation
of up to 12
plots; gain
800 sf
elsewhere
Option B No PRC $400-500K.
Of this, the
‘bike + ped
connector’
driveway is
approx $80K
+2 (more
spaces
than
Option A)
Loss and
relocation
of up to 12
plots; gain
800 sf
elsewhere
Option C No n/a $400-$500K.
Of this, the
‘ped +bike
path’is
approximately
$90K
No change
from
current
None
Community Gardens Impact
The Community Gardens would be impacted if either Option A or B is selected
because of the construction of either a car or bike/pedestrian driveway would
result in the relocation of up to 12 plots. Explorations suggest that connecting the
Art Center and Library parking lots with a driveway would require the relocation
of up to 12 garden plots. The plots could be relocated to an area currently used
as an internal access road, which would also provide approximately a 1,000
square foot net increase in garden square feet resulting in potentially one
additional garden plot.
At community meetings on May 5, 2011,and April 19, 2012, gardeners associated
with the Community Gardens expressed concerns about the possible loss of
garden plots due to any driveway construction;the noise and safety impacts of a
May 21, 2012 Page 8 of 12
(ID # 2039)
driveway near the garden and the need for a buffer zone and increased parking
needs resulting from the loss of approximately two parking spaces in the library
parking lot needed for the driveway (see Attachment A). Gardeners questioned
whether some of the lawn area at the Main Library might be used for parking,
whether ‘parking lot full’ electronic signs could be employed or whether speed
tables could be used to improve crossing safety in front of the Art Center. After
Council approval of additional design on July 25, 2011, Group 4 Architecture met
with a working group of comprised of people who have plots at the community
garden to gather input on potential design options. At a subsequent community
meeting on October 24, 2011, Group 4 Architecture presented the result of their
more detailed design, which is reflected in Options A and B. People commenting
felt that digital parking counter signs that would indicate ‘parking lot full’ were
overkill for such small parking lots. Parking on the lawn is problematic given the
visual impact and historic nature of the Main Library and the number of trees in
the lawn area. Speed tables, which are slightly elevated crossing walkways, may
be incorporated into the design to further slow vehicles that cross pedestrian
crossing zones.
Discussion
Overall, the feedback from the gardeners was that a driveway connecting the
Main Library to the Art Center through the Community Gardens might at worst be
dangerous and at best be unnecessary. The Parks and Recreation Commission
(PARC) and many gardeners (particularly those whose plots would be relocated)
supported the idea of improving connectivity and circulation but preferred Option
B, which had a connector driveway that was narrower and could not be used by
cars. No redwood or oak trees would need to be removed to construct the
driveway, although one other tree might need to be removed. This tree is not a
heritage tree and its potential removal has been reviewed and approved by the
City Arborist.
The construction cost of Option B (bicycle/pedestrian option)would be
approximately $10-20,000 less than Option A (car accessible)due to the
difference in costs between landscaping and paving materials for the reduced
road width. If the narrower bike/pedestrian connector were to be constructed,
the cost of deciding years later to widen the connector to accommodate cars
would be more than $20,000 due to the need to design, re-mobilize and construct
(with matching materials, if possible)a wider connector.
May 21, 2012 Page 9 of 12
(ID # 2039)
In October and November 2011, the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the
Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) expressed
support for Option A. Meeting minutes for the LAC and PARC are shown in
Attachments B and C, respectively. The Library Director, Art Center Director,
Library Stakeholders group and Art Center Foundation have previously expressed
support for the driveway concept in Option A. The ARB liked the idea of the
vehicular connecting driveway in Option A, but wanted to explore the idea of
removing a redwood tree and making the driveway a straight-line connection
between the Main Library and Art Center parking lots. Members felt that a
straight connection would be a more visible, obvious route to drivers, as opposed
to the curved roadway shown in Option A. Staff, however, recommends that
Council direct that the redwood tree remain and that the connector road should
be curved so as to slow traffic.
A final community meeting was held on April 19, 2012,to insure that all
comments from adjacent residents (especially those on Walnut Drive)were aware
of the project and had the opportunity to comment. Postcards and door hangers
were used to publicize the meeting. Attendees were asked if there were
comments or concerns about impacts to homes or yards on Walnut. No concerns
about impacts to locations on Walnut Drive were raised. The concerns raised at
the meeting were in large part the same ones raised at earlier meetings-impacts
to the garden, safety, disrupting the ‘rural” feel of the location, and parking issues
Resource Impact
Design costs to complete the design of either Option A B, or C have already been
included in Amendment 4 with Group 4 Architecture and, since the improvements
benefit each site, costs were evenly split between the Art Center (CIP PF-07000)
and the Main Library (PE-11000) at $53,843 apiece. Funding for the construction
of either Option A or B will be included as part of the upcoming Main Library CIP
budget proposal for FY 2013 for the Main Library (PE-11000). Various code
compliance and deferred maintenance improvements approved by Council in July
2011 (Staff Report 1438)will also be included in the upcoming FY 2103 budget
proposal. All of these additional improvements are consistent with necessary
renovations to the Main Library and have been determined to be bondable
expenses.Option C, which is for a smaller footpath that does not impact the
May 21, 2012 Page 10 of 12
(ID # 2039)
garden at all, would be less costly than either Option A, and could be covered
within the upcoming FY 2103 budget for the Main Library.
The estimated construction costs of $800,000 to $1 million would be shared
between the Art Center and Main Library projects. The construction cost can be
better determined once materials are selected through the board and
commission review process. Assuming that the parking lots and driveway are
equally used by Art Center and Library patrons, a 50 percent ($400,000 to
$500,000) cost allocation to each project (PE-11000, Main Library and PF-07000,
Art Center Renovation) could be assumed. Funding for the non-bondable portion
of the work would come from construction cost savings of approximately
$300,000 from the Art Center renovation now underway (PF-07000) and the
remaining $200,000 would come from a Budget Amendment Ordinance from the
Infrastructure Reserve.Bollards will be added to the connector design and can be
used as needed to restrict cars some or part of the time.
The project cost for the Main Library was originally estimated at $18 million and
has recently been updated to $20 million by the construction manager, Turner
Construction. Of this increase, roughly $1.5 million was due to the July 25, 2011,
approval by Council of deferred maintenance, code compliance and other
enhancements (staff report #1438). The remaining $500,000 cost increase is due
to $500,000 that was budgeted for any approval of improved connectivity
between the Art Center and Main Library. Even assuming the updated Main
Library project cost of $20 million, and if the Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center costs were to increase to the level of the original $50 million budgeted for
Measure N, the overall library bond measure costs would still be roughly $7
million below the bond limit of $76 million.
Policy Impacts
The Art Center and Main Library site integration was not considered nor discussed
at any public meetings leading up to the Measure N bond,but only became
identified during the public review process of the Main Library. The integration of
the Art Center and Main Library sites is a renovation that would contribute to the
functionality of the library building and enhance the user experience by improving
circulation and parking for the building.
The City’s bond counsel has determined that these added costs related to the
May 21, 2012 Page 11 of 12
(ID # 2039)
library are bondable under Measure N as renovations that will serve the newly
expanded building. While staff recommends approval of Option A, it should be
noted that adding this improvement will have an impact on property assessments
because bonds will need to be issued in an amount sufficient to cover the initial
project cost and newly proposed renovations, including the connectivity
component. However, based on current cost estimates for all Measure N work,
the expected, final assessment for property owners is well within $76 million
approved in Measure N.
Timeline
If a design option is selected by Council, the design would be completed and
advertised for construction bids as part of the overall Main Library construction
package. Specifics of the connectivity design such as materials, colors and
plantings would be reviewed by the ARB and HRB along with any design items
that relate to the Main Library building. Staff would work with the gardeners and
PARC for items that pertain specifically to the community garden. If a connector
between the Art Center and Main Library is approved by Council, those plots
impacted by the connector driveway would be closed shortly before construction
and relocated to another area. Staff will work with impacted gardeners prior to
the start of construction to determine the best means of, and season for moving
existing garden beds, materials and plants. With the exception of the time
needed to move impacted garden plots, gardeners should have access to their
plants throughout the construction period via the Art Center parking lot off of
Embarcadero Road.
The Downtown Library re-opened on July 16, 2011,and the Mitchell Park Library
and Community Center is currently estimated to re-open to the public in early
2013. The design for the Main Library is approximately 90 percent complete and
the plans are expected to be ready to bid in November or December of 2012.
Construction on the Main Library is expected to last 14 to 16 months.
The temporary Main Library will be located in the Art Center Auditorium which is
now under construction as part of the Art Center renovation. It is expected to be
opened to the public once the Main Library has closed.
Environmental Review
On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the Director of Planning and Community
May 21, 2012 Page 12 of 12
(ID # 2039)
Environment’s approvals of a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final Environmental
Impact Report for the Main Library.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Connection Options (PDF)
·Attachment B: Library Advisory Commission meeting minutes (PDF)
·Attachment C: PARC Meeting Minutes, Oct 25, 2011 (DOC)
Prepared By:Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Existing Site
Community
Garden
Art
Garden
Main
Library
Art
Center
2
Option A –Vehicle Connector
3
Option B –
Pedestrian + Bike Connector
4
Option C –Option C –
Pedestrian + Bike Path
5
Existing Garden Annex ‐Aerial
6
Proposed Garden Plots ‐Aerial
7
Proposed Garden Matrix
8
LAC:20111027m 1
MINUTES
Library Advisory Commission (LAC)
October 27, 2011
Downtown Library Community Room
270 Forest Ave.
7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Tolulope Akinola (7:30), Leonardo Hochberg, Eileen
Landauer, Bob Moss, Theivanai Palaniappan,
Mary Beth Train
Staff Present: Monique le Conge, Cornelia van Aken, Evelyn Cheng
Council Liaison: Greg Schmid
CALL TO ORDER – Palaniappan called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS – The order of Agenda items
#3 and #4 were switched to accommodate the public.
BUSINESS
1. Establishing Rules of Conduct and Procedures at LAC Meetings
Palaniappan recommended that the Commission establish the following
rules of conduct and procedures at meetings:
- Adhere to time limits for agenda items.
- Stay focused on the topic of discussion.
- Aim to end the meeting by 9:30 p.m. If not, stop at 9:30 p.m. to
assess if remaining agenda items should be moved to the next meeting.
.
MOTION: Landauer moved, seconded by Hochberg.
“The LAC accepts the rules of conduct and procedures as
presented by the LAC Chair.”
Motion passed, 5-0 (Akinola was not present at time of voting).
2. Approval of Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting on July 28, 2011
With corrections, Hochberg moved to approve minutes of Regular
Meeting on July 28, 2011. Landauer seconded. Minutes were approved
unanimously.
APPROVED
LAC:20111027m 2
3. Main Library Design update and Main Library/Art Center Connectivity Plan
Palaniappan recognized Rita Morgin, 600 Channing Ave., from the
audience. Morgin spoke against the option to widen the connector
between the Main Library and Art Center to allow pedestrians, bikes as
well as vehicles.
Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer/Public Works, gave background on how
the idea to better integrate the two buildings came about, with Group 4
Architecture developing conceptual options for a visual connecting link.
These conceptual options have been presented to the community and
boards and commissions.
Dawn Merkes, Group 4 Architecture, gave updates on Library projects
schedule and more specifically on the Main Library building design –
sustainable building strategies, additions to the building, e.g. bracing,
bicycle canopies, study/program rooms, restrooms - including landscape
and tree preservation plan, as well as the Main Library and Art Center
campus integration concepts.
There are two options for the site integration:
Option A – Road connector with concrete/cobbled textured paving,
widens the connector to allow vehicles but reduces the parking
count by 3 spaces
Option B - Concrete path for pedestrian/bike only; adds two stalls
for parking
Site integration goals are
1) Provide a safer pedestrian crossing and entry connection between
the two facilities
2) Provide as much parking as practical within existing hardscape
areas
3) Create a campus design that connects the Library, Art Center and
Community Garden
4) Improve access to campus parking
Palaniappan recognized the following from the audience, who spoke about
their concern for safety with the proposed shared space for cars,
pedestrian and bikes (Option A), and their preference for Option B:
- Andrew Boone, resident (nauboone@gmail.com)
- Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto Borock also spoke about
the venue for LAC meetings, now held at Downtown Library
instead of City Hall’s Council Conference Room.
- Adina Levin, 1015 Fremont St., Menlo Park
LAC:20111027m 3
Discussion followed, with members of the LAC providing comments,
asking questions/clarification about the additions for Main Library and
stating preferences regarding the site integration concepts.
MOTION: Moss moved, Landauer seconded.
“That the LAC recommends Option A, with the caveat/understanding to
reconfigure if any problem does arise later.”
Motion passed, 5-1 (Hochberg opposing)
City Council’s discussion of the options for connectivity between the Art
Center and the Main Library is scheduled for December 12 (Action item).
4. Presentation on Art for Main Library and Art Center Percent for Art Project
Le Conge introduced Larisa Usich, Vice Chair of the Public Art
Commission (PAC), who gave a background of the process for selecting
the public art for the Main Library and Art Center, and a presentation on
the work of the artists selected for this project. The goal is to enhance the
connectivity between the Art Center, Main Library and adjacent
Community Gardens.
Commissioners watched the proposal video of the artists Joe O’Connell
and Blessing Hancock of Tucson AZ: six interactive metal sculptures in
lantern like forms for the plaza with letter cutouts forming words and
narrative phrases. These sculptures are lit at night and will change colors
when the public interacts with the sculptures.
Usich said the artists and PAC would like some help to refine the design
and would be interested to get input on thoughts for the languages and
texts to be used in the art pieces.
Members of the LAC asked questions about the art concept – where each
piece will be situated, safety issue, if any, etc. – and provided
comments/suggestions for moving the pieces around and for gathering
some statistics on what languages and texts to use.
Usich added that the artists will be coming back in December to get
community feedback.
The LAC thanked Usich for her presentation.
The contract with artist team Joe O’Connell and Blessing Hancock to
create site specific artworks for the Art Center and Main Library combined
percent for art project will go to Council on November 1.
LAC:20111027m 4
5. Reports from LAC Subcommittees on 2011 Priorities
The three LAC sub-committees met with le Conge to discuss their work
prior to the LAC meeting.
Moss and Train on measurement and analytics – will focus on developing
a simple dashboard and defining what the Commission wants to
know/work on and why.
Landauer provided a draft of dashboard metrics, with key information
taken from the Library’s statistical dashboard (How the Library Served
You @ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=28746)
and included information highlighting those items chosen as key projects
by the LAC for the current year.
Akinola and Hochberg on communication/marketing – the sub-
committee is leaning towards focusing on a virtual branch for marketing
opportunities, utilizing the Library website to engage patrons to access
library resources and services.
Commissioners agreed to duplicate Landauer’s exercise to come up with
suggestions for a dashboard to streamline the process. Staff will send out
the two documents to Commissioners and comments, if any, will be given
to le Conge for review and/or to collate.
6. Planning for LAC Joint Meeting with City Council on December 5, 2011
Le Conge said the date for the Joint Meeting with City Council has been
moved to December 12 (new date), to coincide with Council’s discussion
of the options for connectivity between the Main Library and Art Center.
Members of the LAC gave suggestions for topics of discussion at the
December 12 meeting: the subcommittees’ work, why chosen and current
status; virtual branch for Library; populated dashboard; Link+; e-Books;
long-term takeaways - ideas on how to keep all five libraries open with
existing resources; suite of services available; how to be creative to
provide new needs/services to the community.
Hochberg said it would be more efficient to focus on a small number of
topics, get Council’s feedback and answer questions.
Schmid encouraged the LAC to use the time to not only bring issues to
Council, but to mention success stories as there is a sense of celebration
with the library building projects.
LAC:20111027m 5
The usual practice is for the Chair and Vice Chair to meet with the Mayor
and Vice Mayor to decide on the agenda for the meeting. Palaniappan
said it would be helpful if this meeting can be held before the LAC meeting
on November 17. Staff will send the meeting request.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Le Conge provided a written report of recent library activities of interest in the
packet, which included
All Palo Alto City Libraries will be closed on October 31 for a major
technology upgrade that will improve its Integrated Library and Public
Access Computer Systems. While the Library is closed, staff will work on
special projects that do not require a working catalog, including program
planning, community collaboration, and statistical analysis.
A tour of the Mitchell Park construction site is scheduled for (1) the LAC
and Parks and Recreation Commission on November 4, 4 p.m, (2) the
Palo Alto Library Foundation (PALF) on November 18.
Diane Lai’s first day in Palo Alto will be on November 17. She is the new
Division Head, Collections and Technical Services, replacing Mary Minto
who retired after 39 years of service.
Google Chromebooks (internet browsers) will be available to library users
at the Downtown, Main, and Mitchell Park Temporary Libraries from
November 8, 2011 through February 7, 2012. Palo Alto is the only public
library that Google approached for testing its product.
September’s Library Card Sign-up campaign was very successful in
encouraging City staff to visit the Downtown Library and sign up for library
cards.
Update on Mitchell Park project: Construction is progressing well and 5%
of the contingency has been spent to date.
Upcoming Council dates:
November 7 - Report on Automated Materials Handling
November 21 – Community presentation on Project Safety Net
OTHER REPORTS
Commissioner reports and questions:
Train said she appreciates getting copies of public letters to Council and
responses from staff.
Commissioners reported on other meetings that they attended in October:
Palo Alto Library Foundation Board meeting on October 11 - Train
Friends of the Palo Alto Library’s Board and Annual Meeting held
on October 12 – Moss
Library Bond Stakeholder’s Meeting on October 4 and 13 -
Hochberg
LAC:20111027m 6
Council Liaison Report:
Council interviewed candidates for the LAC vacancy on October 24 and
will be voting to appoint on November 7.
The submittal of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Monthly
Construction Contract Report to Council and Council’s direction to staff to
continue these reports will be scheduled in November.
Schmid looks forward to the upcoming LAC Joint Meeting with Council in
December.
COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioners agreed to continue to hold LAC meetings at Downtown
Library but with a different room set-up, similar to that in the Council
Conference Room, to interact effectively with the public.
Hochberg has photos available for Commissioners to review of his recent
visit to a London library.
le Conge asked about a December meeting for the LAC. In recent years,
the Commission did not meet in December unless there is a need to
respond to Council action.
AGENDA for meeting on November 17, 2011:
The items suggested for the meeting are:
Staff Presentation: Youth Services, e-Readers, Strategic Planning
Planning for LAC Joint Meeting with City Council on December 12,
2011
Library Dashboard
Virtual Library Plan
Hochberg moved to adjourn.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:28 p.m.
APPROVED
October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 1
Attachment C
MINUTES
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 2011
City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave
Commissioners Present:Deidre Crommie, Sunny Dykwel, Jennifer Hetterly, Ed Lauing,Pat
Markevitch,Daria Walsh
Commissioners Absent:Paul Losch
Others Present: Council Liaison Karen Holman
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Sally Camozzi, Rob de Geus, Joe
Vallaire
I.ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Sally Camozzi
II.AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS:
III.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:Mark Petersen-Perez commented that Police Chief
Dennis Burns is holding meetings behind closed doors, which he believes is a violation of
the Brown Act.
IV. BUSINESS:
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 27, 2011 regular meeting - The
September 27,2011 draft minutes were approved as amended. Approved 6:0
2.Presentation from the Friends of Palo Alto Parks –Daren Anderson introduced
Susan Beale, a long-time resident of Palo Alto and a board member of the Friends of
Palo Alto Parks. She said the Friends work to achieve three objectives:
a. to provide funding to enrich, enhance and beautify Palo Alto Parks and
Open Space Preserves;
b. to foster greater public awareness, appreciation and ownership; and
c. to raise funds to assist in the purchase of additional parks and open space.
She went over some of the projects that they have and are currently working
on together as a public/private partnership. These included working with the
Kiwanis’ to provide color to the beds on Embarcadero Road and Heritage
APPROVED
October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 2
Park playground. The beautification and the renaming of Lytton Plaza, the
Magical Bridge Project at Mitchell Park, one of the first universally accessible
playgrounds in Palo Alto’s park system. Susan Beale also invited the
Commissioners to come to one of their board meetings at 1950 University
Avenue on the second Tuesday of each month at 11:30am.
Public Comment
Mark Weiss –Mr. Weiss spoke on the renaming of Lytton Plaza. He made some
suggestions such as;Joan Baez, Wallace Stegner,and Goodwin Steinberg.
3.Recommendation to Council for a Park Improvement Ordinance for the
installation of a restroom at Juana Briones Park –Holly Boyd with the Public
Works Engineering department presented the Park Improvement Ordinance and asked
for the support of the Commission. Based on a community meeting in September
2011, the public supports a restroom but preferred an alternative location.The
proposed new location near the fire station would require the removal of 3 fruit trees;
however they would be replaced with new trees and plantings in the vicinity of the
new restrooms. The restrooms would be 20’ x 25’ with automatic locks which would
be programmed to unlock at dawn and lock for the night at dusk.
Public Comment
Aram James –Mr. James expressed concern about locking restrooms between dusk and
dawn. He suggested surveillance instead if the City is concerned about criminal activity
in the restrooms. He again stated that he was in favor of a restroom for everyone’s use.
Trina Lovercheck –Ms. Lovercheck spoke in support of the restroom in the park, and
feels the location near fire station is a good idea.
Mark Petersen-Perez –Mr. Peterson-Perez also expressed concern about vandalism, and
suggested that perhaps the public could use the restroom at the fire station instead. He
would like to see a green design for the new restroom that would utilize green technology
such as solar panels to provide power, and would like to see no additional expense
incurred to provide the restroom.
Commissioner Crommie suggested placards on the restroom to provide the location of the
nearest open restroom and a number for the public to call to report graffiti. She also
suggested the use of a graffiti-resistant coating to protect the restroom structure.It was
noted that the residents preferred the Seale Park model for the new restroom.
Commissioner Dykwel commented that the City has an ordinance that closes all parks
from dusk to dawn.Chair Walsh asked whether the restroom could be moved to the
decomposed granite area adjacent to the basketball court as opposed to on the grass
area requiring the removal of trees. Holy Boyd responded by saying the location was
recommended by the public at the community meeting and further she would be
APPROVED
October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 3
concerned that the safety buffer zone needed for the basketball court would likely be a
problem.
Motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission Recommend to Council to approve
the Park Improvement Ordinance for the installation of a restroom at
Juana Briones Park. Passed 6:0.
4.Review updated concepts for improving the Main Library/Art Center connectivity -
Rob de Geus introduced Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer Public Work Department who
presented some renderings of three possible designs to improve Art Center / Main
Library connectivity. Karen Bengard stated that they had four goals in mind while
planning the project.
a. to respect the historical character of the site;
b. to embrace sustainable concepts;
c. to utilize the external space to allow people to gather; and
d. to integrate the design to provide a consistent campus.
The plan includes removal of 11 trees, of which 8 are large juniper shrubs. A total of 21
new trees would be planted to replace these existing trees/shrubs. The goals for the
integration of the space would be for safety and lighting. Two separate options were
introduced; one option (A) calls for a shared roadway for cars, pedestrians and bicyclists
sharing the road. Another option (B) calls for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway only.
Public Comment
Pingyu Liu -Mr. Liu felt the proposed renderings represented a beautiful, thoughtful
design, but doesn’t want the City to spend the money since he doesn’t see the project as a
necessity. He supports the proposed safety aspects but thinks signage could be used to
achieve the same purpose.
Andrew Boone –Mr. Boone frequently visits the Community Garden; he is concerned
about a road being placed into this safe and peaceful environment. Palo Alto should be
promoting more pedestrian only zones; he felt the city should be promoting safety for
children over having to drive a few extra minutes to find a parking space in an adjacent
lot.
Rita Morgin -Ms. Morgin expressed her concern over the design featuring cobblestones.
She felt the pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be handicap-accessible, paved with
smooth surfaces and clear, well-lit way-finding. She supports pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly pathways, but not car friendly. She also inquired about the cost of the project.
Ute Engelke -Ms. Engelke supported the previous public comment and reminded the
Commission that this is the year of the bicycle not the automobile. She added that she
would like to see more information related to the cost and the comparison of all the
options and a better understanding of the connectivity between the library and the
gardens which doesn’t appear to be shown in the design concepts.
Commissioner Comments
APPROVED
October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 4
Commissioner Crommie agreed that the proposed connection was very beautiful; but
expressed concern over the need to connect parking lots. She felt there were two separate
issues; the connection between buildings and the connection between parking lots.She
also questioned the rationale for constructing a vehicle connector road and was not
convinced it would resolve the concerns of frustrated drivers.
Commissioner Markevitch suggested changing the timing for the light on Newell and
Embarcadero to relieve the car-parking issue. She stated that the reason for the public’s
frustration with cutting through lots is largely due to the long wait at the light at Newell
and Embarcadero. She also supports a pedestrian/bicycle pathway without cars.
Further discussion followed regarding the need to include Parks staff in the selection of
the plantings as they will be responsible for maintaining them. Commissioners were
interested to learn more about the cost of the connector road versus the bicycle pedestrian
path. According to Bengard, the Library Director fully supports the vehicle road. The
funding for this project would be divided 50/50 between the Art Center project budget
and the library project budget.
Motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation is Option B, the
pedestrian/bicycle pathway, between the Art Center and Library. Passed: 4:2
(Commissioners Walsh and Crommie)
Note –Chair Walsh opposed the motion in support of the Art Center Director and Library
Director who both support a connector road for vehicles believing it would be beneficial
to their respective operations. Commissioner Crommie opposed the vote for entirely
different reasons, believing that an option of no path, leaving the area more natural with
mulch should be considered.
5. Informational report on Public Art planned for the Main Library/Art Center Project
Elise DeMarzo of the City’s Art Center presented the artists’ renderings for the proposed
Art for the Art Center and Main Library connectivity. The Commission was pleased with
the proposed art.
Commissioner Dykwel suggested that the youth in our community come up with words
and phrases to be contained in the public art such as “proactive”, “open spaces” and
“innovation”. Commissioner Hetterly suggested that the lights in the art pieces shine
more brightly down and less brightly up. She also suggested some words for the art such
as “citizen engagement and informed” and recommended staff suggest words that speak
to the communities values.
APPROVED
October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 5
6.Presentation and discussion on the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Reconfiguration Configuration -Rob de Geus provided some background information
to the Commission. In his discussion he provided specific information such as:
·The cost to run the golf course is approximately $3 million a year (excludes
overhead cost and debt service)
·Debt service is $650,000
·Play decline for the last 10 years
·100,000 rounds in 1990 to 70,000 rounds in 2011
·Palo Alto Golf Course still doing better then other local golf courses.
Forrest Richardson presented the process he has gone through in coming up with the initial
reconfiguration alternatives of the golf course in conjunction with the flood control project.
Mr. Richardson has completed a course evaluation and study, and based on this
information he has come up with various schematic design options. He has been contracted
by the City separately to also prepare a master plan for the golf course.
Mr. Richardson’s goals for this project include accommodating the creek mitigation,
improving play, creating a more memorable golf experience (the WOW factor) and
establishing a roadmap for the future. Given the current constraints, he offered 6 different
solutions by providing 6 schematic design options to reconfigure the holes to
accommodate the creek mitigation project. He also discussed incorporating the Baylands
theme into the master plan which can be implemented right now or over the next 10 years,
all with the goal of creating a better facility to include:
a.New entry signage and a new road into the golf course;
b.Expanded and enhanced parking with more spaces and landscaping;
c.A trail system (hiking and biking) with access to food and drink or perhaps the
driving range;
d.An open-air cart storage building with natural ventilation;
e.A high-tech range performance building;
f.A public putting green;
g.An expanded driving range with an estimated $30,000 per bay in projected annual
revenue;
h.A second putting green;
i.A wedding lawn; and
j.A clubhouse expansion/enhancement.
Public Comment
Craig Allen –Mr.Allen spoke on behalf of himself and other golfers saying that they
were excited about the options being proposed. He also felt that the City by not selecting
Option A and going with Option D would be beneficial to the city by drawing in more
APPROVED
October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 6
golfers and increase revenue. Mr. Allen was also pleased with the cooperation that
SFCJPA has provided and felt it has added to the strength of the project.
The Commission was then given time for comments.
Council Liaison Holman asked if there were figures for the profit potential of the other
options which include weddings, utilizing the restaurant for dinner, etc. Rob de Geus
responded that they weren’t there yet, and they had just seen the schematics earlier that
day.
Commissioner Markevitch asked if it was possible to combine use of the driving range
with a soccer field after 8:00pm. Forrest Richardson responded that it was possible but an
analysis would be required. The driving range is currently graded for golf and not a
soccer field and he is not aware of another multi-use situation
Commissioner Hetterly knows golfers who would never choose Palo Alto Muni Golf
Course as their first choice, and she would not support Option A. She supports the other
options that would move the golf course up from the last choice course. She loves the
idea of bringing the Baylands feel into the golf course, and making the restaurant into a
lunch spot for the area.
Commissioner Crommie is not a fan of the golf course, and thinks if we plan to keep the
golf course we should make it an asset. She likes the dual-use concept, incorporating
trails for hikers and bikers. She also introduced the idea of bike rentals at the golf course
and feels it would make a better entry to biking at the Baylands. She also suggested a
name change for the course to Palo Alto Baylands Golf Course.
In response to Commissioner Crommie’s questions about the levy trail, Kevin Murray
(SFCJPA) responded that trail improvements are planned in the project which would
include improved connection to the Bay Trail to the north and south. Also, there will be
improved access and a wider trail from 12 to 16 feet wide.
Commissioner Lauing was really impressed with the architectural design of the proposed
buildings and also impressed with the price. He feels there would be many opportunities
for programming and he envisions it becoming another community center. His concern is
that in the past, Council has not been supportive of investments in the golf course, but
thinks this architectural design could prove to be a spectacular community center.
Chair Walsh believes it is critical to find new and creative ways to increase resident use
and participation of the golf course. If this becomes a place Palo Alto residents will go
and use, they will value it. She also recommends the plans for the golf course and
APPROVED
October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 7
buildings are as environmentally friendly as possible which will appeal to the
community.
7. Recommendation to revise Municipal Code 22.04.180 to place limits on amplified
sound at Lytton Plaza –Daren Anderson reviewed the recommendation of amending the
existing Ordinance 22.04.180 (Parks and Recreation Building Use and Regulations) of the
Municipal Code that was included in the Commissioners packet. The amendment is to
impose a permit requirement and time use limitations for sound amplification on
equipment only at Lytton Plaza.He informed the Commission that there have been
numerous complaints made to the police department from the surrounding local businesses
and citizens.According to April Wagner of the Police department, they do not have enough
resources to respond to these complaints.
Public Comment
Mark Weiss -Mr. Weiss commented on his disappointment with the staff report. He
encouraged the Commission to not approve this amendment. He referenced the cities of
Los Angeles and Seattle, stating that they both have attempted to ban amplified music
from street musicians and both cases wee subsequently thrown out of courts.
Herb Borack –Mr. Borack also opposed the amendment and felt it would have a definite
impact on the freedom of expression at Lytton Plaza.
Susan Webb –Ms. Webb spoke on not supporting this amendment. She has utilized this
location every Wednesday and Friday night since January 2010 and felt it would be a
shame to make the musicians pay for a permit to perform in the plaza.
The Commission after discussing this item felt that it needed to be discussed further and
Commissioners Markevitch and Dykwel suggested that a subcommittee be formed to look
into it further. An ad hoc committee was formed with Commissioners Lauing, Markevitch
and Dykwel.It was then agreed to take no action until after the ad hoc committee meets
and bring it back to the Commission at a later date.
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 13, 2011 MEETING
VII. ADJOURNMENT
12 midnight
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2525)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/21/2012
May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 9
(ID # 2525)
Summary Title: Carbon Neutral Electric Portfolio Plan
Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Pursue a Carbon-
Neutral Electric Portfolio and Develop a Plan by December 2012
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Council support a policy
to pursue a carbon-neutral electric portfolio and direct staff to develop a plan by December
2012 to achieve that goal.
Executive Summary
Palo Alto has a long-standing reputation as a leader in issues related to the environment and
sustainability as reflected in the Council’s action to identify environmental sustainability as one
of its top priorities. Adopting a policy for a carbon-neutral electric portfolio is in direct support
of environmental sustainability and would further establish the City as a leader in sustainability.
By 2020, the City’s electric portfolio is expected to reach its 10-year energy efficiency goal of
renewable energy providing at least 33% of its annual needs and carbon-free large
hydroelectric supplies providing another 49% of the City’s needs. Therefore, by 2020, at least
80% of the City’s electricity supply will be from carbon-neutral resources.
Recognizing the Council’s commitment to environmental sustainability and community support
for measures to protect the climate, staff evaluated several strategies to further reduce the
carbon content of the electric portfolio in pursuit of carbon neutrality. Specifically, staff
examined increasing energy efficiency, increasing renewable energy procurement, and
procuring environmental offsets, and/or carbon allowances. Staff conducted a preliminary
assessment of the benefits, costs, rate and bill impacts and risks of pursuing such strategies.
Preliminary analysis shows that, depending on the strategy selected and market conditions, the
cost of achieving carbon neutrality may result in incremental rate impacts of 0.1 to 1.3 cents
per kilowatt hour (kWh), or $0.40 to $5.30 per month for the average resident. This rate
May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 9
(ID # 2525)
impact is in addition to the cost to meet the City’s 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
Current estimates suggest it will cost less than about 0.5 cents per kWh to achieve the 33% RPS.
Further, the electric utility industry faces unprecedented legislative, regulatory and market
uncertainty over the next few years, mainly attributed to the State’s goal to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions through implementation of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (AB32). The final rules for the implementation of the cap-and-trade system to meet AB32
goals along with regulations for the enforcement of California’s recently approved mandate for
a 33% RPS by 2020 are not yet known. Additionally, Governor Jerry Brown has announced his
desire to increase the RPS and establish a mandate for the development of local, renewable
generation. This uncertainty makes it difficult and risky to plan for, and acquire, long-term
resources.
Moreover, staff is undertaking several key initiatives and efforts over the next twelve to fifteen
months, which will impact the planning for, and pursuit of, carbon neutrality. In order to
complete the initiatives and allow time for some of the regulatory and legislative uncertainties
to be resolved, staff recommends developing a plan over the next year for the electric portfolio
to achieve carbon neutrality.
Background
The Council approved the Climate Protection Plan (CPP) in December 2007 (CMR 435:07). The
CPP set a goal to reduce GHG emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by the year 2020. In March
2011, the Council approved the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) (Staff Report 1317).
The LEAP Implementation Plan included a task to re-evaluate the costs, benefits and impacts of
implementing a carbon-neutral policy for the electric portfolio and setting quantitative goals to
reduce GHG emissions. Further, in July 2011 Council approved the Utilities Strategic Plan (Staff
Report 1880), including a performance measure to reduce the carbon intensity of the electric
portfolio.
Discussion
Alternative Strategies to Achieve Carbon Neutrality
Staff identified and conducted preliminary analysis on several electric portfolio strategies with
different environmental and cost attributes. Specifically, staff evaluated the following six
alternative portfolios that could be used to achieve carbon neutrality:
1. Increase the ten-year electric energy efficiency (EE) goal from 6.4% to 7.8% of load
and increase the City’s RPS to 51%;
2. Increase the City’s RPS to 52%;
3. Purchase non-RPS eligible renewables such as large hydroelectric generation;
4. Purchase non RPS eligible Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs);
5. Purchase and retire carbon allowances; and
6. Purchase environmental offsets.
May 21, 2012 Page 3 of 9
(ID # 2525)
Some of the strategies are intended to directly alter the City’s electric load and/or supply
mix, while others are less direct alternatives, which would include the purchase of
environmental products in an amount equivalent to the City’s “brown market” energy
purchases, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. The base case assumes that the ten-year EE
goal and the 33% RPS goal are met.
Figure 1: Resource Portfolios for Each Strategy Evaluated
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Base Increase EE and
RPS
Increase RPS Purchase Non-
RPS, carbon-free
resources
Purchase RECs,
Carbon
Allowances, or
OffsetsStrategy
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
M
e
e
t
L
o
a
d
(
G
W
h
/
y
r
)
Existing Large Hydro
33% RPS
Additional RPS-
eligible resources
Energy Efficiency
Carbon-free
resourcesBrown Power Brown Power
Staff’s preliminary assessment concludes that depending on the alternative pursued and
market conditions, achieving carbon neutrality in the year 2020 could have annual cost
of $0.6 to $11.4 million more than the base case. This would result in an upward impact
on rates of from 0.1 to 1.3 ¢/kWh. Assuming that the system average retail rate is 14.5
¢/kWh in 2020, the upward rate impact from that cost ranges from 0.7% to 9.0%. Table
1 summarizes the results from the preliminary analysis. A more detailed description of
the analysis and the products reviewed is included in the report to the UAC for its
December 7, 2011 meeting (Attachment A).
May 21, 2012 Page 4 of 9
(ID # 2525)
Table 1: Summary of Carbon-Neutral Portfolio Strategies and Impacts in 2020
Cost and Rate
Impacts
Base
Case
Increase
EE &
RPS
Targets
Increase
RPS
Target
Purchase
Carbon-free
Resources
(Non-RPS
eligible)
Purchase
Un-
bundled
RECs
Purchase
Carbon
Allowances
Purchase
Offsets
Incremental Cost
from Base Case
($M/year)
NA 9.4-
11.4 4.2-6.4 0.6-2.1 1.1-4.2 2.5-7.6 1.7-5.1
Rate Impact (¢/kWh) NA 1.2-1.3 0.4-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.4 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.5
Rate Impact (%) * NA 8.3-9.0 2.8-4.1 0.7-1.4 0.7-2.8 1.4-4.8 1.4-3.4
Average Residential
Bill Impact ($/year) • NA 58-63 20-29 5-10 5-20 10-34 10-24
* Percentage rate impact assumes that system average retail rate for base case =
14.5 ¢/kWh in 2020
Assuming median residential class usage of 407 kWh/month (actual from FY
2011)
Carbon-Neutral Plan
First and foremost, the plan to achieve carbon neutrality will need to address why the City
should pursue carbon-neutrality, including the overall objective, and how and by when the City
will achieve carbon neutrality. At a minimum, the plan will address the following components:
1. Assessment of the community’s desire to pursue a carbon-neutral electric portfolio and
willingness to pay for such an endeavor;
2. Appropriate rate impact limit;
3. Definition and measurement of carbon neutrality;
4. Identification and evaluation of types of resources to reach a carbon-neutrality goal;
5. Evaluation of alternate electric portfolio resource acquisition strategy including levels of
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and any other resource identified;
6. Determination of how the PaloAltoGreen program can help, or be modified to help,
achieve a carbon-neutral goal;
7. Mitigation and/or contingency measures to deal with uncertainties such as changes in
regulations;
8. A time-line to achieve a carbon-neutral electric portfolio; and
9. Recommendation of a strategy to achieve a carbon-neutral electric portfolio.
Defining Carbon Neutrality
A consistent and standard definition of carbon neutrality does not exist in the energy sector.
Generally, carbon neutrality is defined as achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a
measured amount of carbon emissions with an equivalent amount of carbon offsets, achieved
by some type of carbon reduction activity or the acquisition of energy resources deemed to be
carbon-neutral. Achieving carbon neutrality for the City’s electric portfolio could be defined as
May 21, 2012 Page 5 of 9
(ID # 2525)
annually reporting zero net GHG emissions according to The Climate Registry (TCR)1 protocols.
While this method may be deemed an acceptable measure of carbon neutrality, there are
several inconsistencies between TCR’s acceptance of certain resources and/or instruments as
carbon-neutral, the standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for GHG
reduction measures, resources deemed RPS eligible by the CEC (e.g., renewable energy
certificates), and how resources are reported annually in the City’s Power Content Label.
Further, maintaining carbon neutrality on an annual basis may prove difficult given variations in
load and supply resources.
Ultimately, in its quest to achieve carbon neutrality, the City will need to adopt a definition of
carbon neutrality for the City’s electric portfolio, while recognizing the possible discrepancies in
external reporting protocols. The plan will need to establish a definition of carbon neutrality
early as it will drive the alternatives evaluated. The definition will also need to address the
timeframe for measuring carbon neutrality due to the annual variability of supply generation in
the portfolio.
Community’s Willingness to Pay
An assessment of the community’s desire to pursue a carbon-neutral electric portfolio
and its willingness to pay for such an endeavor must take into consideration the cost
and rate impacts of other climate protection measures, including meeting the City’s
energy efficiency goals and RPS. Staff intends to use multiple approaches to elicit input
from a representative segment of the Utilities’ electric customers.
Resource Acquisition Strategy
The plan to achieve carbon neutrality will need to further analyze the cost of pursuing carbon
neutrality and address market availability of certain resources, the range of costs under various
market, hydroelectric generation and load conditions, and the risks of developing a carbon
neutral portfolio. Additionally, the plan will need to consider how a carbon neutrality goal will
work with other resource acquisition efforts including existing and new energy efficiency goals
and the City’s RPS and the incremental and overall impact to customers’ rates and bills.
Energy Efficiency: The City’s adopted 10-Year Electric EE goal is based on the amount of cost-
effective EE the City could realistically obtain. If higher levels of EE could be achieved, it would
reduce the amount of wholesale market purchases and the renewable energy and carbon
neutral resources needed.
State law (AB 2021; passed in 2006) requires that all investor- and publicly-owned utilities, such
as the City, develop a ten-year EE plan every three years. The City’s next ten-year EE plan will
1 TCR is a nonprofit collaboration among North American states, provinces, territories and Native Sovereign
Nations that sets consistent and transparent standards to calculate, verify and publicly report GHG emissions into a
single registry. TCR supports both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs and provides comprehensive,
accurate data to reduce GHG emissions. The City is a member of TCR and has been reporting its GHG emissions
since 2005.
May 21, 2012 Page 6 of 9
(ID # 2525)
be completed by the end of 2012. The goals set forth in the next ten-year EE plan will re-
evaluate the amount of cost-effective EE available and achievable potential. The plan to
achieve carbon neutrality will take into consideration the EE goals set forth in the new EE plan
and will also assess the possible impacts from adopting carbon neutrality on customers’
motivation to implement EE measures.
Renewable Portfolio Standard: The City’s RPS target is for renewable energy resources to
provide 33% of the City’s needs by 2015 within a rate impact limit of 0.5 ¢/kWh. Based on
current prices for renewable energy, the 33% RPS can be achieved within the rate impact limit.
In a separate report to the Finance Committee, staff is pursuing certain policy modifications to
the City’s RPS, including seeking clarification as to whether the City should pursue RPS resources
only up to the 33% of retail sales or up to the annual rate impact limit of 0.5 ¢/kWh.
Regulatory and Legislative Uncertainty of Cap-and-Trade and RPS Rules
State-level regulations for implementation of AB32 and RPS still face high levels of
uncertainty. Even after the cap-and-trade program is approved and implemented, there
is a chance that the emission allowances may be reallocated by the California Air
Resources Control Board (CARB) to address unforeseen changes in the electric sector
and/or additional requirements may be placed on utilities, such as the City, including
requirements of how to spend revenues derived from the sale of allowances from
CARB’s cap-and-trade program.
While the CEC works to develop the rules around implementation of the State’s RPS law
(SB X1-2), longer-term RPS goals remain uncertain. Directions from Governor Brown
suggest an increase in the RPS beyond 33% as well as potential state mandates that
dictate a certain mix of RPS resources for all LSEs. Another uncertainty centers on
Governor Brown’s call for 12,000 megawatts (MW) of local renewable distributed
generation by 2020 and whether or not this will become a mandate for the City. It is
unclear how such requirements would be implemented, if mandated, and what the
City’s specific requirement for building local distributed generation might be.
Pursuit of a carbon-neutral portfolio at this stage of regulatory uncertainty could result in
stranded assets (i.e., long term contracts that do not meet electric portfolio requirements
mandated by state law). The plan for moving forward with carbon neutrality will assess the
impacts of the final State regulations for SB X1-2 and cap-and-trade in addition to any new
mandates related to resource acquisition.
Hydroelectric Resource Uncertainty
In addition to the regular daily, monthly, seasonal and annual variations of the City’s
hydroelectric resources, there is significant uncertainty related to the future of the City’s two
hydroelectric resources. Several Biological Opinions and the proposed Delta Outflow Criteria
related to the San Francisco Bay and Delta conditions could jeopardize the availability and value
May 21, 2012 Page 7 of 9
(ID # 2525)
of long-term hydroelectric resources. Should such risks materialize and the City’s long-term
availability of hydroelectric generation is less than currently projected, the cost of achieving
carbon neutrality will increase as the City will need to procure additional carbon-free resources.
The plan for carbon neutrality will need to address the cost and rate impacts of achieving
carbon neutrality under a scenario with long-term decreased hydroelectric resources, in
addition the annual variations in hydroelectric resources.
PaloAltoGreen Program
PaloAltoGreen is a voluntary renewable energy program, in which participants pay an
additional 1.5 ¢/kWh for their electricity for 100% renewable energy. PaloAltoGreen
participants account for 7% of the City’s electric load and approximately 20% of the
City’s electric customers are on the PaloAltoGreen rate.
As the City gets closer to achieving its RPS goals, design modifications to the
PaloAltoGreen program are being considered, including an assessment of whether or
not the program can be redesigned to assist in meeting the City’s RPS goals. Further,
should the City move towards a carbon-neutral electric portfolio, the need for and
relevance of PaloAltoGreen as currently designed, will diminish. The plan to achieve
carbon neutrality will need to consider the future of PaloAltoGreen and if modifications
to the program can help achieve carbon reduction goals.
Commission Review and Recommendation
At the December 2011 UAC meeting, staff provided a report to the UAC (Attachment A) seeking
support for the development of a plan to pursue carbon neutrality. The report contained a high
level analysis of the costs and impacts of alternative portfolio strategies along with a discussion
of the various elements to be included in a plan to pursue carbon neutrality. The UAC
unanimously supported staff’s recommendation to develop a plan and recommended the
Council direct staff to fully explore the various alternatives including the cost and impacts under
various scenarios. The UAC also expressed its desire to have the City be a leader in this area and
to develop a program that could be replicated by others. Further, the UAC supported efforts to
engage the community and seek input on the community’s willingness to pay for additional
climate protection measures, including carbon neutrality.
The UAC voted unanimously to “recommend that the City Council support a policy to pursue a
carbon-neutral electric portfolio and direct staff to develop a plan by December 2012 to achieve
that goal.” The final minutes from the UAC’s December 2011 meeting are provided in
Attachment B.
Next Steps
Pending the Council’s approval to move forward with the development of a plan, staff will
develop a timeline and approach to develop the plan. Staff will return to the UAC and the
Council for direction, as needed, before the final plan and recommendations are developed. The
preliminary timeline illustrates the key steps and elements involved in the development of the
May 21, 2012 Page 8 of 9
(ID # 2525)
plan. Staff anticipates refinements to the timeline as part of the process of developing the plan
for carbon neutrality.
Tentative 2012 Timeline
May – June Staff activities:
Identify a broad set of potential portfolios that would achieve
carbon neutrality. Some portfolios could differ by date carbon
neutrality is achieved
Assess other communities’ carbon neutrality plans or goals
Evaluate alternatives to incorporate hydrologic variations
Develop alternative definitions of carbon neutrality
Identify and assess alternative carbon neutral resources, including
RECs, renewable energy, carbon offsets, GHG allowances
Narrow the set of portfolios for further analysis
UAC – July
Council – August
Staff presents analysis and recommendation for:
Definition of carbon neutrality
The set of carbon neutral portfolio options to evaluate in further
detail
June – August Staff consults with community stakeholders and seeks community
input through surveys and other tools to determine:
Willingness to pay for carbon neutrality
Reaction to the carbon neutral portfolio options
June – September Staff refines analysis of carbon neutral portfolio options, including:
Update assessment of EE potential for the 2013 10-year Electric EE
Plan and goals
Update renewable energy portfolio with new contracts, if any
Revise estimate of participants for local renewable distributed
generation, including the City’s Clean Local Energy Accessible Now
Program (CLEAN)
Evaluate cost and rate impacts under various scenarios (market
prices, projected cost of carbon allowances, hydroelectric
generation, etc.)
Evaluate options for redesigning the PaloAltoGreen Program
Evaluate risks, including regulatory risk
UAC – October
Council – December
Staff presents analysis and recommended Carbon Neutral Plan
Resource Impact
There is no impact to the budget as a result of staff’s recommendation to develop a plan
to achieve carbon neutrality. Staff may utilize outside expertise to help develop the plan
or analyze different aspects of it, but those resources are provided in the FY 2012
May 21, 2012 Page 9 of 9
(ID # 2525)
budget, or will be requested in the FY 2013 budget. The plan will address the resource
impacts required to achieve a carbon-neutral electric portfolio.
Policy Implications
The proposed recommendation meets the Council-approved LEAP Objectives, Strategies
and Implementation Plan, supports the Council-approved 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan’s
environmental sustainability objective, is consistent with the City’s Climate Protection
Plan, and supports environmental sustainability, one of the Council’s top priorities.
Environmental Review
Support of staff’s recommendation to develop a plan to achieve a carbon-neutral
electric portfolio does not constitute a project for the purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: UAC Memo: Plan to Achieve Carbon Neutrality for the Electric Portfolio
(PDF)
Attachment B: Final Excerpted Minutes of UAC's December 7, 2011 Meeting (PDF)
Prepared By: Monica Padilla, Sr. Resource Planner
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Page 1 of 16
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM:UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE:DECEMBER 7, 2011
SUBJECT:Plan to Achieve Carbon Neutrality for the Electric Portfolio
REQUEST
Staff requests that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council
support a policy to pursue a carbon-neutral electric portfolio and direct staff to develop a plan by
December 2012 to achieve that goal.
SUMMARY
Palo Alto has a long-standing reputation as a leader in issues related to the environment and
sustainability as reflected in Council’s action to identifyenvironmental sustainabilityas one of its top
priorities. Adoption of a carbon-neutral electric portfolio policy is in direct support of environmental
sustainability and would further establish the City as a leader in sustainability.
By the year 2020, the City’s electric portfolio is expected to reach its 10-year energy efficiency goal
of 7.2% reduction in usage and will have renewable energy provide at least 33% of its annual needs
with carbon-free large hydroelectric supplies providing another 49% of the City’s needs.Therefore,
by 2020, about 80%of the City’s electricity supply will be from carbon-neutral resources.
Recognizing Council’s commitment to environmental sustainability and community support for
measures to protect the climate, staff evaluated several strategies to further reduce the carbon content
of the electric portfolio in pursuit of carbon neutrality. Specifically, staff examined increasing
energy efficiency goals, increasing renewable energy targets, procuring additional carbon-free
resources, such as large hydroelectric generation, and procuring renewable energy certificates
(RECs), environmental offsets, and/or carbon allowances. Staff conducted a preliminaryassessment
of the benefits, costs, rate and bill impacts and risks of pursuing such strategies.
Preliminary results show that depending on the strategy taken and market conditions, the cost of
achieving carbon neutrality may result in incremental rate impacts of 0.1 to 1.3 cents per kilowatt
hour (kWh),or $0.40 to $5.30 per month for the average residential bill1. This rate impact is in
addition to the cost to meet the state requirement to meet a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard
1 Assumes a typical residential bill of 400 kWh per month.. A typical small commercial customer will use about 800
kWh per month.
Page 2 of 16
(RPS). Current estimates suggest it will cost the City 0.35 to 0.5 cents per kWh to achieve the 33%
RPS.
Further, the electric utility industry faces an unprecedented amount of legislative, regulatory and
market uncertainty over the next few years, mainly attributed to the State’s pursuit to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through implementation of California’s Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006 (AB32).The final rules for the implementation of the cap-and-trade system to meet
AB32 goals along with regulations for the enforcement of California’s recently approved legislation
to mandate an RPS of 33% by 2020 are not yet known. Additionally, Governor Jerry Brown has
made certain policy goals public including the possibility of increasing the RPS and mandating the
development of local, renewable distributed generation. This uncertainty makes it difficult and risky
to plan for,and acquire,long-term resources.
Moreover, staff is undertaking several key initiatives and efforts over the next twelve to fifteen
months, which may impact how and when the Council chooses to move forward in pursuing carbon
neutrality, including:
1.Updating and pursuing the City’s RPS target of 33% by 2015,and development of an RPS
compliance program to meet the new state mandate of 33% by 2020;
2.Full assessment of the costs, benefits and risks associated with cap-and-trade and necessary
policies, guidelines and authority to manage the electric portfolio accordingly;
3.Possible resolution on several environmental orders and/or opinions which may impact the
availability and value of the City’s long-term hydroelectric generation resources;
4.Redesign of the PaloAltoGreen program;and
5.Development of a new Ten-year Electric Energy Efficiency goal by the end of 2012.
In order to complete the initiatives and allow time for the regulatory and legislative uncertainties to
be resolved, staff recommends developing a plan for the electric portfolio to achieve carbon
neutrality over the next year. At a minimum, the plan will include the following components:
1.Assessment of the community’s desire to pursue a carbon-neutral electric portfolio and
willingness to pay for such an endeavor;
2.Appropriate rate impact limit;
3.Definition and measurement of carbon neutrality;
4.Identification and evaluation of types of resources to reach a carbon-neutrality goal;
5.Evaluation of alternate electric portfolio resource acquisition strategy including levels of
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and any other resource identified;
6.Determination of how the PaloAltoGreen program can help, or be modified to help, achieve
a carbon-neutral goal;
7.Mitigation and/or contingency measures to deal with uncertainties such as changes in
regulations;
8.A time-line to achieve a carbon-neutral electric portfolio; and
9.Recommendation of a strategy to achieve a carbon-neutral electric portfolio.
Page 3 of 16
BACKGROUND
Policy framework
Council approved the City’s Climate Protection Plan (CPP) in December 2007 (CMR 435:07). The
CPP set a goal to reduce GHG emissions by 15%from 2005 levels by the year 2020. In March 2011
Council approved the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP)(Staff Report 1317)establishing,
among other things,a least cost resource acquisition objective and general direction for efforts to
reduce the electric portfolio’s carbon intensity to achieve certain GHG reduction goals under Strategy
#5 –Climate Protection, consistent with the City’s CPP and AB32.Further, in July 2011 Council
approved the Utilities Strategic Plan (Staff Report 1880), including a performance measure to reduce
the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio.
City’s Climate Protection Plan and Role of Electric Supply in Community Emissions
In 2005, the City’s community GHG emission levels were 794,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent2 (CO2e)of which 145,000 metric tons of CO2e were attributed to the use of electricity3.
The CPP set a communityreduction goal from 2005 levels of 15% GHG emission reduction by 2020.
The Utilities Strategic Plan’s target is to reduce the electric portfolio’s carbon intensity to 80% of
2005 emission levels by 2015.Since 2005, due to the combination of an increased share of
renewable energy in the electric portfolio and lower loads due to efficiency measures and the
economic downturn, the carbon content of the electric supply was 109,000 metric tons in 20104.
Further, by 2015 as energy efficiency and RPS goals are met, GHG emissions from electricity
consumption are projected to decrease to about 84,0005 metric tons,a 42% reduction from 2005
levels. This result is in spite of a large increase in total City load related to a facility expansion
planned by a large commercial customer. Beyond 2015, the emissions are expected to remain
relatively flat through 2020. Figure 1 illustrates the gradual decline of emissions over time due to
higher renewable and efficiency penetration, but it also illustrates how annual emission levels are
highly sensitive to changes in the annual hydroelectric supply.
At the time that Council approved LEAP, staff recommended not to pursue a policy to achieve a
carbon-neutral portfolio for Palo Alto. Staff’s reasons for not recommending a carbon-neutral policy
and/or adoption of carbon intensity goals included: a high level of uncertainty related to
implementation of AB32’s cap-and-trade provisions to regulate GHG emissions; staff’s expectation
that adoption of an RPS would be required by Californian state law; and sensitivity to rate increases
related to additional climate protection measures. However, the LEAP Implementation Plan included
a task to re-evaluate the costs, benefits and impacts of the implementation of a carbon-neutral policy
for the electric portfolio and the setting of quantitative goals to reduce GHG emissions6.
2 CO2e, or carbon dioxide equivalent, is the concentration of carbon dioxide that would cause the same amount of
global warming impact as a given mixture of carbon dioxide and other GHG. For example, the global warming
potential for methane is 21. This means that the emission of one metric ton of methane is equivalent to the emission
of 21 metric tons of carbon dioxide.3 Source: Climate Protection Plan approved by City Council on December 3, 2007.4 Assumes unspecified market purchases accounted for 35% of load or (353 GWh) in 2010 and a carbon content of
879 pounds of CO2e per MWH of unspecified market resources.
5 Assumes average hydro conditions and unspecified market purchases will account for 20% of load or (212 GWh)
and a carbon content of 879 pounds of CO2e per MWh of unspecified market resources.6 LEAP Implementation Plan Task No. 26
Page 4 of 16
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Calendar Year
Total Electricity Supply Emissions (Tonnes CO2e)
CPAU Total Emissions (Actual / Projected)
CPAU Total Emissions (Average Hydro)
Actual Projected
Figure 1: Actual and Projected GHG Emissions for Palo Alto’s Electric Portfolio
DISCUSSION
Impact of California Regulations to Reduce Electric Sector Carbon Emissions under AB32
AB32 has statewide goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2020. The three main tenets of AB32
include:1) pursuit of all cost effective energy efficiency; 2)adoption of a state-wide RPS;and 3)
implementation of a state-wide cap-and-trade program to promote the development of low-carbon
emitting resources.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is in the process of finalizing regulations to achieve the
2020 emission reduction goals set-forth in AB32. The cap-and-trade regulations are expected to be
finalized in 2012 for implementation to begin January 2013. Under the cap-and-trade regulations
applicable to the electricity sector, CARB will be issuing “emission allowances”that electric
generators have to procure equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide and other GHGs the
generators expect to emit.
To help offset the additional cost to electricity consumers associated with meeting AB32 goals,
CARB staff proposes to allocate allowances free of charge to electric Load Serving Entities (LSEs),
such as the City,under the stipulation that LSEs in turn sell these allowances in a centralized market
or auction and collect revenue to reduce the impact to their customers who will be paying higher
wholesale electricity prices.CARB staff recommends that allowances be allocated to individual
utilities at the start of the program for 2013 to 2020. To allow for certainty in planning, LSEs will be
Page 5 of 16
given allocations for the eight-year period, with the amount of allowances decreasing each year after
2013. Allocations of free allowances are not expected beyond 2020.
Market evidence suggests that the forward price for electricity already includes the additional cost of
emission allowances resulting from cap-and-trade. Figure 2 shows the trading history of forward
wholesale electric prices in Northern California for calendar year strips for 2012 and 2013 and
illustrates the immediate increase and decrease in forward prices following certain regulatory
announcements by CARB. When CARB delayed the implementation of cap-and-trade to be
effective in 2013, instead of 2012, the price of electricity for calendar year 2012 immediately fell by
the market value of carbon allowances that was embedded in those prices. Based on current market
trading data,the cost of carbon allowances in the near-term (2013 to 2014) is about $16 to $18 per
metric ton of CO2e, which translates to a premium of about $7 to 8 per Megawatt-hour (MWh)
embedded in wholesale electric prices starting in 2013.
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11
NP15 Peak Electric Prices ($/MWh)
CY 2012
Prices
CY 2013
Prices
First Carbon Trade;
Carbon Premium
Added to Prices
CARB Announces No
Cap & Trade for 2012;
Carbon Premium
Taken out of 2012 Prices
Figure 2: Electric Wholesale Prices in Northern California
The City’s exposure to the cost of carbon is a direct function of its exposure to the wholesale
electricity market. The City’s market purchases are expected to be about 31%of load7 in 2013 and
decreasing to 20% in 2020. The City’s exposure to the carbon market fluctuates with changes in load
and supply resources as shown in Figure 38. As part of the plan to move forward with pursuing
carbon neutrality, staff will provide a thorough assessment of the potential impacts to the City of cap-
7 Load represents total supply acquired. Based on load forecasts and projections for energy efficiency (EE) savings
as of November 2011, the City’s load is projected to be 1,044 GWh in 2013 increasing to 1,084 GWh in 2020. 8 The supply resources represented in Figure 3 assume that the City’s RPS will be 33%of sales for 2015 and beyond.
Page 6 of 16
and-trade regulations and changes needed to manage the electric portfolio under the new regulatory
requirements.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020
Annual Load and Resource Supply (GWh)
Committed Renewables Future Renewables Large Hydro
Load Resource Total (Wet Year)Resource Total (Dry Year)
Market
Exposure
Carbon
Free
LOAD
Figure 3: Annual Load and Supply Resources under Va rious Hydrological Conditions
Energy Efficiency
The City’s adopted 10-Year Electric Energy Efficiency (EE) goal to reduce electric energy use by
approximately 74 Gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/year) by 20209, or 6.4% of the City’s usage,based
on the amount of cost-effective EE the City could realistically obtain. If higher levels of EE could be
achieved, it would offset the amount of wholesale market purchases (and, potentially, the renewable
energy supplies)needed.
The cost of electric EE has continued to increase as the City sets higher efficiency goals for several
reasons.Programs have expanded beyond the most cost-effective programs such as residential
refrigerator recycling and lighting into less cost-effective programs such as heating, ventilation and
air conditioning for businesses and behavioral programs for residents (e.g., Home EnergyReports).
Also, the California Energy Commission (CEC)continues to ramp up energy efficiency standards for
construction and new appliances under Titles 24 and 20.Since utilities are only able to count
savings for efficient systems, equipment and appliances above these higher standards, the amount of
9 The 10-year EE adopted goal is to reduce energy use by 7.2% of the forecasted load of 1,014 GWh, based on the
load forecast completed in November 2010. This corresponds to 74 GWh/year reduction by 2020. The updated
forecast is for load in 2020 to be 1,084 GWh, for which 74 GWh of EE savings translates to an energy efficiency
reduction target of 6.4%.
Page 7 of 16
savings that can be counted for each upgrade is reduced.Thus, the benefit-to-cost relationship for
programs is impacted on both sides of the equation, with the benefits that can be counted reduced,
and costs to implement programs increased.
State law (AB 2021; passed in 2006) requires that all investor-and publicly-owned utilities, such as
the City, develop a ten-year EE plan every three years. The City’s next ten-year EE plan will be
completed by the end of 2012. The goals set forth in the next ten-year EE plan will re-evaluate the
amount of cost-effective EE available. This evaluation will be used to develop the plan to achieve
carbon neutrality.
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
In April 2011, California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill X1-2 (SB X1-2)into law,
mandating a 33% RPS by 2020 for all LSEs, including municipal utilities such as Palo Alto. SB X1-
2 establishes the amount of renewable supplies,as a percent of retails sales volume,to be met by
certain compliance periods. The law maintains the CEC’s definition of eligible renewable resources
based on the resource’s technology, vintage, size and location. The law further establishes three
different categories or “buckets”10 of renewable resources based on whether the resource is
generated:in-state (Bucket 1); out-of-state or is a bundled product with energy and REC11 (Bucket
2); or a REC-only product (Bucket 3). Table 1 below summarizes the procurement requirements
established by SB X1-2 for each of the three compliance periods, as well as the limits on the use of
Bucket 1 and Bucket 3 renewables for each period.
Table 1: Summary of SB X1-2 Procurement Requirements by Compliance Period
Compliance
Period RPS Target Minimum %
for Bucket 1
Maximum %
for Bucket 3
2011 –2013 20%50%25%
2014 –2016 “Reasonable progress” to ensure 25%
renewable energy by the end of this period 65%15%
2017 –2020 “Reasonable progress” to ensure 33%
renewable energy by the end of this period 75%10%
In November 2011, staff provided a thorough report to the UAC on the implications of SB X1-2 on
the City’s RPS along with recommended policy changes to align the City’s RPS with certain aspects
of the state mandate. Included in that report was an assessment of the value of the City’s existing
renewable resources, all in Bucket 1, and the potential opportunity to swap surplus Bucket 1
10 Bucket 1 renewables includes in-state projects which deliver energy directly into a California balancing authority
such as the California Independent System Operator (CAISO); Bucket 2 renewable resources consists of energy
generated out-of-state that is used by the local grid as it is generated, and then later an equal amount of energy from a
different resource is delivered into the California grid as a “firmed and shaped”; Bucket 3 renewables encompasses
all REC-only transactions, otherwise known as unbundled-RECs since there is no underlying energy associated with
the contract. With an unbundled-REC, the renewable energy is generated and consumed separately from the RECs,
which are sold later.11 A REC represents the environmental attributes associated with the energy that was generated and one REC is
associated with one MWh of energy produced.
Page 8 of 16
resources with less valuable resources from Bucket 3. Specifically, the City could sell the energy
and green attributes associated with its existing in-state,landfill gas and/or wind renewable contracts
–the green attribute alone is currently valued at about $40/MWh –and replace with less expensive
Bucket 3 renewable resources (i.e., RECs)and generic market energy. A preliminary estimate of the
value to the City of undertaking such a strategy is $20 million over the next 10 years. In the report to
the UAC, staff recommended not pursuing such opportunities, since doing so may contradict the
Council’s original intent of committing to the resources for the purpose of meeting certain
environmental sustainability goals through the support of long-term renewable resources as opposed
to short-term RECs.However, staff reviewed this potential opportunity further and will complete a
more detailed analysis of the costs, benefits, and risks involved in the context of a plan to achieve a
carbon-neutral policy. The plan to achieve carbon neutrality will include a discussion of the
appropriateness of carrying out such a strategy along with a recommendation on whether or not to
pursue.
As part of LEAP and the City’s current RPS target of 33% by 2015, Council restated the annual rate
impact limit of 0.5 ¢/kWh. Through a request for proposals (RFP) recently issued for renewable
resources, the City has received several proposals which reflect a much lower cost of renewable
premiums than estimated in 2010, when the last set of renewable resource contracts were brought to
Council for approval. At that time, the renewable premium was approximately $40 per MWh for a
twenty-year contract for an in-state project. Preliminary results from the recent RFP show the
premium for the same type of renewable resource has decreased to about $20 per MWh. Staff is in
the process of evaluating the proposals based on several criteria,including project viability. If the
proposals prove to be viable, it is conceivable that the City could reach a 33% RPS with an estimated
annual rate impact of 0.35 ¢/kWh. Alternatively, utilizing the 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact limit, the City
could potentially achieve a 40% RPS. The plan to pursue carbon neutrality will examine the
potential rate impacts required to first reach the City’s RPS goal, and then achieve a carbon-neutral
portfolio with renewable resources.
Defining Carbon Neutrality
A consistent and standard definition of carbon neutrality does not exist in the energy sector.
Generally, carbon neutrality is defined as achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a
measured amount of carbon emissions with an equivalent amount of carbon offset, through some
type of carbon reduction activity, or through the acquisition of energy resources deemed to be
carbon-neutral. Achieving carbon neutrality for the City’s electric portfolio could be defined as
annually reporting zero net GHG emissions according to The Climate Registry (TCR)12 protocols.
While this method may be deemed an acceptable measure of carbon neutrality, there are several
inconsistencies between TCR’s acceptance of certain resources as carbon-neutral, the standards set
by CARB for GHG reduction measures, resources deemed RPS eligible by the CEC, and how
resources are reported annually in the City’s Power Content Label. Further, using an annual measure
of carbon neutrality may prove difficult given variations in load and supply resources.
12 TCR is a nonprofit collaboration among North American states, provinces, territories and Native Sovereign
Nations that sets consistent and transparent standards to calculate, verify and publicly report GHG emissions into a
single registry. TCR supports both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs and provides comprehensive,
accurate data to reduce GHG emissions. The City is a member of TCR and has been reporting its GHG emissions
since 2005.
Page 9 of 16
Ultimately, in its quest to achieve carbon neutrality, the City will need to develop its own definition
of carbon neutralityfor the electric portfolio, while recognizing the possible discrepancies in external
reporting protocols. The plan will need to establish a definition of carbon neutrality early as it will
drive the alternatives evaluated.The definition will also need to address the timeframe for
measuring carbon neutrality due to the annual variability of supply generation in the portfolio.
Load and Supply Resource Uncertainty
Under the current plan in 2020, the City’s electric portfolio is expected to require market purchases
of about 20% of the load; however, even in an average hydroelectric year the portfolio will have
surpluses in months when hydroelectric generation and wind output are highest. Procuring
additional resources to meet carbon neutrality could further exacerbate this problem and increase
market price exposure. Figure 4 is an illustration of supply resources by month in 2020 and shows
the high level of variability of the City’s hydroelectric resources, which represent from 30 to 80% of
the City’s annual electric needs depending on hydrologic conditions. Currently, under wet
hydrologic conditions the City can have resources surplus to load by as much as 55% during the
spring months. Adding additional carbon-neutral resources to the portfolio would extend these
surplus positions even further, particularly if the new resources had a monthly load shape like
hydroelectric resources or solar resources.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Monthly Load and Resource Supply (GWh)
LOAD
Landfill Generation
Wind Generation
Hydro Generation
(Dry Scenario)
Future Renewables
for 33% RPS
Hydro Generation
(Expected)
Hydro Generation
(Wet Scenario)
Future Carbon-neutral
Energy
Geothermal
Figure 4: Monthly Load and Supplies in 2020 under Various Hydroelectric Conditions
Figure 5 illustrates that even though a rolling-three year average of the hydroelectric supply is
volatile, it is less volatile than using the annual calculation. An alternative to trying to achieve
Page 10 of 16
carbon neutrality on an annual basis would be to use a rolling three-year average hydroelectric supply
to avoid huge fluctuations in the amount of additional carbon-neutral resources needed.
In addition, there is uncertainty related to the future of the City’s two hydroelectric resources.
Several Biological Opinions and proposed Delta Outflow Criteria related to the BayDelta conditions
could jeopardize the availabilityand value of long-term hydroelectric resources. Should such risks
materialize and the City’s long-term availability of hydroelectric generation is less than currently
projected, the cost of achieving carbon neutrality will increase as the City will need to procure
additional carbon-free resources.
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
GWh per Year
Hydro Actual/Projected 3-Yr Rolling Average (Centered)
Hydro Wet Year Hydro Average Year
Hydro Dry Year
Figure 5: Variations in Hydroelectric Supply (Western Base Resource and Calaveras)
The development of a plan to achieve carbon neutrality will need to address how to handle annual
and seasonal variations in load and/or supply and the appropriate time frame in which to measure
carbon neutrality.
Regulatory and Legislative Uncertainty of Cap-and-trade and RPS Rules
State-level regulations for implementation of AB32 and RPS still face high levels of uncertainty.
Even after the GHG cap-and-trade program is approved and implemented, there is a chance that the
allowances may be reallocated by CARB to address unforeseen changes in the electric sector and/or
additional requirements may be placed on LSEs. Also, directions from Governor Brown suggest an
Page 11 of 16
increase in the RPS beyond 33% as well as potential state mandates that dictate a certain mix of RPS
resources for all LSEs.
Another uncertainty centers on California’s Governor Jerry Brown’s call for 12,000 megawatts
(MW) of local renewable distributed generation by 2020 and whether or not this will become a
mandate for LSEs. It is unclear how such requirements would be implemented, if mandated, and
what Palo Alto’s specific requirement for building local distributed generation might be.
Pursuit of a carbon-neutral portfolio at this stage of regulatory uncertainty could result in stranded
assets (i.e., long term contracts that do not meet electric portfolio requirements mandated by state
law). The plan for moving forward with carbon neutrality will assess the impacts of the final CEC
regulations for SB X1-2 in addition to any new mandates related to resource acquisition.
PaloAltoGreen Program
PaloAltoGreen is a voluntary program, which allows participants to pay an additional 1.5 ¢/kWh for
their electricity usage and in turn the City procures RECs equivalent to their total annual energy
usage. PaloAltoGreen participants account for 7% of the City’s electric load and approximately
20% of the City’s electric customers are on the PaloAltoGreen rate.
Design modifications to the PaloAltoGreen program are being considered, including how the
program may assist in meeting the City’s RPS. The plan to achieve carbon neutrality will also need
to consider how PaloAltoGreen can help.
Resource Acquisition Strategies to Pursue Carbon Neutrality
The following is a brief description of the types of resources and/or environmental products that the
City could use to achieve an electric portfolio carbon-neutral goal.
1. Energy Efficiency
Pursuit of additional electric EE,above the goals set in the current ten-year Electric EE plan,could
be used to reduce load and thus reduce the City’s exposure to the wholesale market as a way to
achieve carbon neutrality. The current estimate of achieving EE in the ten-year plan is roughly 7
¢/kWh. The cost of EE measures is expected to increase from 2 ¢/kWh in 2007 for easy to achieve
efficiency to about 14 ¢/kWh in 2020 for harder to reach efficiency.
2. RPS Eligible Resources:
The City could acquire additional RPS eligible renewables (e.g., Bucket 1 and Bucket 2 resources) in
the same manner it does now, either through a long-term power purchase agreement with a remote
renewable supplier or through a feed-in tariff program.
3. Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Only Products
Although procurement of RECs without any physical energy associated with them (i.e., unbundled-
RECs)satisfies the renewable resource supply requirements under California’s RPS law (SB X1-
2)13, they are not considered a carbon-free resource byTCR14 nor are they recognized by CARB as a
carbon reducing resource;therefore they do not assist in meeting AB32 GHG reduction goals.
13 California Renewable Energy Resources Act, SB X1-2, Section 22, Laws of California (2011).
Page 12 of 16
4.Carbon-free,Non-RPS Eligible Renewable Resources
Non-RPS eligible resources that can be reported as being carbon-free under the TCR protocols
include large hydroelectric, nuclear and out-of-state renewables built before 2005. In the year 2020,
roughly 49% of the City’s electric portfolio mix is expected to come from large in-state hydroelectric
resources, which do not qualify as RPS eligible resources, however are carbon-free resources.
The market for such resources tends to be illiquid, thus making it difficult to assess premiums. If
available,carbon-free non-RPS eligible resources can be expected to carry a relatively small
premium over the generic wholesale market. Thus this would likely be a relatively inexpensive
option for achieving carbon neutrality.
5. Carbon Emissions Allowances
An emissions allowance is an authorization to emit a fixed amount of a pollutant. Under the AB32
cap-and-trade regulations applicable to the electricity sector, CARB will be issuing “emissions
allowances”that electric generators are required to procure equivalent to the amount of carbon
dioxide and other GHGs the generators expect to emit. To help offset the additional cost to
electricity consumers associated with meeting AB32 goals, CARB staff proposes to allocate
allowances free of charge to electric LSEs, such as the City, under the stipulation that LSEs sell these
allowances in a centralized market or auction and collect revenue to reduce the impact to their
customers who will be paying higher wholesale electricity prices.
Carbon allowances for California are currently being traded through commodity exchanges like the
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE)15 as a tool to hedge against the future cost of carbon. It
may be possible for the City to procure additional allowances other than the free allowances
allocated by CARB,and retire them rather than selling them into the auction thus eliminating the
possibility that another entity could purchase them in order to emit GHG. Such an action could have
the impact of reducing the overall state’s electricity sector GHG emissions to levels below the AB32
goals and making an incremental difference in GHG emissions. However retirement of additional
allowances would not directly alter the GHG emissions reported by the City. Utilizing such an
approach may be another option available to achieve carbon neutrality of supply, though whether
such an action would be permitted under AB32 regulations is still unclear.
6. Environmental Offsets.
Offsets are tradable credits issued for emissions reductions resulting from qualifying GHG mitigation
projects that are outside of the cap-and-trade system. Offsets are certified and issued by the Climate
Action Reserve and can be traded on certain commodities exchanges like the CCFE. CARB
currently recognizes offsets issued by the Climate Action Reserve for several types of GHG
mitigation projects—including forestry, urban forestry, livestock methane, and ozone depleting
substances—for meeting up to 8%of an entity’s AB32 compliance obligations.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx1_2_bill_20110412_chaptered.pdf.
14 General Reporting Protocol, v. 1.1, The Climate Registry (2008).
http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf15http://www.ccfe.com
Page 13 of 16
With the final rules regarding the use and eligibility of various types of offset products not yet in
place, the market for offsets is currently very illiquid and there is a great deal of uncertainty around
the long-term market price of these products. However, staff expects that the price of offsets will be
less than the price of carbon allowances or of procuring additional RPS eligible resources, making
this a less expensive strategy for achieving carbon neutrality.
Table 2 is a summary of the attributes of the various renewable resources and environmental products
available to help achieve carbon neutrality including an approximate price in 2020 stated either as a
premium to the brown market or as a cost per metric ton of CO2e; and how the product may be
reported in the City’s Power Content Label and TCR.
Table 2: Summary of Various Renewable Energy and Other Environmental Products
RPS Eligible
Energy
RPS Eligible
RECs
Non-RPS RECs Carbon-
free Energy
Carbon
Allowances
Environmental
Offsets
Description Bucket 1: In-
state projects,
and Bucket 2:
firmed and
shaped
products from
out-of-state
resources
Bucket 3:
REC-Only
deals or other
transactions –
subject to
compliance
limits
Unbundled RECs
from projects not
RPS certified by
the CEC used for
a voluntary
renewable energy
program such as
PaloAltoGreen
These could
include large
hydro or
older out-of-
state
renewable
energy
projects.
Permits for the
right to emit
the equivalent
of one metric
ton of CO2under a cap-
and-trade
system
Emissions
reduction credits
from qualifying
GHG mitigation
projects
RPS Eligible?Yes Yes No No No No
Price Premium
($/MWh)*20-30 5-20 4-10 3-10 12-28 †8-24 †
Carbon Price
($/ton of CO2e)50-75 †13-50 †10-25 †8-25 †30-70 20-60
Power Content
Label Renewable Renewable Renewable Large
Hydro
Unspecified
Market
Unspecified
Market
The Climate
Registry
Zero
emissions
Emissions
reported
Emissions
reported
Zero
emissions
Emissions
reported
Emissions
reported
*Price Premium reflects the cost above the cost of generic wholesale energy
†Estimated price based on unspecified market purchases with a carbon content of 879 pounds
of CO2e per MWh
Alternative Strategies to Achieve Carbon Neutrality
Recognizing the different environmental and cost attributes of the products described above, staff
identified and conducted preliminary analysis on several electric portfolio strategies to achieve
carbon neutrality. Although certain resources are not deemed to be carbon-free by certain regulatory
bodies, staff included them in the alternatives evaluated to show how they compare to other
alternatives.
Staff identified resource acquisition strategies which would directly alter the City’s electric load
and/or supply along with less direct alternatives of purchasing environmental products in an amount
equivalent to the City’s exposure to wholesale market purchases. Specifically, staff evaluated the
following alternatives:
Page 14 of 16
1.Increase the ten-year electric EE goal from 6.4% to 7.8% of load and increase the City’s RPS
to 51%;
2.Increase the City’s RPS to 52%;
3.Purchase non-RPS eligible renewables such as large hydroelectric generation;
4.Purchase non RPS eligible REC-only products;
5.Purchase and retire carbon allowances; and
6.Purchase environmental offsets.
Figure 6 illustrates the strategies staff evaluated. Note that the resource portfolio for each strategy
has the existing large hydroelectric resources as well as the minimum 33% RPS resources required
by state law. The balance of the resources required to meet load are differentiated by strategy.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Base Increase EE and
RPS
Increase RPS Purchase Non-
RPS, carbon-free
resources
Purchase RECs,
Carbon
Allowances, or
OffsetsStrategy
Resources Needed to Meet Load (GWh/yr)
Existing Large Hydro
33%RPS
Additional RPS-
eligible resources
Energy Efficiency
Carbon-free
resourcesBrown Power Brown Power
Figure 6: Resource Portfolios for Each Strategy Evaluated
Table 3 summarizes the results from the preliminary analysis. The merits and the impacts of several
alternatives are shown relative to the City’s current plan “base case”, which includes 33% RPS and
an electric energy efficiency goal of 74 GWh/year by 2020. The incremental cost, rate and bill
impacts represent a preliminary range of cost for each alternative in 2020, depending on several
market condition factors. Staff did not evaluate the impacts of each alternative under various load
and/or hydroelectric conditions.
Page 15 of 16
Table 3: Summary of Carbon-Neutral Portfolio Strategies and Impacts in 2020
Base
Case
Increase
EE &
RPS
Targets
Increase
RPS
Target
Purchase
Carbon-free
Resources
(Non-RPS
eligible)
Purchase
Un-
bundled
RECs
Purchase
Carbon
Allowances
Purchase
Offsets
Cost and Rate Impacts
Carbon Neutrality
Incremental Cost to Base
Case ($/year)
NA
$9.4 M
to
$11.4 M
$4.2 M
to
$6.4 M
$0.6 M
to
$2.1 M
$1.1 M
to
$4.2 M
$2.5 M
to
$7.6 M
$1.7 M
to
$5.1 M
Rate Impact (¢/kWh)NA 1.2-1.3 0.4-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.4 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.5
Rate Impact (%)*NA 8.3-9.0 2.8-4.1 0.7-1.4 0.7-2.8 1.4-4.8 1.4-3.4
Average Residential Bill
Impact ($/year)•NA 58-63 20-29 5-10 5-20 10-34 10-24
Power Content Label (% of load)
Large Hydroelectric
Supply 48.6%49.4%48.6%48.6%48.6%48.6%48.6%
Other Large Hydro or
Carbon-free Resources 0%0%0%19.6%0%0%0%
Qualified Renewables †31.8%50.6%51.3%31.8%51.3%31.8%31.8%
Market Purchases
“unspecified”19.6%0%0%0%0%19.6%19.6%
Portfolio Carbon Content
Reported (thousand
metric tons of CO2 per
year)+
85 0 0 0 85 85 0
*Percentage rate impact assumes that system average retail rate for base case = 14.5 ¢/kWh in 2020
·Assuming median residential class usage of 407 kWh/month (actual from FY 2011)
†Renewable content of 31.8% of load is equivalent to 33% of sales (the basis for the RPS requirement
in state law)
+According to The Climate Registry (TCR) protocols
Staff’s preliminary assessment concludes that depending on the alternative pursued and market
conditions,achieving carbon neutrality in the year 2020 could have annual incremental cost of $0.6
to $11.4 Million.This would result in an upward impact on rates (above the rate impact to achieve
33% RPS) of from 0.1 to 1.3 ¢/kWh. Assuming that the system average retail rate is 14.5 ¢/kWh in
2020, the upward rate impact from implementing these strategies could range from 0.7% to 9.0%.
The plan to achieve carbon neutrality will need to further address market availability of certain
resources and the range of costs and set a reasonable rate impact limit, taking into consideration rate
impacts associated with meeting the City’s RPS and the community’s willingness to pay for
additional climate protection measures.
NEXT STEPS
Staff plans to take the findings of its preliminary analysis along with the recommendation to develop
a plan by December 2012 to achieve carbon neutrality to the Finance Committee in January 2012 and
to Council in February 2012. Pending Council support to move forward with the development of a
plan to achieve carbon neutrality, staff will return to the UAC with a time-line and approach to
develop the plan and will return at many steps along the way to get input and direction before the
plan and recommendations are developed.
Page 16 of 16
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no direct resource impact as a result of staff’s recommendation to develop a plan to achieve
carbon neutrality. The plan will address the resource impacts required to achieve a carbon-neutral
electric portfolio.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed recommendation meets the Council-approved LEAP Objectives,Strategies and
Implementation Plan;supports the Council-approved 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan’s environmental
sustainability objective; is consistent with the City’s Climate Protection Plan; and supports
environmental sustainability, one of the City Council’s top five priorities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Support of staff’s recommendation to develop a plan to achieve a carbon-neutral electric portfolio
does not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
PREPARED BY:MONICA PADILLA, Senior Resource Planner
SHIVA SWAMINATHAN, Senior Resource Planner
TOM KABAT, Senior Resource Originator
JIM STACK, Resource Planner
REVIEWED BY:JANE RATCHYE, Assistant Director, Resource Management
APPROVED BY:___________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
_______________________________________ City of Palo Alto
Final Excerpt Minutes – December 7, 2011
Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting
ITEM 2: ACTION: Plan to Achieve Carbon Neutrality for the Electric Portfolio
Senior Resource Planner, Monica Padilla, briefly described the information presented in the report including
the recommendation to the UAC to support pursuing a carbon-neutral electric portfolio and development of
a plan by December 2012 on how to achieve carbon-neutrality. She described what staff expects to learn
over the next year, including 1) a updated assessment of cost effective electric energy efficiency through
the development of a new 10-year energy efficiency plan; 2) experience with the feed-in-tariff program; 3)
new renewable contracts to meet the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS); 4) a better understanding
of cap-and-trade; 5) better cost estimates; and 6) results from community input on support for carbon-
neutrality. Padilla further outlined the key issues which need to be addressed, which include why Palo Alto
should pursue carbon neutrality, the local definition of carbon neutrality, and how to engage the community.
Public comment:
David Coale supported the recommendation and suggested that this issue is very important and action
needs to be taken.
Bruce Hodge, leader of Carbon-free Palo Alto, commended staff for their work thus far and supports staff’s
recommendation. Mr. Hodge believes that the cost of achieving carbon neutrality will be on the lower end
of the scale shown by staff in the report. Mr. Hodge stated that the alternative of not acting is not cost-free
and there is exposure to carbon costs in the future. Further, he believes the timeline should be shortened
and the time to achieve carbon neutrality should be 2015 as time is short and Palo Alto needs to act and be
a model for other communities.
Walter Hays, chair of Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP), also supports staff’s
recommendation and Bruce Hodge’s comments. Mr. Hays stated that he feels the cost of adaptation to
climate change is very high and this cost should be figured in to future analysis. For community input,
Utilities should ask CEAP, since it represents a broad swath of the community. Mr. Hays believes there is
strong support from the community and would like to have the plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2015.
UAC Discussion:
Commissioner Waldfogel asked what would be a carbon-free resource that is not RPS, or whether there be
regulatory risk that something we would buy would not be counted for a future state or federal regulation.
Assistant Director Jane Ratchye responded that in the development of the plan the risk that action could
lead to negative regulatory consequences will be considered.
Commission Waldfogel also commented that Palo Alto could achieve carbon neutrality quickly through the
use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), however this may not be the path Palo Alto should take. He
further stated that he would like staff to develop a program that is scalable and can be replicated by others.
Commissioner Eglash commended staff on the report and indicated that he was pleased that staff was
considering a carbon-neutral portfolio to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, which will serve as an
example to other municipalities. Commissioner Eglash expressed support for a focus on the process so
that the community understands the implications and the cost of pursuing carbon neutrality. Further, he
stated there should be a strong communication effort with the community and the process should be as
transparent, open and honest as possible with a thorough analysis of the risks. He would like to see staff
conduct analysis which shows the cost under a price scenario where natural gas prices fall. Commissioner
Eglash would like the plan to consider how intermittent resources, such as wind and solar, will figure in the
overall cost, if gas and nuclear are required for regulation of the electricity grid. Last, he suggested staff
consider carbon neutrality in the context of using the Calaveras Reserve.
Commissioner Cook expressed that perhaps there are efforts in addition to pursuing the RPS that are
important to the community. He supports Commissioner Eglash’s comments that Palo Alto can lead by
example in that carbon neutrality is a far reaching concept and can benefit a larger area. Further, he
supports a robust analysis of all the risks, costs, and how to handle hydroelectric variability. He is
supportive of staff’s suggestion to seek community input and would support setting an ambitious goal of
achieving carbon neutrality by 2015 or 2016.
Commissioner Foster also commended staff on the report and expressed his enthusiasm and support for
moving forward with an aggressive goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2015, rather than as late as 2020.
He asked staff to determine how early the City could achieve carbon neutrality and include an analysis of
the costs for different timelines to achieve carbon neutrality. He also asked if staff was seeking a
recommended timeline. Staff explained that the plan to be developed by end of 2012 would lay out the
elements needed to achieve carbon neutrality including a time line and that staff currently has no
recommendation for a date to achieve carbon neutrality, but is now seeking support for the concept to
pursue carbon neutrality for development of the plan.
Commissioner Melton added that the City needs to evaluate the sense of the regulatory certainty since
there are significant risks in this area and that the plan should identify those risks and determine which risks
will not be resolved and whether or not the City should go forward even with uncertainty. He added that the
City should evaluate securing more hydroelectric power as this may be a good resource under the right
terms and conditions.
ACTION:
Commissioner Waldfogel made a motion to recommend that the City Council support a policy to pursue a
carbon-neutral electric portfolio and direct staff to develop a plan by December 2012 to achieve that goal.
Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Commissioner
Keller absent.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2882)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/21/2012
May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2882)
Summary Title: Rail Committee Update
Title: Rail Committee Status Report on Current High Speed Rail and Caltrain
Electrification Submitted for Council Review and Comment
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council receive the status report of the Rail
Committee regarding current Caltrain Electrification and High Speed Rail
activities.
Background and Discussion
Blended System Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the Caltrain Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), and Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) have recently entered into a MOU concerning the
implementation of High Speed Rail (HSR) in conjunction with Caltrain
Electrification. The Rail Committee remains concerned that the MOU does
not limit the ultimate build out of the of HSR/Caltrain projects to the
Blended System. The Blended System allows HSR trains to utilize the
existing Caltrain right-of-way by building additional passing tracks in key
areas and is considered much less of an impact on Peninsula communities.
While the Rail Committee’s correspondence to the MOU approving agencies
urged inclusion of language to limit the ultimate build out to the Blended
System, the language was not included in the final MOU.
CHSRA Business Plan
May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2882)
A third iteration of the Business Plan was approved by the CHSRA Board on
April 12, 2012. Notably, the Business Plan showed that overall
construction costs were less than the $98 million construction cost in the
Draft 2012 Business Plan released in November 2011. However, significant
gaps in the total financing of the system remain. The current Business
Plan still relies on major vague funding sources such as private investment
and unidentified Federal funds.
Legislation Updates
The Rail Committee remains concerned that legislative actions may
truncate required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of
the project. No such legislation is pending but the subject of eliminating
CEQA review has been raised with some legislators. The City’s legislative
advocate, Professional Evaluation Group, continues to monitor pre-
legislative activities regarding CEQA streamlining and will stress the City’s
position that full CEQA review is required prior to project approval. CEQA
review provides the only direct means for the City and its constituents to
have meaningful input into the HSR and Caltrain Electrification projects. A
summary of key HSR legislation is attached to this report (Attachment A).
Correspondence
The Rail Committee has made effective use of written correspondence
articulating the City’s position on a variety of subjects. Staff has prepared
a summary with the current status of all correspondence for the Council’s
reference (Attachment B).
Regional Outreach
The Rail Committee members, staff and community members met with San
Francisco Mayor Ed Lee to explore areas of regional cooperation. San
Francisco and Palo Alto are the top two Caltrain ridership cities and rely
heavily on comprehensive commuter service. The meeting produced key
contacts with policy advisors who are exploring ways to cooperate and
advocate for excellent Caltrain commuter service.
Program and Project Level EIR updates
The Partially Revised Program Level EIR was approved by the CHSRA on
April 19, 2012. The Partially Revised Program Level EIR is the re-circulated
document pertaining to the Bay Area to Central Valley project legally
May 21, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2882)
challenged by Cities of Menlo Park, Atherton, and Palo Alto. While the
Program Level EIR was recently approved, the Cities’ lawsuit and appeal is
still pending.
The Project Level EIR for the Merced to Fresno segment was approved by
the CHSRA on May 3, 2012. Indications are that this document will be
challenged by agricultural interests in the Central Valley.
Attachments:
Attachment A: -High Speed Rail Legislation Update (PDF)
Attachment B - High Speed Rail Correspondence Summary_5-21-2012 (PDF)
Prepared By: Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
Department Head: James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
HSR Legislation Update
Bill Author Short Summary Status
AB 1444 Feuer (D) Expedited judicial review of transit
projects
Passed Natural
Resources Committee
and was referred to
Appropriations Committee
AB 1455 Harkey (R) Reduce the amount of general obligation
debt authorized for HSR purposes
pursuant to Prop. 1A to the amount
contracted as of January 1, 2013
Failed in Transportation
Committee on a 4-9-1
vote
AB 1574 Galgiani (D) Would continue the CHSRA in existence
with limited responsibilities and would
place the CHSRA within the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency. The
five members of the Authority appointed
by the Governor would be subject to
Senate confirmation, but existing
members could continue to serve the
remainder of their terms. The bill would
authorize the Authority to appoint an
executive director and would provide for
the Governor to appoint up to six
additional individuals exempt from civil
service as Authority staff.
Referred to Transportation
Committee
SB 985 La Malfa (R) No further bonds shall be sold for HSR
and related rail purposes upon approval
by the voters at the next statewide
general election
Heard in Transportation
Committee but La Malfa
did not have the votes to
pass it so he tabled it
SB 1189 Hancock (D) Would appropriate funding from the
$950M in Prop. 1A for regional
transportation enhancements to projects
that eligible agencies have requested
and that have been approved by the
California Transportation Commission
Placed on the
Appropriations Committee
suspense file
SB 1533 Padilla (D) Potential gut & amended placeholder bill
that could be potentially used for a later
HSR compromise
Referred to Appropriations
Committee
City of Palo Alto Initiated High Speed Rail & Caltrain Correspondence Summary
Date Letter Topic To From Summary Reply Reply Date Reply Summary
9/7/2010 HSR Station Area
Development:
General Principles &
Guidelines
Roelof van Ark Mayor Burt
-City has not been given
sufficient time to respond to
station proposal but will
respond after our review
No N/A N/A
11/3/2010 Supplemental
Alternative Analysis
Report Response
Roelof van Ark Mayor Burt -City’s detailed comments
with the help of engineering
consultant HMM
No N/A N/A
11/9/2010 Potential Palo Alto
Mid-Penn. Station
Roelof van Ark Mayor Burt -Reasoning why Palo Alto
opposes a HSR station
No N/A N/A
12/15/2010 Suggested FRA HSR
Actions
Ray LaHood Mayor Burt -List of suggested FRA
HSR actions related to
City’s design, cost, and
ridership concerns
Yes 1/13/2011 -FRA does not believe
design, cost, or ridership
concerns should delay the
project at this point
12/15/2010 Palo Alto HSR Info John Mica Mayor Burt -Intro/information on recent
Palo Alto HSR actions
No N/A N/A
12/15/2010 Palo Alto Response
to the CHSRA’s
Letter to Caltrain
Roelof van Ark Mayor Burt -Request for clarification
regarding multiple
conflicting HSR statements
Yes 1/10/2011 -CHSRA is looking at
phased implementation but
remains in the EIR
clearance period, CHSRA
must have a four-track
system, and freight can
operate in tunnels
12/23/2010 Resetting the HSR &
Caltrain planning
process
Jerry Brown Mayor Burt -Requests for resetting the
HSR & Caltrain planning
process
No N/A N/A
3/7/2011 CHSRA vs. CARRD
Cost Estimates
Roelof van Ark Mayor Espinosa -Request for the basis of
the CHSRA’s $43B cost
estimate
No N/A N/A
3/7/2011 Request for PCJPB
Ridership Review
Michael
Scanlon
Mayor Espinosa - Request for PCJPB
ridership review due to the
lack of accurate information
Yes 3/24/2011 -PCJPB does not believe at
this time it must undertake
an independent ridership
review
3/20/2011 AB 952 & AB 953
Support Letter
Bonnie
Lowenthal
Mayor Espinosa -AB 952: Prohibit private
firms from making direct
gifts to CHSRA members
-AB 953: Require CHSRA
to use Berkeley ITS for
ridership study
No N/A N/A
3/28/2011 Packet of Palo Alto
HSR letters
John Mica Mayor Espinosa -Packet of different Palo
Alto HSR letters
No N/A N/A
Date Letter Topic To From Summary Reply Reply Date Reply Summary
6/8/2011 Support of the Eshoo/
Simitian/Gordon HSR
Proposal
Anna Eshoo
Joe Simitian
Rich Gordon
Mayor Espinosa -Support of the Eshoo/
Simitian/Gordon HSR
proposal and a copy of Palo
Alto’s HSR Guiding
Principles
No N/A N/A
6/20/2011 AB 952 Support
Letter
Mark
DeSaulnier
Chair Klein -Prohibit private firms from
making direct gifts to
CHSRA members
No N/A N/A
6/20/2011 SB 517 Support
Letter
Bonnie
Lowenthal
Mayor Espinosa -Change the organizational
structure of the CHSRA
No N/A N/A
9/7/2011 Caltrain Electrification
EIR Certification
Sean Elsbernd Mayor Espinosa -City comments on potential
Caltrain electrification EIR
certification
Yes 10/6/2011 -Staff is focused on
studying the feasibility of a
Blended System which will
determine what should be
done with this EIR
10/17/2011 Response to BAC
July 10 and 27 letters
to the MTC
Jim
Wunderman
Mayor Espinosa -Clarification of Palo Alto’s
HSR position and that MTC
does not speak on our
behalf
No N/A N/A
10/17/2011 Response to BAC
July 10 and 27 letters
to the MTC
Adrienne
Tissier (MTC)
Mayor Espinosa -Palo Alto’s position on the
role the MTC should have
in the HSR process
Yes 12/2/2011 -MTC is working hard to
improve the corridor and
would be happy to discuss
our positions with your
Council
12/19/2011 Draft 2012 Business
Plan Comments
Thomas
Umberg
Mayor Espinosa -City comments on Draft
2012 Business Plan
No N/A N/A
12/19/2011 2012 Funding Plan
Comments
Thomas
Umberg
Mayor Espinosa -City comments on the
2012 Funding Plan
No N/A N/A
1/25/2012 Request for an
Indefinite Delay in the
Partially Revised
Draft Program EIR
Recirculation
Comment Period
John Mason
Chair Klein - Request for an indefinite
delay in the Partially
Revised Draft Program EIR
recirculation public
comment period due to a
lack of data
Yes 2/3/2012 -CHSRA will work with our
consultants to obtain the
requested traffic data and
provide it to you when
available
2/16/2012 Partially Revised
Draft Program EIR
Comment Letter
John Mason
Mayor Yeh -City’s 29 page comment
letter on the Partially
Revised Draft Program EIR
No N/A N/A
2/16/2012 SB 985 Support
Letter
Doug LaMalfa Mayor Yeh -Prevent the sale of HSR
bonds until approval by the
voters
No N/A N/A
2/29/2012 Palo Alto Opposition
to California HSR
Ray LaHood Mayor Yeh -Clarification that Palo Alto
Opposes California HSR
No N/A N/A
3/20/2012 Blended System
MOU Comments
Adrienne
Tissier (JPB)
Mayor Yeh -Initial City comments on
the Blended System MOU
No N/A N/A
Date Letter Topic To From Summary Reply Reply Date Reply Summary
4/25/2012 Caltrain’s Position on
Potential CEQA
Streamlining
Seamus
Murphy
Steve Emslie -Request for clarification on
Caltrain’s position on
potential CEQA
streamlining
Yes 5/1/2012 -Caltrain is not aware of
any such proposals and is
committed to CEQA and
NEPA but would consider
such a proposal if put
forward
5/2/2012 Follow-up Blended
System MOU
Comments
Adrienne
Tissier (JPB)
Mayor Yeh -Follow-up City comments
on the Blended System
MOU
No N/A N/A