HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-26 City Council Agenda Packet
07/26/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
July 26, 2010
5:30 PM
ROLL CALL
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters
1. Policy & Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the Council
Priorities Workplan for 2010
CMR 327:10 and ATTACHMENT
7:00 P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter
2. Public Hearing: To Consider Stanford University Medical Center
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project-Meeting to Accept
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project, Including an Overview of the Alternative Chapter and
Mitigation Measures of the DEIR
CMR 299:10 Prt A CMR 299:10 Prt B CMR 299:10 Prt C
Public Comment
2 07/26/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
3. Approval of a Stakeholder Task Force and Direction to the City
Manager to Appoint Task Force Members for Palo Alto Rail Corridor
Study (Continued from July 12, 2010)
CMR 324:10 and ATTACHMENT
4. Direction Regarding Content of Charter Amendment to Repeal Binding
Arbitration for Public Safety
CMR 332:10 and ATTACHMENT
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 7, 2010
June 14, 2010
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
5. Recommendation from Council Appointed Officers Committee (CAO) to
Initiate City Attorney Recruitment
CMR 329:10 ATTACHMENT
3 07/26/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
6. Approval of an Electric Enterprise Fund Contract With Pacheco Utility
Line Builders, Inc. for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $3,000,000
for Providing Overhead Electric Transmission and Distribution
System Construction Services – Capital Improvement Program
Budget EL 98003
CMR 306:10 and ATTACHMENT
7. Approval of Four Multiple Prime Contracts for the Civic Center
Infrastructure Improvements - Capital Improvement Program
Project PF-01002: 1) Contract with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in the
Amount of $367,313 for General Work Items and Finishes; 2)
Contract with Everest Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. in the
Amount of $648,934 for Exterior Improvements; 3) Contract with
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $1,270,695 for
Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinkler and Controls; and 4) Contract
with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. in the Amount of $749,000 for
Electrical And Fire Alarm
CMR 320:10 and ATTACHMENT
8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Existing Contract No. C09127499
with Assetworks, Inc. in the Amount of $9,832 for the Purchase of
Additional Components Required to Complete the Implementation
of the Fuel Transaction Management System
CMR 318:10 and ATTACHMENT
9. Approval of the Sale of Surplus Fire Equipment to Oaxaca, Mexico
in the Amount of $20,000
CMR 317:10 and ATTACHMENT
10. Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with
Carollo Engineers, Inc. in an Amount of $981,266 for Preparation of
4 07/26/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
the Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance
for the Fiscal Year 2011 to Provide an Additional
Appropriation of $481,266 to Capital Improvement Program
Project WQ-10001, Plant Master Plan
CMR 322:10 and ATTACHMENT
11. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of a Design-Build Project
Delivery Method for Design and Construction of Replacement Fuel
Pumps and Related Equipment at Foothills Park (VR-92006)
CMR 308:10 and ATTACHMENT
12. Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for Fiscal Year
2011 to Provide Additional Appropriations of $22,780 for
Verification of Petition Signatures Within the General Fund for
the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters Regarding Palo
Alto Professional Firefighter’s, Local 1319, Initiative Costs
CLERK REPORT
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
5 07/26/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
DATE: JULY 26, 2010 CMR: 327:10
SUBJECT: Policy & Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the Council
Priorities Workplan for 2010
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy & Services Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the 2010 Council
priorities workplan. The Committee also recommends that the Council consider establishing
these priorities as two-year priorities to be revisited at the Council retreat in early 2012.
DISCUSSION
At/the Council retreat on January 29, 2010, the City Council identified five top priorities for
2012. The Council then officially adopted these priorities on March 22, 2010. The five
priorities are:
1) City Finances
2) Land Use and Transportation
3) Environmental Sustainability
4) Emergency Preparedness
5) Community Collaboration for Youth Health and Well-Being
In response to direction from the Council, staff has worked closely with the Policy & Services
Committee in the development and vetting of the 2010 Council priorities workplan. This is a
new approach to the development of the priorities workplan, initiated as part of a broader effort
to engage the Policy & Services Committee in the prioritization of Council and staff workloads.
Over the course of six meetings~ the Committee received presentations from various staff
members and provided input on both the content of the workplan as well as the current and
future process for developing the workplan. This effort and the work of the Committee has
resulted in revisions to the "See-It" site, which provides a visual representation of the Council
priorities workplan. The "See-It" site was a new tool implemented last year as part of an effort
to increase the transparency and visibility of the priorities workplan. The updated site can be
viewed at: http://www.cit)\ofpaloalto.org/depts/cou/see_it.asp. As part of the presentation at the
meeting, staff can walk through the site with the Council as necessary. Attachment A presents a
matrix of the final recommended priorities, strategies and actions that have been incorporated
into the "See-It" site.
CMR: 327:10 Page 1 of3
Although the Committee has done a significant amount of work to date on the development of
this workplan, there are several issues that necessitate follow up work, including one that is an
explicit recommendation in this report.
1) Reconsideration of Annual Priorities: Hist<;lrically, the City Council has adopted new
priorities at the start of each calendar year. As part of this year's new process of engaging
with the Policy & Services Committee on development of the priorities workplan, staff
acknowledged the inherent challenges associated with developing annual workplans related
to the priorities and ultimately making progress on these workplans in a single year.
Additionally, the ability to work through the development of the workplan with Policy &
Services proved valuable. If this process is to continue in the future, however, appropriate
time needs to be budgeted to allow this to occur.
A more effective approach would be for the Council to adopt priorities every two years and
for staff to then develop a workplan and reporting structure based on this timeline. This
would have numerous benefits. One would be the ability for the Council to use the Council
retreat in the non-priority setting years as a more strategic session focused on the Council's
vision moving forward. The two-year timeline would also provide staff with more time to
make progress on the workplan and to report on the efforts in a more effective manner.
Additionally, the establishment of biannual priorities does not preclude the Council from
reviewing and adjusting these priorities at any point during the two-year period dependent on
circumstances and current events.
The Policy & Services Committee discussed this option and staff is bringing it forward for
full Council discussion.
2) Development of Departmental WorkplanslReporting Structure: As part of the discussion
with Policy & Services on the workplan, staff and the Committee identified the need to find
more effective mechanisms for establishing priorities and reporting to the Council on staff
workloads. Some progress has been made towards this end but there is still work to be done.
The City Manager needs to work with Department Heads to develop more robust workplans
and reporting mechanisms. The intent is to have a review and report on this effort with
Policy & Services later this year. Part of this review will include further work on the matrix
that has been developed as a mechanism for representing the staffing and resources necessary
to implement theworkplan.
3) Policy & Services Workplan: Over the past year, the Committee has been discussing its role
and the development of workplans for the Committee more specifically. As part of the
discussion regarding the Council priorities workplan, the members identified a role for the
Committee moving forward. There was an interest in having the Committee identify· up to
ten issue areas from the Council priorities workplan that staff could bring back to Committee
for more in-depth review and analysis. Following the establishment of the Council priorities
workplan, the Committee could review the workplan and select the issue areas for focus by
the Committee over the coming year. This would be in addition to other items that are
referred to the Committee for discussion. It would also be a mechanism to promote
CMR: 327:10 Page 2 of3
Priority
City Finances
---- -... _--------
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Strategy Action
1) Economic Development
1a) Innovative Strategies
1b) Business Vitality
1c) Connection to existing studies
1d) Proactive approach to attracting business
1e) Business/Retail Retention
H) Business Friendly Regulations and Process
19) Engage Business Community
1h) Neighborhood Retail
1i) Business Registry
-----------------... _-----------1j) Busir1ess Needs: Child Care - -
Page 1 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Develop new economic development
strategic plan utilizing stakeholder
input; implement transition of
Economic Development function from
Planning to City Manager's Office
Set up regular business visitation
! program; explore additional strategies
as Part of development of new plan
Incorporate connections to existing
studies as part of development of new
ED plan
Develop as part of new ED plan -
develop key contacts and appropriate
strategies
Develop as part of new ED plan -
develop key contacts and appropriate
strategies
Implement Management Structural
Changes to Development Center
operations/structure by 12/2010
Set up regular business visitation
program; explore additional strategies
as part of development of new plan
Zoning Changes-Revise codes to
require or provide incentives for retail
and grocery
Research options as part of
development of new ED plan
Survey employer needs and
incorporate strategies in new ED plan
Priority
~,
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Strategy Action
lk) Business Needs -Emergency Preparedness
11) Business Needs -Broadband Needs/Google
Fiber RFI
2) Transparency, Accountability &
Oversight
2a) Thoughtful consideration of resources/
tools available
2b) Impactful performance audits
2c) Performance measurement/management
2d) Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report
(See-It)
3) Revenue Generation
3a) Full cost recovery policy
3b) Comparison with surrounding communities
Page 2 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Establish private sector work groups as
part of new Citizen Corps Council with
PA Chamber of Commerce and
Downtown Business Assoc ,
,
!
Await response from Google to City's
proposal and develop next steps as
appropriate
Ensure that expenditures are
appropriate and necessary
Explore mechanisms for further
enhancing performance measurement
and reporting of City services.
Work to identify more proactive
departmental responses and activities
based on SEA report results
Implement full cost recovery for
personal benefit arts, recreation and
leasure programs. Expand cost
recovery policy to cover admission to
exhibits, theatre productions and
interoretive exhibits.
Benchmark a sampling of core
recreation, science and art programs
with nearby communities and private
agencies for program fees to
I participants.
Priority Strategy
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26,2010
Action
3c) New revenue sources (Bond Measure, BLT,
Parcel Tax)
4) Restructuring City Services
4a) Review Public/Private Options
4b) Regionalization Options
4c) Internal Organizational Options
4e) Contracting Work Out Options
4f) Encourage Volunteer Efforts
5) Unfunded Infrastructure Liabilities
5a) Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
Page 3 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Library GO bonds issued in June 2010
($55.3 million) and proceeds received.
Explore options tor further
public/private partnership that would
provide for City cost savings; Include a
new option in the 2011 Adopted
Budget for funding a portion of
I Children's ~healer i
Review City services that lend I
themselves to potential regionalization :
with other agencies
Continue to evaluate the provision of
City services to enhance efficiency and
effectiveness. Identify and rep.ort on
progress made.
Continue to evaluate areas where City
services may lend themselves to
contracting out. Implement new
service contracts per Council adoption
of the FY2011 budget.
Continue to promote the systematic
use of volunteers for program delivery.
Track the numbers of volunteers and
hours in the SEA annual report.
Develop and support IBRC to study the
City's unfunded infrastructure liability
and identify possible funding options.
,eJ
Priority Strategy
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26,2010
Action
5b) Cost-sharing
6) Sustainable Path/Prudent Use of
Resources
Ga) Reduce Projected Benefit Increases
Gb) Rainy Day Fund (See IT)
Gc) Long Range Financial Forecast (See IT)
Land Use and Transportation
1) Comprehensive Plan
la) Vision Statements
lb) Growth Projections
lc) Housing Element
ld) Area Plans -East Meadow/Cal Ave
le) Rail Corridor Study
2) Zoning
2a) Role of business
2b) Community Needs
2c) Process revisions
2d) Mechanism to implement Comp Plan
2e) Follow ups to 2005 ZOU update
2f) EI Camino Guidelines
3) Planning/Building Processes
3a) Addressing community concerns
3b) Development Center restructure/
operational changes ----
Page 4 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
~xplore means OT exploring COS!
sharing for management of open space
areas with Santa Clara County Parks,
Midpeninnsula Regional Open Space
District and U. S. Fish & Wildlife
Service.
Work through labor negotiations
process to achieve long term benefit
savings
Maintain a healthy rainy day fund
(Budget Stabilization Reserve)
Continue annual updates to City's Long
Range Financial Forecast
Policies and Goals -revise
Update
Update
Complete plans
Begin work on study
Zone changes
Zone changes
ZOU followup: Apply zoning to parcels/
rezone to implement Comp Plan
Zone, design standards changes
Improve SEA ratings for 2010
Implement Management Structural
~hanges by 12/10
Priority
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Strategy Action
3c) Gaps, overlaps and conflicts between
Boards and Commissions, especially PTC and
ARB
3d) Process & Project Review Evaluation to
improve process efficiency, transparency,
effectiveness and improved project outcomes
4) Major Projects
4a) Stanford University Medical Center
4b) High Speed Rail/Caltrain (See IT)
5) Bicycle/Pedestrian Access/ Friendly
Sa) Overview of possibilities
sb) Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update
sc) Bicycle Transportation Plan (See IT)
Sd) Bike Share Program (See IT)
6) Transportation
6a) Oregon Expressway Improvements Project
(See IT)
6b) Employee Commute Program (See IT)
Page 5 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
On going improvement in
communication with Boards and
Commissions that: 1) clearly articulates
roles; 2) creates consistency and
predictability in review; and 3) ensures
adherence to City/State rules
Implement project review consistency
and adherence to rules pursuant to
good planning practices.
Entitlements & EIR
Continued interaction with HSR staff
and Peninsula Rail on Draft EIR and
Alternatives Analysis. EIR is anticipated
in early 2011
Bike bridges, safe routes
Expand the "safe Routes to Schools"
program to include safe routes to parks
and ooen soace areas.
Implement 10 of the high priority
projects identified in the PA Bicycle
Transportation Plan by 2013.
Create a pilot public bicycle sharing
station by June 2010.
Monitor all project activities in the
project review, development,
alternatives recommendation, design
and construction of the improvements.
Reduce the percentage of employees
who get to work by driving solo from
73% in 2009 to 65% by 2013.
Priority Strategy
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Action
. Gc) Caltrain Shuttle (See IT)
Gd) Electric Vehicle Charging Station (See IT)
Ge) Page Mili/280 improvements
Environmental Sustainability
1) Green Building
1a) Green House Gas Emissions Reductions
(See IT)
1b) Residential Green Buildings (See IT)
1c) Non-residential Green Buildings (See IT)
1d) Water Efficiency (See IT)
1e) Energy Efficiency (See IT)
If) Construction and Demolition Debris
Diversion (See IT)
19) Alternative Energy Solutions (See IT)
1h) Green Bldg Ordinance review vs. State
Green Bldg Code (new)
2) Water Conservation and Quality
2a) Community Water Savings (See IT)
2b) Recycled Water Use (See IT)
2c) Stormwater Runoff Reduction (See IT)
Page 6 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Work with regional transit agencies to
support Caltrain and achieve a 10%
annual growth in Caltrain ridership at
the two stations in Palo Alto.
No scorecard/information only I I
No scorecard/information only
No scorecard/information only
No scorecard/information only
No scorecard/information only
No scorecard/information only
No scorecard/information only
No scorecard/information only
Review and update Green Bldg.
regulations and implement
IReduce community water use by bb/
acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2030 (4.7%
reduction), as measured against the
base year of 2004.
Utilize GOO million gallons of recycled
water from the PA RWQCP by 2011.
I Keauce srormwarer runOTT IO local
creeks by issuing financial rebates to
PA residents and businesses for 50,000
sq ft of permeable pavement by July
2010.
Priority
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Strategy Action
2d) Mercury Reduction (See IT)
2e) Ultraviolet Light Water Disinfection Unit
(See IT)
2f) Reusable Bag Ordinance (See IT)
2g} Polystyrene Ban (See IT)
2h) Water Efficiency Ordinance (new)
2i) Aggressive Water Efficiency Programs and
Goals (New)
2j) Expansion of Recycled Water Distribution
System (new)
2k) Basement Construction Policies/
Ordinances (new)
4) Green Purchasing
4a) Incorporate Green Criteria into City
Purchases {See IT)
4b) Local/Regional Food Production and
Consumption (See IT)
5) Parks and Open Space
Sa) Pesticide Free Parks (See IT)
Sb) Open Space Trails (See IT)
Sc) Arastradero Creek Restoration (See IT)
Page 7 of 13
I ,
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Reduce the mercury air emissions from
the PA RWQCP's incinerator to 13.6
grams per day by the end of 2012.
Complete construction of an Ultraviolet
Light Water Disinfection Unit at the
RWQCP by January 1, 2011.
[laKe mitial steps To restrict tne
distribution of certain single-use plastic
bags and to take additional steps in the
future.
Ellminate tne-distriOution of expanded
polystyrene food containers by April
201l.
Assist Utilities
Expand the use of non-potable water
for irrigation of parks and open space
areas.
Review and revise zoning and other
ordinaces
Implement the three year Green
Purchasing Plan bv January 2010.
Have seven pesticide free parks by
2012.
No scorecard/information only
Recreate an 1100 foot natural seasonal
stream within the Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve by January 2010.
Priority
-----
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Strategy Action
5d) Baylands Conservation Plan (See IT)
6) Zero Waste
6a) Zero waste to landfills (See IT)
6b) Composting (See IT)
6c) Residential Zero Waste Participation (See
IT)
6d) Business Zero Waste Participation (See IT)
7) Climate Protection
7a) Carbon Intensity of Electricity (See IT)
7b) C02 emissions generated by City
Operations (See IT)
7c) C02 emissions generated by the community
(See IT)
7d) Healthy Urban Forest (See IT)
8) Green Tech Development ------_L.....!... ----------
Page 8 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Complete a Baylands Conservation Plan
to guide staff on best mgmt practices in
the areas of vegetation, wildlife, and
[public access.
Goal of 73% diversion of waste from
landfills by 2011 and zero waste by
2021.
Evaluate alternatives for the mgmt of
I the City's yard trimmings and other
organics and implement the selected
alternative by the time the City's
composting facility closes in 201l.
Increase the number of PA residents
participating in mini can refuse service
to 20% by January 2010.
Increase the number of PA commercial
customers participating in a recycling
collection program to 100% by 201l.
Reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions factor of the City's electricity
supply to no more than 150 Ibs of CO2
per MWH by 2015.
Reduce City operations generated
emissions by 5% of 2005 levels by 2009
and 15% of 2005 levels by 2020.
Reduce community generated
emissions by 5% of 2005 levels by 2012
and 15% of 2005 levels by 2020.
No scorecard/information only
Priority
Emergency Preparedness
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Strategy Action
8a) Low Carbon Cities Initiative (new)
9) Energy
9a) PaloAltoGreen Participation (See IT)
9b) Use of Photovoltaics and other
technologies (See IT)
9c) Community Natural Gas Savings (See IT)
9d) Purchases of renewable energy (See IT)
ge) Community Electricity Savings (See IT)
9f) Regional Water Quality Control Plant Energy
Use (See IT)
9g) Local, clean cogeneration at customer sites
(new)
9h) Aggressive Energy Efficiency Programs and
Goals (new)
10) Community Environmental Action
Partnership (See IT)
1) Organizational Aspects
1a) Internal City structure
Page 9 of 13
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Achieve 25% of its customers
participating in the PaloAltoGreem
program.
II-und reoates tor the installatIOn ot at
least 6,500 kilowatts (kW) of solar
electric or photovoltaic (PV)
installations between 2007 and 2017 to
meet state law.
Reduce community natural gas use Oy
1.4 million therms (or 3.5% of use) by
2020, as measured against the base
year of 2007.
Meet at least 33% ot electric needS oy
2015 with qualifying renewable
resources built after 2002 in addition
to voluntary renewable energy
programs.
Reduce community electricity use by
43,000 megawatt-hours by 2020.
Reduce PA RWQCP energy use by 30%
of 2005 levels by the end of 2012.
No data
Restructure internal City emergency
preparedness functions to enhance
operational efficiencies
Priority Strategy
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Action
Ib) Community/Neighborhoods
Ic) Regional (interoperability)
Id) Business
Ie) Funding availability/opportunities
2) Disaster Preparedness/ Mitigation
2a) Encourage Community Involvement! Self-
reliance
2b) Fire -Wildland Fire Plan Implementation
2c) Fire -Funding for Station 8 Staffing
Page 10 of 13
.. -
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Identify goals and submit to the Citizen
Corps Council; specific task: develop
the "Community Emergency Plan"
annex to the City's Emergency
Innor::oHnnc Pbn
Identify goals and submit to the Citizen
Corps Council: include "Community
Disaster Network"; collaborate with
Moffett Field's Silicon Valley Disaster
IronTor OTI"
Identify goals and submit to the Citizen
Corps Council :
Explore grants / community funding
I
Identify goals and submit to the Citizen
Corps Council; CCC has recently
requested the formation of a Training
and Exercise Design Team (TEDT) and
the deployment of Community "Ready"
preparedness classes
Implement recommendations related
to reducing road-side fuels and
firebreak vegetation and launch the
Foothills Fire Plan-recommended
"Midpeninsula Foothills Emergency
Forum (MFEF)" as part of the Citizen
rnrn~ rnllndl
The MFEF/CCC, in conjunction with
staff, will investigate funding sources
and will coordinate outreach to .
residents and businesses in the
Foothills, should fundraising or fees be
nn.t.ru:. t::>hln
Priority
c
Strategy
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26,2010
Action
,
2d) Flood -SF Creek JPA Project
2e) Earthquake -SUMC Project
2f) Earthquake -Public Safety Building (new)
2g) Earthquake -Mobile Command Vehicle
2h) Earthquake -Emergency Water Supply (See
IT)
2i) Emergency Block Preparedness Coordinator
Program (See IT)
3) Disaster Response
3a) RecQvery Plan Annex of Emer Ops Plan
3b) Update of Emer Ops Plan and related
documents
Page 11 of 13
I I I
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Receive periodic updates from JPA on
project status; provide interim policy
guidance as to project impacts to
Baylands, Palo Alto Municipal Golf
Course, and Baylands Athletic Center.
Final project approval by Council is
expected in 2011.
Identify goals and submit to the Citizen
Corps Council; specific task: improve
coordination among SUMC EOC,
1-r ~()r R, rih .. ~()r
No data
MCV to be delivered in summer 2010;
working with Stanford and other
neighbors to find a location to house
Itho 1\J1r\/
Increase the City's emergency water
supply through the completion of the
I Droiect bv 2013.
Provide emergency training for SSO
Block Preparedness Coordinators
(BPCs) and Neighborhood
Preparedness Coordinators (NPCs) by
Itho on..! nf .,n1 n
Staff should review new State of
California EOP and model City Recovery
Annpx off the State version
Annual review
Priority Strategy
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26,2010
Action
3c) CERT training conducted by community
volunteers
3d) Coordination of communications systems
and contingency plans for extensive power
outage
3e) Community Alert Notification System (See
IT)
Community Collaborative for Youth Well Being
1) Project Safety Net
la) Trackwatch
lb) Developmental Assets
lc) Youth Forum
ld) Community Awareness
2) Collaboration with PAUSD
2a) Middle School Athletics
2b) Science/Performing Arts/Arts Outreach
2c) Summer School Camps
3) Collaboration with Youth
3a) Palo Alto Youth Council
3b) Youth Forum
3c) Youth Arts Council
3d) Mitchell Park Youth and Teen Center
4) Collaboration with Youth Serving
Agencies and Support Groups
Page 12 of 13
~ I
Deliverable (Scorecard)
Identify goals and submit to the Citizen
Corps Council: include "Community I
Disaster Network" (collaborate with I
Moffett Field's Silicon Valley Disaster
Center, etc. --Specific Goal: evaluate
feasibilty of using volunteers and NGOs
(Red Cross) to take on bulk of teaching
and administration of CERT
Identify communications needs
between 1) government entities and 2)
community entities -viz., the Block
Preparedness Coordinator Program
No scorecard/information only
Priority
~~-
Strategy
Attachment A: 2010 Council Priorities Workplan
July 26, 2010
Action
4a) Friends of the Children's Theater
4b) Palo Alto Recreation Foundation
4c) Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo
4d) Palo Alto Art Foundation
4e) Youth Community Services (YCS)
4f) Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS)
5) Collaboration with Local Businesses
Sa) Media Partnership
5b) Business Support of Youth
Page 13 0113
Deliverable (Scorecard) I
Greg Hermann, from the City Manager's Office, said that Track Watch was
meant to include the volunteer program and the paid security program. The
contract with the paid service was to reinforce the area in the specific location
where the service was needed. The community has fully funded the program
through June 2010. An additional $30,000 was included in the Police
Department Budget to continue the program on a scaled back basis through the
year. He said the on-going goal was not to just have one person at one place as
a last ditch effort to prevent suicide. Developmental Assets included a subset of
projects that were staffed by community members that recognized the
importance of a community supportive of Youth. He said the School District had
taken on much of the work as well. A project safety net report would be
presented to Council in the near future. The group was being trained and \ forming a speakers bureau to speak to the developmental assets model.
Mr. DeGeus said the program was moving in a very encouraging direction.
Youth Outreach and Youth Forum has been very successful. He said Staff would
like to see that turn into an annual event. He spoke to the stigma of mental
health issues. A suicide prevention policy could be considered by the Council,
he had asked Vic Ojakian to draft one as a means of elevating the discussion.
Ms. Morariu said that there were some clear action items in respect to the
priorities. It would make sense for the Committee to offer their comments.
Council Member Price asked about Project Cornerstone and if it was being
duplicated through Palo Alto's Speakers Bureau.
Mr. DeGeus said they were looking to implement the effort, and their Executive
Director was on the committee.
Mr. Hermann said the Director of Project Cornerstone would make a
presentation at their next meeting to the subcommittee.
Council Member Price asked for some clarification on the school board's model.
Mr. DeGeus agreed there were some models that exist. The City model would
be a bit different. The duplication of effort is something Staff was careful to
avoid. Staff's goal was to coordinate efforts. He said that everyone involved
had a different set of experiences and expertise that could be leveraged. Cross
functional teams were a critical component.
2 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Council Member Price said she liked best practices when they were applicable.
She said Staff should focus on figuring out what those are. She added that it
was important to involve youth in the discussions.
Mr. DeGeus agreed.
Council Member Price said the tragedies had been happening for several years
and the work being done was great.
Mr. DeGeus said years of budget reductions had taken their toll. He said he
was concerned about their capacity to deal with these types of issues.
Council Member Shepherd asked if he felt it was appropriate for the City to take
the lead on this issue.
Mr. DeGeus said he would love it if the schools took the lead, but they struggled
With budgets as well. The City was in a position to be able to influence the right
people and that has been a great strength.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the efforts were being complimented at the
School District.
Mr. DeGeus said he felt it had been. He said the level of trust and strength in
the partnership between the City and the School district had grown.
Council Member Shepherd said the cooperation reaches a certain point and then
falls apart. She said she'd like to see the interconnection between the City
programs added. She asked Staff for ideas on how to get Council involved.
Mr. DeGeus said they were fairly engaged.
Council Member Shepherd said she had worked with a speakers list of local
people that could help provide speakers for the parent networks at the two high
schools. She said those groups were great assets when they work ..
Mr. DeGeus said those organizations had been very supportive.
Council Member Holman said she wondered about the resources and the
expertise on City Staff. She said they should consider a level of medical care
offered by Stanford being dedicated to these programs.
3 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Mr. DeGeus agreed but added the model had been effective so far because
many experts had been brought in.
Council Member Holman asked for a clearer picture of the relationships. The
City was the lead and implementer in many programs and it was a lot to carry.
Mr. DeGeus agreed and said that conversation is part of the process. Much of it
did fallon the School District which was a challenge for them when academics
was their focus.
Council Member Holman asked if they had enough professional support.
Mr. DeGeus said he felt like they were getting good support through the
community.
Council Member Price said that when she was on the School Board they fought
to keep these types of issues a priority. She said that the funding mechanism
there had a large chunk directed toward infrastructure. She asked if there was
a way to have a percentage allocated to Community Services for these types of
issues in an effort to begin to build a way to sustain research support.
City Manager James Keene said that the Stanford Proposal suggestion of a $30
million pool had not been accepted by Stanford. He said he shared a lot of
Council Member Holman's questions. He said the Developmental Assets piece
alone was a huge undertaking for a community. To have it embedded in the
community for some time would be a worthy goal. It would require actions of
people across the community.
Council Member Holman said the City should be fostering, but more practically
the hands on piece should fallon supportive non-profits.
Mr. DeGeus said they were trying to connect those non-profits together to form
a more coordinated effort. Every caring adult in Palo Alto could be an asset
builder.
Chair Yeh said that it was in the context of priorities and moving toward some
form of sustainable model. He was curious if HSRAP funding or something else
for a community resource was needed.
Mr. DeGeus said they were just beginning to design that.
4 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Mr. Hermann said they were working with Project Cornerstone to work on a
County level.
Council Member Price said that the issues with the matrix of workers the City
Representatives need to do a better job of translating that into resources and
money.
Mr. DeGeus said that many experts in many different fields were working on
developing strategies and recommendations.
Council Member Price said something more sustainable such as an endowment
that could grow over time would be useful.
Council Member Shepherd said youth had been subtracted from the culture.
She said schools can make decisions that remove control of inputs of Social and
Mental Well being. She said that only 1 in 5 youths with these types of issues
were being diagnosed. She said the neutrality of the City was important in the
process as a coordinator.
Chair Yeh reminded the Committee that Staff was trying to determine a few top
priorities to forward back to the full Council as a recommendation.
Council Member Shepherd a'sked if they should rank the five priorities.
Ms. Morariu said that perhaps one strategy could be to develop an on going
sustainable support mechanism.
Ray Bacchetti, 850 Webster Street, #700 spoke regarding youth development.
He was interested in how to coordinate all of the Palo Alto resources. He said
the role of the City was not to lead but to manage and coordinate the
resources, and to build and sustain networks to allow the City to harvest all of
the resources. There needed to be the Staffing to accomplish that. There
needed to be a mechanism for cultivating, sustaining, and acknowledging
volunteers.
Council Member Price asked Mr. Bacchetti if there were planning grants within
the broad world of the foundations to examine the types of things he was
referring to.
Mr. Bacchetti said much was known about building and sustaining networks and
managing public resources. Whether a foundation would be interested in
making an investment on how the City could manage its ongoing role. Making
5 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Grants to Cities had become a specialized interest. He thought foundations
would be careful about becoming too involved with trying to fill these gaps in
the public sector .
. Council Member Price asked if he would be willing to help Staff identify those
resources if it was determined to be a good direction.
Mr. Bacchetti said he would be happy to help though he didn't have any current
contacts in the industry.
Council Member Price said the Community Foundation was something she would
consider, but she wasn't sure if there were others.
Mr. Bacchetti said there were ways to research foundation priorities to find a
match. He said he would be happy to help with that process.
Council Member Holman asked Mr. Bacchetti about any organization that could
take on the lead role.
Mr. Bacchetti said Avenidas was a good model example. He wasn't sure if there
. were a comparable one for youth well being. He suggested gathering existing
organizations to see what their solutions might be.
Mr. Keene said that it was important to identify what they were not able to
accomplish due to work loads or expertise.
Council Member Holman said it would be dangerous to have the best of
intentions, spend a lot of time on the issue and find out at the end that we
didn't have a way to get there.
Council Member Shepherd said she wanted to look at how the senior
organizations were structured. She reiterated that Avenidas was a good model
as they came out of the City with the goal of organizing senior services.
Chair Yeh said that this could go to the full Council. There was a strategic
aspect in terms of the longevity and sustainability and an implementation
aspect for accomplishing goals while figuring out the long term strategy.
Council Member Price mentioned that funding had to be considered as well.
6 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Council Member Holman said there were many levels the City could be involved
in. Youth Well Being had many meanings, including good soccer fields and the
Children's Theatre. There are many ways for the City to participate.
Mr. DeGeus agreed. He said the City had influences that involved these
strategies such as with the Theatre, fields, teen center, networking, etc.
Mr. Hermann said the recognition that much was being done was called out. He
said that there were some models such as the Second Wind Fund, which would
be interesting to observe. He said they were based in Colorado and had a
sustainable, community-driven model.
Council Member Shepherd said she agreed with all of this but reductions are still
being considered. She asked about Track Watch and the end date of the
funding for it.
Mr. Hermann saidthe security personnel were meant to be a visual deterrent to
stop the contagion at that intersection; it was never meant to be a permanent
solution. He said it was important to make the transition away from that level
of effort to these other components being discussed. Staff was working with
the Track Watch volunteers so they can self organize if they wish to cover the
program as the City scales down their commitment.
Mr. DeGeus said that regarding collaboration with the schools the City runs the
Middle School Athletic Program with one dedicated full time Staff Member. He
said there were abol!t 1,400 children that pay to participate. The Science and
Performing Arts Outreach have the Art Center and Children's Theatre which all
run curriculums in the schools at a fee for the schools.
Council Member Shepherd asked about the Junior Museum.
Mr. DeGeus said they had Science Outreach programs.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was mainly for the elementary schools.
Mr. DeGeus confirmed that it was. He added that the School District ran a
summer school and the City acted as a fiscal agent for and provides recreation
programs for it. He said the Collaborations for Youth Directly provided various
opportunities including a Youth Form, Youth Arts Council, and the Mitchell Park
Youth and Teen Center. He said the collaborations with youth serving agencies
utilized a tremendous amount of community support. He said there was a lot of
fund raising and volunteer work.
7 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Mr. Hermann discussed the media partnership as a strategy for Safety net. He
said that more work was continuing while Staff continued to reengage with local
media.
Chair Yeh said that Staff was looking for one to two items to prioritize.
Ms. Morariu suggested they could rank the top two actions.
Mr. Keene said it was a forced choice. Some things would be intertwined
Council Member Shepherd wanted to add Resource Officers to the list as they
were the ones that were helping the kids find their way. She asked to add
Crossing Guards. The LAC priority was to make sure the Libraries were covered
during the afterschool hours. She said there was a real interest in youth and
the services they needed. She said that PACCC, onsite child care, was driven
by the City and should be listed.
Mr. DeGeus said they report to the City School Liaison Committee about the
different things they do, but there were a lot more than what Staff listed.
Mr. Hermann said there was a wealth of programs that are running and will
continue to run but would not be listed.
Council Member Shepherd said when programs such as Resource Officers,
Crossing Guards and PACCCwere not being discussed by Staff much was
missing from the discussion as money was required for these programs.
Chair Yeh said that the Finance Committee was making funding decisions as
they were able to. The Policy & Services Committee sh,ould be focused more on
Staff time and workloads. Crossing Guards did have more to do with funding.
Good criteria for Policy and Services conversations might be to focus on Staff
time, and prioritization.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they were prioritizing in terms of what was
being funded.
Chair Yeh said yes, but in terms of Staff time rather than funding. The Policy
and Services Committee can't step on the Finance Committee's process.
Council Member Shepherd said her interest was in making sure the City and the
Schools were working together to make sure the goals were aligned.
8 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Chair Yeh said he was interested in what the Committee thought of his
suggestion.
Council Member Price said if they were to set priorities, they were not that
familiar with the actual tasks that needed to be done. She asked how the role
could be meaningful.
Chair Yeh said that the Finance Committee made a recommendation about
Crossing Guards. He asked if it would be helpful to the Council if the Policy and
Services Committee were to make another one.
Mr. Keene said the basic issue would be if they should continue to fund a
program or not. Finance will make that decision. He said it might be helpful to
segregate these issues. There would be no conversation taking place about
developmental assets at the Finance Committee. The conversation clearly
would have to do with Staff time, and would clearly have funding implications.
Council Member Shepherd said she keeps wondering about it being a goal. The
purpose of that should be to identify everything they were doing for youth and
to collaborate with the schools.
Mr. Keene said that the Finance Committee was using a parking lot for items
when they couldn't ,reach a consensus. Those items would eventually gp to the
full Council. He added that with the Crossing Guards, perhaps they want to
include various components of the program when it comes time to report on the
discussion. He said there were items in discussion that needed a change of
direction to accomplish. He thought the focus could be the new resources and
the items that are automatically done but may be getting in the way of the new
items.
Mr. OeGeus added that there was a unique opportunity to shift cultures. With
the asset piece we have the entire community engaged, they should take
advantage of that.
Council Member Price asked if there was a way to find an answer to the issue of
being more systematic and coordinating resources. She said there were
disconnects between the Council Priorities and the Budget Priorities. She asked
for guidance to make the process feel like it was forming into a workplan. She
said that later in the year they could return to the Committee with a systematic
approach to better coordinate resources internally and externally. She added
9 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
that there was probably no available Staff to do this. She said they were not
fully documenting the full resources the City was dedicating to the issue. She
asked how they decided which efforts would be productive or not.
Mr. OeGeus said the many programs were working well and they were doing a
lot. He said the gap was how they deploy effective other resources around
town.
Council Member Price confirmed that he meant a program that community
members could access to coordinate with each other.
Mr. OeGeus said yes. He said they needed to figure out what to pass on to the
community.
Council Member Price asked if there were actions related to coordinating
resources.
Mr. Keene said that they should remember this was a process that would take
place over many years. He suggested that rather than annual, let's have two
year projects based on the new Council ideas each two years. He said it was
important to make a statement to the community about things that were a
priority, and things the City was already doing. He added that marginal value
each year would be to manage it in smaller chunks. He said it didn't have to be
a perfect plan immediately.
Ms. Morariu added that the value added initiative would be helpful to prioritize
as they were new items.
Mr. Keene said to remember that all the questions couldn't be answered
immediately. He said that Staff would be able to connect with the Committee
to report on the questions or conflicts that come up while they were working on
it.
Council Member Holman suggested as a first priority they could review how to
answer some of the questions and solve some of the issues by exploring the
Avenidas or Second Wind models. She said the City could not sustain all of the
suggestions any way, so why not use these other models to accomplish more
with less City resources.
Council Member Shepherd said there was a lot that was City related such as
Park and Recreation. She asked if Council Member Holman was referring to
only the Project Safety Net component.
10 P &S Committee 611/2010
Council Member Holman said primarily that's what she was referring to, but she
wasn't refusing to add any other program.
Council Member Price said it was important to know what was being sustained.
Council Member Holman suggested they not try to evaluate or prioritize
immediately but rather review other models first.
Council Member Shepherd suggested they broaden and identify how the City
was supporting youth. She wanted to understand how they could have a
rigorous conversation with the schools about how youth were supported in Palo
Alto. She said this included the Crossing Guards, Resource Officer, the library
hours, the Teen Center, and Track Watch.
Council Member Holman agreed.
Mr. DeGeus said that Project Safety Net was important and the question was
how to sustain it. He said it would be good direction for Staff to make it
priority.
Mr. Keene said it started to turn into an implementation directive, so they
wanted to be able to understand that. He said there seemed to be a concern
about the City's ability to deliver this. He said how it fits in was a smaller
concern.
Chair Yeh said it was important to recognize that there was a process. He said
some community members were excited, but they felt it should have been
started before. Now that it was starting, they could take Staff's feedback for a
strategic long term priority for Community Collaborative and develop a
comprehensive list and timeline.
Council Member Price said the City School Liaison Committee had on-going
reports that described all of these reports and the committee work. She added
that Palo Alto was not unique with this problem and they needed to explore
what other cities were doing to manage these issues.
Mr. DeGeus said Staff had reached out to many cities, universities, and other
experts from around the country, particularly in relation to suicide prevention.
Mr. Hermann added that one of the major learning's was that each community
builds upon the previous work.
11 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Council Member Price said Staff was suggesting that they had not found another
community that had really done this well.
Mr. DeGeus said the NY Times recently came to Palo Alto for a week as part of
a tour around the country. Their feedback was that Palo Alto had done much
more than any of the other communities they had visited.
Council Member Shepherd said that one of Staff's questions was about what
success looked like. She said that she understood the importance of asserting
families in Palo Alto. She said if they could start gathering all of the information
about the way of life here and the services offered, they could put it into a
manageable form so they could help families with a book or something that
details all these services.
Mr. DeGeus said that was something that could be done.
Council Member Shepherd reiterated that it would be good to see the basic
services in a comprehensive format. She clarified that she didn't mean a
schedule of lessons, but rather a description of how to find the lessons. She
asked if the information was available on-line and if it was possible to get it in a
printed brochure format.
Mr. DeGeus said it was on-line, available through kiosks and that a brochure
would be possible.
Chair Yeh said if they make it a priority as a Council it would be possible.
Council Member Shepherd said that might be a good link.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Price that the Policy and Services Committee recommends the development of a
long-term, sustainable model for Project Safety Net to be further defined by
Staff, and that Staff produce an inventory of youth focused services offered by,
in, or through the City of Palo Alto in a user-friendly, deliverable format.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Council Member Price asked if there was a possibility of having longer term
priorities.
Mr. Keene said Staff would look into it.
12 P&S Committee 611/2010
Chair Yeh suggested they discuss Land Use and Transportation.
Ms. Morariu said Staff would be happy to discuss any that the Committee felt
they were unclear about.
Mr. Keene said that the six strategies all made sense to him. He said rather
than discussing whether or not these strategies should be there, they should
discuss how to accomplish them. He said the actions were easier to deal with
as some of them were already set for the Planning and Transportation items.
He said that resources should be discussed, for example they should explore
whether there was enough Staff to manage the High Speed Rail issue. They
could discuss if they were on 'target with the priorities and what actions needed
to be taken if they were not.
Director of Planning and Transportation Curtis Williams said he wasn't sure what
level of detail the Committee wanted to review. But there were a few things
that were important even though they may not be state required; 1) High
Speed Rail, 2) Comprehensive Plan, 3) Stanford, 4) Bike Plan, 5) Development
Center, and 6) Organizational Structure.
Mr. Keene added that there were many other projects, but if the City were to
make progress on any of the items mentioned by Mr. Curtis, it would be a
successful year.
Council Member Shepherd agreed. She asked where Staff would place the Rail
Corridor Study in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Williams said it bridges the High Speed Rail in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Shepherd said there was skepticism about how effective it
would be and added that she was looking forward to seeing the community
work together.
Mr. Williams said it would take perhaps a year and a half to complete. A solid
policy framework could be established in about six months that defines the
parameters.
Council Member Shepherd said she learned, while visiting Sacramento recently,
that they would have to build High Speed Rail into the work plan.
13 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Council Member Holman suggested that the strategies under Land Use &
Transportation were overlooking the process to improve permit efficiency.
Another category should be consistency and predictability .. Adherence to City
and State rules should also be factored in. Under Transportation Actions they
should consider adding Pagemill and Hwy 280 to get the funding they needed to
correct the issues there.
Council Member Shepherd reiterated that High Speed Rail was not going away,
and they would have to find a way to fund the issues that came along with it.
Mr. Keene said that CalTrain wasn't specifically listed, perhaps it should be
"High Speed RaiI/CaITrain". He suggested the Corridor Study should be under
the Comprehensive Plan rather than High Speed Rail. High Speed Rail was
reactive, whereas the Corridor Study was more proactive.
Council Member Shepherd said the electrification of CalTrain needed to be
added.
Council Member Price added that Alma was part of it as well.
Mr. Williams said all of those would be in there by default anyway.
Council Member Shepherd said that it seemed like the only priority that could
go away would be Stanford.
Mr. Williams agreed.
Council. Member Price clarified that they meant Stanford could come to a
conclusion, not that it could be deferred.
Chair Yeh asked if the Bike Plan was a calendar year 2010 deliverable.
Mr. Williams said it would go into 2011.
Chair Yeh asked about the Development Center Restructure.
Mr. Williams said the effort would be completed this year but pieces may move
into next year.
Chair Yeh said, of the items Mr. Williams mentioned, Stanford and the
Development Center were 2010, the others were 2011.
14 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Council Member Price said that was correct in terms of focus. She clarified that
the Corridor Plan should be part of the Comprehensive Plan. She thought that
the Corridor and Stanford would be the big items.
Mr. Williams said that Stanford was paying the cost of most of the work for that
project, so resources were not as much of a problem. High Speed Rail was a
different issue, and resources were a problem. The Comprehensive Plan was
fine for this year, resource wise. Funding for the bike plan was also in place.
Council Member Price asked if the Bike Plan process required consultant
support.
Mr. Williams said the Bike Plan did use consultants with one RFP being worked
on now. That part of the project was budgeted through a grant. It would total
an estimated $50,000.
Council Member Price confirmed that it was contracted out due to Staff
resources.
Mr. Williams said that was correct, though a lot of work was being done by
Staff.
Council Member Shepherd said it would be nice for Staff to have the expertise
on that project.
Council Member Price agreed but added that with the Bike Plan there would
obviously not be someone in house that could do it. She asked how many
people were in Planning.
Mr. Williams said there were 44 employees total. Half were in Building, and
about 20 were in Planning.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Planning was in a lull.
Mr. Williams said it was a little slower, but some Staff had been cut.
Shepherd said the process and project review should be easy for residents to
improve their homes. She said that gaps in the commissions were an issue.
She asked if Staff had time to fix any of that this year.
Mr. Keene said they had to find time to fix it this year.
15 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Mr. Williams said there were Staff and Ordinance issues.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification regarding the Staff issues.
Mr. Williams said communication between departments, regulations, and other
issues including regulations.
Council Member Shepherd asked if there was a problem between that and
Public Works.
Mr. Keene said there were regulation issues, system issues, organizational
structural issues, control oversight, need for more performance metrics, but he
added that these were all issues that could be fixed. He said that public
announcements regarding the importance of this and the urgency of some
progress should be considered.
Council Member Price said that in anticipation of a recovering economy they
should get ready for increased delivery.
Council Member Shepherd said that every month that a family is out of their
home due to delays with the process was unfair and expensive for the family.
She asked if there could be a guarantee of time.
Mr. Keene said processes that are clear and written down need to be set, and
performance measures set. He said there always had to be a variable because
the contractor could drop the ball and then tell the homeowner it's the city's
fault. He added that there were some processes that drive the project that
need to be fixed. It needed to be a permit center, not five departments that
work separately.
Council Member Price asked if applicants were given a tentative schedule for
when their projects would be reviewed by the various review bodies.
Mr. Williams said applicants were not handed a piece of paper, but were
typically told what the schedule should be.
Council Member Price said there would be assumptions, but her vision was that
the entire team meets with the applicant and creates a schedule.
Mr. Williams said they host that meeting, but not every department attends, or
. Staff hadn't reviewed the plans yet and give an unrealistic timeline that is later
adjusted.
16 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
Mr. Keene said improvements could be made. Staff had to be accountable for
implementation and documentation. He said the public had been ~very vocal
about these issues. He thought assigning project management responsibility to
one Staff Member would be efficient.
Chair Yeh said there were five priorities on the table; he wanted to know how
the Committee wanted to proceed. He said they could focus on the two that
were for 2010 and then continue through 2011.
Council Member Price said that just managing these items would be a success
due to their complex nature.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the permit fees were comparable to
surrounding cities. She asked if raising the fees to earn more money and hire
more Staff would solve the problem.
Mr. Williams said that money and Staff were not the issue.
Council Member Price felt that Palo Alto's permit fees were comparable to other
cities.
Mr. Williams agreed. He said it ranges a bit depending on the type of permit.
He said personnel would help to some extent, but it wasn't the fundamental
problem. He felt they could double the Staff and still have problems.
Council Member Price said that aligning the High Speed Rail with the
Comprehensive Plan was an understanding taken from the meeting. She felt
both issues were largely mandatory. The five identified here made the most
sense with limited options.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd that the Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City
Council approval of the 2010 Council Priorities Work Plan.
Council Member Shepherd asked about the Rail Corridor verbiage. She said it's
not always about High Speed Rail.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
3. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas
17 P&S Committee 6/1/2010
funding in the budget for Emergency Preparedness and requested that PANDA
and PAN organizations funding be incorporated in the Emergency Preparedness
Work Plan.
Reserve Police Officer Ken Dueker gave a brief presentation on the philosophy
and origins of the Citizen Corps Council. He stated the Citizen Corps Council was
the umbrella group for emergency preparedness. Their function was to engage
with community resources that were available to the assist in an emergency.
The Citizens Corps Council was a way to capture threats that were not part of
the traditional emergency systems. It was how the City was reaching out to the
neighborhood groups, Stanford University, the Hospital and the private sector.
He stated the priority of the Citizens Corps Council was to ensure that
residential community was prepared for a disaster of any nature. He noted the
Foothills Management Plan was to be under the umbrella for the Citizens Corps
Council.
Police Chief, Dennis Burns stated the new Mobile Command Vehicle was
purchased through a combination of City funds and both State and Federal
grants totaling $700,000. He clarified the vehicle was contracted to specifics
designed to communicate on multiple radio frequencies and could support a
number of various issues in an emergency or disaster situation.
City Manager James Keene stated the Mobile Command Vehicle was not a full
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) although it had the capacity to manage a
large scale emergency.
Mr. Dueker stated with the possible loss of police and/or fire infrastructure the
Mobile Command Vehicle would allow the City to carryon some of the lost
functions while being able to maintain a first response capability.
Mr. Keene stated the information received had sufficient detail and clarity for an
accurate and thorough response. It was important to maintain a continuous
renewal of the community based involvement.
Council Member Holman stated although the City relied on modern methods of
communication there was a need for an audible, community-wide alarm.
Mr. Dueker stated that until the early 1970's the City had a civil defense air raid
type alarm notification system. He noted due to the geography of the City, it
would be difficult to cover some of the denser areas. The current notification
systems were KZSU 90.1, the emergency alert system and the CANS system.
2 P&S Committee 6/22/2010
Council Member Holman stated she was in favor of instituting the air raid siren
system without a great deal of studying. She suggested researching the
coverage area and the cost. She stated how important it was to maintain a
secondary source of power in the event of a full power outage. She asked how
the Fire Department participated in the emergency preparedness program.
Mr. Dueker stated historic evidence had shown that the PANDAjCERT Program
had evolved out of the Fire Department while the PAN Block Preparedness
Program evolved from the Neighborhood Watch Program. He clarified the Fire
Department was involved with different organizations. He recommended having
the programs unified under one command in an effort to minimize duplication
and maximize efficiency.
Council Member Holman recommended that it would be helpful to have an
Organizational Chart to help the public and Council understand how things
flowed. She suggested that Staff include all the different entities available to
the community in time of emergency. She qu'estioned the possibility of available
grants for emergency services.
Ms. Glanckopf stated the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) had
supplied a $1,000 grant in 2009 and a second grant had been sought for 2010.
She explained the Citizens Corps Council had a grant committee that could
research the availability of grant funding sources.
Council Member Holman asked if Staff could have the print shop print some of
the materials to save money.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would explore the idea.
Council Member Shepherd stated she had attended one of the PAN emergency
preparedness training sessions and was impressed with the level of community
participation. She asked which portion of the Stanford Campus the City was
responsible for in an emergency situation.
Mr. Dueker stated the Police Department was responsible for 911 dispatches for
the entire campus and the Fire Department administered safety watch over the
campus, Stanford lands and the Stanford properties in San, Mateo County.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the Stanford neighborhoods were
being trained in a similar manner as Palo Alto neighborhoods for emergency
response.
3 P&S Committee 6/22/2010
Mr. Dueker stated the Fire Department had extended the PANDAjCERT Program
training through the campus. There were other neighborhoods within the
residential areas that had been invited to participate.
Council Member Shepherd asked for confirmation that PAN requested the City
supply $20,QOO. She stated the $100,000 emergency preparation funds'that
had initially oeen cut from the budget had been reinstated.
Mr. Dueker stated the funding that was reinstated in the budget was for a Staff
position. .~
Council Member Shepherd asked how the City was assisting the Citizens Corps
Committee in achieving their funding goal.
Mr. Keene stated the request for funds had not been brought forth prior to this
meeting and therefore Staff had not had an opportunity to discuss funding
options with Council.
Council Member Shepherd recommended requesting funding assistance from
Stanford since they were included in the emergency preparedness. She asked
what type of emergency situations the audible alarm system would respond to.
Mr. Dueker stated the Stanford Campus installed one in response to the Virginia
Tech shooting. The City could utilize the system for chemical or hazardous
material incidents.
Council Member Shepherd stated she would be interested in exploring the
visibility and cost options.
Council Member Price stated the School District was required to have an
emergency plan and asked whether the Citizens Corps Council had been linked
to or with the School District.
Mr. Dueker stated yes, there was a youth and school sector. He stated there
was a tactical survey being completed that would evaluate the schools' ability to
respond in a critical incident.
Council Member Price asked whether the Chamber of Commerce was a
partiCipant.
Mr. Dueker stated yes.
4 P&S Committee 6122/2010
Council Member Price asked to what degree Staff was working on locating
funding opportunities in grant form or. community based assistance.
Ms. Morariu stated the City subscribed to a grant locator database and each
department had Staff that searched for grant opportunities. She noted that the
City's Federal advocacy firm notifies Staff of available grant opportunities and
the information is then filtered to the appropriate department.
Council Member Price stated historically taking a regional approach to grant
funding had been successful and supplied more opportunity. She asked
whether the emergency siren had been explored prior to the current discussion.
Mr. Dueker stated the Fire Department had evaluated an emergency siren
system a few years ago and it was determined to not be cost effective. He
stated a small study could be conducted by looking at neighboring communities.
Council Member Price stated the request by PAN to suggest an emergency
preparedness month was valid and she asked what process needed to be taken
to accomplish that.
Ms. Morariu stated Staff was planning for an Emergency Preparedness Study
Session in September. She suggested preparing a Resolution declaring
September and October as Disaster Preparedness Months.
Chair Yeh stated in the past the City had a self-registration program for
individuals who were in need of special assistance in the event of an
emergency. He asked whether the system could be re-implemented and asked
how it was maintained. .
Mr. Dueker stated the Fire Department had initiated a database, although they
had difficulty maintaining the updates. He stated the Red Cross and a variety of
medical foundations maintained a list. He noted the residents were typically
more comfortable having their neighbors manage their information rather than
the government. He stated a neighbors-helping-neighbors model was more
effective.
Ms. Glanckopf stated PAN had an effective approach; although, more visibility
would benefit the program greatly.
Mr. Dorsky stated this type of program worked best at the neighbor level,
people know and want to help their neighbors.
Chair Yeh asked what the balance was in the Council Contingency Fund.
5 P&S Committee 6/2212010
Ms. Morariu stated the balance was extinguished to support the HSR Staffing.
Chair Yeh asked if the funding request from PAN was one-time or on-going.
Ms. Glanckopf stated PAN had compiled a matrix for current and expected
costs. She clarified the $20,000 request was for the current year although there
were costs associated with the program on an on-going basis.
Chair Yeh suggested a Challenge Grant type of funding where the funds
supported the kicking off of a Friends group. He stated there was a Resource
Officer position discussed in the budget that supported the Neighborhood Watch
program. He asked whether the proposed budget cuts to the Resource Officer
had been confirmed.
Mr. Dueker stated the Neighborhood Watch program supported by the Resource
Officer position had been folded into the PAN organization.
Chair Yeh agreed to a one-time funding given the loss of support by the City
due to the budget cuts.
Council Member Shepherd stated emergency preparedness was a City function
and should be funded by the City.
Council Member Holman noted there was an absence of important information
on the City website. She asked whether there were Staff members willing to
volunteer to update the missing information.
Ms. Glanckopf stated there was a website committee made up of community
members and Staff. She noted their availability to volunteer to update the
information on the website.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would update the website during the new few months.
Council Member Holman stated she would appreciate seeing the Block
Preparedness Coordinator manual and the Hazard Vulnerability Analysis on the
website.
Chair Yeh stated the task for the Citizens Corps Committee was to determine
what could be achieved through the end of 2010 and what the process would be
for the next few years.
6 P&S Committee 6/2212010
Council Member Price asked which items on the workplan were mandatory and
what the timeline was for accomplishment.
Mr. Dueker stated the Foothills Emergency Plan was mandatory; although, the
legal prerequisite had been met by Council adopting the plan. There was
currently no funding available for the execution of the plan which was why the
City Manager's office obtained an outside consultant to assist in locating Fire
Grant Funding and Mitigation Funding.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the homeowner was responsible for
cutting the vegetation for wild fire safety if there were inspections.
Mr. Dueker stated yes, the homeowner was responsible for clearing vegetation
and the Fire Marshal's Office and Cal Fire completed inspections.
Ms. Morariu stated every spring there were community presentations and onsite
home visits. She stated the workplan incorporated this area due to the acreage
of publicly owned space and the Page Mill Road evacuation route.
Council Member Holman asked whether the organizational chart requested
would include outside entities.
Mr. Dueker stated there was an organization chart for City Staff although the
remainder was more of a networking map showing the relationship with San
Mateo County, Stanford University and the remaining outside entities.
Chair Yeh asked whether the envisioned community emergency plan would be
accomplished in the year 2010 or 2011.
Mr. Dueker stated the community emergency plan was a work group within the
Citizen Corps Council and they had no timeline at present for completion of the
plan.
Council Member Price stated she was unaware what the resources required
were nor how they related to the current Staff work load.
Ms. Morariu suggested identifying the top three to five priorities in the workplan
which would be the areas Staff time would be focused on first and as time and
resources allowed the other projects could be phased in.
Council Member Price stated under Disaster Preparedness in the workplan items
2a: Encourage Community Involvement/Self Reliance and 2e: Earthquake,
SUMC Project, were of a priority for her. She stated based on the limited
7 P&S Committee 6/22/2010
information she was unsure of the required Staff time it would take to complete
both tasks at a sufficient level.
Mr. Dueker stated a function of the Citizens Corps Council was to inform the
City Manager's office what would be required to accomplish each task.
Council Member Price asked if funding opportunities developed, where the
information would be submitted to.
Mr. Dueker stated Dr. Ray Bacchetti was the Chair of the funding working group
for the Citizens Corps Council.
Council Member Shepherd requested expanding the participation to include the
Medical Clinic and the Veterans Hospital.
Mr. Dueker stated both entities were represented through the Sand Hill Corridor
group.
Council Member Holman stated a number of communities fund their
neighborhood associations and she hoped to take the initial step toward
supporting their function in this troubled economic time.
Chair Yeh wanted, to ensure the Federal representatives were aware of the
Emergency Power Supply need since it involved a federal agency they could
assist in moving the process forward.
3. Recommendation to Council on Proposed Changes to the City Council
Procedures and Protocols.
Assistant to the City Manager, Kelly Morariu gave a brief overview of the
changes being requested to the Procedures and Protocols.
City Clerk Donna Grider stated that moving the Council packet delivery date
forward had implications for Colleagues Memo's and public correspondences.
She noted the public and news papers had mentioned their appreciation of
receiving the information earlier. The reasoning behind altering the speaker
cards was to create an easier process for the public and, to have a unified card
for Council and Boards and Commission meetings.
Council Member Holman recalled requesting comparative information from
surrounding cities and their packet delivery timeframe. She stated reviewing
comparative information would be beneficial. In reviewing the previous
8 P&S Committee 6/22/2010
ATTACHMENT A
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNI~G AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JULY 26, 2010 CMR: 299:10
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, including an overview of the Alternatives
Chapter and Mitigation Measures.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (P &TC)
provide and accept public comments on the Draft Environmental hnpact Report (Draft EIR) for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facility Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) and
forward comments to staff and consultants for response in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR). The Draft EIR began a 69-daypublic review period on May 20, 2010. The review period
ends on July 27, 2010. Multiple meetings have been held with the City Council and P &TC to accept
comments on the Draft EIR. The July 26, 2007 City Council meeting will be last public meeting
where oral comments may be presented. However, written comments will be accepted until the close
of business on July 27,2010. This staff report provides an overview of the Alternatives chapter of
the Draft EIR, including the key impacts and mitigation measures. The P &TC will comment on these
chapters on June 30, 2010 and the City Council on July 26,2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission:
1. Accept public comments on the Draft EIR with focus on the Alternatives Chapter and
mitigation nleasures; and
2. Forward cpmments on the Draft EIR to staff and the consultant for response in the Final EIR.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2010, the SUMC Project Draft EIR was published starting a 69-day public review
period. On July 7th the P&TC will hold a public hearing and on July 26th the City Council will hold a
public hearing to review the Alternatives and Mitigation Measures.
Copies of the Draft EIR can be obtained at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, at the Palo
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Alto Main Library and via the City's website, www.cityofpaloalto.orglsumc.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staffwill provide an overview of the following at the meeting:
• Alternatives (pages 5-1 through 5-228)
• Mitigation Measures (Summary Table S-4, pages S-25 through S-92)
The comments should be focused on whether the information presented in the Draft EIR adequately
covers the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed SUMC Project and the
adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. The hearings are not meant to provide a forum for
dialogue about the project merits, but to be opportunities to collect comments on the Draft EIR to
ensure that it adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project.
1. Alternatives
An EIR is required to examine a range of project alternatives in order to assess whether impacts can
be reduced or eliminated while also achieving project goals. Alternatives are addressed in Section 5
of the Draft EIR. The chapter analyzes seven (7) alternatives including two (2) No Project
Alternatives, two (2) Reduced Intensity Alternatives, Tree Preservation Alternative, Historic
Preservation Alternative, and a Village Concept Alternative. The range of alternatives was
determined through the scoping process and supplemented later by staff and the applicants as project
impacts, such as historical and biological, were identified through additional analysis. The Draft EIR
provides a detailed description of each alternative, followed by an analysis of how each alternative
meets the Project objectives. The list of Project Sponsor and City objectives is contained in
Attachment A. Section 5.5 -Impact Assessment, starting on page 5-50, evaluates whether the.
alternatives would reduce or eliminate significant impacts of the SUMC Project and/or generate
impacts other than those identified for the SUMC Project. Table 5-8 (Attachment B) provides a
comparison of the impacts identified under each alternative to the impacts of the SUMC Project.
When assessing the feasibility of alternatives, it is important to assess whether they meet the
objectives of the applicant and the City.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Below is a comparison summary of the basic program features of the different alternatives.
Comparative Description of SUMC Project Alternatives
Floor Area New Floor
Demolished Area Net Increase SHC Total LPCH Total
Alternative (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Beds Beds
SUMC Project
1,213,759 2,525,277 1,311,518 600 361
No Project Alternatives:
A. Retrofitting only' 0 0 0 o or 4562 o or 2572
B. Replace SB 1953 665,128 674,115 8,987 287 141 noncompliant structures
Reduced Intensity Alternatives:
A. Right-size SHC and LPCH 1,200,005 1,645,928 445,923 456 257
B. Right-size SHC and LPCH
plus add floor area (in an 1,213,836 2,137,538 923,702 542 319 amount less than the SUMC
Project)
Preservation Alternatives:
Tree Preservation Alternative 1,213,759 2,525,277 1,311,518 600 361
Historic Preservation 357,581 1,681,300 1,323,719 600 361 Alternative
Village Concept Alternative:
Village Concept Alternative 1,213,759 2,525,277 1,311,518 600 361
No Project Alternative A: Retrofitting Only/No New Structures
Under No Project Alternative A, only those hospital facilities that could be modified to meet the
Senate Bill (SB) 19532013 and 2030 deadlines would be retrofitted. No new buildings would be
constructed. In the long-term, portions of the hospital facilities would not meet SB 1953
requirements for the 2030 deadline, and one or both of the hospitals would be closed. This
alternative would require SHC and LPCH hospitals to continue to operate beyond the 2013 deadline
with reduced patient capacity. By 2013, SHC would have to move hospital functions out of the
portion of the original 1959 Hospital Building complex that could not be retrofitted to SB 1953
standards and into compliant existing facilities. The L:PCH and the SoM would continue to use
existing buildings for medical treatment, research, and teaching purposes, subj ect to seismic retrofit
work.
Under this alternative, there would he no new construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site and the
interior of the existing Hoover Pavilion building would not need to be renovated to relocate the users
of 11 01 Welch Road. The demolition of existing sheds at that site would not occur and no rezoning,
lOne or both hospitals would likely close in 2030 under this alternative.
2 Depending on which hospital closes
City of Palo Alto Page 3
annexation, or changes to existing land use designations would be required. In addition, this
alternative would include no function upgrades to meet current standards and technological
requirements.
This alternative would not achieve the basic SUMC Project or City objectives. This alternative
eliminates eight (8) significant and unavoidable impacts.
No Project Alternative B: Replace SB 1953 Noncompliant Structures at Maximum Allowable
FAR
Under No Project Alternative B, hospital facilities that are not compliant with Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) structural standards would be replaced with new
structures. New structures would be built out to the maximum size allowed under PF zoning. Under
PF zoning for the Main SUMC Site, the maximum allowable floor to area ratio (FAR) is 1.0,
allowing for an additional 9,000 -square-foot expansion ofhospital facilities. No additional buildings
would be added at Hoover Pavilion. No rezoning, annexation, or changes to existing land use
designations would be required to replace the SB 1953 noncompliant buildings with the maximum
allowable FAR.
LPCH would continue to use its existing facilities, with non-structural renovations made to
noncompliant critical care areas. The SoM functions are presently located in other portions of the
1959 Hospital Building complex (Grant, Alway, Lane, and Edwards Buildings) and would continue
to occupy those areas under this alternative.
This alternative would not meet the majority of the SUMC Project objectives and would not attain
the primary City objectives. This alternative eliminates six (6) significant and unavoidable impacts.
Reduced Intensity Alternative A: Right Size SHC and LPCH Facilities without Adding Beds
Under Reduced Intensity Alternative A, noncompliant facilities would be demolished and replaced
with new structures. All other uses on the Main SUMC Sites would remain the same as under
current conditions, subject to minor seismic retrofit work. In addition, the Hoover Pavilion would be
internally renovated to accommodate additional clinic and office uses; however, no new structures
would be constructed at this site. .Construction of new hospital facilities would be limited to the
minimum additional square footage required to right-size the existing LPCH and SHC facilities
without adding space for additional growth. The net increase in building square footage would be
445,923 square fe,et. A detailed breakdown of the demolition and replacement is included in Table 5-
3 of the Draft EIR. This alternative would expand the hospitals' existing floor area to provide
additional space for the hospitals' existing number of beds, associated support areas, and emergency
room. This alternative would require rezoning of the Main SUMC Sites to accommodate proposed
development intensities because the PF -zoned area is almost entirely built out under existing
co'nditions. This alternative also would necessitate annexation of the 0.75-acre portion of the Main
SUMC Site and would involve construction above the 50-foot height limit, requiring Comprehensive
Plan amendments arid zoning changes.
This alternative would meet some, but not all, of the SUMC Project and City objectives. This
alternative eliminates six (6) significant and unavoidable impacts.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Reduced Intensity Alternative B: Right-Size SHC and LPCH Facilities Plus Add Floor Area in
an Amount Less Than the SUMC Project
Reduced Intensity Altenlative B would include all of the components of Reduced Intensity
Alternativ.e A, but would also include additional square footage for clinics/medical offices, research
facilities, and other non-hospital uses. The net increase in building square footage would be 923,702
square feet. This would result in approximately 60 percent of the SUMC Projects' additional beds.
A detailed breakdown of the demolition and replacement is included in Table 5-4 of the Draft EIR.
Hoover Pavilion would be renovated for the users of 1101 Welch Road, but no new medical office
building would be added at the Hoover Pavilion Site. This alternative would require construction
above the 50-foot height limit; therefore, like Reduced Intensity Alternative A, Comprehensive Plan
amendments, zoning changes, and annexation would be necessary under this alternative.
This alternative would meet some short-term objectives, but overall would not meet all of the
objectives of the SUMC Project. This alternative would not attain the basic City objectives. This
alternative eliminates four (4) significant and unavoidable impacts.
Tree Preservation Alternative
The Tree Preservation Alternative comes from collaborative discussions between the applicant and
the City. It was designed to reduce the SUMC Project's impact on Protected Trees. The Tree
Preservation Alternative would seek to preserve the nlajority of the aesthetically and biologically
significant Protected Trees at Kaplan Lawn, the FIM 1 Grove, and along Welch Road. Under this
alternative, there would be no development on the Kaplan Lawn, and no Protected Trees would be
removed at that location. In addition, the FIM 1 building would be redesigned to save as many
Protected Trees as possible in this area. Lastly, two Protected oak trees along Welch Road would be
retained. The site plan for this alternative would avoid 13 biologically and aesthetically significant
Protected Trees that would be affected by the SUMC Project. Further, this alternative would seek to
relocate three more Protected Trees that would otherwise be affected under the SUMC Project.
Figure 5-1 of the Draft EIR shows the revised site plan, the Protected Trees that would be preserved
and the potential zones for planting of relocated trees.
The Tree Preservation Alternative maintains the same square footage and programmatic functions as
the SUMC Project, but proposes design modifications to the new hospital building as well as FIM 1
to accomplish tree preservation. The Project sponsor is promoting the Tree Preservation Alternative
and has indicated to City staff that it now prefers this alternative over its original proposal. As such,
his Alternative is currently being reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Board and was
presented to the P&TC on June 9 and the City Council on June 14, 2010.
The Tree Preservation would be similar to the SUMC Project, with the following exceptions:
• There would be no hospital module constructed in Kaplan Lawn. The program would be
absorbed into the remaining portion of the SHC Hospital building footprint off Welch Road
and Pasteur Drive. Although the resulting SHC Hospital building square footage would be
the same as under the SUMC Project, the design would change in the following ways:
o The first four floors (below~grade and Levels 1,2, and 3) of the central portion of the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
new SHC Hospital building would contain enclosed program, along with an atrium
(rather than courtyard space, as proposed under the SUMCProject), extending from
Floor 1 to Floor 3.
o The central atrium would include a glass-domed ceiling at Level 3 and the area above
the atrium would remain open.
o The four SHC Hospital modules surrounding the central atrium would be seven
stories tall, using the full amount of the 130-foot height envelope identified for the
proposed SUMC Project.
o The fifth SHC Hospital module, at the northeast comer of the proposed new SHC
Hospital building, would be seven stories tall (130 feet). This height also matches
the height identified under the proposed SUMC Project.
o Additional "platform" area would be located northeast of the SHC Hospital building,
containing additional diagnostic and treatment programs.
• All four modules of the Clinics would be 112 feet tall (as compared to the SUMC Project,
which would have one module at 112 feet and three modules at 64 feet).
• The ambulance route to and from the emergency department would be reconfigured to avoid
the century-old solitary oak at the edge of the Main SUMC Site, adjacent to Welch Road. In
addition, the fifth SHC Hospital module would be farther from the century-old oak tree than
under the SUMC Project.
• The parking structure at the Welch RoadlPasteur Drive intersection would be constructed as
a 40-foot tall structure with three levels underground and four levels aboveground. On top of
the garage would be a Wellness Center accessible to the pUblic.
• The Emergency Department entrance/parking would be moved to the Pasteur Drive side of
the new SHC Hospital building.
• The SHC patient and visitor drop-off loop would be located farther down Pasteur Drive,
more centrally located adjacent to the future clinics expansion and the existing D, E, and F
pods.
• In order to activate the pedestrian experience at the entry level to the new SHC Hospital
building, the building perimeter would be planned to accommodate the public functions of
the hospital building program: the cafe, gift shop, outdoor seating, and a small retail
component.
• Portions of the Main SUMC Site are susceptible to liquefaction; therefore, under this
alternative, the SHC Hospital foundation would be supported by piles in order to meet
OSHPD's heightened standards for hospital buildings.
• The FIM 1 building footprint would be altered to save Protected Trees at the northeast comer
of the building.
• The Protected oak tree that is east of the proposed LPCH hospital building, adjacent to
Welch Road, would relocate this tree to another location.
• A new road would be created running east-west directly down the middle of Kaplan Lawn,
City of Palo Alto Page 6
replacing the function of two roads that exist today between the two barrels of Pasteur Drive
(Blake-Wilbur Drive and the SUMC Promenade). This design would also allow the creation
of a new arrival plaza at the pedestrian exits from Parking Structure 4, permitting a safer
pedestrian entry sequence to the SHC Hospital building. In addition, it would remove a large
percentage ofvehicle/pedestrianlbicycle interactions along the SUMC Promenade, creating
better pedestrian opportunities between the hospitals and the SoM. Kaplan Lawn would be
further enhanced with additional landscaping, including the placement of two relocated trees
from the FIM 1 Site.
As proposed under the SUMC Project, the Tree Preservation Alternative would require the
demolition of the 1959 Hospital Building complex. In its place, the Tree Preservation Alternative
would construct the replacement SHC clinic/medical office building and SoM FIM Buildings 2 and 3
in the same locations as under the SUMC Project. The site plans at the LPCH and the Hoover
Pavilion would be the same as under the SUMC Project. The Tree Preservation Alternative would
necessitate the same Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning changes, and annexation as the
proposed SUMC Project.
This alternative would attain all of the SUMC Project objectives and the majority of the City'S
. objectives. This alternative eliminates one (1) significant and unavoidable impact in the area of
construction air pollution emissions and would reduce, though not eliminate, the biological effect on
protected trees.
Historic Preservation Alternative
The Historic Preservation Alternative would preserve all of the essential historic aspects needed to
maintain the eligibility of the 1959 Hospital Building complex for listing on the California Register
of Historic ResoUrces (CRHR). The alternative would retain the 1959 Hospital Building conlplex,
which includes SoM buildings (Grant, Alway, Lane, and Edwards), along with the following SHC
Hospital/clinic buildings: West Pavilion ("West"), East Pavilion ("East"), Boswell, and Core. This
alternative would preserve the historic integrity of Pasteur Drive and its landscaping, which serve as
the main approach to the 1959 Hospital Building complex.
The Historic Preservation Alternative would not construct a new SHC clinic/medical office building
in place of the 1959 Hospital Building Complex. However, the existing buildings at the 1959
Hospital Building complex have a low seismic rating and do not comply with structural and non-
structural criteria that must be met by the 2013 and 2030 deadlines imposed by SB 1953 for retrofit
or replacement of hospital facilities. Accordingly, under the Historic Preservation Alternative, these
buildings would not be used as hospital buildings, as defined by OSHPD.
This alternative would necessitate the same Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning changes as
the SUMC Project, including an amendment to allow for the exceedance over the 50-foot height
limit. Annexation would not be needed for this alternative.
This alternative would not adequately meet the SUMC Project objectives but would meet the
majority of the City's objectives. This alternative eliminates three (3) significant and unavoidable
impacts.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Village Concept Alternative
The City has developed the Village Concept Alternative for the purposes of reducing the vehicle
miles traveled, traffic congestion, and vehicular air and noise emissions that are associated with the
SUMC Project. The Village Concept Alternative would accomplish this purpose primarily by
recommending dedication of nearby housing for Sl1MC Project employees, and enhancing pedestrian
connectivity in the Village Concept Study Area (see Figure 5-2, Attachment C). The Village
Concept Alternative would provide opportunities to enhance the SUMC Project by creating a more
walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban environment. The Village
Concept Alternative considers comprehensively and long-term the SUMC Project and the SUMC
Project's relationship to its surrounding context.
This alternative includes 490 previously approved but not yet constructed housing units along Quarry
Road and Pasteur Drive, on Stanford lands, be below market rate units that would be dedicated for
occupancy by SUMC Project employees, and a recommendation by the City that the housing be
constructed within a specified timeline. It is important to note that the Village Concept Alternative
does not propose to construct the 490 housing units as those units have been separately proposed and
considered for construction under the Stanford Community Plan/General Use Permit and Sand Hill
Road Corridor Projects; and pedestrian linkages between the SUMC Project, the Stanford Shopping
Center, Stanford University, the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (p AITS), and Downtown, with
corresponding urban design recommendations. The pedestrian linkages were prepared by the City's
Urban Desigh Consultant and are included as Figures 5-2 through 5-5 (Attachment C).
These enhancenlents under the Village Concept Alternative can be implemented through one or more
of the following mechanisms: zoning amendments associated with the SlTMC Project, conditions of
approval, or through the Development Agreement conditions. The recommendations in this
alternative can be combined with the Project as proposed and any of the other Alternatives.
This alternative would attain all of the SUMC Project objectives and all of the City's objectives. This
alternative eliminates one (1) significant and unavoidable impact.
2. Mitigation Measures
In each staff report to review the Draft EIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR
proposed to mitigate each environmental impact have been identified. Table S-4 (Attachment D)
provides a summary of all of the impacts and mitigation measures. Throughout the discussion on the
individual chapters, the City Council, P&TC and members of the public have commented on the
adequacy of the mitigation measures and in some instances, suggested others. Those comments have
been collected and will be addressed in the Final EIR. This hearing will give the Council and the
P &TC an opportunity to examine the mitigation measures in more detail while also examining them
in the context with other measures.
The CEQA Guidelines provide five broadcategories of mitigation nleasures: avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, eliminate or conlpensate the identified significant impacts. To be considered adequate,
mitigation measures should be specific, feasible actions that will actually improve adverse
environmental conditions. Mitigation measures should be measurable to everyone monitoring their
City of Palo Alto Page 8
implementation. Mitigation measures consisting only of further studies or consultation with
regulatory agencies that are not tied to a specific action plan may not be adequate and should be
avoided. Mitgation measures must be fully enforceable though conditions of approval or a
development agreement
When drafting mitigation measures, agencies should include only those that are feasible. A
nlitigation measure is considered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into consideration economic, environmental, legal,
social and technological factors.An appropriate mitigation measure involves clearly explaining its
objectives, specifically how it will be implemented, who is responsible for its implementation, where
it will occur and when it will occur.
If a project is approved, the City must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting plan to ensure
compliance with all mitigation measures and track their effectiveness.
Traffic Mitigation
There has been discussion about whether Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures can
be imposed as proj ect mitigation or whether they instead should be characterized as community
benefits and imposed through the proposed development agreement. TDM encompasses a broad
menu of strategies and policies to reduce travel demand (particularly single-occupancy private
vehicles) ranging fronl simple programs such as the provision of bike racks and electric car chargers
to more robust programs of Go Passes and shuttles. The attached memo from the City's outside legal
counsel concludes that the City can lawfully impose TDM measures as mitigation (Attachment E). It
should be noted that on other projects Palo Alto has imposed TDM as mitigation. For example, Palo
Alto imposed TDM in both the Cancer Research project, in the Mayfield Soccer complex, and at the
Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life project. In addition, other communities use TDM as an
effective way to mitigate traffic impacts. For example, a very comprehensive TDM program,
including Go Passes, is currently being proposed for the Bohannon Gateway proj ect in Menlo Park.
NEXT STEPS
The Alternatives and mitigation measures are the final topics for the P&TC and Council to consider.
The public review period will close on July 27, 2010.
Subsequent to public testimony and P&TC and Council comments, along with the written comments
submitted on the Draft EIR during the 69-daypublic review period, the EIR consultant and staffwill
prepare a Final EIRJResponse to Comments. The timing of this document is dependent on the
number of comments received. However, the goal is to complete review of this Project and the EIR
by the end of 201 O.
Following preparation of the Final EIRJResponse to Comments document, the P &TC will conduct a
public hearing(s) on the Final EIR and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City
Council will then review the Final EIRJResponse to Comments for action.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
ATTACHMENT A
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
SUMC Project Sponsors Objectives
The SUMC Project sponsors have identified various objectives for the SUMC Project. The objectives
are listed below. These objectives are divided into three categories: Program, Siting, Circulation, and
Cost. The Program objectives are further sub-divided by entity (SHC and LPCH, and SoM).
Program Objectives
SHe and LPCH. The Program objectives of SHC and LPCH are listed below.
3
4
2-4
• Optimize delivery of healthcare and services to patients.
• Maintain each hospital's position as a leading provider of complex care.
• Achieve timely compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 19533 and other applicable
code requirements:
Replace the SHC portion of the 1959 Hospital Building complex (the 1959 Hospital
Building complex is also referred to as the Stone Building complex), comprising 188 beds,
in its entirety;
Meet SB 1953's 2013 non-structural criteria for all 66 intensive care beds at SHC, the
Emergency Department (ED), and the 21 operating rooms at SHC in the most efficient manner;
Complete required non-structural renovations4 to critical areas at LPCH;
Provide sufficient space for patients and families during construction of required
renovations or replacements;
Meet SB 1953's 2030 criteria in the most efficient manner; and
Design new facilities to comply with applicable ventilation and structural requirements.
• Meet existing and projected future demand for patient care:5
Relieve the existing shortages of beds at SHC and LPCH;
Provide additional patient rooms and facilities at SHC to meet the projected needs of an
aging population;
Provide additional patient rooms and facilities at LPCH to meet projected growing demand
for LPCH services;
Please see Section 2.5, "Seismic Safety," for a description of SB 1953 and its requirements.
Non-structural renovations consist of securing interior fixtures, ceilings, sprinkler systems, bracing, and duct
work in the event of an earthquake. Such renovations are required for all critical care areas by 2013.
A description of the existing demand for healthcare and the current deficit of available space to accommodate
those demands is presented in Section 2.5, under the "Spatial Constraints" heading.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description
Size the ED to provide adequate patient waiting and triage space, and trauma rooms
consistent with contemporary facility standards;
Meet existing and projected demand for clinic and other outpatient services that are
important to the core academic and translational discovery process,6 or that otherwise
should remain co-located with inpatient services; and
Provide sufficient space to replace medical offices removed due to demolition, and to
accommodate increased space for both medical offices and support services due to existing
and projected future growth in need for patient services.
• Provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities, designed to deliver high quality healthcare services
and related teaching and research:
Size facilities to accommodate advanced medical services, state-of-the-art imaging, modern
diagnostic and other medical equipment, and to provide sufficient space for high quality
patient care and associated support services;
Design facilities to enhance the comfort and healing of patients and the productive care-
giving and general welfare of staff and visitors;
Meet current hospital planning guidelines by providing space to accommodate patients in
single-bed rooms as appropriate, including adequate space for treatment by healthcare
providers, equipment and support by family members;
Minimize the distance of travel from procedure room to patient room;
Provide a safe, secure, and efficient route from operating rooms or the Emergency
Department (ED) to patient rooms; and
Minimize patients' risk of infection.
• Meet regional needs for emergency and disaster preparedness:
Design facilities to take into account needs identified in the region's Disaster Preparedness
Program, such as the ability to quickly add or convert beds and procedure rooms to
manage critically injured patients for mass population events such as earthquakes,
pandemics (influenza), or man-made biological/chemical exposure (bioterrorism, etc); and
Design facilities to maintain and further SUMC's role as a Levell Trauma Center for daily
and extreme-disaster healthcare delivery.
Translational Resources: To improve human health, scientific discoveries must be translated into practical
applications. Such discoveries typically begin at "the bench" with basic research -in which scientists study
disease at a molecular or cellular level -then progress to the clinical level, or the patient's "bedside."
Scientists are increasingly aware that this bench-to-bedside approach to translational research is really a two-
way street. Basic scientists provide clinicians with new tools for use in patients and for assessment of their
impact, and clinical researchers make novel observations about the nature and progression of disease that
often stimulate basic investigations. Source: SoM, April 2008.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities. Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description 2-5
• Maintain relationships with community physicians:
Identify replacement space for community physicians who must relocate their medical
offices to accommodate demolition of facilities due to the SUMC Project.
• Provide responsible and sustainable design for the hospitals' operational systems, water
systems, and use of physical materials, while meeting applicable requirements and hospital
planning principles, including those applicable to infection control and patient safety.
• Allow sufficient design and entitlement flexibility to be able to adapt to changes in healthcare
needs, changes in technology, and changes in delivery practices.
SoM Objectives. The Program objectives of the SoM are listed below.
• Optimize the SoM's ability to translate medical research discoveries into treatments and cures.
• Replace outmoded research buildings with state-of-the-art research facilities to support
contemporary translational research:
Design facilities to comply with code requirements for strong and reliable fire separations;
Design research facilities to efficiently meet current building requirements, including those
pertaining to: seismic safety; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems; and provision of emergency power;
Design circulation and access to laboratories and offices to enhance handicapped
accessibility, and to allow for safe and efficient access to a diverse array of laboratory and
support functions; and
Employ best available design techniques to provide for efficient, high quality facilities.
• Provide sufficient faculty offices, research laboratories, and administrative support space to
meet the SoM's projected needs.
• Provide responsible and sustainable design for the SoM's operational systems, water systems,
and use of physical materials, consistent with Stanford University'S existing sustainability
practices.
• Allow sufficient design and entitlement flexibility to be able to adapt to changes in medical
research needs and changes in technology.
Siting Objectives
2-6
• Site facilities to maximize highest and best use of SUMC and Stanford University lands.
• Site SHC and LPCH facilities to efficiently use a single, shared ED.
• Locate patient beds, ED, and SoM facilities in close proximity to each other to maintain and
enhance program synergies and connections.
• Locate outpatient healthcare facilities that are important to the core academic and translational
discovery process in close proximity to inpatient facilities.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description
• Site parking facilities for patients and visitors to provide clear, safe, and convenient access to
SUMC facilities, with sensitivity to the needs of elderly, limited mobility, and ill patients.
• Site parking facilities for staff with consideration of safe paths of travel after dark.
• Locate new clinical, medical office, and support facilities for hospital staff and community
physicians within reasonably close proximity to SHC and LPCH facilities.
• Optimize department adjacencies that ensure the healthcare facilities are clinically safe
environments, promote safe and efficient patient flow, and provide access to state-of-the-art
technology.
• Use the existing SUMC Sites in Palo Alto for all components of the SUMC Project.
• Arrange the buildings, open space areas, and infrastructure within the SUMC Project
boundaries to create a highly functional medical center environment.
Circulation and Parking Objectives
• Provide clear, safe, and convenient access to SUMC facilities for patients and visitors.
• Provide efficient access to SUMC for healthcare providers and staff.
• Provide sufficient convenient parking for patients, visitors, healthcare providers and staff, with
sensitivity to the needs of elderly, limited mobility, and ill patients.
• Enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connections within and between the SUMC, the Stanford
Shopping Center, PAITS, and nearby open space areas.
• Provide improved way finding to minimize unnecessary circulation.
Cost' Objective
• Select methods of construction to minimize the initial cost to the greatest extent feasible while
producing facilities that are cost effective to operate over the long term.
City Objectives
In addition to the SUMC Project sponsor's objectives, the City has identified the following objectives
for the SUMC Project:
• Provide high quality employment districts, each with its own distinctive character and each
contributing to the character of the City as a whole.
• Employ state-of-the-art urban design principles and ensure adequate design review of the
SUMC Project.
• Create a more walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban
environment that captures the potential travel behavior, air quality, and greenhouse gas
reduction benefits associated with the performance of well-designed urban villages.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description 2-7
• Create walkable and bikeable connections that link together Stanford University Medical
Center, Stanford University, PAITS, downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, and surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
• Promote sustainable development and green building design principles through thoughtful urban
planning and site design, building design and construction,' energy production and
conservation, and utility and transportation infrastructure design and construction, in a manner
that improves the City's economic health, and improves the quality of life in the City.
• Promote development that contributes to the design and implementation of comprehensive
solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Medical Center and key connections.
• Encourage employment districts to develop in a way that encourages transit, pedestrian and
bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands.
• In conjunction with new development proposals, create new park, open space, recreation,
plaza, or other public gathering spaces.
• Provide for long-term utility and public infrastructure demands generated by the SUMC
Project.
• Address project-induced school impacts not mitigated by school impact fees.
• Minimize environmental, financial, and municipal infrastructure impacts of the SUMC Project
on the City.
• Assist Stanford University Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of
healthcare services. Work with the SUMC to plan for changing facility needs, but within the
context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of
other relevant jurisdictions.
• Support Stanford University's historic campus identity as "a place apart" with a "sense of
higher purpose" as well as Stanford's commitment to innovative, high quality of design through
their "interpretive approach to contextual design" in the architecture of campus buildings and
the landscape.
• Identify and implement strategies for accomplishing housing with a focus on below-market-rate
residential units that would be available to help accommodate employment generated by the
SUMC Project.
• Locate work force housing close to SUMC Sites and train station in order to reduce traffic trips
of both employees and employee household members.
• Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit.
• Optimize delivery of healthcare and services to patients and meet regional needs for emergency
and disaster preparedness.
2-8 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-2. Permanent Degradation of Visual Character Post
Construction. The SUMC Project would have a significant
impact pertaining to degradation of the existing visual
character or quality of the SUMC Sites and their surroundings.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
activity or would remain unused for a period greater than six
months. Construction zones subject to this mitigation measure
shall be defmed by the Planning Director, and shall consider the
size of the area, the nature and timing of the construction
activity, and the proximity or visibility of the area to public
vantage point~ or residential uses. The Construction Visual
Improvements Plan shall be implemented by the project
contractor( s) and must be approved by the Planning Director.
The intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the
project site that would remain unimproved for an extended period
and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along
the public streets and sidewalks. Possible improvements in the
plan include, but are not limited tO,the following:
a. The SUMC ProjeCt sponsors shall conceal staging areas with
fencing material to be approved by the Planning Director
prior to commencement of use of the staging area for
construction equipment and vehicles.
b. The SUMC Project sponsors shall frequently remove
construction debris and refuse from the SUMC Sites.
c. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install all landscaping as
early as feasible to decrease visual impacts of construction.
Existing landscaping within the SUMe Sites that would not·
be removed by the construction shall be maintained.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, below, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for fmal design. Such
compliance would ensure that impacts on on-site visual character and
quality would be less than significant because the ARB's recommendations,
through the Architectural Review process, would address massing, layout,
landscaping, and architectural design impacts from the SUMC Project, as
described further below.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-27
Table S-4
SUMC Project SunlDlary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-4. Terrain Modifications. The SUMC Project would not
require substantial terrain modifications that would degrade the
visual character of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-5. New Sources of Light and Glare. The SUMC Project
could increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting,
resulting in a significant impact.
VQ-6. Shadowing of Public Open Space. The SUMC
Project would not substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21.
VQ-7. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Character. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development in the area, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative impact on visual character in me
vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
S
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1. above, requires
compliance with ARB reconunendations for final design and would reduce
light and glare· impacts from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates
materials, harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, a cohesive
design with a coherent composition, and an appropriate lighting plan. The
ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. The City Council would then review the
recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that the design is
compatible with the immediate environment of the SUMC Sites; is
appropriate to the function of the SUMC Project; promotes harmonious
transitions in character in areas between different designated land uses; and
is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This
Architectural Review process would ensure that exterior treatment. would
not emit substantial glare and that exterior lighting impacts would be less
than significant.
None required.
N one required.
S=Signijicant SU = Sign{/icallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-29
Impacts
NI No Impacf
S-32
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-1A Restrict Construction Hours. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
material deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.-m., and from 4pm
to 6pm on weekdays. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
TR-l.5 Restrict Construction Truck Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be required to deliver and remove all construction-
related equipment and materials on truck routes designated by the
cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy
construction vehicles shall be prohibited from accessing the site
from other routes. Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the EIR illustrates
the Stanford Area Truck Routes which must be used by all
trucks.
TR-l.6 Protect Public Roadways During Constnlction. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to repair any structural damage
to public roadways, returning any damaged sections to original
structural condition. The SUMC Project sponsors shall survey
the condition of the public roadways along truck routes providing
access to the proposed project site before construction, and shall
again survey after construc:tion is complete. A before-and-after
survey report shall be completed and submitted to the City of
Palo Alto Public Works Department for review, indicating the
location and extent of any damage.
TR-l.7 Maintain Public Transit Access and Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting access to public
transit, and from limiting movement of public transit vehicles,
without prior approval from the Santa Clara County Valley
S=Significant SU= Significa/lt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Dr({ft EIR Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Transportation Authority or other appropriate jurisdiction. Such
approval shall require submittal and approval of specific impacts
to a less-than-significant level. Potential actions which would
impact access to transit include, but are not limited to, relocating
or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus stops or transfer
facilities, or otherwise restricting or constraining public transit
operations.
TR-l.8 Prepare and Implement Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. In
lieu of the above mitigation measures. the SUMC Project
sponsors shall submit· a detailed construction impact mitigation
plan to the City of Palo Alto for approval by the Director of
Public Works prior to commencing any construction activities
with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall address in
detail the activities to be carried out in each construction phase,
the potential transportation impacts of each activity, and an
acceptable method of reducing or eliminating significant
transportation impacts. Details such as the routing and
scheduling of materials deliveries, construction employee arrival
and departure schedules, employee parking locations, and
emergency vehicle access shall be described and approved.
TR-l.9 Conduct Additional Measures During Special Events. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall implement a mechanism to prevent
roadway construction activities from reducing roadway capacity
during major athletic events or other special events which attract
a substantial number of visitors to the campus. This measure
may require a special supplemental permit to be approved by
either Santa Clara County or the City of Palo Alto prior to
hosting such events during significant construction phases.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-33
Impacts
NT = No Impact
S-36
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation M~sures
Project. The construction of the Everett A venue and Middle
A venue undercrossings would reduce traffic volumes on nearby
streets, such as Ravenswood Avenue and University Avenue.
TR-2.3 Enhance Stanford University Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Program. The SUMC Project sponsors shall enhance the
currently-implemented TDM program in order to achieve 35.1
percent usage of alternative transportation modes (i.e, carpool,
vanpool, bus, Caltrain, bicycle, and walk) by SUMC employees.
The initial enhancements to the SUMC TDM program shall
include the following:
• Provide Caltrain GO Passes, or an equivalent TDM
measure, to aU eligible hospital employees and set target
Caltrain mode share for hospital employees equal to 15.8
percent.
• If Caltrain GO Passes would be provided to SUMC
employees, make arrangements with AC Transit to lease 75
spaces at the Ardenwood Park & Ride Lot, to serve SUMC
employees who commute from the East Bay.
• Expand bus service in support of the issuance of GO Passes.
• Expand the Marguerite shuttle bus service, and integrate it
with the other City of Palo Alto shuttle bus service.
• Maintain load factors less than 1.00 on the U Line, and less
than 1.25 on the Marguerite shuttle.
• Expand and improve the bicycle and pedestrian networks.
• Provide a full-time on-site TDM coordinator by 2015 for the
hospital components. The coordinator would be responsible
for organizing and disseminating TDM information primarily
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
. Significance
With
Mitigation
Starrjord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project SW1llllary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
to hospital employees and also to hospital patients. A central
location would be made available to provide information on
alternative travel modes. Also, the SUMC or hospitals'
website would contain information on TDM programs.
• Provide a guaranteed ride home program for all employees
who use transit and other transport alternatives like carpool
and vanpool. The guarantee ride home shall allow
employees with dependent children the ability to use
alternative modes to travel to and from work but still be able
to travel home mid-day in case of an emergency.
• Provide employees with shower facilities within the SUMC
Sites to encourage bicycling to work. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall also provide bicycle storage facilities on .the
SUMC Sites that would be conveniently located near the
employee showers.
• Establish, in conjunction with the GO Pass implementation,
a "Zip Car" (or other similar car-sharing program) with Zip
Cars available at the medical complex.
• Perform annual TDM monitoring and submit the report to
the City of Palo Alto to ensure that the assumed modal split
to alternative forms of travel and away from autos is actually
achieved.
These enhancements may not immediately change the mode split
for SUMC employees, because many employees would be unable
to change long standing commute patterns overnight. However,
with the passage of a mutually agreed amount of time, it· is
expected that the enhanced TDM program would gradually result
in a shift in the mode split of SUMC employees. If this proves
S =Signijlcant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-37
Impacts
N! No!mpact
S-38
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swumary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
not to b~ the case, then a second round of improvements to the
TDM program shall be implemented. Examples of additional
measures could be to increase the parking permit charges while
increasing the incentives to those who carpool or do not drive.
If, by the year 2025, at least 35.1 percent of SUMC employees
are not using alternative transpOltation modes, then a second
round of improvements to the TDM shall be implemented.
Examples of additional measures could be to increase the parking
permit charges while increasing the incentives to those who
carpool or do not drive. 111ereafter. SUMC Project sponsors
shall monitor/survey employee use of alternative modes of
transportation on an at least bi-annual basis, and shall continue to
improve its TDM program, until it is confirmed to the
satisfaction of the City that the target of 35.1 percent usage has
been met.
TR-2.4 Fund or Implement those Intersection Improvements that Have
Been Determined to be Feasible. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall implement the following measures:
• For the intersection of El Camino Real/Page Mill Road -
Oregon Expressway, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a
fair share towards (1) provision of exclusive right-turn lane
for westbound Oregon Expressway, in addition to the two
through lanes. (2) increasing the cycle length to 160 seconds.
Improvements to the westbound right turn lane would
require right-of-way from the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VT A) park-and-ride lot.
• At the intersection of Arboretum Road/Galvez Street, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall install a traffic signaL
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Drqft ElR Summary
Impacts
NI No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significarice
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thclil-Signijicant
. Mitigation Measures
TR-2.5 Coordinate with Other Jurisdictions for Potentially Feasible
Roadway Improvements. The City of Palo Alto shall work with
other jurisdictions to try to achieve feasibility for the following
roadway improvements or adjustments. In the event that one or
more of the below improvements would then be determined to be
feasible, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay their fair share
towards implementation of the improvements, if a fair share
contribution would apply.
• Alpine Road/I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp -Signalize this
intersection. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
• EI Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue -Re-stripe the
exclusive right-tum lane on southbound EI Camino Real to a
shared through/right lane. Also, provide an additional
through lane for northbound EI Camino Real by removing
the right-tum slip island. Also, provide an exclusive right-
turn lane for eastbound Menlo Avenue. The City shall
coordinate with the City of Menlo Park and Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
• Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road -Provide one more
right-tum lane for eastbound Willow Road and make the
right-turn movement for southbound Bayfront Expressway
"overlap" with the left-tum of eastbound Willow Road. The
intersection has signals for the right-turn movement for
southbound Bayfront Expressway, but the "overlap'" phase is
not implemented. The City shall coordinate with the City of
Menlo Park regarding feasibility of these improvements.
• Middlefield Road/Ravenswood A venue -Provide an
additional exclusive left-tum lane for northbound Middlefield
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SummalY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-39
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-3. Impacts on Roadway Segments. The SUMC Project
would result in adverse traffic inlpacts to roadway segments in
the City of Menlo Park.
TR-4. Local Circulation Impacts. The SUMC Project could
result insignificant traffic impact to the local circulation
network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
5-40.
Mitigation Measures
Road. The City shall coordinate with the City of Menlo
Park regarding feasibility of this improvement.
• Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West -Request that
Santa Clara County change the signal cycle length at this
intersection to 90 seconds. The City shall coordinate with the
County of Santa Clara regarding feasibility of this
adjustment.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With the provision of additional bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossings (Mitigation Measure TR-2.2), the enhanced
TDM program (Mitigation Measure TR-2.3), and contribution to the City
of Menlo Park shuttle fee (Mitigation Measure TR -7.2), there would still be
significant impacts on four Menlo Park roadways, including Marsh Road,
Willow Road, Sand Hill Road, and Alpine Road. Therefore, the traffic
impacts to Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road, and Alpine Road
would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-4.1, involving funding
and implementation of a traffic impact study, and Mitigation Measure
TR-4.2, involving re-striping of Durand Way, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. .
TR-4.1 Fund Traffic Impact Study. Upon construction of the SHC and
LPCH Hospital components, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
fund an independent traffic evaluation, commissioned by the
City, based on actual travel patterns, volumes, and emergency
access, with an emphaSIS on ease of circulation around and
through the medical complex to determine if the private street
connection between Roth Way and Pasteur Drive should be
operated as a public street. If the independent traffic study
demonstrates that the connection between Roth Way and Pasteur
Drive as a public street would improve circulation, then the
S =Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR _~m"mnr\1
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-S. Freeway Impacts. The SUMC Project would result in
less-than-significant impacts on freeways.
TR-6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. The SUMC Project
could impede the development or function of planned bicycle
or pedestrian facilities, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
connection shall be designated as a public street for all vehicular,
bicyc1e, pedestrian, and transit traffic.
TR-4.2 Fund Signing and Striping Plan and Signal Optimization. In
addition to paying for the construction of the extension of Durand
Way from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall also pay for the following improvements to ensure
that queues from the Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do
not spillback onto the Durand Way/Welch Road intersection.
• A signing and striping plan for the Durand Way extension,
which would maximize the storage capacity by creating a
four-lane roadway with a left and through/right at Sand Hill
Road and a right and through/left at Welch Road;
• The installation and optimization of the two signals at the
intersections of Durand Way/Sand Hill Road and Durand
Way/Welch Road.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involving trip-
reducing measures, plus Mitigation Measure TR-6.1, which involves
several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. The improved facilities
would mitigate the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists brought about by
the increased vehicular traffic and congestion.
TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastnlcture Improvements, The SUMC
Project sponsors shall fund the expansion and improvement .pf
the bicycle and pedestrian network in the immediate vicinity of
the SUMC Project. The intent of these improvements is to:
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-41
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-42
Table S-4
SUMC Project SWllmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
• reduce auto related traffic by providing the infrastructure for
alternative travel modes:
• improve the bicycle and pedestrian linkages between the
SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto, and between the
SUMC Project and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods; and
• mitigate the safety hazards to pedestrians and cyclists that
will result from the SUMC Project related increase in
vehicular traffic and congestion.
The specific improvements to be funded by the SUMC Project
sponsors shall include the following:
• Provide an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Quarry RoadlEI
Camino Real· to establish a strong connection between the
SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto. The pedestrian
crossing shall be 12 feet wide, have contrasting pavement,
countdown signal heads, and high visibility markings. Even
though the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real
is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, added
vehicular traffic through the intersection and added bicycle
and pedestrian volumes across the intersection would
potentially create safety hazards which would be mitigated
by the proposed enhanced crossings.
• Create a bicycle and pedestrian connection between the
Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC. The connection shall
provide an alternative route to Quarry Road, which is auto
dominated. This connection shall extend between Vineyard
Lane and Welch Road. Pedestrian traffic signals and
crosswalks shall be placed at the crossing of Vineyard Lane
S = Significant SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Welch Road. The crosswalk shall be enhanced either by
striping or by the use of contrasting paving.
• Provide a connection from the planned Everett Avenue
bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to the EI Camino
Real/Quarry Road intersection. Once the tunnel is
completed. this linkage shall provide a direct connection
between the SUMC Project and Downtown North.
• Provide a bicycle and pedestrian trail through the Arboretum
Drive as part of future campus planning in the SUMC area.
TIus trail shall improve access to the SUMC Project. To
support this off-street path, bicycle and pedestrian crossings
at Arboretum Road and Palo Road shall be enhanced to
provide safe crossing of these streets. The crosswalks shall
be properly signed, marked, and lighted with enhanced
pavement markings and imbedded crosswalk lights.
Signalization of this crossing may ultimately be required.
• Incorporate into the Quarry Road corridor, from EI Camino
Real to Welch Road, continuous sidewalks according to the
SUMC Project's Design Guidelines. The extension of
Quarry Road west of Welch Road shall continue the
pedestrian facilities into the SUMC Project.
• Enhance all signalized intersections in the Project Vicinty,
particularly along Quarry Road, Vineyard, and Welch Roads to
include 12-foot pedestrian crosswalks on all legs, with textured
or colored paving or diagonal or longitudinal zebra striping as
determined by the City, pedestrian push buttons and countdown
pedestrian signal heads, and other specific improvements that
are determined as necessary during the design process, such as
median refuge islands, advanced signing, flashing beacons, in-
pavement lighting, etc.
S=Signijicant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-43
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-7. Transit Impacts. Implementation of the SUMC
Project could impede the operation of the transit system as a
result of increased ridership, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
S-44
Mitigation Measures
• Install the appropriate number of Class I and Class III
bicycle parking spaces as required by the City's Zoning
Ordinance for the total amount of existing and future
development. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install the
required number of bicycle parking spaces equally
distributed throughout the SUMC Sites.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-7.1 involves the addition
of transit centers to the SUMC Project's site plans, and Mitigation Measure
TR-7.2 involves [mancial contributions towards the expansion of transit
service. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project's transit impacts to a less-than-significant level.
TR-7.1 Incorporate Transit Centers Into Site Plans. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall revise their SUMC Project site plan to incorporate
two transit centers to reduce the impact to transit service caused
the SUMC Project. These transit centers shall be located at
Hoover Pavilion and at SHC, and shall be off-street facilities.
The transit centers shall accommodate three to four buses
simultaneously, and shall have shelters, seating, lighting, signs,
maps, bus schedules, and bicycle parking. On-street bus stops
along Welch Road and Quarry Road shall also be provided, but
the transit centers shall accommodate the majOlity of transit
riders and shall be located to maximize the convenience of
employees, patients, and visitors. One transit center shall be'
located in the vicinity of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to serve
SHC. The other transit center shall be located near the entrance
to Hoover Pavilion. Both of these transit centers shall provide
the focal point for transit use for the SUMC.
TR-7.2 Provide Expanded Transit Service. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall make a fair share financial contribution to the cost of
expanding existing bus service of the Marguerite, Crosstown,
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Menlo Park Shuttle bus services, and to the VT A
Community Bus Service.
• Marguerite Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
make a financial contribution to expand the Marguerite
shuttle service into Palo Alto.
• U Line. The SUMC Project sponsors shall make a financial
contribution towards the operation of the U Line.
Arrangements with AC Transit shall be made to increase U
Line service (such as decreasing headways) to meet the
increase in demand attributable to the SUMC Project, and
ensure that load factors remain below 1.0.
• Crosstown Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
participate in operating the Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle
service, by contributing to the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee"
which would include covering the costs of this service.
Then current fee is $2,861 per net new PM Peak Hour trips.
A portion of Stanford's Citywide Traffic Impact Fee shall be
used by the City to expand City shuttle services.
• VTA Community Bus Sen ice. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to fund the project's fair share of
Palo Alto' s share of expanded VT A Community Bus
Service.
• Menlo Park Shuttle Bus. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall pay into the City of Menlo Park shuttle fee at $0.105
per square foot of new development annually or a percentage
agreed between Menlo Park and SUMC Project sponsors. In
Menlo Park. the contribution shall be tied to the amount of
project traffic added to analyzed roadway segments and
intersections.
S=Significant SU= Signijicallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-45
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
construction equipment emission reduction measures (Mitigation Measure
AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PMlO and PM2.5
emissions during construction. However, reduction of NOx emissions
below 80 lbs/day during the first year of construction could not be
guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and
unavoiaable.
AQ-l.l Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce
dust emissions during project demolition and construction phases,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the construction
contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed
by the BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in
construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials including demolition debris, or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
b. Water an active construction areas (exposed or disturbed soil
surfaces) at least twice daily;
c. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of
structures or break-up of pavement;
d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork
phases of construction;
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets;
g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten
days or more);
S=Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-47
Impacts
NI No [mpact
S-48
Table S-4
SUMC Project Smnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-titan-Significant
Mitigation Measures
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
AQ-l.2 Implement Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Measures. To
reduce emissions from construction equipment dming project
demolition and construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall require the construction contractors to comply with the
following emission reduction strategies to the maximum feasible
extent. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in construction
contracts the following requirements:
a. Where possible, electrical equipment shall be used instead
of fossil-fuel powered equipment.
b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service
whenever possible to avoid need for fossil-fuel powered
equipment.
c. Running equipment not being actively used for construction
purposes for more than five minutes shall be turned off.
(e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or
other bulk materials: however, rotating-drum concrete trucks
may keep their engines running continuously as long as they
are on site).
d. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling while on residential
streets serving the construction site (also included. in
Mitigation Measure NO-l.l).
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-2. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during
operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's significance threshold of 80
pounds/day of ROG, NOx and PMlO. Therefore, air emissions
would result in a substantial contribution to an existing
regional air quality problem and a significant impact.
AQ-3. Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts from Motor
Vehicle Traffic. The SUMC Project would have less-than-
significant localized air emissions resulting from additional
traffic.
AQ-4. Toxic Air Contaminants. Simultaneous exposures to
DPM and T ACs from the construction and operational
components of the SUMC Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on air quality.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier III or
Tier IV California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified
equipment to the maximum feasible extent.
f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the
smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves
implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM
measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pass to SUMC employees,
or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then
remote parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay
would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. Provision
of the GO Pass plus remote parking spaces in the East Bay would reduce
Vehicle Miles Travelled by 13.5 percent. This reduction in SUMC Project
VMT, however. would not be sufficient to prevent project ROG. NOx and
PMJO emissions from exceeding the BAAQMD significance thresholds. In
addition, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-
3.1. Nonetheless, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SlImmnrv
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
su
N/A
N/A
S-49
Table S~4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-5. Objectionable Odors. TIle SUMC Project would have
a less-than-significant impact related to exposing the public to
objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of
people.
AQ-6. Cumulative Construction Emissions. Construction
equipment NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project
could contribute considerably to regional air quality problems.
AQ-7. Cumulative Operational Emissions. SUMC Project
operation could contribute considerably to a degradation of
regional air quality as defined by the BAAQMD.
AQ-8. Cumulative Construction and Operational T AC
Emissions. SUMC Project TAC emissions could contribute
considerably to the health risk of sensitive receptors on and
near the SUMC Project site and, thus, have a significant
cumulative impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
S
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-50
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures AQ-l.l and AQ-L2 would
reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative construction
emissions, although the contribution to NOx would remain cumulatively
considerable.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves
implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM
measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pass to SUMC employee.s,
or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then
remote. parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay
would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. As
additional mitigation, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation
Measure PH-3.l, as identified and discussed in more detail in Section 3.13,
Population and Housing. These measures would reduce the contribution to
criteria pollutants during operation of the SUMC Project. However, even
with mitigation. einissions would still exceed the BAAQMD significance
thresholds, and the contribution would remain considerable.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-L2 (Implement Equipment
Exhaust Emission Reduction Measures) has been identified primarily to
reduce construction-phase criteria pollutant emissions. but it would also
reduce Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions. However, the
emissions of criteria and DPM emissions from project construction sources
were based on current best estimates of the type, number, and duration of
use of the SUMC Project construction equipment. While some additional
reductions of Toxic Air Contanrinants (TACs) would be expected with
Mitigation Measure AQ-L2, where their implementation is feasible, their
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
SU
SU
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI No Impact
S-52
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation l\leasures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
CC-I.2 Participate in Palo Alto Green Energy Program. Other
Equivalent Renel-vable Energy Program, or combination thereof
Under the Palo Alto Green program, residential, business and
industrial customers purchase renewable energy equivalent to
their electricity needs at an additional cost of 1.5 cents per kWh
above standard electric rates. The SHC and LPCH facilities
shall participate in this program to offset electricity emissions;
develop new renewable generation sources in collaboration with
the CP AU; incorporate a renewable energy source (such as
photovoltaics) into the SUMC Project. or a combination thereof,
such that a minimum of 54,640 MWh of electricity usage is
offset alillually.
CC-I.3 Provide Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting. The SHC and LPCH
shall perform an annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with hospital and medical facilities on the SUMC
Sites. This inventory shall be performed according to a common
industry-standard emissions reporting protocol, such as the
approaches recommended by California Air Resources Board,
The Climate Action Registry, or Business Council for
Sustainable Development (BCSD). This inventory shall be shared
with the City of Palo Alto to facilitate the development of future
collaborative Emissions Reduction Programs. Emissions
associated with energy, water, solid waste~ transportation,
employee commute and other major sources shall be reported in
tIns inventory.
CC-IA Prepare Waste Reduction Audit. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall perform a waste reduction audit of waste management
practices at the hospitals prior to construction of new facilities
and after completion of the SUMC Project to determine post-
project diversions. This audit shall be repeated annually, and
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
NO-2. Construction Vibration. Construction of the SUMC
Project would have less-than-significant vibration impacts.
NO-3. Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation
Sources. Increased traffic and helicopter noise levels due to
implementation of the SUMC Project would be less than
significant. However, noise from ambulances due to
implementation of the SUMC Project would increase along
Sand Hill Road west of EI Camino Real, and would increase
roadside noise levels by an amount considered unacceptable
under the policies of the City Comprehensive Plan.
NO-4. Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts.
Operational stationary source noise generated by the SUMC
Project could potentially increase ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the SUMC Sites and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
Nl No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. No mItIgation measure (short of forbidding
ambulance access to the new emergency room via the Durand Way access
route; a measure that may be practically impossible given the emergency
nature of anlbulance activity) would prevent or reduce the identified SUMC
Project-related ambulance noise impact at the noise-sensitive uses along
Sand Hill Road. As such, the impact would be significant unavoidable
impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The following mitigation measure would reduce
noise impacts to sensitive receptors from HVAC equipment and emergency
generators proposed for SUMC Project. Implementation of this measure
would reduce the SUMC Project's noise impacts at 1100 Welch Road.
NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose HVAC Equipment and Emergency Generators.
Noise levels from mechanical equipment shall be minimized to
the degree required by the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting
and selection of such equipment and through installation of
sufficient acoustical shielding or noise emission controls. Noise
levels for the emergency generators near Welch Road shall be
reduced such that noise levels do not exceed the City's General
Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA at 25 feet. An acoustical
analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional to ensure
that the new mechanical equipment is in compliance with noise
standards of the Noise Ordinance.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement ElR Summary
, Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
SU
LTS
S-55
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-58
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation .l\Ieasures
bnpact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
also be installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition
activities occurring within the 25 foot buffer.
CR-l.2 Prepare HABS Documentation for the Stolle Building Complex.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare HABS-like
documentation using the National Park Services' Historic
American Building Surveys Level ITl guidelines for each of the
buildings in the Stone Building complex prior to demolition of
each building that comprises this historic resource (East, West,
Core, Boswell, Edwards, Lane, Alway, and Grant). HABS-like
recordation shall not be required until each of the individual
buildings is vacated and prepared for demolition. The
documentation shall include written and photographic
documentation of each of the historic structures within the Stone
Building complex. The documentation shall be prepared by a
qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or
History.
The documentation shall be prepared based on the National Park
Services' HABS standards and include, at a minimum, the
following:
• Site-specific history and appropriate contextual information
regarding the Stone Building complex. This history shall
focus on the reasons for the buildings' significance: heart
transplantation program and the role of E.D. Stone in the
design of the complex.
• Accurate mapping of all buildings that are included in the
Stone Building complex, scaled to indicate size and
proportion of the buildings to surrounding buildings; if
existing plans accurately reflect these relationships these may
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
With
Impacts
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
N! No!mpact LTS = Less-than-Significant
be reformatted for submittal per HABS guidelines for CAD
submittals.
• Architectural descriptions of the major exterior features and
rooms within the Stone Building complex as well as
descriptions of typical patient, office, laboratory, and
operating rooms.
• Photographic documentation of the interior and exterior of
the Stone Building complex and Thomas Church-designed
landscape features. Either HABS standard large format or
digital photography may be used. If digital photography is
used, the ink and paper combinations for printing
photographs must be in compliance with National Register-
National Historic Landmark photo expansion policy and
have a permanency rating of approximately 115 years.
Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed . TIF file
format. The size of each image shall be 1600xl200 pixels at
300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger, color format, and printed
in black and white. The file name for each electronic image
shall correspond with the Index to Photographs and
photograph Jabel.
CR-l.3 DistributeWrittell and Photographic Documentation to Agencies.
The written and photogJ;'aphic documentation of historic
resources shall be disseminated on archival-quality paper to
Stanford University, the Northwest Information Center, and
other local repositories identified by the City of Palo Alto.
CR-l.4 Prepare Pennanent Interpretive Displays/Signage/Plaques. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall install interpretive displays within
the SUMC Sites that provide infonnation to visitors and residents
regarding the history of the Stone Building complex. These
S=Significanr SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary S-59
Table S-4
SUMC Project Smnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-2. Impacts on Prehistoric or Archaeological Resources.
The . SUMC Project could potentially encounter archaeological
resources and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Signijicant
S-60
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
displays shall be installed in highly visible public areas such as
the property's open space or· in public areas on the interiors of
buildings. The displays shall include historical data and
photographs as well as physical remnants of architectural
elements. Interpretive displays and the signage/plaques installed
on the property shall be sufficiently durable to withstand typical
Palo Alto weather conditions for at least five years. Displays
and signage/plaques shall be lighted, installed at pedestrian-
friendly locations, and be of adequate size to attract the interested
pedestrian. Maintenance of displays and signage/plaques shall be
included in the maintenance program on the property. Location
and materials for the interpretative displays shall be subject to
review by the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and
approval by the Planning Director.
CR-1.5 Implement Protection Documents for the Hoover Pavilioll. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure the implementation of the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents)
prepared by ARG and dated September 21. 2009. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall comply with the specifications for the
treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC
Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building as provided in the Documents.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 provides discovery
and evaluation procedures for any previously unknown archaeological
resources on the SUMC Sites and requires that a professional archaeologist
employ preservation in place, data recovery, or other methods that meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation to
reduce impacts on unique archaeological resources. Therefore,
implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the
impact remains less than significant. (L TS)
S=Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
LTS
Table S-4
SUMC Project Suntmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-3. Impacts on Human Remains. The SUMC Project
could potentially encounter human remains and result in a
significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
CR-2.1 Construction Staff Training and Consultation. Prior to any
construction or earth-disturbing actlvltles, a qualified
archaeologist shall inform construction supervisors of the
potential to encounter cultural resources. All construction
personnel shall be instructed to be observant for prehistoric and
historic-era artifacts, subsurface archaeological features or
deposits~ including accumulations of dark, friable sail
("midden"), stone artifacts, animal bone, and shell. In the event
that any prehistoric or historic subsurface archaeological features
or cultural deposits are discovered during construction-related
earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100
feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified.
The City shall consult with the Stanford University Archeologist
to assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to
be an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource as
defined by CEQA, then representatives of the City and the
Stanford University Archaeologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate course of action. All significant· cultural materials
recovered shall be subject to scientitic analysis, professional
museum curation, and a report shall be prepared by the qualified
archaeologist according to current professional standards.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-3.1 summarizes the
procedures to be taken in the event that any previously unknown human
remains are discovered on the SUMC Sites. Therefore, imp1ementation of
the following mitigation measure would ensure that the potential impact
remains less than significant.
CR-3.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering Human
Remains. If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated
remains) are discovered at any SUMC Project construction site
during any phase of construction. all ground-disturbing activity
S=Significant SU= Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SumllUlry
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
S-61
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-5. Cumulative Impacts on Historic Resources. The
SUMC Project, in combination with other past, current, and
probable future development in the City, would cause a
substantial change in the significance of the City's historic
resources and thus have a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would
be cumulatively considerable.
CR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Prehistoric and/or
Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, could cause a substantial change
in the significance. of prehistoric and/or archaeological
resources or human remains and thus contribute to a significant
cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively
assumed to have a considerable contribution.
CR-7. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources.
The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable probable future development where the
Pleistocene-age creek bed may occur, could have a significant
cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if the buried
Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater than
approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient length to support
detailed hydrological study) and if such deposits contain
substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These
conditions would represent a major find for regional
paleontology. In the case that significant paleontological
finds-such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed
greater than 100 feet in length and containing intact skeletons
of extinct species-are made on the SUMC Site, then the
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-64
Impact
Significance
\Vith
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURES. Due to the demolition of the Stone Building SU
complex, the SUMC Project's contribution would remain cumulatively
considerable as this impact cannot be avoided. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4 would reduce the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact, but not to a less than
cumulatively considerable leveL
MITIGATION MEASURES. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 LTS
and CR-3.1 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 LTS
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to
a less than cumulatively considerable level.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-4. Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on any
Protected Tree as Defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). The
SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected
Trees.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impacf LTS Less.than-Signijicant
S-68
Mitigation Measures
tree or shrub while the nest is occupied with eggs or young who
have not fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any
occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.5,
below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the
SUMC Project's impact on Protected Trees. In addition, Mitigation
Measure BR-4.6 would require minor SUMC Project site plan adjustments
to avoid removal of some biologically and aesthetically significant Protected
Trees. However, the new Hospital District under the SUMC Project would
allow the removal of up to 48 Protected Trees that are protected under the
Municipal Code. In addition, minor modifications to the SUMC Project
site plans would not be able to avoid the nine biologically and aesthetically
significant Protected Trees in the Kaplan Lawn area. Therefore, the SUMC
Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to Protected
Trees.
BR-4.1 Prepare a Tree' Preservation Report for all Trees to be Retained.
An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity,
the tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees
within the SUMC Sites, including adjacent trees overhanging the
SUMC Sites. The approved TPR shall be implemented in
including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City
Urban Forester. The TPR shall be based on latest SUMC plans
and anlended as needed to address activity or within the drip line
area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental
work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.)
that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The SUMC
Project shall be modified to address recommendations identified
to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated trees. The
S = Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene'wal andReplacement Draft EIR Summary
25
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
8.10.030, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00,
4.00 and 6.30.25 To avoid improvements that may be detrimental
to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the SUMC
Project sponsors' landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is
consistent with Tree Technical ManuaL Section 5.45 and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Short and Long Term
Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare a SAS of Short and Long Term Effects on Protected
Oaks. The SAS shall be prepared by a qualified expert team
(horticulturalist, architect designer, consulting arborist) capable
of determining effects. if any, to foliage, health, disease
susceptibWty and also prognosis for longevity. The SAS shall
provide alternative massing scenarios to provide sufficient solar
access and reduce shading detriment at different thresholds of
tree health/decline, as provided for in the SAS. The SAS
adequacy shall be subject to peer review as determined necessary
by the City. The SAS design alternatives shall be the subject of
specific discussion at all levels of ARB, Planning Commission,
City Council, and public review in conjunction with the SUMC
Project sponsors, the City Urban Forester, and Director of the
Planning and Community Environment Department, until a final
design is approved.
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 is available at:
http://www .cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban _canopy .asp.
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant S=Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SumlJUlry S-69
Impacts
NI Nolmpacr
S-70
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.3 Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for Any Protected
Tree Proposed for Relocation and Retention. Because of
inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature
trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be
prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall submit a TRMP to determine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate
location on site. Feasibility shall consider current site and. tree
conditions. a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation
measures, optimum needs for the new location, aftercare,
irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years,
the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or
security d.eposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the
following 1Illmmum information: appropriate irrigation,
monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance, and for
an annual arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees.
If a tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline
with a dead top or dieback of more than 25 percent, the tree shall
be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The
final annual arborist report shall serve as the basis for return of
the Tree Security Deposit (see Mitigation Measure BR-4.4,
below, for a discussion of the Tree Security Deposit).
BR-4.4 Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The
natural tree resources on the SUMC Site include significant
Protected Trees and those that provide neighborhood screening,
including two trees proposed for relocation. Prior to building
permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of
the relocated trees, as referenced in the Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement DraftEIR -Summary
26
S-72
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
These trees provide an important visual and aesthetic value to the
streetscape and represent a significant investment from years of
public resources to maintain them. As mitigation to offset the
net benefits loss from removal of mature trees, and to minimize
the future years to achieve parity with visual and infrastructure
service benefits (C02 reduction, extended asphalt life, water
runoff management, etc.) currently provided by the trees, the
new public trees on all roadway frontages shall be provided with
best practices design and materials~ including, but not limited to,
the following elements:
• Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department Street Tree Management Plan, in consultation
with Canopy, Inc. 26
• Provide adequate room for natural tree canopy growth and
adequate root growing volume. For large trees, a target goal
of 1,200 cubic feet of soil shall be used.
• For pedestrian and roadway areas that are to include tree
planting or adjacent to existing trees to be retained. utilize
City-approved best management practices for sustainability
products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva
Cell base support planters, engineered soil mix base, and
other advantage methods.
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Canopy, Inc. is a non-profit organization that advises the City with regards to public trees. The City typically interfaces between appli~ants and the
Canopy, Inc., but it is recommended that the SUMC Project sponsors consult with Canopy, mc. as well. "
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-S. Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation
Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The SUMC
Project would have no impact on any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
BR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife
Resources. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
foreseeable development, would have a less-than-significant
impact on Special-Status Plant Resources.
BR-7. Cumulative Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive
Habitats. Including Wetlands as Defmed by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Cumulative impacts on riparian or other
sensitive habitats could be significant. However, the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
BR-S. Cumulative Interference with the Movement of Any
Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or With
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Cumulative
interference with movement of resident or migratory species or
with established migratory corridors could be significant.
However, the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative
impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.6 Implement Minor Site Modifications to Preserve Biologically and
Aesthetically Significant Protected Trees. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall design and implement modifications to building
design, hardscape, and landscape to incorporate the below and
above ground area needed to preserve as many biologically and
aesthetically significant Protected Trees as possible.
None required.
None required.
.None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-73
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-7. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
degradation of surface water
HW-S. Dam Failure Inundation. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding dam failure
inundation.
HW-9. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding . water
standards or WDRs.
HW -10. Cumulative Groundwater Recharge and Local Water
Table. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative considerable impact on
groundwater recharge and the local groundwater table.
HW-ll. Cumulative Groundwater Quality Impacts. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-than-
significant cumulative impact on groundwater quality.
HW -12. Cumulative Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The
SUMC ProjecL in combination with reasonably foreseeable.
probable future development, would have a less-than-
significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosion.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
None required.
None required.
N one required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-77
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-13. Cumulative Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance.
The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosion.
HW-14. Streanlbank Instability. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on streambank instability.
HW-15. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC
Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable
future development. would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact on degradation of surface water quality.
HW-16. Dam Failure Inundation. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact regarding dam failure inundation.
HW-17. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, w()uld have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on violation of water quality standards and WDRs.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-78
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S = Sign ificant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-3. Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwate~
DUling Construction. The SUMC Project could expose
construction personnel and public to existing contaminated
groundwater and/or soil.
Impact
Significance
Without
l\<fitigation
S
NI No LTS = Less-than-Sigr:ijicant
S-80
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measure LTS
HM-3.1 through HM-3.4, below, the significant impact on construction
personnel and the public due to exposure to contaminated soil and/or
groundwater at the SUMC Sites would be reduced to less-than,..significant
levels. In addition~ Mitigation MeasUre HW -3.1 in Section 3.11,
Hydrology, would require the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work
plan for any unknown contaminated site, which would further reduce the
impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HM-3.4 would require
specification of measures to prevent hazards from any remediation itself.
As such, these would be less-than-significant impacts from any remediation.
HM-3.1 Perfann a Phase II ESAjar the 701 WelcJz Site. A Phase II ESA
shall be performed at 701 Welsh Site Building B. The Phase II
ESAshall include sampling and analysis of soil, groundwater,
wastewater, and residues on surfaces such as laboratories
countertops, fume hoods, sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines.
The County DEH and PAFD shall be notified by the Project
sponsors if contamination is discovered. If contamination is
discovered, the SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site
remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect
workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards
and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would
clean up contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public
health in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements.
Site excavation activities shall not proceed until the site
remediation has been approved by the County DEH and
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the
Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to review and
approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate
agencies shall be notified.
S=Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene"waf and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thau-Significant
Mitigation Measures
HM-3.2 . Excavate Contaminated Soilfrom the 703 Welch Site. For the 4-
to 9-square-foot area near every discharge point from the
building, soil samples shall be performed and contaminated soil
excavated, removed, and transported to an approved disposal
facility in compliance with OSHA requirements. The County
DEH and the PAFD shall be notified by the SUMC Project
sponsors if contamination is encountered during construction.
HM-3.3 Conduct a Soil Vapor Program at the Hoover Pavilion Site. A
qualified consultant, under the SUMC Project sponsors'
direction, shall undertake the following activities:
• Remove all buried underground storage tanks from the
property after sheds and storage buildings on the Hoover
Pavilion Site have been demolished:
• To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling shall be
collected to determine health risks and to develop disposal
criteria;
• If warranted based on soil sampling, a human health risk
assessment shall be ptepared and implemented to determine
potential for impacts on construction workers as well as to
develop measures to ensure it is safe to redevelop the
Hoover Pavilion Site within engineering controls (e.g., SVE
or vapor barriers); and
• To the extent required based upon the results of soil
sampling and the results of a health risk assessment (if
applicable), a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker
safety in compliance with OSHA requirements shall be
developed by the Project sponsors, and in places prior to
commencing work on any contaminated site.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-8J
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-4. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Resulting
in Increased Exposure Risk. The SUMC Project would not
substantially increase exposure risk related to hazardous waste
generation.
HM-S. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous
Materials Within One-Quarter Mile of a School. The SUMC
Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials within
one-quarter mile of schooL
HM-6. Construct a School on a Property that is Subject to
Hazards from Hazardous Materials Contamination, Emissions
or Accidental Release. The SUMC Project would not construct
a school that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-82
Mitigation Measures
The SUMC Project sponsors shall cooperate with the County
DEH to proceed with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
HM-3,4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover Pavilion Site.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site remediation
assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the
public from exposure to potential site hazards. including hazards
from remediation itself, and (b) certifies that the proposed
remediation measures would clean up contaminants, dispose of
the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal,
State, and local requirements. Site excavation activities shall not
proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the
County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to
review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All
appropriate agencies shall be notified.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities.Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
~
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-7. Occur on a Site Included on the Cortese List, a List of
Hazardous Materials Sites. The SUMC Project would result in
construction of facilities on a site included on the Cortese List.
HM-8. Wildland Fire Risk. The SUMC Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
HM-9. Occur on a Site Located Within an Airport Land Use
Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airport, and Result in a
Safety Hazard. The SUMC Project would not be located
within an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 miles of a Public
Airport.
HM-I0. Impairment of Emergency Plans. The SUMC Project
could impair implementation or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI
NI
S
NI=No LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-3.3
and HM-3.4, which involve the implementation of a soil vapor program and
development of a site management plan, would reduce the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Hoover Pavilion Site to less-than-
significant levels. Additionally, compliance with cunent federal, State and
local regulations would help prevent any further exposure to hazardous
materials.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure HM-IO.l requires advance
coordination with the City of Palo Alto on construction routes or roadway
closures. This measure, together with Mitigation Measures TR-l.l,
TR-l.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8, which all involve construction-period
traffic controls, would reduce the significant construction-period impacts to
a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1, would involve
the installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiC om) at all
intersections significantly impacted by the SUMC Project. Mitigation
Measure TR-9.1 would reduce impacts on emergency access during
operation. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project' s impact to emergency evacuation and response plans to a less-than-
significant level.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N/A
N/A
LTS
S-83
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PH-3. Impacts on Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. The
SUMC Project would have an adverse impact 011 the City's
jobs to employed residents ratio because it would exceed the
existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning allowances for the
SUMC Sites and thus require anlendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and rezoning, and it would increase the
City's jobs to employed residents ratio by more than 0.01.
However, this impact is not, itself, an environmental impact.
This impact will result in secondary environmental impacts
relating to additional commute traffic, including the significant
and unavoidable impacts on air quality and climate change, as
identified in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The present analysis of
impacts to the "jobs to employed residents" ratio is presented
for informational purposes, and for the purpose of identifying
additional mitigation measures for those identified impacts.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
N/A
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
S-86
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 N/A
would reduce the impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio;
however. such implementation would not fully avoid the SUMC Project's
impact on the jobs to employed residents ratio because (1) the measures
would not guarantee provision of housing units to cover the demand from
the 1,052 households (or 8 percent thereof), and (2) due to the various
factors that people consider in choosing where to live, it cannot be
ascertained that the 1,810 workers would choose to live in Palo Alto. Due
to the high concentration of jobs in Palo Alto, it is possible that a strong
affordable housing program would result in reduced traffic congestion,
vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is not directly required in
order to mitigate a significant environmental impact, but rather should be
considered as possible additional mitigation for Impacts AQ-2, AQ-7,
CC-l, and CC-2, as discussed in Section Air Quality, and Section 3.6,
Climate Change, of this EIR. However, it should be stressed that these
measures are presented here only in conceptual terms, and the City may
fmd that some or all of them are not feasible for various legal, practical, or
other reasons. As such, Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is presented for
informational purposes, and to ensure that all possible options for
mitigation of these impacts are adequately considered.
PH-3.1 Reduce the Impacts on the Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio .. In
order to reduce the SUMC Project's impacts on the City's jobs to
employed residents ratio, one or more of the following measures
shall be implemented by both the City and the SUMC Project
sponsors:
• The City shall explore amending the Zoning Code to permit
more residential uses, particularly multifamily residential
use;
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Dralt EIR Summary?
Table S-4
SUMC Project Smnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
UT-5. Energy Demand. Although the SUMC Project is an
urban infil1 project and would not require the expansion of
natural gas facilities and would use existing utility facilities, it
may require the installation of near-site electrical facilities and
natural gas pipelines to accommodate the projected additional
demand. However, this installation is included in the SUMC
Project and no additional off-site construction relating to
electrical and natural gas facilities would occur. Therefore,
the SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact
related to the construction of energy facilities.
UT-6. Cumulative Water Impacts. Since the City has
sufficient water supply to accommodate water demands for
cumulative development up to 2025, new or expanded
entitlements for. water supplies are not necessary. Therefore,
cumulative development would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact related to water supply.
UT-7. Cumulative Wastewater Impacts. Since the RWQCP
has sufficient capacity to accommodate wastewater generated
by cumulative development up to 2025, implementation of
major facility and infrastructure improvements would not be
necessary. In addition, general replacement and maintenance
of old wastewater facilities is expected and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative
development would not have a significant cumulative impact
related to wastewater.
UT-8. Cumulative Stormwater Generation. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto and at Stanford
University could increase the amount of stormwater runoff.
This increased level of runoff may trigger the need for the
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
N one required.
None required.
None required.
N one required.
S = Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SumllulIY
Mitigation Measures
SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-9J
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
replacement or maintenance of storm drain facilities.
However, general replacement and maintenance of storm drain
facilities is included in City plans and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Theretore, cumulative
development would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact related to the capacity or deterioration of storm drain
facilities.
UT -9. C\JIDulative Solid Waste Impacts. Cumulative
development would generate solid waste within the permitted
capacity of the SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill.
Cumulative development would not result in substantial
deterioration of solid waste facilities. As such, cumulative
impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than
significant.
UT-IO. Cumulative Demand. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto would consume
additional energy and, therefore, would increase the demand
for energy. The City's electrical and natural gas facilities are
projected to have adequate capacity to serve the City's
increased demand for energy. The increased level of energy
demand may trigger the need for the replacement or
maintenance of energy facilities. However, genera]
replacement and maintenance of energy facilities is expected
and would comply with applicable environmental regulations.
Therefore, cumulative development would not have a
significant cumulative impact related to energy demand and
energy facilities.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-92
None required.
None required.
S = Significant
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
'Vith
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Rellel-val and Replacement Dralt EIR Summary
JArlVIS FAY DOPORTO GIBSON,LLP
LAND 11)[ At~D lOCAL GOV[R~JM(:\T LAW
TO: Cara Silver
FROM:
Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
Rick W. Jarvis
Benjamin P. Pay
475 14th St., Suite 260
Oakland, CA 94612
tviain: 510-238··1400
Fax: 510-238 -1404
www.jarvisfay.com
ATTACHMENT E
RE: Stanford University Medical Center Proposed Expansion -
City· Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
DATE: July 2,2010
The Stanford University Medical Center ("SUMC") has filed an application with the City of Palo
Alto ("the City") to expand its hospital facilities located within the City. This proposed expansion
is referred to herein as "the Project." In order to approve the Project, the City will need to amend
its Comprehensive Plan and rezone the Project site to accommodate the increase in density. The
Draft Environmental Impact Report ("D EIR") for the Proj ect has concluded that it will result in a
significant increase in traffic trips, thus resulting in significant impacts to various intersections both
within and outside the City. The DEIR has also concluded that the increase in traffic will result in
other significant environmental impact relating to air quality and climate change.
To help mitigate these impacts, the DEIR identifies a proposed mitigation measure (TR-2.3) which
would require SUMC to enhance its Travel Demand Management ("TDM") Program, to reduce
vehicle trips by SUMC employees. The TDM Program would include the provision of Caltrain Go
Passes to all SUMC employees. The DEIR concludes that implementation of this mitigation
measure will mitigate to a level of "less than significant" the Project's impacts at several
intersections.
SUMC originally suggested the Go Pass measure, and continues to reaffirm its commitment to
including such a measure, as part of a negotiated development agreement with the City. However,
the question has nonetheless come up whether the City has the independent legal authority to
impose this requirement, and other TDM measures, were SUMC not to otherwise agree to them.
This question has arisen in light of section 40717.9 of the Health and Safety Code (hereafter
"Section 40717.9"), which purports to prohibit "any ... public agency" from "requir[ing] an
employer to implement an employee trip reduction program unless the program is expressly
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion -City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 2
required by federal law .. ~ ." This memorandum analyzes that question and concludes that the City
does have such authority, notwithstanding this apparent prohibition.
Before proceeding to the analysis, it should be noted that, even if the City did not have the authority
to impose such TOM measures, it was nonetheless appropriate for the OEIR to identify them as
potential mitigation measures. EIRs are required to identify all potentially feasible mitigation
measures. In this case, TOM measures clearly are "potentially feasible" given SUMC's expressed
willingness to agree to them. Further, even if SUMC were not so willing, and even if Section
40717.9 prohibited the City from imposing them, these TOM measures nonetheless could be
deemed to be "potentially feasible" given the very real possibility that the Legislature could amend
or repeal Section 40717.9 sometime during the buildout of the Project. AB 32 and other recent
legislative enactments suggest that Section 40717.9 is very much contrary to current legislative
policy. Further, the OEIR certainly demonstrates that such TOM measures can be extremely
effective in reducing traffic congestion.
Furthermore, it should also be noted that it is becoming increasingly common for other jurisdictions
to impose TOM requirements on new development to mitigate traffic, air quality, and greenhouse
gas related impacts. For example, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C/CAG) requires that if the project generates 100 or more peak: hour trips, "local
jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will reduce the demand for all new peak
hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development." (Revised
C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Component of the Congestion
Management Program, September 21,2004.)
Question Presented
Ooes the City have the legal authority to require SUMC to implement an employee trip reduction
program and other TOM measures in order to mitigate the traffic, air quality, and climate change
impacts of the Project prior to approving the Project?
Short Answer
As a charter city, the City has the power to require SUMC to implement an employee trip reduction
program to mitigate traffic congestion, despite the apparent prohibition in Section 40717.9.
Moreover, even if Section 40717.9 applied to the City, it would not prohibit the City from refusing
to amend its Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances to accommodate the Project based upon its
adverse traffic, air quality, and climate change impacts. Thus, the City could effectively and
appropriately require SUMC to agree to such mitigation before granting SUMC the legislative
approvals it needs for the Project to go forward.
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 3
Discussion
A. Because Palo Alto is a charter city, it is not barred by Section 40717.9 from requiring
SUMC to implement an employee trip reduction program to mitigate the traffic
congestion impact of the Medical Center's expansion ..
On its face, Section 40717.9 appears to prohibit the City from requiring SUMC to adopt an
employee trip reduction program. It states:
"Notwithstanding Section 40454, 40457,40717,40717.1, or 40717.5, or any other
provision of law, a district, congestion management agency, as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 65088.1 of the Government Code, or any other public
agency shall not require an employer to implement an employee trip reduction
program unless the program is expressly required by federal law and the elimination
of the program will result in the imposition of federal sanctions, including, but not
limited to, the loss of federal funds for transportation purposes."The City is a "public
agency," and it is not required by federal law to require enlployee trip reduction
programs. Therefore Section 40717.9 appears to prohibit the City from requiring
such programs.-
The California Constitution grants all cities and counties the power (known as the local "police
power") to "make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and
regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const. art. 11, § 7.) In addition, the California
Constitution actually allows charter cities legislative authority over purely "municipal affairs" even
if the charter city's legislation is in conflict with general state laws. (See Baron v. City of Los
Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 535.) The City of Palo Alto is a charter city. Thus, the question is
whether Section 40717.9 applies to charter cities such as the City of Palo Alto. We conclude that it
does not.
For a state law to apply to a charter city such as Palo Alto, the state law must be "reasonably related
to the identified statewide concern and narrowly tailored to avoid infringing legitimate municipal
affairs." (City of Watsonville v. State Department of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 875,
888.) "The courts must be mindful that 'the sweep of the state's protective measures may be no
broader than its interest." (Fielder v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 137, 146 quoting
California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1, 25.)
"[I]n articulating the test for preemption [of a charter city] the Supreme Court was concerned with
ensuring that a state law does not infringe legitimate municipal interests other than that which the
state law purports to regulate as a statewide interest." (City of Watsonville v. State Department of
Health Services 133 Cal.App.4th. at p. 889.) We believe that Section 40717.9 fails this test
because it impinges on two important municipal interests: traffic congestion and zoning. As a
result, Section 40717.9 is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to apply to a charter city.
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 4
The mitigation of traffic congestion caused by development is a legitimate municipal concern.
"[T]raffic congestion is a local problenl that cities ordinarily are authorized to address."
(O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Ca1.4th 1061, 1076.) "There would not seem to be much
question but that regulation of land use, particularly in relation to ... vehicular congestion ... is of
vital concern to a municipality." (Hirsch v. City of Mountain View (1976) 64 Ca1.App.3d 425, 430
quoting Codding Enterprises v. City of Merced (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 375,378.)
It might be argued that traffic congestion is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal
affair, in light of court rulings that "the state has preempted the field of vehicular traffic regulation."
(Rumfordv. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 545,548). "The right of the state to exclusive
control of vehicular traffic on pUblic streets has been recognized for more than forty years. While
local citizens quite naturally are especially interested in the traffic on the streets in their particular
locality, the control of such traffic is now a nlatter of statewide concern." (Mervyne v. Acker (1961)
189 Cal.App.2d 558, 561.) However, we believe that only the "control of vehicular traffic" -the
rules for how vehicles can be used on the public roads -is a matter of statewide concern. The
reduction of traffic congestion is not part of this statewide concern. The cases addressing the
"statewide concern" in traffic control are distinguishable from cases dealing with the local interest
in the mitigation oftraJfic congestion. For example, Ex Parte Daniels, (1920) 183 Cal. 636,
concerned speed limits; Barajas v. City of Anaheim, (1993) 15 CaLApp.4th 1808, concerned the
regulation of sales from cars parked on public streets; Los Angeles Railway Corp. v. City of Los
Angeles (1940) 16 Ca1.2d 779, concerned the number of drivers required in a streetcar; and Brierton
v. Department of Motor Vehicles, (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 499, concerned the power of a university
police department to enforce traffic laws. Although the State has preempted the specific rules of
how vehicles can be operated and used on the public streets, it has not preempted how cities can
address traffic congestion caused by development. Consequently, none of these cases contradict the
cases that have held that traffic congestion is a legitimate municipal concern. (See, e.g., O'Connell
v. City o/Stockton, supra, 41 Ca1.4th 1061, 1076; Hirsch v. City of Mountain View, supra, 64
Cal.App.3d 425, 430; Codding Enterprises v. City of Merced, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d 375, 378.)
Land use regulation, zoning in particular, has long been held to be a municipal affair. "Land use
regulation in California historically has been a function of local government." (Big Creek Lumber
v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Ca1.4th 1139, 1151.) The chapter of the Government Code that
contains zoning regulations (Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7) specifically provides that it does not
apply to charter cities. (Gov. Code § 65803.)
Because Section 40717.9 impinges on two municipal concerns -traffic congestion and zoning-
it is our opinion that it is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to further a matter of statewide concern,
and therefore its prohibition of employee trip reduction programs does not apply to charter cities.
Indeed, the fact that Section 40717.9 appears in a section of the Health and Safety Code containing
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 20 I 0
Page: 5
regulations applicable to air pollution control districts suggests that the Legislature was really not
considering local concerns about traffic congestion or zoning.l
Because traffic congestion is a particularly local problem that varies significantly across the state,
from low density rural areas to high density urban areas, a court would be particularly hesitant to
hold that Section 40717.9 preempts the City's ability to use an employee trip reduction program to
mitigate the traffic congestion caused by new development.
"We have been particularly reluctant to infer legislatiVe intent to preempt a field
covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be
served that may differ from one locality to another. The common thread of the cases
is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one
locality to another then the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance
against an attack of state preemption. Thus, when local government regulates in an
area over which it traditionally has exercised control, such as the location of
particular land uses, California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of
preemptive intent from the Legislature, that such regulation is not preempted by state
statute." (Big Creek Lumber v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Ca1.4th 1139, 1149.)
It should be noted that, while 0 'Connell v. City of Stockton, supra, 41 Ca1.4th 1061, recognized that
"traffic congestion is a local problem that cities ordinarily are authorized to address," it held that
"they may not do so by means of an ordinance that, by allowing forfeiture of a vehicle used to
commit a specific state law violation, impinges on an area fully occupied or exclusively covered by
state law." (Id. at p. 1076.) The court, however, reached this conclusion with no analysis, and the
Stockton ordinance directly impinged on an area of law that is fully covered by state law. In
contrast, a employee trip reduction program imposed to mitigate traffic congestion would not
impinge on the State's regulation of vehicle emissions. It therefore remains that, as a charter city,
Palo Alto should be able to require SUMC to inlplement an employee trip reduction program to
mitigate the traffic congestion that would be caused by the expansion of its medical center.
B. Even if section 40717.9 applied to the City, the City could require SUMC to mitigate
the traffic impacts of the medical center expansion, and an employee trip reduction
program could be one of the mitigation methods.
Section 40717.9 prohibits a public agency from requiring an employer to implement an employee
trip reduction program. However, it does not prevent a city from requiring that traffic congestion
impacts of new development be mitigated, and it does not prevent an employee trip reduction
program from being selected by a developer as a mitigation measure.
lThis is evident from both the legislative history and the fact that it is placed in Part 3
("Air Pollution Control Districts") of Division 26 ("Air Resources") of the Health and Safety
Code.
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion -City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 6
In a 1996 opinion, the Attorney General concluded that an air pollution control district is not
prohibited by Section 40717.9 from offering a trip reduction program as one of several options that
employers can choose from to reduce emissions. (79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 214 (1996).) The
Attorney General explained that Section 40717.9 only prohibits an air district from requiring that an
employer adopt a trip reduction program. It does not prohibit an employer from deciding to adopt
one. Consequently, provided the employer is given multiple options, one of the options can be a
trip reduction program.
The Attorney General's reasoning would apply with even more force to the City. As noted earlier,
Section 40717.9 is directed at pollution control districts. As discussed above, its application to a
charter city that is trying to mitigate the traffic congestion impact of new development -not trying
to mitigate vehicle emissions -is very questionable. Moreover, the zoning change SUMC needs
is a quasi-legislative act. (Corona-Norco Unified School District v. City of Corona (1993) 17
Cal.AppAth 985, 992.) The City has more discretion over whether to grant or deny the request than
it would have with a quasi-judicial decision. "[Z]oning decisions are afforded more deference than
adjudicative decisions made by a governmental agency." (William S. Hart Union High School
District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d
1612,1624; Mira Development Corporation of San Diego v. City of San Diego (1988) 205
Cal.App.3d 1201, 1218 ("Zoning decisions are afforded more deference than an agency's
adjudicative decisions.")
As a result, the City could elect to deny the zoning change on the grounds that it would cause too
much traffic congestion. However, the City could also decide that the traffic congestion impact
would be sufficiently mitigated by an employee trip reduction program. In doing so, the City
would not be requiring SUMC to adopt an employee trip reduction program. SUMC would be
voluntarily agreeing to a trip reduction program as part of its voluntary application for a zoning
change. Indeed, in this case, SUMC has stated that it is willing to "voluntarily" implement certain
TDM measures, particularly the Go Pass measures.
Conclusion
Section 40717.9 does not apply to the City because it is a charter city. Furthermore, even if it did
apply, it would not require the City to amend its Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances to
accommodate the Project based upon the Project's traffic, air quality, and climate change impacts,
in the absence of an agreement by SUMC to the implementation ofTDM measures to partially
mitigate such impacts. Given this backdrop, the Council has broad discretion to determine whether
the proposed TDM measures are feasible and whether they will effectively mitigate the identified
impacts.
J:\Clients\156 [City of Palo Alto]\OOlb [EIR]\Memo\TDM Memo 07-02-10.wpd
All ACHMENl B
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Special Meeting of Wednesday, July 7, 2010
3 Verbatim Minutes
4
5 Draft Excerpt
6
7 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project: Meeting
8 to accept comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Stanford
9 University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, including an overview
10 of the Alternative Chapter and Mitigation Measures of the DEIR.
11
12 Chair Garber: The first thing is to note that this is a final wrap-up of the DEIR. The
13 Commissioners as well as the public can continue to make comments so long as they are written
14 up until July 27,2010. Our objective this evening is to comment obviously on the Alternatives
15 that are being presented but also to have some discussion about the Alternatives, and through our
16 comments make suggestions to the City Council on what Alternative, Alternatives, or parts of
17 which Alternatives appear to be the most viable to pursue.
18
19 We will start as we normally do with the Staff, and consultant, and applicant making a
20 presentation. I believe we had asked at pre-Commission if a map showing the various building
21 heights of the Alternatives could be produced. Do we know if that was done? Okay. From there
22 we will open the public hearing and hear comments from the public, at which point we thought
23 we would return to the Commission and organize our discussion into four pieces. The first of
24 which is questions regarding the DEIR process and procedure itself, and its schedule. The
25 second will be to then focus on each of the Alternatives separately to the degree that we can. We
26 won't limit conversation that occurs across many of them, but we will sort of march through
27 each one of them separately to see if there are specific comments that should be gleaned. Third,
28 will be a discussion about Mitigations, and we will ask the City Attorney to discuss the use of the
29 CEQA document as a tool for mitigation, as well as to re-brief on the utility and use of the
30 Development Agreement, and then the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and how those
31 all playa part. Finally, you are also going to brief us on how we should deal with Attachment E
32 at that time. Then finally, we will have a general discussion on anything else that was missed
33 which includes mixing and matching Alternatives, orphan topics, crosscutting, etc.
34 Commissioner Keller, have I missed anything?
35
36 Conlnlissioner Keller: I believe we had said that we were going to go through the individual
37 Alternatives and then discuss mixing and matching of the Alternatives right after the individual
38 Alternatives. Then the last issue or the fourth topic was anything that we have not covered
39 already, or crosscutting issues in general, or orphan topics.
40
41 Chair Garber: Yes, okay. That's fine. With that let us go to item number one, Stanford
42 University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. This meeting is
43 specifically about the chapter on Alternatives and Mitigation Measures of the DEIR. Would
44 Staff like to make a presentation?
45
Page 1 0[76
1 Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Yes, thank you Chair Garber and
2 Commissioners. My name is Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager, and Project Manager
3 for the Stanford University Medical Center Project.
4
5 Tonight we are as Chair Garber mentioned to review the Alternative Chapter and an overview of
6 the Mitigations contained within the Draft EIR. As Commissioners know, the Draft EIR was
7 released for a public review on May 20,2010. That public review period is lasting 69 days and
8 will end at the close of business on Tuesday, July 27,2010. Commissioners also know that we
9 have been breaking the review of the Draft EIR into smaller chunks for easier review. This is the
10 final scheduled meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission· on the Draft EIR, but
11 it is not the final opportlmity to submit comments as July 27 is the last day for that. Written
12 comments can be submitted to the City on any chapter or any part of the information within the
13 Draft EIR.
14
15 The purpose of tonight's meeting again is to collect comments on the Draft EIR. It is not
16 intended to discuss or debate the merits of the project. It would be helpful to keep questions and
1 7 comments specifically to the topics that we have identified in the Staff Report and in the
18 presentation tonight.
19
20 All of the comments that we receive through this process will be addressed during the
21 preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report, which will begin once the public
22 comment period has closed. From that I just wanted to provide an overview of where we will be
23 going with the rest of the entitlement review for this project for the remainder of the year. I have
24 a slide up on the wall that just summarizes where we are. Again, we will have the public review
25 period that ends on July 27. On a parallel track with that are a couple of items. The
26 Development Agreement discussions with the applicant will be ongoing and really will be
27 continuing up until the point where the entitlements go to the Planning and Transportation
28 Commission and City Council for a fmal and formal review at the end of the year, late
29 December.
30
31 A second parallel track is the Architectural review process. We are going through a preliminary
32 review process throughout the summer that should last into late August or September. At that
33 point the preliminary review Architectural review process will cease until after the preparation of
34 the Final Environmental Impact Report. As I mentioned, the preparation of the Final
35 Environmental Impact Report will take place once the public comment period has closed and we
36 expect that we will probably get a Final EIR in mid to late October. The Final EIR doesn't have
37 a review process of its own. However, CEQA law requires that we make it publicly available for
38 ten days. I think the way that we have outlined our process that it will be available for at least
39 ten days, and more likely 30 days or slightly more, prior to any formal action being taken on the
40 Final EIR.
41
42 Then we hope to wrap-up this project with a very aggressive schedule by the Planning and
43 Transportation Commission and Council review in November and December of this year. So
44 that is essentially where we will be going once the public review period is complete ..
45
Page 2 0[76
1 As Chair Garber mentioned the format for tonight's meeting, PBS&J is here to provide an
2 overview of the Alternative's Chapter and Mitigations. The applicants have a presentation as
3 well that will last between 15 and 20 minutes. Then we would open the item up for public
4 comment and Commissioner comments. So with that I will hand the presentation over to Rod.
5
6 Mr. Rod Jeung, Project Director, PBS&J Consulting: Thank you, Steven. Chair Garber,
7 members of the Commission, members of the public good evening.
8
9 Chair Garber: Let me interrupt just briefly. Commissioner Lippert, you had a clarifying
10 question.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Steven, where in this do we actually recommend certifying or not
13 certifying the adequacy of the document?
14
15 Mr. Turner: That would take place once the Final EIR has been prepared and released. We
16 would take that to a public hearing with the Planning and Transportation Commission. You
17 would be able to review all of the responses to comments that are contained within the Final EIR,
18 have your deliberations, and make that recommendation to Council whether or not to certify the
19 Environmental Impact Report.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, great.
22
23 Chair Garber: I apologize for interrupting. Let us also note for the Secretary that Commissioner
24 Fineberg has arrived.
25
26 Mr. Jeung: Thank you Chair Garber, members of the Commission, members of the public good
27 evening. Tonight is a really important evening. We are wrapping up the hearings on the Draft
28 Environmental Impact Report. As Chair Garber said it is a catch up meeting, and some of the
29 more substantive topics have to do with the Alternatives and the various Mitigation Measures.
30 So I hope, and I am looking forward to a very. fruitful, productive discussion.
31
32 Just by way of introduction, the Alternatives tonight, and in the environmental document are
33 really keyed to address significant unavoidable impacts that are identified in the Draft
34 Environmental Impact Report. So with us tonight are the individual team members who have
35 been instrumental in helping to formulate those Alternatives to respond to some of the significant
36 unavoidable impacts.
37
38 So just by way of introduction again, Trixie Martelino, our Project Manager, Kirsten Chapman to
39 nly left who helped assemble the entire Alternatives section with help from the technical team
40 GoeffHornek, whom you have heard from before, also with PBS&J on Air and Noise. From
41 AECOM who did the Transportation Analysis we have Dennis Struecker and Nicole Sou. On
42 the Preservation Alternative from ARG we have Jodi Stock and Charles Chase. So with that as
43 an introduction I am going to tum it over to Trixie who will do the overview.
44
45 Ms. Trixie Martelino, Project Manager, PBS&J: Thank you and good evening. As was
46 mentioned earlier we are talking about the Alternatives and the Mitigation Measures. So first off
Page 3 0[76
1 are the Alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act requires an EIR to identify and
2 analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to a project. The alternatives must attain the basic
3 objectives of the project while avoiding or reducing significant impacts that have been identified.
4 Not every conceivable alternative needs to be analyzed in the EIR. There is a section in the
5 Alternatives Chapter that addresses alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible,
6 and as mentioned before alternative locations were rejected as infeasible. Also, the Alternatives
7 Analysis must identify a 'no project' alternative, which is comprised of the reasonably
8 foreseeable scenario that would occur if the project were not approved.
9
10 So the Draft EIR identifies seven alternatives to the SUMC project. We have two No Project
11 Alternatives, two Reduced Intensity Alternatives, one Historic Preservation Alternative, a Tree
12 Preservation Alternative, and the Village Concept Alternative. I am going to highlight some
13 notable descriptions of each.
14
15 The first No Project Alternative is the No Project Alternative A. It essentially involves
16 retrofitting noncompliant hospital facilities to comply with SB 1953. Under this Alternative no
1 7 new buildings would be constructed, there would be no increases in expansions or floor area, no
18 work at the Hoover Pavilion site would occur. The hospitals would be enabled to operate
19 beyond the 2013 deadline under SB 1953, but by 2030 one or both of the hospitals would have to
20 close.
21
22 No Project Alternative B involves replacement of noncompliant hospital facilities with new
23 structures and build out to the maximum allowable floor area ratio. The current zoning of the
24 SUMC site allows for a modest additional 9,000 square feet of floor area. It is reasonably
25 foreseeable that the applicants would seek to build out to this maximum allowable floor space.
26 Under this Alternative no work at the Hoover Pavilion site would occur. The School of
27 Medicine facilities would be separated from the hospitals and retrofitted. There would be a
28 decrease in patient beds at the Stanford Hospital. The Lucile Packard Children's HQspital would
29 . continue to operate at current capacity or at reduced capacity. So under both No Project
30 Alternatives there would be some decrease in medical services compared to current conditions.
31
32 Reduced Intensity Alternative A essentially involves right sizing the hospital facilities with no
33 increases in operation. As you know, right sizing involves additional space per bed or per
34 service unit with no increase in operations. The right sizing of the hospital facilities would add
35 additional 446,000 square feet. Under this Alternative no new buildings at the Hoover site
36 would be constructed but the Hoover Pavilion would be renovated. The School of Medicine
37 facilities would be replaced with structures with the same square footage. There would be no
38 increase in operations under this Alternative.
39
40 Reduced Intensity Alternative B involves an expansion in development and ope.rations but to a
41 lesser degree than what would occur under the SUMC Project. Under this Alternative
42 noncompliant hospital facilities would be replaced with new structures. There would be an
43 increase in square footage of 924,000. There would be no new buildings at the Hoover Pavilion
44 site, but the Hoover Pavilion would be renovated. School of Medicine facilities would be
45 replaced with buildings of the same square footage. The increase in operations under this
Page 4 0[76
1 Alternative would be approximately 60 percent of the increase in operations that would occur
2 under the SUMC Project.
3
4 Next is the Historic Preservation Alternative. This Alternative was developed to avoid the
5 demolition of the historically significant Stone Building complex that would otherwise be
6 demolished under the proposed project. This Alternative would seek to preserve the historic
7 aspects of the 1959 Stone Building complex as well as Pasteur Drive. Under this Alternative a
8 new SHC hospital would be constructed. The Stanford Hospital Clinics and School of Medicine
9 facilities would occupy the Stone Building complex. The Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
10 and Hoover Pavilion site would be expanded as proposed under the main project. The increase
11 in development and operations under this Alternative would be the same as the SUMC Project.
12
13 Next is the Tree Preservation Alternative. Under this Alternative there is a modified site plan
14 that is aimed to reduce impacts on protected trees. The modifications in the site plans are
15 summarized in the above three bullets. First, the hospital module that is proposed within Kaplan
16 Lawn at the median of Pasteur Drive would be removed and embedded within the main hospital
17 facility. The Stanford Hospital garage would be reconfigured to be narrower and now would be
18 partially above ground, whereas it was previously below ground. Also the Foundations in
19 Medicine Building 1, which is off Pasteur Drive, would be reconfigured.
20
21 The modifications to the site plan under this Alternative have been developed especially to
22 preserve a certain category of protected .trees that the City has identified as biologically and
23 aesthetically significant, and thus requiring special protection. Under this Alternative, as a result
24 of the modifications, 13 biologically and aesthetically significant protected trees would be
25 retained in comparison to the SUMC Project. Under this Alternative there would be the same
26 increase in development and operations as would occur under the main SUMC Project.
27
28 Lastly, the applicant has identified that this Alternative is the preferred site plan. As such, going
29 forward, refinements in design would be focused on this site plan rather than the main site plan.
30
31 Lastly, we have the Village Concept Alternative. This was developed mainly to reduce the
32 vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions that result from
33 employees commuting to the SlTMC sites. As described in the EIR the Village Concept
34 Alternative is comprised of the SUMC project as proposed. It also includes recommended
35 dedication of 490 previously approved housing units for occupancy by SUMC employees.
36 Recommendations also include that the housing units be constructed within a certain timeline in
37 time for occupancy. This Alternative also involves pedestrian linkages that would enhance
38 connectivity between and around the sites, and the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station.
39
40 Given those seven Alternatives I would just like to highlight some differences in impacts
41 between the SUMC Project and the Tree Preservation Alternative. I will be doing the same
42 between the SUMC Project and the Village Concept Alternative because these Alternatives are
43 of special interest to both the applicant and the City.
44
45 So for the Tree Preservation Alternative I am highlighting Construction, Air Quality, Air
46 Emission, Construction Noise and Vibration, and impacts related to Protected Trees. For
Page 5 0/76
1 Construction Emissions of nitrous oxides the SUMC Project would result in significant impacts
2 during early stages of construction. However, under the Tree Preservation Alternative this
3 impact would now be less than significant mainly due to less excavation needed for the Stanford
4 Hospital garage. Also, there is a difference in Construction Noise and Vibration inlpacts
5 between the SUMC Project and the Tree Preservation Alternative. This is mainly due to the
6 application of pile driving in the Tree Preservation Alternative. As mentioned earlier,
7 refinements in proj ect design are now focused on the Tree Preservation Alternative whether
8 these refinements are required or recommended by OSHPD, whether they are required by the
9 City, or initiated by the applicant.
10
11 OSHPD has recommended potential pile driving for the Stanford Hospital, and as such, pile
12 driving has been addressed as part of the Tree Preservation Alternative. As shown in the above
13 slide under the analysis of the main SUMC Project there would be significant and unavoidable
14 noise onsite, and less than significant vibration impacts. However, under the Tree Preservation
15 Alternative due to pile driving there would now be significant and unavoidable noise onsite and
16 offsite, and there would be significant and unavoidable vibration onsite and off site.
17
18 Lastly, as mentioned earlier this Alternative is aimed at reducing the impact on those protected
19 trees that have been identified as biologically and aesthetically significant. Under the SUMC
20 Project there would be a loss of 23 such protected trees. Under the Tree Preservation Alternative
21 the loss would be reduced to ten trees.
22
23 I would also like to point out some additional Mitigation Measures that have been identified in
24 the EIR for the Tree Preservation Alternative that were not identified for the main SUMC
25 Project. The bulk of these Mitigation Measures pertain to pile driving. As you see from the
26 above slide, these measures involve best management practices to reduce construction pile
27 driving noise, as well as best management practices to reduce construction pile driving vibration.
28 They also involve avoidance of or repair of structural damage to SUMC structures in the vicinity
29 of the potential pile driving sites. Of particular interest is the Blake Wilbur Clinic, which is in
30 proximity to potential pile driving sites, and the measures involve relocating occupants during
31 pile driving, assessing structural conditions of the Blake Wilbur Clinic and repairing any damage
32 as needed.
33
34 Also, of note is an additional mitigation in the Hydrology Analysis of the Tree Preservation
35 Alternative. The measure involves insuring that no net increase in runoff would occur under this
36 revised site plan.
37
38 Now for an impact comparison between the SUMC Project and the Village Concept Alternative.
39 It should be noted that the Village Concept Alternative Analysis assumes as mentioned before
40 that the recommendations for the housing units would be implemented. Given these assumptions
41 for intersection congestion the SUMC Project was identified to have significant but mitigable
42 impacts on five intersections in the AM peak hour and 12 intersections in the PM peak hour. I
43 would just like to note, as was discussed in the previous Transportation hearing that the Draft
44 EIR identified the impacts on intersections as significant and unavoidable, but based on input
45 from Menlo Park these impacts would be mitigable to less than significant.
46
Page 60/76
1 The Village Concept Alternative will result in significant impacts on more int~rsections than
2 were identified for the SUMC Project. This is mainly due to accounting of spousal trips at the
3 housing sites, so the spouses of the employees, and also increased pedestrian crossing time. due
4 to the enhanced pedestrian connections.
5
6 In terms of pedestrian and bicycle safety both the SUMC Project and the Village Concept
7 Alternative would have significant but mitigable impacts due to increased traffic plus increased
8 pedestrian and bicycle activity. The difference would be that the Village Concept Alternative
9 would have enhanced pedestrian safety features and so the impact would not be a severe.
10
11 As mentioned earlier, the main purpose for developing the Village Concept Alternative is to
12 reduce vehicle miles traveled. The employees and patients of the SlJMC Project were identified
13 to generate approximately 276,000 daily miles. If the housing units were dedicated to SlTMC
14 employees the vehicle miles traveled would then be reduced to 265,000 daily miles. The
15 reduction in vehicle miles traveled from the employees and patients result in a reduction in
16 greenhouse gas emissions. Under the SUMC Project there would approximately 63,000 metric
17 tons of C02 equivalent generated, and under the Village Concept Alternative these emissions
18 would be reduced by about 3,000 metric tons of C02 equivalent. Nonetheless, under both
19 scenarios the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
20
21 In terms of the jobs to employed residents ratio, it was determined in the analysis that the SUMC
22 Project would increase the ratio by·.05, and under the Village Concept Alternative if you account
23 for the 70 housing units at the Sand Hill Road housing site the ratio increase would be .04. It
24 should be noted that the housing sites at Quarry Road are within jurisdiction of the County and
25 so would not count towards the City's jobs to employed residents ratio.
26
27 The California Environmental Quality Act requires EIRs to identify an environmentally superior
28 alternative, which is the alternative with the least amount of impact. If this alternative is a No
29 Project Alternative then an altenlative other than the No Project Alternative would need to be
30 identified. The Reduced Intensity Alternative A has been identified as the environmentally
31 superior alternative. As you recall, this alternative involves right sizing the hospital components
32 with no increases in operations. As a result this alternative avoids the significant impacts of the
33 SUMC project related to increased traffic on Menlo Park roadways, emissions of criteria air
34 pollutants during operation, and emissions of greenhouse gases during operation.
35
36 Next I would like to talk briefly about the Mitigation Measures. The various mitigation
37 measures for the various sections have been identified in previous hearings. So I am not going to
38 reiterate all the mitigation measures again at this point. Basically the identified mitigation
39 measures in the EIR minimize, avoid, rectify, or compensate for the significant impacts that have
40 been identified. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be feasible and have a nexus to the
41 impact. For a summary of all the mitigation measures you can refer to Table S-4 in the EIR,
42 which is also attached to the Staff Report. Essentially, if the SUMC Project is approved the City
43 must adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure implementation of all the
44 mitigation measures.
45
Page 70[76
1 At this point I would like to turn the presentation over to Cara Silver who will discuss
2 application of Transportation Demand Management as mitigation.
3
4 Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you Trixie. As you know, one of the
5 major mitigations that is proposed for the traffic impacts on this project is the implementation of
6 the Go Pass or an equivalent program. The Go Pass is considered a Transportation Demand
7 Management Program, what we call a TDM Program. There is a state law, it is rather an esoteric
8 state law, and is something that we believe is rather outdated, but there is a law that is on the
9 books that states that cities cannot impose TDM as mitigation.
10
11 So we have consulted with our outside legal counsel regarding the application of this particular
12 law to Charter cities and to this particular project. As Chair Garber mentioned, the Staff Report
13 does contain Attachment E, which is a menlO regarding the application of this particular law to
14 Charter cities. The memo concludes that it is possible for charter cities to impose TDM. Palo
15 Alto, as you probably know, has imposed TDM on other projects in connection with the CEQA
16 process.
17
18 TDM can encompass a range of different measures, and there are many different TDM measures
19 that are proposed for this particular project. The Go Pass of course being the major mitigation.
20 We believe that is a very effective way to mitigate the traffic impacts. There are also TDM
21 measures that are suggested to be considered such as expansion of the shuttle program, the
22 installation of bike rakes, and a hiring of a TDM Coordinator for the hospital.
23
24 So it ultimately is up to the City to determine whether this particular TDM measure, and other
25 TDM measures, are feasible and whether they are effective in mitigating the identified impacts
26 associate~ with Traffic and Air Quality.
27
28 Also, if I could I would like to just briefly amplify on some of the comments that Trixie made
29 regarding Alternatives. As Trixie mentioned, the purpose of an EIR, one of the primary purposes
30 of an EIR is to identify a range of alternatives that will serve to mitigate some of the impacts that
31 have been identified in the EIR. The driver for identifying alternatives is that the Alternatives
32 need to feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project. So it is very important to
33 analyze the project objectives when you look at whether the Alternatives are feasible. When you
34 are looking at Project Objectives, the Project Objectives are included in the Project Description,
35 and those Project Objectives were vetted with the City. We believe that they are very well
36 crafted, and that they are broad enough to focus on a reasonable range of alternatives. You will
37 note that the Project Objectives include Applicant sponsored objectives as well as City
38 objectives. So it is a very balanced set of objectives.
39
40 The EIR need not analyze every permeation or every conceivable variation of an alternative.
41 The Alternatives Chapter is intended to essentially bookend impacts, range of impacts. So
42 certainly there will be other permutations that you can consider, but the alternatives in the EIR
43 are designed as prototypes or models to gauge the variations of the impacts.
44
45 Finally, we need to distinguish between the Alternative Analysis in the EIR and then the findings
46 that ultimately will be adopted by the City Council with your input. The EIR is intended to
Page 8 of 76
1 analyze the range of alternatives. Then after that, after certification of the EIR and in
2 conjunction with project approval the Council needs to make specific findings regarding whether
3 there are any feasible mitigations that can reduce the impacts identified in the EIR, and also
4 whether there are any feasible alternatives that can reduce the impacts that have not been
5 mitigated through Mitigation Measures. So those are two significant findings that need to be
6 separated from the Alternative Analysis itself in the EIR.
7
8 So with that I think the applicant has a presentation that we would like to go forward with.
9
10 Mr. Mark Tortorich, Vice President, Design and Construction, Stanford Hospital and Lucile
11 Packard Children's Hospital: Good evening Chait Garber and Commissioners. I am not sure
12 what I am going to do with myself next Wednesday.
13
14 So we wanted to review with you a few comments on the Alternative section of the Draft EIR.
15 Bill Philips of Stanford University and I will be reviewing three key alternatives and our
16 perspective on those.
17
18 So first is the Tree Preservation Alternative. I think an important point needs to be made about
19 the pile driving activities that may be attributable to this alternative. The pile driving really is
20 attributable to the soils condition and would be a structural solution for both the base proposal
21 and the Tree Preservation Alternative. We are trying to avoid pile driving because of the serious
22 disruptions that would occur to the hospital occupants, but right now OSHPD is very suspicious
23 of alternative methods of building the foundation. So that is just something we will have to work
24 through. That would be a consistent issue whether it was the proposed project or the Tree
25 Preservation Alternative.
26
27 As you know, we did re-plan the hospital building, the Stanford Hospital replacement building,
28 to preserve what we believe are 15 trees instead of 13. So I think the statement is we will
29 preserve at least 13 trees through this Alternative. We did that by removing the sixth pavilion
30 that is here on Pasteur Mall, Kaplan Lawn, and by condensing the parking structure from being
31 an entirely below grade structure to one that is partially below and partially above grade in that
32 location. We also redesigned the first School of Medicine building, FIM 1, to preserve trees in
33 this location.
34
35 So this is the map that is shown as the Tree Preservation Alternative in the Draft EIR~ As has
36 been stated this now our preferred design alternative and we are at about a 50 percent design
37 development level in the development of this Alternative. So obviously we have made a
38 substantial investment in this Alternative. What we have done is taken the square footage of that
39 sixth pavilion and we have placed it within the surface of the five pavilions, and we have
40 expanded a little bit the diagnostic and treatment block, and then condensed the parking structure
41 again to save two trees here in this region. We have also realigned the perimeter of the first
42 School of Medicine building to preserve trees in that location. I think you have seen those
43 studies both in plan elevation diagram and also in our photorealistic simulation.
44
45 Our next comments come to the Historic Preservation Alternative. As described the Historic
46 Preservation Alternative suggests that we would retain the 1959 structure, about 850,000 square
Page 9 of 76
1 feet, and use it for clinics, medical offices, and School of Medicine research buildings. That is a
2 significant challenge. The buildings don't meet the criteria for use as a hospital in any event. So
3 that issue is put aside. The buildings structurally don't meet the majority -or the majority of the
4 buildings of the 1959 structure don't meet the seismic ordinances from the City of Palo Alto.
5 They are really not well-structured buildings by today's modem earthquake standards.
6 Additionally, we believe, and we I think have shown you sonle diagrams of the significant
7 challenges of putting research labs in these buildings and nl0dern clinics that also have
8 significant ventilation requirements.
9
10 So our proposed project has been, and to show you the existing diagram on the slide, our
11 proposed project has been to replace the footprint of that 1959 structure with the medical
12 facilities necessary, contained within pretty much the same building area. So the School of
13 Medicine buildings would be in this region, and the future clinical buildings would be in this'
14 region, and you can see that dissolves there. So within the footprint of the Stone Building is our
15 future 429,OOOsquare foot clinic building, our School of Medicine, research buildings, and
16 underground parking. So that site is really necessary to regenerate'these facilities into modem
17 structures suitable for the technologies and forecasting what our technologies are going to be into
18 the future.
19
20 Then one of the illustrations that we like to provide is this is what we have been doing to the
21 1959 building to accommodate current and past programs. There is a building designed
22 predominantly for natural ventilation and state codes certainly don't allow our hospital licensed
23 clinics to have natural ventilation in the clinical areas. Certainly, the research functions don't
24 allow for natural ventilation. So these will be mechanically ventilated buildings, very efficiently
25 mechanically ventilated buildings, but nonetheless not very suitable for that 1959 structure.
26
27 Then finally we wanted to comment on some of 'the linkage components to the Village Concept
28 Alternative. We feel the linkage components are very valuable components of the Village
29 Concept. We have suggested in our offer for the Development Agreement that we would put
30 money towards developing these linkages, and just wanted to review with you some of the key
31 linkages and some of the strategies that we believe appropriate in the Village Concept
32 Alternative.
33
34 The primary linkage comes from the EI Camino Real and Quarry Road intersection through the
35 Quarry Road corridor and pathways through the Stanford Bam. So I will take these one by one.
36 The first is the existing. The blue lines show the pedestrian and bicycle paths from the
37 intersection of Quarry and EI Camino through the transit center to Downtown Palo Alto. You
38 can see they are a sort of series of maybe haphazard paths through these sites. What we have
39 proposed and what we have considered to be appropriate within the Village Concept Alternative
40 . is a more direct alignment that will align with the tunnel. I know that Palo Alto is proposing and
41 funding the Everett Street Tunnel. So there will be a stronger linkage, I think a better-landscaped
42 element to allow for pedestrian and bicycle movements from town across the EI Camino and
43 down Quarry Road.
44
45 So moving onto the Quarry Road corridor there are a couple of elements here that we have
46 suggested. The first to align with our proposed facilities and renovation of the Hoover Pavilion
Page 100/76
1 would be an area of transit linkage where we would have bus shelters and drop-offs. So that
2 people coming to these buildings could come by public transportation. They don't have to come
3 by car. We certainly would encourage that. The value of having these buildings so close to the
4 transit mall is the fact that you can take alternate means to see your doctor for primary care
5 purposes.
6
7 Then moving on down towards the Stanford Barn and the important connection that I know
8 many members of my staff take daily from the Stanford Shopping Center through to Lucile
9 Packard Children's Hospital is providing a better designed pathway through the parking lot
10 adjacent to the Stanford Barn. So here is Welch Road, Stanford Barn, 730 Welch Road, which
11 are the Children's Hospital clinics, and there is again a path that comes through the parking lots,
12 sort of meanders through the paved vehicle roads. Then you sort of take your chances as you
13 cross the street. We have a signalized, well not really a signalized, but a pedestrian signal
14 intersection here. We have sponsored a crossing guard who is there to help monitor patients and
15 families to cross the street there because we have been concerned about the conflicts with
16 vehicles. What we are proposing to make this condition much better, and I believe this is part of
17 the Village Concept Alternative, is to aggregate the two driveway entrances here within the Bam
18 into 730 Welch into a signalized intersection, create separate pathways along 730 Welch
19 property to Vineyard Lane, as well as to provide an alternative path that is a little bit more
20 structured and pleasant up against the Stanford Bam, and then for allowing for the movement of
21 vehicles. So realignment of the parking, additional landscaping, and some dedicated pathways
22 that then terminate into a signalized intersection and just a much more rational way of crossing
23 Welch Road.
24
25 So Bill Philips would like to talk a little bit about some of the housing components of the Village
26 Concept Alternative.
27
28 Mr. Bill Philips, Senior Associate Vice President, Land Buildings and Real Estate, Stanford: It
29 is nice to be here this evening. I want to echo Mark's comments starting with the linkages and
30 going back to the Tree Preservation Alternative. I think we have ended up some very significant,
31 very substantial improvements, and advantages that occur with these new design components.
32 That has been done with a strong collaboration and help and assistance, maybe sometimes even
33 the pushing of Staff. I think where we have ended up is very, very positive.
34
35 Having said something positive, I want to say that on the housing component of the Village
36 Concept Alternative we do have some concerns. I am going to mention those, and I think they
37 basically have to do with the kind of scrutiny we put into sonle of the assumptions on the
38 housing component, layout what we think we saw, and then you can judge what you think results
39 from that analysis.
40
41 The DEIR states that the demand for housing per se as a result of the SUMC Project would be
42 less than significant. We also note the DEIR says that the key goal of the Village Concept
43 Alternative is to create this urban transit-oriented village that can capture travel behavior, air
44 quality protection, and greenhouse gas reduction in such a way that benefits the performance of
45 the project as part of the performance of a well-designed urban village.
46
Page 11 0/76
1 Here are the basic travel behavior assumptions as we see them. The Village Concept Alternative
2 for the housing component shifts the occupancy of what is already planned and approved
3 housing on the Stanford campus, and by shifting that occupancy it doesn't produce any
4 significant additional net benefits. The Quarry housing sites that are the reference of the 420
5 units are already approved for other Stanford programs and populations. The Village Concept
6 Alternative has housing at exactly the same density on the same sites, but simply switches the
7 housing from University employees that is medical residents and postdoctoral students to
8 Medical Center employees. So we are going from employees of one campus, the Stanford
9 campus, to employees of another campus, the Medical Center campus. Either way the residents
10 of the Quarry sites are in a transit rich environment, they are part of a village, and they are going
11 to benefit from the proximity to transit, and thereby reduce non-campus trips.
12
13 The DEIR concludes that the Village Concept Alternative slightly reduces trips, but results in
14 one additional intersection impact. The reduction in trips is 14 in the AM and 37 in the PM. The
15 additional impacted intersection that is caused by trip generation is the Alpine-280 offramp.
16 The DEIR concludes that the Village Concept Alternative reduces vehicle miles traveled by less
17 than one percent for employee and patient trips. That is when we look at it assuming Go Pass for
18 both the project and for the Village Concept Alternative.
19
20 Contrary to the DEIR assumption the Village Concept Alternative wouldn't significantly reduce
21 VMT or C02, greenhouse gases for other household members compared with approved GUP
22 housing. This is where they suggest there is a difference, but when the difference is scrutinized
23 you can see that you are just simply moving the other household members of these employees to
24 different locations. So the advantage you gain for one is offset by the disadvantage that now
25 occurs for the other.
26
27 So in summary, you have this kind of comparison which I think shows that the additional change
28 with the Village Concept Alternative on most of these-aspects is fairly insignificant. Trips in the
29 AM go down in comparison with the project with Go Pass. The change is down 1.8 percent for
30 trips in the AM, down a fairly significant five percent for trips in the PM. Intersection impacts
31 go up for the Village Concept Alternative by 20 percent because of that one intersection that is
32 added. You have a nil increase for intersection impacts. I like that nil these days. For VMT
33 patients and visitors we are talking about a less than one percent reduction for the Village
34 Concept Alternative.
35
36 So we would remind everybody that the Go Pass is probably the all-important aspect of what is
37 going on here in terms of trying to achieve some of the inlportant climate change, and trip
38 reduction, and other benefits of moving to a different program, particularly one that is focused on
39 shifting traffic away from single occupancy vehicles and into transit. DEIR demonstrates the Go
40 Pass is the most effective thing at reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse
41 gases. Changing'the occupancy of already previously approved housing has ve~y insignificant
42 effect. We also are, as part of our proposal, providing $23 million toward the City's affordable
43 housing fund. That is the big difference maker we think because that would allow new housing
44 to be built in Palo Alto helping the City achieve ABAG requirements, increasing the City's
45 housing supply, and doing something far more than simply changing housing unit occupancy.
46 Thanks very much.
Page 120/76
1
2 Chair Garber: Is that it?
3
4 Mr. Turner: I think so, yes.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioners, as a reminder we will first focus on questions regarding the
7 DEIR process. Let's also open up for just general questions as well. Thank you Commissioner
8 Keller, we will go to the public first and then we will come back to our questions. I have no
9 cards, however. If there are members of the public that would like to speak they should fill out a
10 card and we will hear you. I have one card. We will keep the public hearing open should
11 someone else also like to speak. Mr. Moss, you will have three minutes.
12
13 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber. I thought that was an interesting
14 presentation. Looking at the various Alternatives my preference is the Reduced Alternative A
15 because that eliminates a number of otherwise very undesirable negative impacts. Although I
16 might be able to be persuaded that something close to Alternative B is also acceptable.
17
18 Let me make a few conlments. First of all, we keep being told that the project is important
19 because it serves Palo Alto. It does serve Palo Alto, but Palo Alto is a small portion of the
20 service area. This is a regional facility and they get patients from not only all over the county but
21 all over the state, and even all over the western United States and even occasionally from foreign
22 countries. So we don't need to expand the facility significantly in order to serve just the people
23 of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and neighboring communities. I think there obviously is a need to
24 upgrade it and make is safe seisniica;lly and to increase the emergency facilities, but when you
25 talk about bed count that gets a lot more problematic.
26
27 They constantly say that it is not going to have a negative impact on the housing demand. That
28 is false. They are projecting almost 10,000 additional workers. That is about 12 percent of our
29 current employees. Let me backup. ABAG has projection for how many employees we have in
30 Palo Alto. The number is pulled out of thin air because nobody knows how many jobs or how
31 many businesses we have, but that is the number that is going on. So if that is increased they are
32 going to give us another bogy for housing. The additional housing they are talking about
33 providing, that $23 million, might provide 40 or 50 low-income housing units. We are·going to
34 be asked to provide between 400 and 500. One of the ways to provide that is, instead of taking
35 the 420 units, which have already been approved for other Stanford uses and just assign them to
36 the hospital so there is no net increase in housing. Require additional housing beyond the 420, at
37 least another 300, or 400. That will start addressing the housing impact, traffic, and the
38 job/housing imbalance.
39
40 Now in terms of problems with traffic and parking I don't think any of the mitigations that are
41 proposed with any of the new expanded projects are going to reduce the traffic impacts. They
42 are going to have major traffic problems regardless when this project is built. So I think we
43 should go for the alternative that gives us the lowest impacts for traffic analysis, and I see that as
44 Alternative A.
45
Page 130/76
1 Chair Garber: If you have something more to finish up feel free. Alright, Commissioners,
2 questions. We are going to the DEIR Process and Procedure as well as other questions.
3 Commissioner Keller.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Mr. Turner, could you pleas put up the schedule chart that was in the
6 beginning of your presentation? Thank you. What appears to me is happening hereis that there
7 will be a formal ARB review after the Final EIR is released. Now, my understanding from
8 hearing what our City Attorney said is that there are from the FEIR multiple alternatives of
9 which some may be more feasible than others, and some may be preferred environmentally than
10 others, and that from the Alternatives as part of perhaps the Development Agreement, perhaps
11 the City Council will then choose among those Alternatives, or mix and match or whatever, and
12 say this is what we are going to agree on being built. So what I am wondering is if the formal
13 entitlement reviews by the PTC and Council how can the ARB review precede the formal
14 entitlenlent reviews where I assume it is decided which of the Alternatives, or what combination
15 of the Alternatives will be chosen.
16
17 Mr. Turner: The ARB is reviewing the proiect that has been applied for to the City by the
18 applicants. So the applicants have provided an application that includes expansion of the Lucile
19 Packard Children's Hospital, expansion of the Medical Center, replacement of the School of
20 Medicine buildings, and new structures at the Hoover Pavilion. The ARB would be reviewing
21 essentially that project. They are not reviewing or making a recommendation on any Alternative'
22 in the Environmental Impact Report. They are simply making a recommendation on what is
23 essentially the project that is presented to them.
24
25 Now, they could make that recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission,
26 and once the EIR goes through the process and is ultimately certified then the City Council can
27 decide on a project that is either the main project that they have applied for, or an Alternative, or
28 a mix of Alternatives. If that is the case then the applicants would need to go through the
29 Architectural review process again in order to show the project that ultimately is approved by the
30 City.
31
32 So what the applicant is doing is really presenting the main project for review, but with the
33 understanding that if a smaller project is ultimately approved they would need to go through the
34 discretionary review process again with ARB to show a project that meets what was approved.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: So am I to understand that while there is a review of essentially what is
37 the proposed final proj ect by the applicant that final architectural review won't be granted until
38 after the entitlement review process happens or later depending on which Alternative is
39 ultimately decided.
40
41 Mr. Turner: That is correct. It should be noted and reminded to Commissioners and the public
42 that the architectural review Board does not make decisions on the project. They make
43 recommendations to the Planning Commission and to the Council. So the Planning Commission
44 may vote to deny that architectural review and have them start over, and the City Council could
45 make that final decision whether to approve or deny the architectural review process. If they do
Page 140/76
1 not approve the architectural review project that has been coming forward then the applicants
2 have to essentially go through architectural review again for whatever project is approved.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am a little confused because I have been on the Planning
5 Commission now for practically four years, and I have never been given the opportunity to
6 review an architectural review by the ARB, and given the opportunity to approve or deny it. So I
7 am not sure I really understand that process.
8
9 Mr. Turner: Perhaps Curtis can assist, but essentially if you think of a Planned Community
10 process it is similar to that where you are presented with a development plan, and often an
11 environmental analysis, sometimes it is an EIR. The recommendation is forwarded from the
12 Architectural Review Board to the Planning and Transportation Commission, and ultimately to
13 the City Council. Now, you would be making a recommendation to Council on whether or not
14 you find the architectural review process to have been adequately analyzed and the findings for
15 architectural review have been made before it gets sent to Council for final approval.
16
17 Mr. Curtis Williams. Director of Planning and Community Environment: I think that is a good
18 summary that Steven gave. I would just add that this is just a level of complexity that has the
19 zoning implications with it that the Commission does have to review that it is very difficult to
20 separate those from one another, so it is appropriate here for the Commission to weigh in on that
21 as well. It is also part of the EIR, the aesthetics part of the EIR. So it is appropriate in this kind
22 of situation.
23
24 I also think that we have Public Facility zoning in most of this area right now. Most of our
25 Public Facility zoning is a Site and Design process, which does include Plamling Commission as
26 well. So I think there are number of reasons why it makes sense to do that.·
27
28 Now, as you go through particularly the zoning aspect of it and determine whether a Conditional
29 Use Permit for a hospital is appropriate, and what the review process should be for say
30 amendments to the plans, etc., etc. there may be components of this, and we certainly suspect
31 that not every detail, architectural detail, is going to be wrapped up here by the time it gets
32 through you and Council. So there may be components of it that ARB recommends to the
33 Director on subsequently to address specifics, or there may be components of that zoning that
34 says that as certain substantive changes are made that has to come back through this whole
35 process too. So it is just too difficult to pull it all out and treat it as something only to be dealt
36 with in a typical architectural review process at a later date.
37
38 Chair Garber: Yes, I figure that we will go through a couple of times here. I have
39 Commissioners Martinez, Tanaka, Fineberg, Lippert, and Garber. Commissioner Martinez.
40
41 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I only have a couple of questions. What is the level of
42 review required for the Alternatives? It seems that some of the assumptions and conclusions
43 seem a little questionable. Can you answer that?
44
Page 15 0/76
1 Ms. Martelino: Alternatives need not be analyzed to the same level of specificity as the main
2 proposed project. Essentially, what needs to be provided is a comparison of the significant
3 impacts under the proposed project versus the significant impacts under the Alternative.
4
5 Commissioner Martinez: I understand that. One of the surprising things say under Alternative
6 A, the No Project Alternative, was the impact of losing our hospital. I didn't see that addressed.
7 Was that in there and I missed it?
8
9 Ms. Martelino: There is mention of the No Project Alternative A not being able to comply with
10 certain policies in the Comprehensive Plan that seek to provide medical services.
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: And the mitigation for that was?
13
14 Ms. Martelino: It was identified to be a significant and unavoidable impact that cannot be
15 mitigated under the No Project.
16
17 Commissioner Martinez: Finally, in Table S-4 under No Projects there are a number of less than
18 significant impacts. How is that derived when there is no project? What are you thinking about
19 or observing when there is no project?
20
21 Ms. Martelino: Well, the conclusions are based on what would occur in the No Project scenario.
22 Under the No Project scenario what we have assumed to occur would be necessary compliance
23 with state law requiring seismic retrofit, seismic upgrading of the hospital facilities, and
24 construction up to the modest allowable increase in floor area ratio at the SUMC sites. So under
25 the No Project Alternatives there is still sonle degree of work, of construction. There would
26 however be no increases in operational levels. In fact, there are foreseeable decreases in the
27 operation levels compared to existing conditions. So when we look at the impacts from the No
28 Project we are essentially looking at impacts from the physical construction activities that would
29 occur, and essentially you can conclude that there would be no additional impact resulting from
30 increased operations because that would not occur.
31
32 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, I get it. That's it for now.
33
34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka, and then Fineberg. Commissioner Fineberg and then
35 Lippert.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: I am a little confused about the role ofPTC comments and these sorts
38 of processes that the review is going through. Weare not recommending any actions now, which
39 means we are not picking between Alternatives, nor are we recommending between the different
40 Alternatives. We are commenting on specific details in each Alternative. So it appears to me
41 Staff and the applicant are kind of picking the Alternative that will be proposed as the desirable
42 project. I am not sure how that gives room for the desirable Alternatives that the applicant and
43 Staff are not moving forward with. I know we will be able to discuss that, but if we never state
44 for instance that we want 100 percent of trees protected, or 100 percent of an historic
45 preservation option, not reconlmending that, but if that was something the body did want or did
Page 160/76
1 not want and we never state it, it is not going to move forward if the applicant and Staff don't
2 focus on that. So how does it ever get changed off what applicant and Staff are coordinating?
3
4 Ms. Martelino: Well, it is possible at this point to comment on the adequacy of the range of
5 Alternatives that have been addressed in the Draft EIR. So if you feel that additional alternatives
6 would need to be looked at or should be looked at it is a comnlent you can make and it is a
7 comment we would need to respond to in the Final EIR.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: Any comment for instance that I might make would have the weight of
10 one individual member of the community who happens to be a Planning Commissioner. There is
11 no like vote of the body. There is no measure of -is there a straw vote or a head nod? Let's say
12 there was one combination of something that we all thought was the best. Are we ever going to
13 express that until there is sonle final project that is an up or down vote?
14
15 Mr. Williams.: I think that is a good question. I know it is confusing, sort of the timing, and the
16 cart and the horse here. As Trixie said, no that is not what is being done through this process. If
17 you said there should be X Alternative also looked at then these folks would go back and look
18 and look at that, and either would add another alternative to the Final EIR and analyze that, or
19 would indicate why that did not seem to be appropriate to do that. Maybe two of the existing
20 Alternatives cover all the ground that that would cover anyway. It is just a matter of sort of
21 putting those together. Or it clearly wouldn't meet certain other objectives or give some
22 reasoning as the EIR does in terms of other alternatives that were not included. So the point here
23 is to look at the adequacy of what has been presented both in terms of the analysis that has been
24 done on the Alternatives as well as the range, as she said, of Alternatives. Then I would argue
25 that you to sort of pick an Alternative or a couple of Alternatives is premature until you have an
26 Environmental Impact Report that you feel can be certified.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I agree that we are not picking the most favorable one now, but
29 there are components of each that in combination might sort of filter to a hybrid alternative.
30
31 My last question is the City and Stanford has a list of goals, of objectives, of the project. There
32 is descriptive analysis of them starting at about page 5-40 in the DEIR. I might have missed it,
33 but is there any chart that shows which of those objectives are met or are not met by each
34 Alternative? I see in our Staff Report and in places in the text where it says the majority of
35 objectives are or are not, or some are and some not, but is there just a check, check, check, it is
36 met, it is met, or not it is not? Which objective satisfies? Pick any objective, and which
37 Alternative satisfies those objectives? I can't tell.
38
39 Ms. Martelino: In the Draft EIR it is purely provided in the text paragraphs. No table is
40 provided currently in the EIR that provides that checklist of which objectives are met or not.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Just to reconfirm, the text only highlights general statements
43 like most of them or many of them. So there is no way to tell now which Alternative satisfied
44 any partiCUlar objective of either Stanford or the City. I can reiterate that as a comment later or
45 just take it now, but I think that needs to be something that is easily gotten out of the document.
46
Page 170/76
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Garber.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: Steven, if I go through your schedule here what is the role of the HRB in
4 this? Do they get to weigh in on the Draft EIR at any point or do they have involvement after?
5
6 Mr. Turner: Well, actually this morning the HRB did get an opportunity to weigh in on the Draft
7 EIR. This meeting was held after comments received from the Commission and the City Council
8 regarding that question, regarding the HRB's role in this process. The HRB is limited by the
9 Historic Preservation Ordinance which really applies to the structures in Palo Alto that are on the
10 City'S Historic Inventory List that are designated as Categories 1,2, 3, or 4.
11
12 The Stone Building and the Hoover Pavilion are not on the City's Historic Preservation List and
13 are not Category buildings. However, they are historic resources as defined by CEQA. They are
14 eligible for the California National Register. SO CEQA had looked those two buildings in
15 compliance with the Secretary's Standards. However, the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the
16 City of Palo Alto does not allow the HRB .to make recommendations on non-Category buildings.
17
18 However, given that these two structures are important to the City of Palo Alto, that they are
19 eligible for the California National Register it did make sense for us to bring the projects to the
20 HRB for their comment. So we accomplished that this morning. We brought to the HRB a
21 description of the renovations that would be happening to the Hoover Pavilion, the two new
22 structures adjacent to Hoover Pavilion, the medical office building and parking garage, as well as
23 an opportunity for the HRB to comment on the Cultural Resources Chapter of the Draft EIR, as
24 well as any other cultural resource or historic aspects that were identified within the Draft EIR. I
25 think it was a productive meeting today. We received a lot of good comments from the HRB on
26 each of those three topics. Those comments will be factored in as we continue the review of this
27 project. So at this point we don't see ourselves going back to the HRB for any other formal
28 review. They did request that a qualified historic preservation consultant review the renovations
29 at Hoover Pavilion to make sure that they are consistent with the Secretary's Standards, and there
30 is a possibility we might bring those findings back to the HRB. With regard to the Draft EIR and
31 the rest of the entitlements there would be no other HRB planned reviews.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The significance of the HRB, I think as you know, when it comes
34 to making those improvements on the building or any modifications to the building they are
35 really the decision-making body in terms of well, they make a recommendation to the City
36 Council in terms of whether they comply or they don't conlply with the Secretary of the
37 Interior's Standards. So I guess where I am going with this and I really need to hear a little bit
38 more about it is number one, is an historic structures report or historic structure evaluation been
39 prepared for either the Stone Building or the Hoover Pavilion.
40
41 Mr. Turner: There is the peer review analysis performed by ARG on the Hoover Pavilion that is
42 EIR as well as ARG's peer review of Stanford's historic report that is also
43 contained in the applicant's to the project.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Would that be deemed sufficient?
46
Page 180[76
1 Mr. Turner: That has been deemed sufficient in terms of its consistency with CEQA.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: What about the Historic Resources Board review of those documents?
4
5 Mr. Turner: The comments that we received this morning seem to indicate that the Board feels
6 that ARG's review is adequate and satisfactory. The findings of the peer review consultant have
7 adequately addressed the buildings.
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have one other question then I will pass it on. With regard to
10 one of the Alternatives, well mUltiple Alternatives, which are not non-historic alternatives, it
11 really calls for the demolition basically of the Stone Building unless it is being preserved. In that
12 aspect when would the Historic Resources Board make their review of the adequacy or the
13 importance of that building in order to make a reconunendation in terms of a Finding of
14 Overriding Considerations of City Council?
15
16 Mr. Turner: Well, HRB did comment with regard to the Historic Preservation Alternative. It is
17 not too surprising that most of them were in favor of the Historic Preservation Alternative as the
18 preferred alternative for the project. However, I would say that about half of the HRB members
19 were also realistic with regard to the feasibility of the retention of the Stone Building. So I think
20 that although they preferred to have the Stone Building remain there was a sense that the
21 retention of the Stone Building may not feasible and therefore would I think from their point of
22 view could be a resource that could be a reason for Council adopting a Statement of Overriding
23 Considerations. Again, since the Stone Building is not an historic building on the City's
24 Inventory the HRB would not be making a formal recommendation to the City Council with
25 regard to that Alternative. However, the comments that we received today would be forwarded
26 to the Council for their consideration.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: I just have one other comment. I don't want to lose sight of things, but
29 Lawrence Halperin also was very significant as a landscape architect of that building.
30
3-1-Chair Garber: On page 5-2, the Description of Alternatives considered in a similar vein as
32 Commissioner Fineberg. It would be nice to be able to see the list of significant and unavoidable
33 project specific and cumulative impacts as a chart against the various project Alternatives. Just
34 help me out though, the bottom bullet, removal of up to 71 protected trees, that would be slightly
35 modified as a result of the Tree Alternative if that were being pursued. It would still not avoid
36 the significant impacts and unavoidable impacts, correct?
37
38 The next bullet up, denlolition of historic structure that would be avoided if we were to pursue
39 the Historical Alternative there. So that would knock off one of those bullets.
40
41 Let me start at the top here. Deterioration of the intersection level of service during peak hour
42 conditions at the three Menlo Park intersections. Do the No Project Alternatives A and B mean
43 that we do not have unavoidable impacts there on those two?
44
45 Ms. Martelino: Under the No Project correct there would be no significant impacts.
46
Page 190/76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Garber: Both Alternatives?
Ms. Martelino: Yes.
Chair Garber: Okay. Any of the other ones accomplish that? I don't believe they do I am just
confirming.
Ms. Martelino: Well, I would like to clarify first off that based on recent input from Menlo Park
as was discussed in pervious hearings that the significant unavoidable on intersections now goes
away because of mitigation measures that now have been deemed feasible in Menlo Park.
Chair Garber: In Menlo Park.
Ms. Martelino: Correct.
Chair Garber: But relative to the impacts in Palo Alto?
Ms. Martelino: In Palo Alto under the No Projects yes, the intersection impacts go away. There
would be some level of intersection impact under the Reduced Intensity Alternative B.
Chair Garber: That is in the S-4 list.
Ms. Martelino: Yes. Under all other Alternatives that would construct to the same level of
increase in operations as the SUMC Project would also result in the same level of intersection
impacts as the proposed project.
Chair Garber: So the only project Alternative that would take that bullet point offis No Project
Alternative A then. Am I understanding that correctly?
Ms. Martelino: And the Reduced Intensity A.
Chair Garber: Okay, so it is both. Then the increased average daily traffic on the four Menlo
Park roadway segments, does that go away then as a result of Menlo Park's ... ?
Ms. Martelino: No. The impacts on the Menlo Park roadways stay significant and unavoidable
under the proposed project.
Chair Garber: Under the proposed project.
Ms. Martelino: And it would also stay significant and unavoidable under the Tree Preservation
Alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative, and the Village Concept Alternative. Those
three basically.
,'1,
If I could just add, as you are asking these really important questions and being able to
understand and distinguish among the Alternatives, what we are referring to is Table S-5.
Page 20 of 76
1
2 Chair Garber: I apologize.
3
4 Mr. J eung: So there beginning on page S-98 is a very handy comparison among the different
5 Alternatives. You can see in the fIrst column where the proposed project may result in a
6 signifIcant unavoidable impact. You can see across the different colunms which Alternatives
7 might alleviate that particular signifIcant unavoidable impact.
8
9 Chair Garber: Yes, I actually looked at that and there are significantly more line items in that
10 chart than there are on the nine of so bullets there. I was just trying to be able to cut through it a
11 little bit. So if you will forgive me I have one more minute left in my time so I am going to keep
12 plowing through this.
13
14 Mr. Jetmg: So bullet point number two, the increased daily traffic. The No Project Alternatives
15 essentially mitigate that as well as, I am sorry there was a third one as well?
16
17 Ms. Martelino: The Reduced Intensity Alternative A, which would involve no increase in
18 operations.
19
20 Chair Garber: Then the emission criteria, the air pollutants, I believe that can't be mitigated by
21 any Alternative. Well, the No Project I guess.
22
23 Mr. Jeung: Only No Project Alternative A would allow that impact to be reduced to less than
24 significant.
25
26 Chair Garber: I believe the same is true for the following bullet point.
27
28 Ms. Martelino: If I may add for during construction the Tree Preservation Alternative does
29 reduce the impact of construction emissions of air pollutants, particularly nitrous oxide.
30
31 Chair Garber: That is which one? Tree Preservation, thank you. Commissioner Keller, you had
32 some more questions.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So just for example is Lucie Stern Theater is that on the list of
35 historic resources for the City?
36
37 Mr. Turner: Without having the list in front of me I think that it is. I can't tell you which
38 Category it is.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: So that was evaluated but the Hoover Pavilion and the Stone Building
41 were evaluated or not evaluated? I am just trying to understand whether those were evaluated or
42 not for the purposes of being on the list. In other words, were they deliberately omitted from the
43 list or they were just not categorically put on the list?
44
45 Mr. Turner: Well, our Historic Preservation Planner could probably better answer this but I
46 think the way that the ordinance works is that it is a property owner driven process to add
Page 21 0[76
1 essentially a building to the City's Historic Preservation Inventory. There is not, as I am aware,
2 a direct process where the City can designate a building without owner consent.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: I see, thank you. So what we seem to have here is what I would refer to
5 as a multi-constrained problem. It is essentially a multidimensional optimization problem. As
6 an engineer type when you do multi-constrained optimization problems you have various
7 weightings that you apply to things and then you try to find the overall match that has the lowest
8 badness ratio, or whatever kind of formula you want to pick. What is interesting about that is
9 that when you are considering among the Alternatives in this process there are Alternatives that
10 you will consider for CEQA purposes, and say okay here is something that makes sense from
11 CEQA. We want to basically consider the ranges of this. If you think about this it is sort of the
12 boundaries of a space. So the various CEQA Alternatives essentially define boundaries of a
13 multidimensional space, but something in the interior of the multidimensional space might have
14 a goodness rate or lowest badness rate that is better than something that is one of the points on
15 the Alternative.
16
17 So what I am wondering is from this process while it won't be the point that we can at this
18 juncture decide that a particular alternative or conlbination of alternatives will be best, because
19 the FEIR process is supposed to wind up with the evaluation of that. But because the FEIR
20 process only evaluates fixed alternatives that are at the boundaries I am wondering how we can
21 find out a point on the interior that is actually better if such a point exits, or multiple such points
22 exist that are better than any of the alternatives chosen. So I am wondering, to follow up on
23 Commissioner Fineberg brought up, if it makes sense for the Commission to identify some
24 alternative or some combination of alternatives which is not currently one of the eight or so that
25 have been studied, which the Commission feels in a straw vote would be promising to consider
26 as a candidate for evaluation and comparison to the others for their impacts in order to determine
27 maybe there is an alternative that will bubble up to the top that we can identify to be considered.
28 At this juncture we won't identify it and say it will be better, but we can perhaps identify an
29 alternative that might be better to be evaluated and that might become the preferred alternative in
30 the overall evaluation, better than any of the ones that have been so far identified. So if you posit
31 my hypothetical condition that there are some additional better ones than the ones identified how
32 do we identify those, how do we get them studied, what is the role of those in the FEIR process?
33
34 Mr. Williams: I will let others chime in if they would like to but the role of those in the FEIR
35 process is for us to respond to any of those suggestions whether it be from the Commission as a
36 whole or from one individual. We are going to respond in any event as to whether the impacts,
37 this differs in some significant way from an Alternative that is there, and then whether or not it
38 meets the criteria for reducing impacts and meeting most of the objectives of the project. Then if
39 we d0J;1't feel that it does then we would indicate that we have other Alternatives that have been
40 excluded. So the Commission again could go through that exercise, but at this point the role in
41 the FEIR is to take those suggestions and look at whether or not another Alternative is viable and
42 should be added to the FEIR.
43
44 Mr. Jeung: Let me preface this by saying I anl going to step gingerly into this area, because I am
45 very, very sympathetic to exactly the points that you are bringing up even though I didn't do
46 particularly well in math and I really got lost with vector spaces and things like that.
Page 22 of 76
1
2 One of the things we do as part of the CEQA process, and I think Attorney Silver brought it up
3 really well earlier, as part of these Alternatives we are trying to create bookends. We are trying
4 to identify the range of the potential impacts and to address those from very unique, distinct
5 perspectives so we do have an Alternative that specifically addresses historic resources. We
6 have another Alternative that specifically addresses trees. There are others that speak to getting
7 better linkages.
8
9 I think the point that you are trying to bring up is that as we go through this exercise and we look
10 at the environmental document it is supposed to be an informational document. It is intended to
11 help fashion solutions that can help inform the Commission and the Council. So to the extent
12 that I can draw upon experiences from some other jurisdictions, and again I am not saying this is
13 how Palo Alto will do it, but in other conununities where we have had multiple Alternatives and
14 we have looked at those, we have asked Commissions or the Councils in those jurisdictions to
15 say are there aspects of these different alternatives that are before you that if we were to
16 composite them in another alternative it could be identified as a mitigated alternative, for
17 example. So you could take the best of the Tree Preservation Alternative or you could take the
18 best of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Each of those different Alternatives has already been
19 evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report. To the extent that we have already done the
20 analysis of the bookends or sort of the boundaries as you put it, then the combined impacts or the
21 composite impacts of an alternative that is within the interior of that boundary should be
22 presumably already addressed in the environmental document. So to the extent that the
23 Commission, if I am losing you let me know. So to the extent that the Commission decides that
24 there is some combination or composite alternative that collectively you think is preferable or
25 something that should be considered, not preferable, but something that should be considered
26 then what we would do in the Final Environmental Impact Report is to say that there are aspects
27 of each of these different Alternatives that have been evaluated in the Draft environmental
28 document. We have now constructed s~mething that is a little bit different. It is this hybrid that
29 we have created and we will go through the environmental document and see whether there are
30 components of this hybrid that have not been adequately addressed. We will have to go ahead
31 and provide that additional supplemental environmental analysis. If it doesn't result in
32 significant new impacts, new mitigation measures that in and of themselves create impacts, then
33 we can say that the Draft environmental document is solid, and that it sufficiently addresses the
34 impacts that might be associated with this hybrid. So what I am saying is I am sympathetic to
35 what you and Commissioner Fineberg have brought up and we applied this in other jurisdictions
36 where that was kind of the desire because the Council wanted to hear input from the Commission
37 in that fashion.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. If I may? So what is interesting about this is that there is sort
40 of a gradient that comes when you have a surface for a multidimensional space, if you will. So
41 when you are coming in from the boundary you might want to think about taking different
42 alternatives and understanding how to choose among them by taking some of these combinations
43 and alternatives.
44
. 45 Two other quick things. One is with respect to the additional workers. I believe it was
46 mentioned by somebody 10,000 additional workers. I believe it is more like 2,000 and change
Page 23 0176
1 additional workers. If somebody could verify that just to correct the record. I think there is a
2 total of 10,000 plus/minus and 2,000 plus/minus additional if I remember correctly.
3
4 With respect to the program of objectives that are in Attachment A and also on page 2-4 of the
5 EIR document.· There are ones with bullets and ones with dashes. The ones with dashes are sort
6 of sub underneath the ones with bullets. I am assuming that the major objectives, if you will, are
7 the ones will bullets, and that the ones with dashes are sort of ways of implementing what is
8 really on in terms of bullets. So for example the third bullet on page 2-4 is achieve timely
9 compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 1953, and other applicable code requirements.
10 The first dash under that is replace the SHC portion of the 1959 hospital building, etc. It seems
11 to me the idea behind that is really to replace the function of that as opposed to necessarily
12 replace the building. For example, the Preservation Alternative does not replace the building but
13 it replaces that function. It reuses the building for something else and therefore essentially
14 complies with the spirit of that requirement, of that objective, but it doesn't implement it in the
15 way that the proposed proj ect does. So I am trying to understand the scope of exactly what was
16 meant by substantially complying that these things are to be read I am assuming conceptually
17 and not literally. They don't have to be read literally. Is that correct?
18
19 Mr. Jeung: Maybe answering you indirectly. An analogy might be the analysis that you go
20 through with a development project and understanding whether it substantially complies with the
21 Comprehensive Plan policies and goals and objectives. The Comprehensive Plan goals and
22 objectives provide information, direction, guidance just as these objectives are intended to
23 provide direction and guidance. As you go through an evaluation of the project you are making
24 certain judgments about how satisfactorily it complies with those program objectives. So it is
25 similar in that same fashion that you don't have to specifically comply to the. letter, but if you are
26 intending to comply with the spirit as you would with a Comprehensive Plan policy.
27
28 In this case, I don't know if Stanford needs to address this, but part of the reason that there is a
29 program goal to comply with SB 1953 is because there are Duildings that do require seismic
30 retrofitting. Those specific buildings are what are identified in the dashes I think.
31
32 Conlffiissioner Keller: Thank you. I assume that there is no program objective that specifically
33 says 600 beds or whatever that a slightly smaller number would substantially comply.
34
35 Mr. J eung: Right. I think the attorney brought it out earlier in terms of coming up with these
36 objectives. You can't be too specific so much as to preclude different ways of accomplishing
37 those set of objectives. They are setup at the outset just like the Comprehensive Plan.
38
39 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg you had a brief follow up and then we will get back to
40 Commissioner Martinez.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I just get confirmation? Are the items listed under the Objectives
43 that have dashes in front of those, are those objectives and are the various Alternatives going to
44 be measured against those dashed items, or will the Alternatives only be measured against the
45 bullet dotted items?
46
Page 24 0/76
1 Ms. Silver: We look at the Objectives as a whole. So we look at both the bulleted and the
2 dashed language to determine compliance with the Objectives.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: So if an Objective is stated that we are going to replace the 1959
5 structure, we are going to increase the number of beds, keep going the list one could define as the
6 set of objectives something that could only be satisfied with a desired outcome and no other
7 Alternative could satisfy that. So how is that handled?
8
9 Ms. Silver: Well, the Objectives have been reviewed so thatthey, we believe, are written
10 broadly enough to allow for a range of Alternatives. When we reviewed the Objectives we
11 reviewed sort of the broad-brush objectives that are highlighted in the bullet points, and we also
12 reviewed the more detailed amplification of those broad-brush points that are in the dashed
13 language. I hope that answers your question.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, and Commissioners it is 20 of eight at which point we
16 will have been here for two hours. Let's see if we can try and wrap up our remaining questions
17 perhaps by eight and then we can take a briefbreak and continue on. Go ahead.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I want to focus my comments at this point on the Village
20 Concept Alternative. I really want to encourage my fellow Commissioners to kind of pile on on
21 this one. The conclusions that building housing near work increases traffic and traffic impacts
22 really flies in the face of all conventional wisdom about planning, and tells us we should really
23 stop working on our Comprehensive Plan and go in another direction. I just don't get it, to use
24 Commissioner Fineberg's words from last time. Maybe I should have gone to Cornell.
25
26 I don't get the conclusions that by providing nearly 500 housing units for employees that we
27 create additional traffic impacts on another intersection and that the vehicle mile trips only goes
28 down one percent. I think you would have to make some startling conclusions about what are
29 these spouses doing. Do they work in Livermore? Just some things that are non-sequitur. We
30 are proposing to suggest to build housing near where doctors and healthcare workers and
31 doctorial students will work. Yet we are not also saying that this is also near Caltrain and
32 substantially good transit. Ifwe make such a conclusion we should make the conclusion on the
33 other side that says Go Passes will fail.
34
35 So I am really not following. I am not appreciating. I am not supporting this argument that if
36 these housing units were given or built for the Stanford Hospital workers that sonlehow this
37 would not make a significant impact on traffic. I don't know if anybody can explain that away.
38 Even if you could, you are saying that those 490 housing units are going to be occupied by other
39 Stanford employees and we are going to be looking at the same impacts somewhere else. Maybe
40 for the sake of this EIR it is not to be considered but for the sake of our streets and the city and
41 mitigations that need to come it is there regardless. Thank you.
42
43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka followed by Lippert.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: I have two questions for the Chair. The first question is should we start
46 moving on to start talking about Alternatives or are we still on the Draft EIR process?
Page 25 0/76
1
2 Chair Garber: We are just on the process and general questions for the moment until we can get
3 back down the line here and then we will move to the individual Alternatives and go through
4 each one.
5
6 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Then the second question is given some of the discussion that has
7 gone on so far do you recon1ffiend that we take a straw poll or try to give some guidance to
8 Stanford and Staff as to which Alternative is good to focus on or a hybrid of Alternatives that is
9 good to focus on?
10
11 Chair Garber: We can discuss once we get through the Alternatives. If there is some desire to
12 do so we can entertain it at that time.
13
14 Commissioner Tanaka: Great, thank you.
15
16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: I want to finish up with nly questions on the historic again. Just to
19 clarify, regardless of whether these buildings are on the City's Historic Inventory they are
20 potentially eligible as a state historic resource, or they are a state historic resource. They would
21 have to be reviewed by our Historic Resources Board as long as they are within Palo Alto's
22 jurisdiction. Is that not correct?
23
24 Mr. Turner: I do not believe that that is correct. The HRB reviews only resources that are on the
25 City's Historic Inventory. Those two buildings are not on the City's Historic Inventory.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: So who would have the jurisdiction then if they were potentially eligible
28 or actually state historic resources?
29
30 Mr~ Jeung: Whenever we do an analysis in a community, if we identify a property as being
31 potentially eligible for inclusion on either the State or the National Register regardless of the
32 local circumstances and ordinances it still then becomes the purview of the local lead agency to
33 consider that in the environmental document. So as we are going through and reviewing the
34 environmental document and pointing out that there are potentially significant unavoidable
35 impacts associated with the loss of this resource then the City Council would have to consider a
36 Statement of Overriding Consideration that they wanted to move forward with the project.
37
38 Comnlissioner Lippert: Okay. So again, I feel like I am making a circular point here, because it
39 would then come back to the Historic Resources Board that would have to make a
40 recommendation to the City Council. Is that not correct?
41
42 Mr. Turner: Well, again our hands are pretty tied actually with regards to the Historic
43 Preservation Ordinance and what the purview of the HRB is. So we are limited. However, we
44 do recognize the fact that these structures are historically significant with regard to CEQA. We
45 feel that the HRB should be inserted into the process, albeit not in a formal way, but at least in a
46 way where their comments can be transmitted to the various Boards and Commissions for their
Page 26 of 76
1 consideration. So we have done that. If you feel that there needs to be more review by the HRB
2 then you may recommend that and Staff will take that into consideration, but the Historic
3 Ordinance itself does not provide us with a pathway for review by the HRB of these buildings.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. So again, I am trying to get some clarity on this. According to
6 the consultant it would have to be, if it was potentially eligible which these are potentially
7 eligible, it would have to be reviewed by the City Council, but the City Council doesn't really
8 nlake those determinations without the Historic Resources Board first making a
9 recommendation. Have we had a situation like this before where the Historic Resources Board
10 has not weighed in on potentially eligible buildings along the same lines?
11
12 Mr. Turner: No, I don't recall a situation like this. I think previously on the High Street project
13 the Creamery building was on the Historic Inventory and that was reviewed by the HRB and the
14 City Council. I don't recall any other examples of non-listed buildings going through the process
15 without -------16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Wasted a lot of time on this one. I apologize. My time is almost up. I
18 will just pass onto thenext Commissioner. I have other questions but we can come back.
19
20 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg you were going to wait until the item itself?
21 Commissioner Keller? In the applicant's presentation on their page 20 there was a bullet point
22 number two, Stanford University Medical Center Proposal includes, and the second bullet point
23 states, provision of $23 million towards City affordable housing projects unlike Quarry site
24 housing would be in Palo Alto helping City achieve ABAG requirements, would increase City
25 housing supply rather than simply changing occupancy.
26
27 One, would that money be specifically assigned to housing projects or can it be used for
28 anything? Does it matter? Two, how would we evaluate the significance of that money relative
29 to it helping the City achieve our ABAG requirements? Three, is it true that by looking at the
30 Alternative for replacing housing on Stanford sites that are not in Palo Alto that we are simply
31 changing or swapping occupancy versus increasing it? That is the first I have heard of that and I
32 am just curious if there is another plan that the applicant has that is not apart of this project but
33 includes housing of some significant amount, and if that has been made part of the EIR and the
34 potential cumulative impacts that were to be evaluated. So there are three questions there.
35
36 Mr. Williams: I will just indicate that there isn't another plan as far as what specifically would
37 be done with that $23 million, and how far that would go to produce housing, which would be
38 separate from housing on these sites that have been designated. It depends on a lot of
39 assumptions in terms of how much the City could leverage that money, what land is available
40 because there are not sites that go along with that money at this point. So essentially the City
41 would need to use that for land and construction costs, and again how far that would go would
42 depend on a lot of factors.
43
44 Chair Garber: We would need to asserrlble the criteria in order to make the evaluation as to
45 whether that would really be a significant amount and have a significant impact on us alleviating
46 our ABAG disparity.
Page 27 of 76
1
2 Mr. Williams: We can make some assumptions and probably provide a range that that might
3 provide, but I don't think we have done that at this point.
4
5 Chair Garber: I am not sure we should have. I am just trying to figure out how we would get
6 into that question. So that was number one. One moment, we have two follow ups coming.
7 Then to my first question, which is does that money need to be or is it required to be specifically
8 assigned to housing projects versus anything else the City wants to do with that money?
9
10 Mr. Williams: That is what it is intended for at this point it is specifically for that. I think that
11 would be, if the Development Agreement went according to what Stanford Medical Center has
12 offered in that, there would be some condition that it be used in that way. So that leaves open the
13 question of how the Development Agreement actually reads in the end but that is what certainly
14 the intent is to focus it on housing.
15
16 Chair Garber: So that is the intent. The Development Agreement can be utilized to use that
1 7 money in other ways should the City decide to.
18
19 Ms. Silver: Currently, Stanford's offer is that the money be dedicated to housing. The City has
20 not yet accepted that offer. We are still in negotiations. There will be additional hearings on the
21 extent of that offer. So we just can't answer that question at this point.
22
23 As to you other question about the ABAG requirements, we do have some documentation from
24 ABAG that states that the current 2007 through 2014 ABAG cycle includes the Stanford Project
25 development. So that is good. However, when the 2015 RHNA cycle comes out it mayor may
26 not include some additional employment projections attributable to this project. ABAG will not
27 guarantee that there will be no additional allocation in the next cycle. We do have some
28 confirmation that the current cycle does include some employment growth.
29
30 Chair Garber: Then to the third quest,ion, which is are we simply swapping housing but having
31 to deal with the impacts either on this project or some other project that we don't know about, is
32 that a true statenlent? Ifit is a true statement, is the City aware or maybe the applicant can speak
33 to it, is that something that we should be taking into consideration as part of our 15-year, our 20-
34 year outlook relative to the impacts that this project has on our community?
35
36 Ms. Silver: Yes, Chair Garber, the GUP permit actually requires Stanford to build a certain
37 number of units. I believe it is 2,200, I may be off a couple of hundred. Then it permits Stanford
38 to build an additional 600 units. So we believe that the 600 units are not required to be built
39 under the GUP. We have determined that we characterize that as an overage. So what the
40 Village Concept Alternative looks at is taking those unprogrammed 600 units and restricting
41 them to hospital employees. So I think there is a difference of opinion as to whether we are just
42 swapping out housing units or whether they are housing units that are not currently on the ground
43 and constructed, they are entitled, and they are permitted under the GUP. Village Concept looks
44 at just restricting those to hospital employees.
45
Page 28 of 76
1 Chair Garber: That is the third follow up. For our consultants, has the work that you have done
2 relative to impacts of the GUP, whether it is occurring as part of this project or not, is that apart
3 of the DEIR? I would assume it would come under Cumulative Impacts if it is not apart of this
4 proj ect directly.
5
6 Ms. Martelino: Well, development under the GUP is considered in the Cumulative Analysis.
7 Going back to the Village Concept Alternative the analysis of that Alternative does identify
8 where the recommended dedication of housing towards SUMC employees could potentially have
9 implications on the previous GUP analysis, particularly trip generation associated with the
10 occupancy of the housing.
11
12 Chair Garber: Let me pause here. Mr. Philips, do you have some thoughts to share with us?
13
14 Mr. Philips: Yes, thank you. I just want to characterize the GUP so-called requirement and what
15 the program is under the GUP. What we applied for and received under the GUP, which was
16 program driven was for 3,000 units. That is what the University desired. That is what the
1 7 University was granted. There was a linkage requirement because the GUP also addresses
18 University facilities to be built. There was a linkage requirement the County imposed saying we
19 don't want all the University facilities built out before the University develops its housing. So a
20 certain amount of that housing program had to be driven along with the development of the
21 facilit,ies. That is what that is.
22
23 It is not that you have build so many housing units in orderto do whatever you want to do. It is
24 that there has been some para-pursue approach to both facilities and housing, but the program at
25 the University is for the 3,000 units. So our view is that the units are Quarry are part of those
26 3,000 and if those are displaced then we have a hole in what our total need is as far as program is
27 concerned. Thanks.
28
29 Chair Garber: We have three follow-ups. Commissioner Keller, Martinez, Lippert.
30 Commissioner Keller.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, quickly, the issue is that there was a statement that the Quarry Road
33 housing was used for hospital housing, presumably for married employees, that that would add
34 additional trips. If that Quarry housing were used for married student housing or married
35 students on campus presumably that would involve the same number of additional trips, and
36 therefore would have already been analyzed under the GUP. Is that a reasonable assumption?
37
38 Chair Garber: If you would identify yourself when you begin.
39
40 Mr. Dennis Struecker. AECOM: Yes, that is pretty close. The GUP used a lower trip rate than
41 we used for the medical employees in this analysis but you are essentially correct.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Spouses of medical employees tend to range further a field than spouses
44 of students, I presume. Thank you. In terms of the GUP range of housing I would assume that
45 with respect to Mr. Philips' comment that all of those 3,000 have an allocated purpose in
46 Stanford's plans. I am seeing nods from people from Stanford. Thank you.
Page 29 of 76
1
2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, and then Lippert.
3
4 Commissioner Martinez: I just wanted to follow up on something that the Planning Director said
5 in terms of leverage. Typically the City won't take $23 million and build a housing project. It
6 will typically leverage it to help write down the cost of land, to help with development costs
7 working with a partner, a nonprofit. Therefore rather than 50 units we might be looking at 200
8 units that could be constructed under a wise strategy to increase our housing supply.
9
10 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: For the City Attorney. Can you clarify for nle, I believe under
13 California State law you can take very low, low, and moderate-income housing and actually
14 transfer those to other communities in terms of being built. They don't necessarily have to be
15 built within the geographical boundaries of Palo Alto. It could be shifted to another community.
16 Is that not correct.
17
18 Ms. Silver: I think you are talking about a particular aspect of the redevelopment law and the
19 City does not have a redevelopment area. We have a redevelopment agency but we don't yet
20 have a designated redevelopment area.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then the other aspect is under SB 375, because of the proximity
23 of Quarry Road to the transit center if these are allocated as very low, to low, to m~derate-
24 income housing units the housing bonus density law could also kick-in in teml.s of allowing for
25 higher density housing. So in fact it could be that it could be graduate student housing with
26 another component that could be dedicated to worker housing for the hospital if they were
27 deemed to be very low to moderate income housing. Correct?
28
29 Ms. Silver: That is possible. The Quarry Road sites are located in the County jurisdiction and
30 there is CEQA clearance fOJ; 420 units. There would have to additional CEQA clearance for any
31 additional density bonus laws and the density bonus would have to be granted by the County.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Then again under SB 375 if they were identified as TPP, Transit Priority
34 Project, sites by the regional planning group then it would be entitled to relief from a certain
35 amount, a streamlining, through the CEQA process. I believe it is also an exemption from
36 certain cascading provisions ofCEQA.
37
38 Mr. Williams: That potential is out there. It requires that this would have to be or we would
39 have to have plans developed that are compliant with the sustainable communities strategy under
40 SB 375 that is adopted by the region. The City has also adopted that. So if we have that in place
41 then yes, they would be eligible for some CEQA relief and density bonus applies really
42 regardless of the SCS SB 375.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
45
Page 30 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's take a brief three-minute break. We will take another one at
2 ten o'clock. When we come back, let's start going through our various project alternatives with
3 comments. Thank you.
4
5 Commissioners, let's provide some comments. We have seven different Alternatives. I will
6 query you at the beginning of each to find out if people have comnlents. If they do, let's try and
7 get all of our comments into package and ideally within five minutes if we can manage it. Ifwe
8 have to we will come back but otherwise we are going to be here until the wee hours of the night,
9 and I would like to try and not do that. So who would like to go first on Alternative A
10 Retrofitting Only? Does anybody have comments on A? I am seeing no head nods. You have
11 one? Commissioner Fineberg.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: this isn't going to be very teclulical and I think it is just going to affirm
14 what is in the DEIR. This Alte:rnative doesn't satisfy anybody's objectives to accomplish
15 anything so ex-nay.
16
17 Chair Garber: Moving on. Anyone have comments on No Project Alternative B? Could we put
18 up a slide for that? I am looking on page 5-3 if that helps you at all. So no comments on No
19 Project Alternative B, which was about noncompliant structures. How about Reduced Intensity
20 Alternative, the right sizing of Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital?
21 Commissioner Fineberg.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: I am blind on the better part of how to consider the attainment of
24 objectives versus the Reduced Intensity Alternatives A and B without detail of understanding
25 what objectives are being met, and what objectives are not being met. I don't know. I don't
26 know what the City or the applicant consider their significant objectives and which of the
27 objectives are not significant objectives. I don't know which, A or B, satisfies each of those
28 objectives or not. So it is hard for me to constructively draw any conclusions.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioners, how about Reduced Intensity Alternative B? Conlmissioner
31 Keller.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: What is interesting about Reduced Intensity Alternative A is you can pick
34 some numbers basically it is not based on the number of current beds. What is interesting about
35 Reduced Intensity Alternative B is it is an arbitrary number. In other words, a growth of 60
36 percent of the number of beds and that seems to be a very arbitrarily chosen nutnber. So perhaps
37 what might be considered as a variation of this Alternative for further evaluation is if you look at
38 Figure 2-11 of the DEIR you will notice that there a five towers that are 130 feet. I believe it is
39 about 18 feet or so is the floor-to-floor height ofa floor, if I remember correctly it is somewhere
40 in that range. So if we were to lop off a floor from each of those five towers, which would make
41 the highest be 112 or so, which is the height of one the office towers I am wondering whether
42 that is an alternative that should be evaluated as being perhaps better than the 130 foot alterative.
43 It in some sense has some logical coherence as to why you would want to do that. I think I
44 would ask my fellow Commissioners, whether ... yes?
45
Page 31 0/76
1 Chair Garber: Restate your logic again. What does lopping off the top floor do and tell me how
2 you got there again?
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Well, if you look at Figure 2-11 there are five towers at 130 feet.
5
6 Chair Garber: Yes.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: So lopping off one story from each of those five towers would mean that
9 the highest of all the buildings would be about 112 feet, which would reduce some of the impact
10 and it would be somewhat more of a feasible alternative than some arbitrary number like 60
11 percent. It is based on this design. I don't know exactly how many beds it turns out to be
12 reducing the main hospital, but it is something that would not require a lot of redesign and I am
13 wondering the degree to which the impacts on traffic, the impacts on housing, and the impacts on
14 other things would be reduced.
15
16 Chair Garber: I appreciate your general comment that it is hard to know why B is at whatever
17 number it ends up being. I am not sure that just taking off a floor it doesn't get you all that
18 much closer to like say the 50-foot height limit or something of that sort versus some other
19 objective.
20
21 Conlmissioner Keller: I understand. I am not sure. I don't know exactly how many rooms or
22 beds it would remove. If you think about it from a point of view of sort of a coherent design of
23 what is already there it would retain that notion of a coherent design. It is a logical amount to
24 reduce it by based on the design. The question is, we would like to know, I would like to know
25 personally and I am not sure whether anybody else would, but I would like to know how many
26 beds does that reduce it by and what are the corresponding impacts of that.
27
28 Chair Garber: You are using the phrase 'coherent design' again I appreciate what you are trying
29 to do. I am not sure you and I, or you and I or anybody else could establish what that is as a
30 baseline. I am not really arguing with you just sort of having a discussion. It would seem to me
31 that you would want to find something that is not sort of design driven and that is planning
32 driven, and say like what happens if the project were not go above a 50-foot height limit, and
33 then look at the impacts.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Let me state it as if suppose the project was to go above 112-feet. I think
36 it is going to be very hard to build a building that is not above 50-feet.
37
38 Chair Garber: I don't disagree I anl just saying that is a number that exists, and somebody could
39 say we looked at what the impact is and therefore here are the results and why we didn't choose
40 it.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: I understand. I am just suggesting 112-feet as a number to consider
43 because one of the other towers is that height and it is something that would not require a great
44 amount of redesign to accomplish.
45
46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, you have something to add?
Page 32 of 76
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I had another question earlier on that I was going to ask and I sort of
3 dismissed it. I thought at the time it wasn't going to make much of a difference but I think it
4 does make a difference here. Stanford University Proj ect that is what the applicant is proposing.
5 That is the A-I prime metric here. Then all the other Alternatives here, and it was alluded to by
6 Commissioner Fineberg that those were somehow convoluted and made up by the applicant
7 along with Staff. I may be paraphrasing that incorrectly, but as though they were just drummed
8 up and pulled out of a hat. This is just Alternatives. I think it would be helpful if maybe Trixie
9 went through and just identified where each of those Alternatives came from and how
10 particularly the Reduced Intensity Alternatives were arrived at. I think that would basically
11 answer Commissioner Keller's line of questioning as to why we are looking at a 60 percent
12 reduction here. I think that these are Alternatives. There is rationale behind them, and
13 understanding what the rationale of those are, and they are only snapshots.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, just as a point of clarification, your reference to
16 Commissioner Fineberg was in supporting something that you thought she said? Commissioner
17 Fineberg, you had a concern about that?
18
19 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. I didn't say that Staff cooked up various alternatives. What I was
20 saying is that they were working with the applicant to detennine what the favorite alternative
21 would be, and that what would be analyzed going forward and what the proposed proj ect would
22 be was a collaborative effort and maybe not getting input from the Commission. But no, I don't
23 think they in any way arbitrarily cooked up alternatives.
24
25 Chair Garber: Well, let's not get into that just now. I think Commissioner Lippert's suggestion
26 may not a bad one, which is to review the attributes of the Alternative relative to this
27 conversation. Could you, Trixie, just review the attributes of Reduced Intensity Alternative B
28 for us, and what the objectives were that the team was trying to solve in that Alternative? Or
29 Rod or Steve? Trixie.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: It isn't so much attributes as to how they arrived at, and I think it goes
32 back to what Comnlissioner Keller was trying to get at, and Commissioner Fineberg was trying
33 get at also, which is that there are certain programmatic requirements or aspects of the project. I
34 think identifying how they arrived at these Alternatives will illuminate or illustrate more clearly
35 why they were selected.
36
37 Chair Garber: Why this Alternative.
38
39 Ms. Martelino: I will make an attempt answering this as accurately as I can. It has been awhile
40 since we developed these Alternatives. In general, when dealing hospital projects there is, yes, a
41 collaborative effort with the applicant in arriving at Alternatives. The reason is that hospitals are
42 a special case compared say to an office project, or a residential project. Where a hospital is a
43 very tightly knit unit with necessary functional adjacencies and program requirements that the
44 applicants are really most qualified or in the best position to detennine what feasible alternatives
45 can be developed. The collaboration on Staffs end and on the consultant's end comes in where
46 we also look at these alternatives against the requirements of CEQA. Would they reduce
Page 33 0/76
1 significant impacts? Would they attain close to the project's objectives? So there was a
2 collaborative effort there in arriving at the Alternatives.
3
4 Specifically for Reduced Intensity Alternative B this came about as the fruit of a sequence of
5 steps that occurred much earlier in the EIR preparation process. The analysis looked at the
6 midpoint of development of the SUMC Project. Specifically the 2015 deadline for when the
7 hospitals would need to meet seismic requirements under SB 1953. The Reduced Intensity
8 Alternative B was sort of a parallel level of development as what would happen at that 2015
9 point. So it is not as arbitrary as it may seem because the basis of this came at point where there
10 is a certain deadline that would need to be met and what level of development could potentially
11 be foreseen at that midpoint, the 2015 midpoint?
12
13 Chair Garber: Am I understanding you to say that you were looking at a construction period of
. 14 whatever it is, and you were looking at how much square footage was accomplished by the end
15 of that complete construction period. Then you took a point midway through that construction
16 period and looked at how many square feet was available at that point, and that is where you
17 came up with Reduced Intensity Alternative B.
18
19 Ms. Martelino: Right.
20
21 Chair Garber: So when it satisfied the SB 1953 the noncompliant structures, when it completed
22 that is when you stopped and you evaluated just that project at that point.
23
24 Ms. Martelino: Right. Well yes in terms of what would be developed for the hospital
25 components, the medical office components.
26
27 Mr. Williams: If I could?
28
29 Chair Garber: Yes.
30
31 Mr. Williams: We picked that date and I think now that I hear it again that did have a bearing on
32 the 60 percent. When you are doing this kind of determination of alternatives it is very standard
33 to have a Reduced Intensity Alternative whether it is a residential or commercial project or
34 whatever. So what you want to try to achieve is an option, and it doesn't mean it is a preferred
35 option but just an option that has some significant reduction that is going to achieve some
36 reduced impacts for you. So saying a 90 percent or a 95 percent instead of a 60 percent is not
37 going to do much in terms of reducing impact. So 60 percent is something that is significant. It
38 could be 50 percent. It could be 70 percent. You are trying to pick a number that has some
39 impact. That is why I think when you compare it to reducing a floor, we look at 60 percent and
40 say well, okay that is going to have an impact on traffic. It is going to reduce traffic whether it is
41 enough to eliminate significant unavoidable impacts, maybe. We don't know that right offbut at
42 least it is a pretty substantial number. It is going to have some impact on height because if you
43 only have 60 percent of the project it may not mean that 130, there isn't still a 130-foot tower,
44 but you are not going to have everything be 130 feet at that point.
45
Page 34 0/76
1 So when you then go to something has been suggested, let's take off one story of height that is
2 probably a ten percent impact on the project. It really probably doesn't do much for the other
3 types of impacts. So we just see that is a more substantial alternative to review than removing
4 one floor of the height, which is probably covered in many respects already by the Alternatives
5 that we looked at.
6
7 Chair Garber: So in other words, maybe the question for the Commission relative to this
8 Alternative is 60 percent the right number and what is the argument that you would make for
9 that? So a suggestion for instance that I made, what is the impact if we make it all 50 feet high?
10 The reality is that is probably 30 percent of the project or something so it is way too low and
11 unreasonable versus a suggestion by Commissioner Keller which is take off one floor, which is
12 more 90 to 95 percent and is not significant in the other direction. So there we are at 30.
13 Commissioner Keller, a follow up.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: I think in terms of considering some of the height issues the Children's
16 Hospital is much less of an impact than is Stanford Hospital itself. So I was thinking about in
17 terms of some of the. height issues of what happens if we lowered it. I do realize that applying 60
18 percent of both would do it but in some sense the 60 percent analysis that was done Reduced
19 Intensity Alternative B there are no heights, there are no numbers, I didn't even see it exact
20 saying we will have X number of beds in each hospital. I don't see a specific detail on that. So I
21 was trying to specify something that is concrete. There is square footage but not beds. At least I
22 couldn't find the number of beds. So I was trying to think in terms of a concrete definition since
23 essentially the upper floors are beds and the lower floors are other kinds of facilities, operating
24 rooms, and labs, and stuff like that. It seemed to nlake sense that that was something coherent
25 and that it might be somewhat linear but it is somewhat more specific than the 60 percent
26 alternative, which was very vague.
27
28 Chair Garber: You are looking to assign something functional to that number as opposed to just
29 an arbitrary one.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Right. So it seems to me that since I was concerned about some of the
32 impacts and concerned about the impact of height in particular then why not choose that as a way
33 of having something that we can evaluate, and say okay how many beds is that, how many
34 square feet is that, and what kind of impact is quantified with that.
35
36 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Martinez.
37
38 Comnlissioner Martinez: I think we are kind of going the wrong direction looking at that 60
39 percent. When I looked at these different Alternatives it was different construction, or non-
40 construction scenarios. This scenario is to build essentially the hospitals. Not 60 percent. Sixty
41 percent is the outcome of that because we are not doing work at Hoover Pavilion and the School
42 of Medicine and whatever comes later. So I think saying well, why not 50 percent misses the
43 point because the direction of this Alternative is let's get the hospitals built.
44
45 Chair Garber: Thank you for that. Any other comments? Commissioner Fineberg.
46
Page 35 0/76
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Commissioner Keller's direction of questions I think having the view
2 of an Alternative that is functionally different, I shouldn't say functionally, structurally different
3 with the goal of reducing the height might be one that should be considered in a slightly different
4 light. I don't see that the Alternative should be remove the top floor and then lose the square
5 footage associated with it because then you also lose the objectives of what those floors yield.
6 Should there be an alternative with the goal of reducing the impact of the extra height? Then that
7 space would be spread. It would have some additional impacts of possibly taking out more trees,
8 using up more land, maybe being a little less compact, but you could reduce the height impacts.
9 Still it wouldn't change the traffic and it wouldn't change the air pollution. Well maybe it might
10 change the air pollution during construction. It would still achieve the goals of the facility. If we
11 don't analyze something that is at a lower height how do we know whether it is a viable
12 alternative? So I would kind of like to see Conunissioner Keller's idea of lopping off the top he
13 make it lower, spread it, and whether that should be analyzed would be a question maybe other
14 Commissioners could comment on.
15
16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then let's move on.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: I understand the objective of Commissioner Fineberg, but I was actually
19 trying to solve multiple problems at once. I was trying to reduce the intensity, reduce the height,
20 and several other things at the same time. That is why I thought it made sense.
21
22 Also, the issue is that it does seem to make sense to me that some reduced intensity of the
23 hospital being the biggest thing that is being built is something that is worthwhile considering
24 and evaluating that. I think that I want to separate out the notion, as we did earlier, what is
25 necessary in order to figure out the purposes from the point of view of CEQA for which this
26 theoretically adequately studied than from the point of view of giving input to the decision
27· process of choosing an alternative to move forward with. The 60 percent Alternative is not well
28 enough defined to be an alternative anybody would consider choosing, while the alternative that
29 I am proposing actually may be an alternative that the Council might consider choosing, and that
30 is why I am proposing it.
31
32 Chair Garber: I think to your point the 60 percent is arbitrary and very hard to define. Although,
33 I don't find simply taking off one floor compelling enough to be different than some of the other
34 Alternatives we already have in there. Again, we can take it as a comment and move on.
35
36 Okay, let's go to the Tree Preservation Alternative. Comnlissioner Tanaka.
37
38 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, thank you. I found this Alternative, which I guess is the preferred
39 Alternative, to overall be quite compelling. There were several things that I wasn't quite clear
40 on. I will take one at a time. First of all, it looked like there would be a higher parking lot,
41 which I didn't quite understand why there would be. Why would the parking lot be raised for
42 this Alternative to happen? Can someone speak to that?
43
44 Mr. Tortorich: Yes, I would be happy to answer the question. We might have a graphic for it.
45 Our original proposal had a parking structure below grade. To put that structure below grade we
46 would have to remove two protected trees. So by reducing the footprint of the parking structure
Page 36 of 76
1 without going any deeper below grade we had to bring it up above grade. So what we did ~hen is
2 decided to make something special out of it so we extended that third floor garden on the top of
3 the garage.
4
5 Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so it is a narrower project so you had to go up another floor. I
6 understand.
7
8 Mr. Tortorich: Yes.
9
10 Commissioner Tanaka: The other thing is was thinking about, and it is hard to tell because I
11 couldn't figure out where the trees are. I notice some buildings are going to be made taller to
12 make up for the loss of one of the modules.
13
14 Mr. Tortorich: Right.
15
16 Commissioner Tanaka: It seemed that the same could be done with the Foundation Medicine
17 buildings as well. So why not have maybe fewer buildings or reduce the footprints of those
18 buildings and make them higher as well to match?
19
20 Mr. Tortorich: Well, we were able to accommodate the School of Medicine buildings on the site
21 without having to increase their height. The height of the School of Medicine buildings sort of
. 22 matches the character of the buildings built in the County that is right in that surrounding. So
23 there was no need to go up in height for the School of Medicine building.
24
25 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, so where are the trees being lost then? The other trees?
26
27 Mr. Tortorich: The trees being lost?
28
29 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes.
30
31 Mr. Tortorich: There are trees under the footprint of the Stanford Hospital building. Some of
32 those trees are in parking structures or actually surface lots. There are trees on the Lucile
33 Packard Children's Hospital site again in paved parking lots. Then there are some trees that we
34 are removing at the Hoover site again on paved parking lots.
35
36 Commissioner Tanaka: Modifying those footprints couldn't save those trees or making the
37 footprint higher or making buildings higher reducing the footprint couldn't?
38
39 Mr. Tortorich: No. Ifwe had the diagram of the Stanford Hospital you can see that base
40 platform, the emergency department, imaging, our interventional platform is a pretty large floor
41 plate and we have shrunk it as much as we can to preserve trees around the perimeter, but there
42 are some protected trees that are just unavoidable in their removal or replacement because they
43 will sit square in the middle of the proposed project.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: I see. So basically the reason why the footprint can't be made smaller is
46 because you need a certain size floor plate for the equipment and work that has to be done.
Page 37 0/76
1
2 Mr. Tortorich: Yes, clearly the programmatic requirements for our emergency department,
3 imaging department on the ground floor coupled with that interventional platform on the second
4 floor, which are our operating rooms and prep and recovery spaces define sort of the envelope of
5 those spaces. You can't quite easily have holes in them or shrink that perimeter any further.
6
7 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you.
8
9 Chair Garber: ConlITlissioner Fineberg and then Lippert.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Would it be possible for the City Arborist, Dave Dockter, to answer a
12 few questions? I could use some help understanding some terms that are in the DEIR. On page
13 5-15 and 5-16 it talks about the site plan for this Alternative would avoid 13 biologically and
14 aesthetically significant protected trees. Then on page 5-16 it talks about preserving
15 approximately 23 protected trees. What is the difference between biologically and aesthetically
16 significant tree, and a protected tree? What is the difference between the 13 and the 23? ' Then I
1 7 have some more questions.
18
19 Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: Good evening Commissioners. The defmition of
20 protected trees well, let me just address the difference between the numbers first. Staff
21 identified approximately 23 trees that were both aesthetically and biologically important that had
22 those characteristics. The project proponents are proposing to save 13 or 15 of those 23 that
23 Staff identified as having both of those characteristics. So in a perfect world we would have all
24 23, or approximately 23, preserved, worked around, or saved sonlehow. The project is not
25 proposing to save all of those but rather 13 or 15. There are two trees in flux I understand.
26
27 The former question was what is the difference between terminology.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Between the biologically and aesthetically significant trees versus
30 protected trees. I guess I am wondering are they all protected and there is something more
31 significant about the 13. Is there something about how it is being done that are we saving the
32 best of the best trees, or are we losing the best of the best, and maybe we need to tweak
33 something? I don't know.
34
35 Mr. Dockter: Okay, just for the record I will clarify how our interpretation of biological
36 resources was identified, and aesthetic resources. If a tree possesses both of these characteristics
37 that in our minds kind of elevated them to a very, very important tree that should be, again I say
38 in a perfect world, retained, saved, and built around in one way the other. Those are the trees of
39 elevated importance so to speak.
40
41 So let me identify how we got to those two categories. Biological resources are simply any tree
42 that is identified in our Tree Ordinance as meeting certain size standards ifit is an oak or a
43 redwood. Just by virtue of it being a code protected tree qualifies it as a biological resource
44 according to CEQA. That is true in any city in the state. If it is mentioned in a Tree Ordinance it
45 becomes automatically a significant tree.
46
Page 38 of 76
1 So now the other category is aesthetic tree resource that is pretty much a discretionary opinion of
2 a tree, in this case. I will just read from one of the memos that was referenced in the document
3 here. Aesthetic tree resources is a tree that is deemed important to the project, as designated by
4 the Department of Planning and Community Environment or the City Council because it has one
5 or more of the following qualities. It functions as an important, prominent visual feature relating
6 to the existing area, proposed conditions, pedestrian or vehicular thoroughfares. The tree
7 contributes to a larger grove or shared canopy, landscape thenle, or provides a visual balance to
8 existing buildings, trees, or streetscape. If the tree possesses a unique character as defined in the
9 designation for instance of a Heritage Tree in the Tree Ordinance such as if the tree is an
10 outstanding specimen of a desirable species, distinctive in form, size, age, location, or has some
11 other historical significance. So that is what qualifies an aesthetic resource, if the tree or trees
12 contributed.
13
14 So when we looked at the site and evaluated all of the trees, many, many trees though it was an
15 oak or a redwood standing at or near buildings meant most of them did not have this aesthetic
16 resource quality. However, several trees did. For instance in the approach to the Stone Building
17 before you get to the fountain there are groupings of trees on each side that posed a literal
18 bookend entry feature. These became very, very prominent and meeting this aesthetic resource
19 characteristic. We designated those, or it was a discretionary opinion from the Department of
20 many, many people, it wasn't just myself for instance that just came up with this. So that is how
21 this aesthetic resource plays a role.
22
23 So a tree that has the characteristics of an aesthetic resource and biological resource because it is
24 and ordinance size tree that grouping of trees, small in number is what we elevated to this level
25 of importance to be designed around or retained, or at least recommended that.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you, I appreciate that. If the Chair can bear with me I just have
28 a quick wrap up comment. I would like a question as to whether the current Tree Preservation
29 plan preserves an adequate number of trees, and whether it adequately analyzes what might be
30 considered tree preservation. This Alternative is saving something depending on what I am
31 looking at either 13 or 23 out of71 total trees. Well, the question was raised whether it was 15
32 but it is talking about preserving 23 protected trees, and yet the map from the applicant is
33 showing three. So let me add a'sub-question. Is the Tree Protection plan preserving 13 trees or
34 23 trees? On page 5-16 it is saying 48 of the trees will be removed, preserving approximately 23
35 of the protected trees that are considered both biologically and aesthetically significant. So is it
36 13 or 23? Is that adequate? Should it be called a Tree Preservation Alternative when it is a small
37 percentage of the total at the site?
38
39 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: I just need a clarification on one minor point here. In Stanford's
42 presentation they talked about 12 to 15 protected trees remaining. Then in the Staff presentation
43 it was 13 biological/aesthetic significant protected trees would be retained. Are we talking about
44 the same trees? Since there are so many trees on the site I want to make sure that we are in
45 agreement with Stanford and Stanford is in agreement-with Staff. Dave, do you want to answer
46 that?
Page 39 of 76
1
2 Mr. Dockter: The answer is yes. Whether it is 13 or 15 it is the same grouping of trees at the
3 Kaplan Lawn area and at the FIM building, and a couple of others.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one other quick question here. Generally there is an
6 Arborist Report that is done evaluating trees, and with that there is an amortization done on each
7 of the trees as to what their monetary value is. What is to keep Stanford Medical Center from
8 just knocking out a couple of trees and paying the penalty on them and chopping them up for
9 cordwood? When you talk about a Medical Center .....
10
11 Mr. Dockter: Planning for removal is one thing. That is what we do ahead of time. Doing it
12 defiantly after a project is approved and starting up the chainsaws is another. I assume you are
13 talking about the former where we foresee and we plan for removal. Based on an Arborist
14 Report we can pretty well evaluate if a tree will survive or not. During the actual individual
15 project reviews .is where we would render an opinion of can the tree be saved or not, or if it goes
16 to the remove list. That determination of all of these trees to be saved still has yet to be truly
17 verified, because there is a solar access study as well as an arborist assessment of what is
18 happening with the ground and all around a given tree.
19
20 If for instance the solar access study reveals that the tree will not tolerate the amount of shade
21 being cast on a tree, and it is denying the solar access basically to the tree, the tree could
22 foreseeably decline. That would be put in the removal category. We would have to render an
23 opinion at that time whether the roofline would have to be lowered say, or whether the tree
24 would be allowed to be put on the removal list. I mean one of the 13 to 15. So though we are
25 counting that now one of the issues of going parallel with projects 'and the EIR at the same time
26 is the question is raised, what if the project needs to be changed in order to save one of the 13 or
27 15 trees? That is answer I don't have for that question, but it does have bearing on your
28 comment and question to me.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
31
32 Chair Garber: Anything else?
33
34 Conunissioner Lippert: Actually, I do but I can hold off.
35
36 Chair Garber: Go ahead.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Dave, DC Berkeley had quite a bit of controversy over building and I
39 think everybody seems to remember somebody camped out in one of the heritage trees in
40 Berkeley. What were sonle of the decisions that were underlying in terms of the considerations
41 for removal of those trees? You probably followed that pretty closely. There were people that
42 actually camped out and said no way this tree is going, and yet the university had all the right to
43 remove those trees. In some ways this is almost a similar situation.
44
45 Mr. Dockter: My opinion is it doesn't have a lot of bearing on our project here. We are doing it
46 properly by assessing the characteristics and the values and do they apply to our regulations here.
Page 40 of 76
1 There I think it was just purely state land jurisdiction and there was really no local zoning
2 applying to those oak trees. I think it was a lot of popular opinion and people tying themselves
3 to the tree. They had a PR issue to deal with.
4
5 In our case, we are going about it a little bit more responsibly by foreseeing and evaluating can
6 the trees be saved, should they, what level of importance they have to the community ahead of
7 time, before pennits are issued. This is a big difference in my opinion between Berkeley and
8 Stanford.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: So what seems to me here is that looking at page S-152 and S-153, it
15 appears that out of the 71 trees that were originally considered for removal in the original proj ect
16 proposa123 of those are considered biologically and aesthetically significant. Some of those are
17 being preserved but it looks like there are ten biologically and aesthetically significant protected
18 trees that are either going to be cut down or removed, and that number may change by one or two
19 depending on the footprint of the building.
20
21 If I look at this diagram, can we have this diagram put up? It is from the Stanford presentation.
22 It is the diagram that says Historic Preservation Alternative. I like that one because it has
23 numbers on it that I can refer to. I understand. I am not talking about Historic Preservation but I
24 can refer to it because it has numbers, labeled. No, if you can go a few slides further. The very
25 next one. Yes, thank you. The reason I want this one is because the buildings are numbered and
26 I can talk about them.
27
28 So what is· interesting about this is it appears that most of the aesthetically and biologically, I
29 guess they are all biologically, so the main issue is aesthetically. The main ones that are
30 aesthetically significant are those that are under the footprint of Building 8, which I guess is
31 FIM 1 I believe. It looks like there is a big gap between Buildings 9 and 10, which I guess is
32 FIM 2 and FIM 3. So I am wondering the extent to which Building 8, FIM 1, can be shrunk to
33 preserve more trees. There is a gap between Building 9 and Building 10, FIM 2 and FIM 3, that
34 doesn't seem to have any function except maybe because of the surge capacity issues. It looks
35 like that gap might be usefully filled in to some extent and thereby reduce the footprint ofFIM 1
36 or Building 8. I am wondering whether a design like that might preserve more of the trees in
37 what is refereed to as the FIM 19rove. Mr. Dockter, do you want to comment on that?
38
39 Mr. Dockter: I can't comment on the footprint change to 9 and 10, or FIM 2 and 3. Moving
40 away from trees FIM 1 of course would increase the potential for preservation of some of the
41 trees there I would expect.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So may I suggest that as part of this ana1ysis;that further
44 tweaking be done to the footprint ofFIM 1 to reduce the impact on the FIM 1 grove? Perhaps
45 decreasing the footprint of that building and increasing the footprint of Buildings 9 and 10
Page 41 0/76
1 connecting them closer together, making that gap be less and retaining the total square footage,
2 might help in that.
3
4 Do you have something you want to add? Identify yourself.
5
6 Mr. Rich Tangori, Stanford School of Medicine: I am Rich Tangori with the School of
7 Medicine. I would actually respond to that question if the Commission pleases.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Yes, please.
10
11 Mr. Tangori: The footprint between 9 and 10 cannot be expanded for two reasons. One, there is
12 a building on that site right now. If you know, the Stone complex actually sits on that site.
13 There is a tunnel that I believe goes through between those two buildings. That is why the site
14 plan was the way it was.
15
16 More importantly, there is a certain size associated with the lab modules and the lab support
17 spaces that give the building number 8, the FIM 1 building, its width. So even if we shrink the
18 building in length that width is not likely to be shrunk. In doing so we may not be able to save
19 any more trees. I couldn't be more specific without actually looking at some more specific
20 drawings, but given the width of the building from north to south is more or less fixed. It will
21 not help, I do not believe, in saving more trees.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate that and if that is the best we can do, but it is
24 worthwhile at least evaluating that. Thank you. Mr. Dockter?
25
26 Mr. Dockter: I think I would like to add as a follow up in support of what this gentleman just
27 that FIM 1 is retaining the largest and biggest trees along that section. They are relocating one
28 tree, which in the eyes of the City would be retained. They are not removing that tree. The other
29 largest trees along Pasteur there would be remaining the way the footprint is now. By narrowing
30 the building it would improve conditions for the trees that remain but it wouldn't be the tipping
31 point whether a tree was removed or staying. So modifying the footprint of that building would
32 not really increase the nUITlbers of trees removed or remaining. It would just improve the
33 conditions for survivability of probably one tree.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Let me just close my comments on this by saying that it
36 would be helpful to actually have a detailed drawing showing where all the trees are and which
37 ones are being removed and which ones are staying, and this as part of the Final EIR process.
38 sort of indicating the degree to why some of them have to be taken down because ofa necessary
39 footprint, and also an explanation of what the gentleman from the medical school said regarding
40 the gap between FIM 2 and FIM 3, particularly since there is now a building that encompasses or
41 connects the two together. So I am not sure I understand that but an explanation of that I think
42 would be very helpful. Thank you.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
45
Page 42 of 76
1 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. This is a quick follow on to Commissioner Keller's line of
2 questioning. I guess from earlier questions I was under the impression that the FIM buildings
3 were not impacting the trees because they have already been modified. From this line of
4 discussion it sounds like if that' building, I guess FIM 1, is on protected trees perhaps the
5 footprint of that building could be eliminated and added onto Building 9 and 10 on that diagram
6 up there, if it is. If there are no trees under FIM 1 then it doesn't nlatter. Maybe you could
7 address that.
8
9 Mr. Tortorich: Let me give you just a quick-I think these two slides, one on top of the other
10 will help show you really the planning of what is happening with the School of Medicine
11 bUildings.
12
13 So FIM 1 is going to be constructed while the Stone Building is still in place that way you can
14 decamp occupants of the Stone Building into FIM 1. Then we start incrementally demolishing
15 the Stone Building to get into this final condition. Okay?
16
17 So the site is not clear. As we start construction the site is still occupied with School of
18 Medicine faculty and staff. While we build a building to move a group into, and then we
19 demolish a portion of the Stone Building, and then continue in a sequential replacement. So it is
20 a truly a replacenlent effort.
21
22 Commissioner Tanaka: So are there trees on that footprint right now where that Building 8 is?
23
24 Mr. Tortorich: There are some trees. I think we have been able to realign the building to protect
25 the most significant trees and aesthetically valuable trees on that site.
26
27 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So for decamping reasons then it sounds like the significant trees
28 are being protected.
29
30 Mr. Tortorich: We believe so.
31
32 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you. Then I mentioned this earlier at one of the
33 earlier meetings, but I do think it is very important as part of the Final EIR to have a very good
34 communication plan on the trees so we don't have a Berkeley-like situation. Exactly, California
35 Avenue situation. So I think a very, very clear well publicized communication plan is very
36 important to have.
37 '
38 Maybe this is already in there but since there are losses of quite a few trees I think having a plan
39 to have additional trees planted other places, which of course I understand is not a full
40 mitigation, but would actually I think be a good PR thing as well. Have additional trees planted
41 at maybe a 2: 1 ratio or something where it could maybe in 50 years make up for it I think would
42 be a good thing.
43
44 Actually, I have one other question for Stanford so maybe Mark can come up again to answer
45 quickly. If you were to look at the cost of this Alternative project, I a~ talking about building
Page 43 0/76
1 cost to Stanford, this Alternative to the original planned project how does it relate? How does it
2 compare? Is it about the same, or a little bit more, or a little bit less?
3
4 Mr. Tortorich: The building costs would be comparable because it is the amount of square
5 footage that we are building. As I mentioned, before we are actively pursuing and drawing this
6 Tree Preservation Alternative so that we can comply with state mandates that tell us we have to
7 finish our drawings and get them permitted by the end of this year. So we have made a
8 considerable investment in this Tree Preservation Alternative after working with Staff to
9 certainly save as many trees.
10
11 Something else I should point out. The Tree Preservation Alternative saves a certain quantity of
12 trees, 13 to 15 trees. We will have that clarified obviously for the Final EIR. We are relocating
13 a significant number of the other trees that are being disturbed. So we will excavate them, box
14 them, hold them, and then replant them in our landscaping plan. So we are taking a considerable
15 amount of effort to relocate trees that are in the path of construction.
16
17 Commissioner Tanaka: I think that is the responsible thing to do, so thank you. Actually, before
18 you leave, I thought because we are losing one building footprint I thought you would actually
19 save some money here, because you are adding it to the heights of the building. You are saying
20 the cost would be about the same?
21
22 Mr. Tortorich: It would be about the same because really the costs obviously are in the square
23 footage that you are constructing. So the square footage didn't change at all, and within a
24 hospital building there is a significant cost in the medical equipment and the information
25 technology that goes into it, and again that wouldn't change because the square footage has not
26 changed.
27
28 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you.
29
30 Chair Garber: I have no real comments on this item other than to recognize that this seems like a
31 natural outcome of the development of the design and all of the objectives continue to be met in
32 a slightly more efficient way, and has two apparent benefits. One, it saves some trees, and two it
33 reduces the footprint.
34
35 So with that let's go to the Historic Preservation Alternative. Commissioners, does anyone have
36 comments on that? Commissioner Tanaka.
37
38 Commissioner Tanaka: I have just a quick comment. I kind of said this earlier. I think what is
39 historically significant about the Stone Building isn't so much the way it looks but it is what
40 happened inside. I think what would be more important is to actually allow these new kind of
41 procedures or discoveries to be made. So I think having the research facilities that enable that I
42 think is far better in recognizing the historic significance of this building versus the way it looks.
43 So that is my comment. Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
46
Page 44 0/76
1 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question for Stanford. Please. Thank you. Can you tell me if
2 Memorial Chapel is on the City's list of historic sites?
3
4 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know. It is in the County of Santa Clara. It is not in the City of Palo Alto
5 so I don't know that it would be on a City list.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Does it meet current P AUSD building code?
8
9 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: I am sorry, not P AUSD, Palo Alto City code or current County code?
12
13 Mr. Tortorich: I will look to nly colleagues at the University. I am not familiar with the design
14 standards of tlt.e University buildings themselves. I know it was damaged in the Lorna Prieta
15 Earthquake and hadto go through a significant seismic retrofit. So it probably meets the
16 applicable codes at the time of post Lorna Prieta.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: Would that be true for the buildings on the quad also? I would venture
19 to guess they don't meet current code.
20
21 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know. I honestly don't know.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: The reason I am asking that is earlier you talked about tearing·down
24 the buildings and replacing them because they don't meet code .. I am wondering if it is
25 appropriate to have a different standard in different locations because one particular building is
26 not desirable anymore. Whether the historic qualities, the events, the aesthetics trump that, and
27 whether it warrants working around and putting classrooms or other facilities that wouldn't have
28 as tough demands on the facility. I would be curious for your thoughts on that.
29
30 Mr. Tortorich: Let me clarify. We are not demolishing the buildings because they don't meet
3"1 code. If I said that I said that in error. We are denlolishing the buildings because they don't fit
32 our needs and the cost of retrofitting these buildings to accommodate even the City of Palo
33 Alto's earthquake standards are extraordinary for two reasons. One, just the physical
34 restructuring of the buildings to accommodate earthquake forces, they are tremendously
35 disruptive interventions that we have to make to the structure. Two, to make those disruptive
36 interventions to the structure we actually have to move everybody out of the building. So for the
37 School of Medicine as we have talked about with this replacement plan we have 420,000 square
38 feet more or less of medical research labs that have to continue to function. How do we relocate
39 those research labs while we restructure a 1959 structure to accommodate current earthquake
40 safety codes, and accommodate all the technology that is necessary to support modem research
41 labs? It is an equation that just doesn't work.
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So I guess where I am going, maybe I didn't make it clear, is
44 why do those buildings have to be retrofitted for labs or hospital uSe? Can they not be used for
45 purposes of the hospital, of the Medical Center that don't require that high level of retrofitting?
46 Other buildings on campus are not always brought up to code. Why do the 1959 structures have
Page 45 0/76
1 to comply with Palo Alto Building Code? Why can't they remain and be repurposed in some
2 way that is useful and beneficial, but not be brought up to code?
3
4 Mr. Tortorich: So the code level analysis done for the Stone Building was not to meet any
5 extraordinary requirements of hospital buildings. It was to meet the basic life-safety criteria of
6 safe buildings. So we consider these buildings long-term not to be safe. Not for a long-tenll
7 occupancy. We would derelict in our fiduciary responsibilities if we didn't undertake a
8 replacement strategy.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So is that the same test that is used on other campus buildings?
11 Are there long-term plans to teardown campus buildings that are not currently safe?
12
13 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know that for a fact. I know there are some campus buildings that have
14 been shuttered since the Loma Prieta Earthquake and are not being occupied. I know that the
15 campus through its construction efforts on campus has tom down a number of buildings. I don't
16 know if they tore them down for code reasons or for other reasons, but there has been quite
1 7 . regeneration of facilities on the main campus.
18
19 I have worked ina lot of other environments. The Stone Buildings are very vulnerable. They
20 have varying degrees of vulnerability, but they are very vulnerable. I have had an awful lot of
21 consultation with our structural engineers who have analyzed the buildings, and their advice to
22 me was you need a long-term replacement strategy. These buildings long-term are not safe.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you.
25
26 Mr. Tortorich: Okay.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Keller.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Just digressing a tiny bit. What makes the Stanford campus unique, and
31 particularly the Memorial Chapel is Stanford White's design. Those buildings surely need to be
32 preserved with regard to their historic significance.
33
34 With regard to the hospital, the hospital is a whole other kettle of fish. I think what is important
35 here is we need to have clarity on the process for determining whether these buildings are
36 historic resources or not, and their significance in terms of being eligible for either the State
37 Historic Register or the National Register, and whether in fact Edward Durell Stone's design is
38 reaching the threshold of something like Stanford White. For those of you that don't know,
39 Edward Durell Stone did design this building but I don't think there is anything significant about
40 this building. Well, it had a lot of construction flaws in it to begin with that had to be fixed. In
41 addition to that it really is a dumb-down version of the General Motors building which is a very
42 significant building in New York City.
43
44 I think what is important here with regard to the University Hospital and Edward Durell Stone's
45 design is trying to get a handle on two things. Number one is its significance, which I went
46 through. Number two, what the process will be for determining that. I think that whether it is
Page 46of76
1 done by our Palo Alto Historic Resources Board with a recommendation to the City Council or
2 whether it goes directly to the City Council. I don't have the basis on which I can make those
3 findings. I think that our Historic Resources Board is better equipped for making those findings.
4 Based on your preliminary investigation or the hearing that you had earlier today it sounds like
5 the Historic Resources Board, which has architects on it, was beginning to finally wrestle with
6 the whole issue of whether there really needs to be some sort of Statement of Overriding
7 Consideration. I think that with that this whole section as to whether Historic Preservation
8 Alternative is appropriate or not is going to either meet the light of day or wind up being just
9 another chapter in the EIR.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioner, would it be helpful perhaps to ask the historic consultants to give
12 us a brief overview of the historic value of the Stone Building and perhaps the Hoover Pavilion?
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: Sure.
15
16 Chair Garber: Especially if they are here. If you would introduce yourself. Can you tell us
1 7 approximately how long this might take? Three minutes or something like that?
18
19 Mr. Charles Chase, Director of Planning, Architectural Resources Group: We can be as brief as
20 you would like us to be. We will be very brief.
21
22 Chair Garber: Give it a shot.
23
24 Mr. Chase: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Charles Chase. I am the Director of
25 Planning for Architectural Resources Group. With me is Jodi Stock the Architectural Historian
26 who has prepared the information for the Draft EIR. Jodi will tell you about the findings of
27 significance and the criteria that was used to make those findings.
28
29 Ms. Jodi Stock, Architectural Historian, Architectural Resources Group: So we conducted
30 research. Actually, .we did a peer review of an evaluation that was prepared by Stanford. We
31 evaluated based on the California Register criteria. We found it eligible under -there are four
32 criteria. The fourth one has to do primarily with archeological resources, so didn't look at that
33 one asmuch. We found the building significant for criterion one and these are similar to the
34 National Register criteria. So criterion one is association with an important event. In this case it
35 was the first heart transplant in the United States.
36
37 Under criterion B it was for the association of Dr. Norman Shumway who did the transplant. So
38 that is A and B.
39
40 C was as the work of Edward Durell Stone, and it was·a very pivotal period in his architectural
41 design development. Does that help?
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: It does. Sounds like the hospital needs a coronary bypass.
44
45 Chair Garber: I think it is getting a replacement, actually. What about the Hoover Pavilion?
46 Did you do an evaluation of the Hoover Pavilion as well?
Page 47 of 76
1
2 Ms. Stock: That was in the original evaluation and they found it to be a resource for architecture,
3 and we concurred with that finding.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: I have a follow up on that.
6
7 Chair Garber: Please.
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: I want to go back to the Stone Building for just a moment if I might.
10 There are also other criteria that come into play, which is number one, the materials that the
11 building has been constructed out of and whether those have been impacted in any way. It is the
12 deterioration of the building, how much of the building has been modified from its original
13 pristine original design. Then there are also other aspects to it which are that as I think Stanford
14 had indicated previously that it really doesn't make today's seismic standards. Can that also be a
15 consideration? I think a really good example of that is falling water, is falling down, and they
16 had to basically rebuild the entire thing because it is deteriorating from the inside out.
17
18 Ms. Stock: You are correct. So to be eligible for the California Register or the National Register
19 you have to have significance, which is the criteria I described. You also have to have integrity.
20 There are seven aspects of integrity. I won't go through them all but materials are one of them.
21 So we did look at and went through each of the aspects of integrity and determined whether we
22 thought that it had sufficient integrity. The test is whether it has sufficient integrity to convey the
23 reasons for its significance, and we felt it did.
24
25 As far as the current uses, or the current purposes really we are limited to the criteria for
26 significance and integrity and that is pretty much it.
27
28 Ms. Silver: Commissioner Lippert, if I could just add one clarification here. For purposes of
29 CEQA if a building is considered eligible for the California Register or the National Register for
30 CEQA purposes it needs to be considered historic. So the EIR does deem the Stone Building and
31 the Hoover building historic.
32
33 Then if the City does approve this project there will have to be a Statement of Overriding
34 Considerations.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: I guess what I am trying to get at is the clarity in the process. I think in
37 my line of questioning in the very beginning it is not very clear, because it is not on the City's
38 Historic Register but it is identified in the Draft EIR, and what the process of that would be in
39 temlS of its removal. I think it is important to us and it is important to Stanford.
40
41 Ms. Silver: Yes, and for CEQA purposes there are several different triggers for designating a
42 building as historic. One is that it is on the City's Historic Inventory. That is not present here so
43 we look at other factors. ARG has determined that it is eligible for the Registry and so under
44 CEQA we do consider it historic and the EIR analyzes it that way.
45
Page 48 of 76
1 In tenns of whether the HRB needs to approve the demolition, at this point it does not because
2 the HRB only needs to approve buildings that are on the Inventory. So because this building is
3 not on the Inventory that particular process is not available under the City's Historic Preservation
4 Ordinance.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
7
8 Chair Garber: Con1ll1issioner Keller and then Martinez.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So first of all I had the pleasure of spending about 20 years
11 of my life on the Stanford campus both as a grad student and then subsequently as a researcher. I
12 notice that a lot of buildings had been rebuilt on campus and particular care was taken to build
13 the buildings that comprise the quadrangle. In particular I for a number of years had an office in
14 what was called Building 460 Margaret Jacks Hall, which is an original quadrangle building that
15 was rebuilt from the internal and kept the exterior. Maybe it was raised a floor, I am not sure. In
16 any event that obviously has particular significance.
17
18 On the other hand a lot of other buildings on campus like the ERL and other buildings like that
19 which may have had significant things happen there were not deemed nearly as historic and have
20 subsequently been replaced by buildings with morelasting value for thy University and I would
21 certainly say architecturally. Alot of the buildings that were built in the 1930s, and 1940s, and
22 1950s were not of lasting beauty I woulcl. say. The University has the benefit that there are lots
23 of departments and you can shuffle them around in order to be able to when you do one building
24 if you have surplus space you can move departments around from building to building, and it is a
25 lot easier to do. Although there tend to be zones on campus where Engineering is, where
26 Sciences are, where Humanities are, and Arts, etc.
27
28 With respect to the School of Medicine they are sort of clustered around so it would be
29 somewhat awkward to say classroom buildings in the S.ton~ Bl!i1ding and move the School of
30 Medicine elsewhere because there are no classrooms right near there. You might put biology
31 classrooms there but what else would you put there? It would be kind of awkward. So because
32 of the siting and the distances there is sonle issue about what kinds of things you might put there.
33 It is sort of one of these jigsaw puzzles where you are replacing things in phases, and you are
34 trying to keep the hospital and trying to keep the school available. I understand that is a tricky
35 situation.
36
37 I do think that there are other things that we can think about in tenns of preservation. I
38 mentioned earlier the idea of creating scale models and that. I also think the idea of considering
39 that the School of Medicine sort of has as part of its logo the motif of the Edward Durell Stone
40 Building in tenns of how that square goes with the rectangles and the square in the middle that
41 that motifbe somehow carried forward into the new hospital. Maybe as a pattern on the floor, in
42 tenns of walkways and things like that, in tenns of tile patterns and things like that that might
43 bring those echoes back in tenns of the new building. I think that one of the interesting things is
44 what is the value of retrofitting the building based on, and how hard it is to retrofit a building.
45 My impression is that it is quite expensive and difficult to retrofit the Stone Buildings, and if
46 they were retrofit they, from what I am hearing, would be of limited value in tenns of their future
Page 49 of 76
1 use for the purposes of the objectives of the project. So that is the situation where they become
2 hard in tenns of meeting the objectives.
3
4 If I might go briefly to a comment about the lopping off of one story. One comment about that is
5 that the mention of specific number of beds is not an objective. Their objective is about meeting
6 quality of service, and adequate whatever, but those are qualitative in that particular sense rather
7 than quantitative. So with respect to this which I guess would reduce about 25 percent of the bed
8 space approximately of the Stanford Hospital, and none of the Lucile Packard Children's
9 Hospital the question I would like to know, and I am notsure if anybody else would, how well
10 that kind of reduction meets the objectives, and how well it reduces the other impacts. That 'was
11 my intent there. I don't think you can arbitrarily say it doesn't meet the objective. It might meet
12 the objectives somewhat less well than the full project. But it might reduce for example
13 intersection impacts to less than significant because that is a thresholding effect. It might make
14 some significant impact in reductions of greenhouse gases or things like that. So I think in some
15 sense an evaluation of that as a specific design could help. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: I come at this historic preservation option from a couple of different
20 directions. One is that I was a great fan of Edward Durell Stone. Growing up in LA I saw a lot
21 of his buildings going up and really got to appreciate probably the greatest part of his career. So
22 I don't really quite understand this sort of this building being at a pivotal stage and what that
23 means. Does it mean this is a good building or mediocre, or he was on a downer? I do recognize
24 that the building has substantial structural issues to it. Structural I am really saying in two ways.
25 One that I know that the exterior walls and the floors of the building are not really tied together,
26 kind of constructed in an odd way, which is to public safety really a disaster waiting to happen. I
27 know from visiting the hospital many, many times that this very horizontality of the building
28 really doesn't work for anything. It doesn't work for the clinics. It definitely doesn't work for
29 the patient and hospital areas. Hospitals just are not built this way anymore. To suggest that
30 there is a reasonable retrofit plan that works for healthcare in this building really I believe are
31 sort of out of touch with the kind of realities that Stanford is faced with.
32
33 From another direction I see it not as a significant or historical resource, because it might be and
34 I appreciate the consultant's analysis of that. I see it as we see most buildings that are part of our
35 community as just something familiar that we have known, that we each have some sense of
36 . history like my mother died in that building. So it means something to me. Does it mean that
37 the building should remain standing and Stanford should go to Herculean lengths to try to
38 salvage it? I am not really sure about that. I kind of doubt it.
39
40 I am a big fan of preservation, as I said of Stone. I got to work on a great fun Stone building, the
41 Seaside City Hall, which I really enjoyed and respected. I don't feel that kind of passion about
42 this building. I think we have some bigger, bigger objectives to try to support in moving this
43 project along. Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then let's move onto our last Alternative.
46
Page 50 of 76
1 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to say that I think without a doubt it can't be argued that
2 Edward Durell Stone has a legacy in this city. The first City Hall and the Art Center was built by
3 him, the main library, the Stanford Medical Center, and this City Hall. So he does have a
4 significant legacy in this city in terms of character defining buildings within this city.
5
6 I am just thinking about something though that I had seen while on vacation in Europe. In
7 Europe they have a great history of preserving buildings, and particularly building fayades. The
8 way they do it is they build a steel structure and they support the fayade. They demolish the
9 building virtually in its entirety and then they build a brand new building behind that fayade that
10 is then tied in. Then they remove the steel armature. So perhaps in reviewing the analysis in the
11 Draft EIR is to look at the potential of retaining the fayade and with Stanford's double-walled
12 concept of having a building inside of a building and non-operable windows that very well nlight
13 work in terms of retaining at least the fayade of the building at as a workable approach.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you for another follow up. This Historic Preservation
18 Alternative as it is is almost a nonstarter because the way it is defined, preservation means the
19 objectives of the project are not nlet and that is a false choice. Is there a reason the DEIR doesn't
20 analyze an historic preservation alternative that both preserves the historic structures, if it is
21 found they should be preserved, and meets the objectives of the hospital? I am not sure I
22 understand why we defined that the choice has to be made between preservation and meeting the
23 objectives of the project. That means that the conclusion is there is no preservation. So should
24 there be an alternative with a different design that nleets the preservation objectives and the
25 objectives of the facility?
26
27 Chair Garber: Alright, let's move to our last Alternative, the Village Concept. I am going to ask
28 the first question here. On Figure 5-5, the Village Concept Urban Design Diagram that is in the
29 DEIR I note that there are brown lines that represent urban street and building frontages that are
30 going down Quarry Road. Is the suggestion there that the zoning change to define that buildings
31 occur at that line, at that urban street? What is actually being suggested there?
32
33 Mr. Bruce Fukuji, Consultant: Good evening Commissioners. So what that line is really trying
34 to say is Quarry Road as an arterial street has the traffic volume and width and location to have a
35 more urban street frontage along that. So it is saying the intention there is to orient buildings and
36 entrances of buildings to Quarry Road, without specifying exactly sort of setbacks, and heights,
37 and other characteristics.
38
39 Chair Garber: That sort of specification would come later in the process presumably?
40
41 Mr. Fukuji: The applicant's design guidelines that they have as part of the application covers the
42 details of how that would be accomplished.
43
44 Chair Garber: Okay. I don't believe we have seen those, right? It has not come before us. It
45 has been apart of the ARB. Okay. I have lights from Commissioner Lippert and then Tanaka.
46
Page 51 0[76
1 Commissioner Lippert: I am going to have to pass for the nloment. I have an emergency.
2
3 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Tanaka and then Fineberg.
4
5 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. Actually, I do have some follow up on the Chair's
6 questions. It is on Figure 5-4 and I notice that there are lines here, red lines that show some
7 darker red lines and some lighter red lines. What is the difference between the light red lines and
8 dark red lines?
9
10 Chair Garber: That is on the same diagram, 5-5?
11
12 Commissioner Tanaka: No, 5-4.
13
14 Chair Garber: I am sorry.
15
16 Comnlissioner Tanaka: There are lighter ones and darker ones.
17
18 Mr. Fukuji: The difference is that the lighter dashed lines are part of the School of Medicine's
19 campus planning but they are not really part of the project application in terms of types of
20 connections. So it is showing the context of what is going on and the spaces and the connectivity
21 of spaces of how the School of~edicine as part of the campus planning relates to the project.
22
23 So the project areas are the ones that have the darker lines. Those are relationships that the
24 project and how it is being designed can influence the characteristics of those connections, as
25 opposed to the lighter ones, which are already part of existing campus planning.
26
27 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Then I have a question for our attorney. I notice that some of the
28 Village Concept area is in areas that is County land not Palo Alto land. So can we actually make
29 restrictions or have requirements as part of this project on County land that is not in the city?
30
31 Ms. Silver: It would have to be probably through the Developnlent Agreement. Certainly the
32 housing units would have to be a negotiated term in the Development Agreement. There are
33 portions of this project that do plan to be annexed and that is something that also could be
34 explored.
35
36 Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so perhaps maybe perhaps annexed or the Development
37 Agreement would, I see.
38
39 Can Staff tell us how the study area was selected for this? Does anyone know?
40
. 41 Chair Garber: Yes, perhaps our consultant can help us out. That was discussed about a year and
42 a half ago or so, but a refresher would be helpful.
43
44 Mr. Fukuji: The history of the project is that when the Staff and the City initiated exploring the
45 Village Concept at that time the project sponsors had two different projects. You had the
46 Stanford University Medical Center campus project, the Hoover project is the medical projects,
Page 52 of76
1 and then you had the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center. So when the scope or the
2 boundary of the Village Concept was defmed it was looking at how those two projects could be
3 planned and considered comprehensively together. So in light of that that defined the overall
4 boundary. That is why it goes from San Francisquito Creek and then all the way over
5 encompassing El Camino Park, the transit station, and then along the boundaries of the area that
6 Stanford has defined in the Medical Center plan as the boundaries of their Medical Center
7 planning area. So it took that boundary, two projects, and then took it to the creek, and then up
8 to Downtown.
9
10 Commissioner Tanaka: So given that this is only the medical project now would you still keep
11 the boundaries the same?
12
13 Mr. Fukuji: Yes.
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. I notice that some of the recommended areas are actually on very
16 busy streets like El Camino or Sand Hill Road. So maybe Staff or our consultants can answer,
1 7 was it thought to have this pure residential or to go mixed use, or what was the idea behind that?
18 I know there is the number of units but is it intended to also have say retail on the bottom for
19 instance for a mixed use design? Especially given that some of this is on very, very busy streets.
20
21 Mr. Turner: I believe the housing that is recommended for the site would be 100 percent
22 residential housing.
23
24 Commissioner Tanaka: I would make the comment then that I think given that these are
25 especially busy streets that we actually do have some sort of mixed use. Thank you.
26
27 Chair Garber: Commissioners, Commissioner Lippert is probably going to have to leave us here
28 quickly. I would like to give him an opportunity to speak to this, and ifhe has any other
29 comments that he would like to make before he goes.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: I am very intrigued by the Village Concept Alternative. I think that it
32 has a lot of potential here. With regard to that I wanted to ask a couple of questions on the
33 proximity to transit. Earlier I think it was both cited in Stanford's presentation as well as the
34 Draft EIR that the additional I guess it is the spousal jobs would add to the transit both
35 congestion in tenns of added traffic so we are not having a net gain in terms of being able to
36 reduce our carbon footprint as much as we think we are, and this is actually making things a little
37 more intense. Can you clarify that a little bit, Bruce?
38
39 Mr. Fukuii: I think there are really two parts to the answer to this question. So I think Dennis
40 should also respond to this. The intent here is that you want to take advantage of the opportunity
41 of having commuter rail transit station in the Downtown Palo Alto Intermodal Station by
42 increasing density and mix of use in proximity to the station. In locating housing there and
43 encouraging housing in that location even if it is employee housing has spouses who are going to
44 be there also having their own travel pattenls. Having it located adjacent to transit increases the
45 probability or likelihood that they would have the opportunity to use transit to travel to wherever
Page 53 0/76
1 their other employment opportunities are. So it is a good location for locating housing for doing
2 that.
3
4 As to the confounding factors as to the calculation as to what the total net trip benefits are I am
5 going to let Dennis respond to that part of the question.
6
7 Mr. Struecker: There are two components to the traffic. By concentrating the employee housing
8 in this immediate are we are taking ten households from Mountain View, and ten from
9 Sunnyvale, and ten from Redwood City, and ten from Santa Clara, and wherever they are coming
10 from and concentrating them here. So if they are disbursed around where the existing employees
11 are disbursed the impact of the spousal trips is really not measurable on the study area we are
12 looking at. But if you concentrate them in this are then they are. That is why we did trip one
13 more intersection impact by concentrating the spousal trips in this immediate area.
14
15 We did take a reduction though for TOD as Bruce was mentioning. So the spousal trips are only
16 creating about 50 percent of what they would create without the effect of TOD. So we do have
17 that one other impact. The main benefit is a reduction in VMT because now we have the
18 employees that are no longer driving to work, and we have the spouses that are only 50 percent
19 driving to work, and the other 50 percent are on transit. So it is about an eight percent reduction
20 is our calculations in overall VMTs. So the carbon footprint is reduced there.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Just thinking out loud here, isn't it likely though that the people
23 that are moving into these units, the spouses,would seek other jobs that might be closer to where
24 they live?
25
26 Mr. Struecker: They might. I think the average trip length, Nicole is it II? The overall Bay
27 Area average work trip is 11 miles. They might. If they currently live in Livermore and one of
28 them was commuting to the hospital they may change their location, but 11 miles still gets you
29 outside of the study area. So they are essentially going to be -going down south on EI Camino
30 Real we are only analyzing down to Arastradero/Page Mill area. So the 11 nliles on average is
31 longer than that, so they will still be traveling through all these study area intersections.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but then if we are looking at the cost of housing versus what you
34 are paying in the way of transit or gasoline miles there is a real trade-off there. So by having in
35 some ways subsidized housing or housing that is made available at a price for the Stanford
36 Medical Center, I guess their pay grade or what their income level is, would they not be looking
37 to save those dollars or invest them or do something with them? They are not at such a high pay
38 grade that they would be punlping it back into gasoline-to commute all the way out to Livermore.
39
40 Mr. Struecker: Right. We took the 50 percent reduction. Yes, we think they will take advantage
41 of the transit.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
44
45 Mr. Struecker: But still an average of an II-mile trip is going to fan them out throughout the
46 study area we looked at of essentially Palo Alto and Menlo Park and into East Palo Alto.
Page 54 0[76
1
2 Commissioner Linnert: Okay. Then on the flip side of that more and more cities are beginning
3 to implement their own Transit Demand Management programs. So let's say somebody is
4 commuting down to I'll just say Google or Yahoo! down in Mountain. Wouldn't those
5 companies be inclined to subsidize those people who are commuting from Palo Alto rather than
6 having them drive?
7
8 Mr. Struecker: Yes. So I think your point is that the 50 percent still may be high. The 50
9 percent reduction. Is that your point?
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: Yes it is.
12
13 Mr. Struecker: Then that very well could be, yes I agree.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Then again, I guess it is the last little piece to this, which is we are
16 looking at the Development Agreement including subsidized transit in the way of a Go Pass to
17· prevent people who are on staff from driving from Tracy or Livermore or wherever, and taking
18 public transit in some way, shape, or form, and that would be subsidized. Now we don't have to
19 subsidize those individuals in terms of their transit to Palo Alto because they are within the
20 Stanford environs. They can take Marguerite Shuttle.
21
22 Mr. Struecker: Yes for those 490. The thing to remember on the Go Pass is that is being given
23 to not only the new employees but the existing employees as well. So there is still a pretty big
24 universe that would need to be provided with Go Passes.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. So could we in fact take those Go Passes and apply them to the
27 spouses since those spouses are within the Stanford environs? Is that a possibility? I guess that
28 is a question for the City Attorney.
29
30 Chair Garber: Or is it something that we should just simply note and add to the evaluation?
31
32 Ms. Silver: My understanding of the Go Pass program is that it only applies to employees not
33 spouses.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but if it was made as part of the Development Agreement as a
36 mitigation could it not be applied?
37
38 Ms. Silver: We could look at some other program through the Development Agreement, yes.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner, anything else because I know you have some pressing.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: I was looking at the Alternative here and I think it is real strong. I think
45 this is something that we will see in the Final EIR. Thank you.
46
Page 55 0[76
1 Chair Garber: Okay, good luck. Commissioner Keller and then Martinez. I am sorry, we had
2 gone through Tanaka, Commissioner Fineberg I believe you were next and then Keller.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: My first questions relate to whether the DEIR properly analyzes the
5 questions that have been raised about if we put 490 employees in these houses and we are
6 deposing 490 University employees from the houses are we getting any net benefit, or are we
7 just robbing Peter to pay Paul? If the University has an entitlement for 600 homes there and that
8 has been analyzed in the GUP then have those cumulative impacts already been analyzed in the
9 DEIR without the Village Concept? Then are we double counting the impacts if they are already
lOin the baseline of the proposed project and then we are sort of adding them as a Village Concept
11 Alternative because of this project? Does it have to do with whether it is primary or secondary
12 impacts? I don't see how that all unwinds itselfin a way that I understand that it is covered. So
13 if something can be done there to bring some clarity to that.
14
15 The other question I would have relating to this is on page 5-197 it talks about the cumulative
16 impacts of the Village Concept Alternatives. As long as I have the right page cited. This is
17 something I brought up on another issue many, many meetings ago. Where it talks about ARB
18 review process of any major development ensuring that the SUMC Project will not contribute to
19 cumulative land use concept, my comment on this is same as before. The ARB has no purview
20 over land use. I do not understand how ARB review will ensure that there are no land use
21 conflicts. I would like to generalize this comment to the analysis of all of the Alternatives. Any
22 comment that says that ARB review will minimize land use conflicts needs to either be
23 reworded, or better explained, or something needs to be done where that comment occurs in any
24 or all of the Alternatives.
25
26 I am also wondering if there is any way to yield a Village Concept Alternative that has the
27 linkages and the walkways that Stanford has shown but doesn't necessarily mandate who lives in
28 the homes. It is the linkages and the walkways and the access to the transit for both the residents
29 and the folks in the hospital facilities that I believe it give it the most significance, and whether it
30 is a University employee or a medical facility employee you are going to get 490 people off the
31 roads. You are going to have 490 people yielding a vital community. You are going to build the
32 things that yield the benefits. I anl not understanding where it is better that they work for the
33 hospital than the University. Now if Stanford has absolutely zero plans of ever building that
34 housing then I understand how having the Medical Center people kind of tipping the hand to
35 force it to get built is a benefit. But if the applicant is stating that they are going to put
36 University employees there anyhow the significant thing is all those linkages and beneficial
37 things that would surround the housing. So I don't know if there is a way to get that without
38 mandating who lives in the house. Thank you.
39
40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Martinez.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First let me use this opportunity to say that one of the other
43 things I would like considered is moving the additional buildings and parking that is proposed
44 for adjacent to the Hoover Pavilion moving that either to within the project area on the Stanford
45 University Medical Center, that whole complex site, or alternatively on the outbound of Quarry
Page 56 of 76
1 Road closer to the hospital as opposed to closer to El Camino as an alternative to be considered.
2 I am not sure that is within the bounds of existing alternatives.
3
4 The second thing is it is my understanding and I will ask the appropriate people from Stanford to
5 nod appropriately whether I am correct or not. It is my understanding that Stanford Medical
6 Center employees as well as Stanford Medical Center students such as residents, interns, grad
7 students, and such are eligible for the comparable housing on campus at the appropriate rank and
8 titles that are comparable to the rest of the University. Is that correct? Do you want to respond
9 to that? Thank you.
10
11 Mr. Philips: My understanding is that the employees of the hospitals per se are not eligible for
12 the housing on campus. The persons that are eligible for the housing on campus are qualified
13 faculty and staff. So if you are a faculty member out the School of Medicine and also happen as
14 a result to work at the hospitals then you would be qualified as an individual as an employee who
15 could seek housing on campus.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: For example, when you say qualified I assume that for example on the
18 main campus that lower level administrative staff are not eligible for housing on campus in
19 general.
20
21 Mr. Philips: That is correct.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: So if you think about it by rank in some sense it might make sense.
24 Would medical grad students be eligible for the student housing on campus?
25
26 Mr. Philips: For student housing?
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Yes.
29
30· Mr. Philips: I know that we do have postdoctoral candidates and we do have some medical
31 residents living on campus. So they qualify for sonle of the graduate student housing. It is a
32 very small nUlnber.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Great. So one of the things that might be, if you will, a grand
35 , compromise in terms of these 490 units, I am not sure exactly how many, but I have heard the
36 number 490. Suppose that some number of them might be allocated to people who are currently
37 within the pools of being eligible for housing. In particular if medical residents and interns who
38 work ungodly hours and it probably is not that safe for them to go long distances, if some of the
39 housing were allocated to these groups that seems to be within the realm of where the 3,000 units
40 might be allocated. If that were to be a use that seems to be better because it is closer proximate
41 to the hospital than this being used for people who are working further away from the hospital
42 for example.
43
44 Mr. Philips: Right.
45
Page 57 0[76
1 Conlffiissioner Keller: That might enable a three-way agreement, which I will ask our City
2 Attorney to see if this is legal, between Stanford, and Palo Alto, and the County because this is
3 County jurisdiction land, to indicate that because some number, whatever we decide makes
4 sense, of housing that Stanford intends to build anyway, because I understand you intend to build
5 all 3,000 housing units. Is that right?
6
7 Mr. Philips: That was the intent. That was the request per the GUP.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Exactly, so since it is your intent to build the housing units if we allocate
10 them to these medical residents and interns who are working at the hospital essentially. They are
11 working there. Then that sort of qualifies as housing in some sense for people who are working
12 in Palo Alto. Therefore make an agreement between Stanford that that is what some amount of
13 the housing is used for, and agreement between Palo Alto, and Santa Clara County to allocate
14 these housing units to the Stanford ABAG housing allowance. Thereby in some sense we can, if
15 there are 490 for discussion sake, we can say 490 of the units that are on the Housing Element
16· are in fact on County land as far as these two sections of units are concerned. Thereby they
17 apply to our requirement for producing housing. In fact it makes sense from a jurisdiction point
18 of view because they are housing for Palo Alto workers logically. Since the County doesn't
19 really have a requirement why should it care? That will help us be able to better satisfy our
20 ABAG numbers. So I will ask the City Attorney whether that would actually be something we
21 can do?
22
23 Ms. Silver: Well, it is certainly worthwhile pursuing. It would require ABAG's approval for the
24 allocation. ABAG does allocate housing units to the County, but the County has satisfied its
25 ABAG requirements historically. So I think that it would be something that the County would
26 be interested in pursuing. It would just need to be approved by ABAG to get actual credit for
27 those units.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Is that something that Stanford might entertain?
30
31 Mr. Philips: I think Commissioner Keller the issue there IS probably whether the County feels
32 that it could entertain and additional shift of units, which it probably believes it has already made
33 in reducing the ABAG RHNA number now down to the 2,800 units. ill other words, it went
34 down simply because it was requested of the County that they reevaluate this housing including
35 the medical resident postdoctoral housing on the Quarry sites in terms of how much of that could
36 be credited to reducing the Palo Alto ABAG requirement. So they did draw those down. So in
37 essence they did make a shift if you will. I think what you are suggesting is can they make a
38 further shift, and I don't know the answer to that.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think my understanding is the reason that some of the shift
41 happened to the County is because the ABAG numbers were including Stanford employment not
42 just the employment of the hospital within Palo Alto.
43
44 Mr. Philips: That is correct.
45
Page 58 of 76
1 Commissioner Keller: So if you think about the 2,200 or 2,400 units that are being built on
2 campus for the million or two million square feet on the Stanford campus that that is what is
3 going on there. Then these 490 are not towards that so they could be towards this. Anyway, I
4 am just leaving this open. I don't think we can resolve this now but I think it is an interesting
5 thing that could be a win/win for Stanford and for Palo Alto. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: I have been a fan of this Alternative studies because I didn't really
10 stress too much on sort of whether this was the right Alternative, or if this should be more of this
11 or more of that. But given these No Project, or not very much project, or smaller hospital, or all
12 of the hospital but nothing else, or the Village Concept we could look at the impacts of that. I
13 thought that was completely useful. I think your summary of that was good.
14
15 I felt that way about this Village Concept too until I realized tonight that we may just be
16 displacing other residents that would down the road incur the same kind of impacts to the streets
17 and air quality and other aspects. If the Village Concept included 490 new housing units that
18 didn't have an attachment to another group of Stanford people that would be a breakthrough I
19 think, because I think we would then be able to assess really the cumulative impacts without
20 having to sort of wonder who is being displaced if we do this kind of thing.
21
22 So I am a little disheartened that this very promising Alternative really becomes a kind of non-
23 Alternative because it doesn't really give us what we think we are buying. So I really don't
24 know sort of where we go with this. It is a great idea. It sounds good. It is win/win because we
25 build all of the hospital facilities, but then when you look at the detail it doesn't really satisfy the
26 traffic issue for anyone. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: I have another comment and then we have Tanaka. I guess what I am about to
29 say is supporting somewhat Commissioner Martinez's comments. I looked down Table 5-8 and
30 if I look down the Inlpacts of the SUMC Project and then I look down the Village Concept
31 Alternative the impacts are identical with the one exception of stormwater generation, all the
32 way down, which is not what I was expecting to find.
33
34 Now, it may be that in fact the way that it has been defined causes that to occur. I guess the
35 other thing that that means is that if I go back to the very beginning and the Significant and
36 Unavoidable Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts where we were recognizing that at least
37 on three or four of the bullet points the Village Concept was reducing if not eliminating some of
38 the impacts regarding air pollution, during construction, during operation, and cumulative
39 emissions, and emission of greenhouse gases. But I guess what I am reading is that even with
40 the addition of the housing, or let's say that you were to take the housing out, you would still
41 have these same altern~tives because you are really just left with the SUMC Project except for
42 the linkages that are beneficial but they don't really have any impact on the issues that we are
43 trying to mitigate.
44
45 So what is the point? I guess, one of the points is that you could add it without incurring
46 additional mitigations, or incurring additional impacts that have to be mitigated. But to
Page 59 of 76
1 Commissioner Martinez's point my gosh, I would have expected there to be a quantity - I would
2 have expected to see the difference, and I am not seeing that anywhere. So either my expectation
3 was misplaced, which is one outcome, or there is something about the definition that we are not
4 taking into account here.
5
6 Yes, Commissioner Keller and then Tanaka.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: The problem Chair Garber is that summary chart is binary and what you'
9 are saying is basically that the Village Concept does not flip anything that changes a result from
10 yes to no, or from no to yes if you will. On the other hand it could make a qualitative difference
11 that could reduce the amount of some impact. So the issue for me is not so much whether you
12 eliminate an impact, make it less than significant instead of significant, but if you reduce it and it
13 is still significant is that a good thing? I think it could be.
14
15 Chair Garber: Yes, I don't mean to argue against it, because I do believe that your comment is
16 right. It does reduce it. But the binary issue here is significant and unavoidable or is it not. So it
17 doesn't flip anything from page 5-2. However, I have four choices and some of them have been
18 on Chart 5-8 it is not binary. I have actually four choices and some of them are divided further,
19 and it hasn't flipped any of those either. So where is the sensitivity? Is it really that gross?
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Well, it may be that the project has impacts so bad that you have to move
22 the needle significantly a lot in order to flip any of them. So that is what the problem is you are
23 moving the needle somewhat but you are not moving the needle enough.
24
25 Chair Garber: Yes, clearly. So at any rate that is just one comment there. it would be nice to
26 have some further explanation or exploration as to what or if there is a definitional problem there
27 that allows for less impacts to be realized along the lines that Commissioner Martinez is
28 suggesting or asking to be explored, or if in fact it really is that it does not have that sort of
29 impact on ~he project. Commissioner Tanaka.
30
31 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I have some similar comments to Commissioner Martinez
32 and Chair Garber here but from a slightly different angle. First let me start with a question to our
33 City Attorney. It is a follow up to a question I asked earlier, which is if we were to annex some
34 of this land or Stanford " was willing to annex it, how does that impact their GUP numbers? I
35 understand their concern that they have 3,000 units allocated. They have to build it. Ifit
36 becomes annexed as part of Palo Alto how does that affect their number?
37
38 Ms. Silver: Well, I can speak to some of that. I can't fully answer your question. As Mr. Philips
39 mentioned earlier there is a linkage requirement in the GUP. So to the extent they build out the
40 academic uses on the campus they have to provide housing. Some of that housing is
41 programmed for the Quarry sites. If they don't build the housing at the Quarry sites they will
42 have to build it somewhere else. I believe that there is sufficient sites on campus to satisfy the
43 linkage requirement, but we would have to look at that further.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So I guess I have a comment here. Perhaps one thing for let's
46 say the EI Camino-Quarry site that is right next to the transit center or even the TOD area
Page 60 of 76
1 district, perhaps there could be a density bonus given so that there actually can be 400 more units
2 being built than could be built before, or was already allowed by the County. So that they could
3 get their GUP numbers as well as additional numbers that could help mitigate some of the
4 housing/job imbalance. So maybe that is something that could be considered as a possible
5 mitigationJI am not sure what to call it.
6
7 Where I anl kind of going on this, and I have talked about this before, but maybe what kind of
8 makes sense near the transit center is some sort of condolhotel. I am thinking a lot of these
9 workers they live where they live not necessarily because of where they work but because they
10 know people there, they have family there, they have friends there. They may buy a small unit
11 near where they work perhaps during the workweek and live there, and rent or buy that perhaps,
12 and go back home. A condolhotel situation would allow them to perhaps rent it out during the
13 weekends when they are not there. So it gives some flexibility for the workers. I am a little bit
14 suspect of whether people move housing because of jobs. I realize that is a different issue with
15 ABAG. I think perhaps having a density bonus with some sort of condolhotel situation might
16 make a lot of sense here, especially given that as our City Manager has told us several times, that
17 residential housing, especially multifamily residential housing, costs the City money annually,
18 reoccurring forever. So I think having a hotel there would also help decrease that burden
19 because we would get some sort of hotel tax as w~l1. So perhaps the density bonus could help
20 justify the building of such a structure. So it could be a win for all parties, perhaps.
21
22 I have some other questions for Staff. Were the units contemplated here were they going to be
23 rentals or are they going to be for sale properties, or is it just units?
24
25 Chair Garber: Maybe if it were one or the other you could create a statement that we could have
26 the EIR respond to when it comes back.
27
28 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, that sounds good. I think the other thing is if there is no
29 requirement on the size of the unit, perhaps the units could be quite small, studio size or smaller.
30 I think a lot of workers would be willing to rent or buy perhaps a unit near work that they could
31 stay in part-tinle during the workweek, as I said earlier. So that is another consideration. It
32 wouldn't have the same massing as let's say a three-bedroom condo would have. So I think that
33 is another possibility. You would have a high density of units but not necessarily a lot of square
34 footage.
35
36 With that thought in mind we actually had a project here under our review earlier for senior
37 housing. One thing I noticed about the senior housing is that the units are very, very small. In
38 fact one of the recommended housing sites on Sand Hill Road near Pasteur Drive perhaps that
39 would be an ideal location for high-density senior housing. They don't need very, very large
40 units it is basically just a room, and it could satisfy a lot of the ABAG numbers. Of course it
41 wouldn't help the jobs/housing imbalance but it would certainly help reduce I think traffic
42 between maybe a place where they may need medical attention and a place where they give
43 medical attention. I think it would be very attractive to a lot of seniors who may have health
44 problems. So that is another possibility.
45
Page 61 0[76
1 Overall, I think anything that is near these high traffic areas should have some sort of mixed use.
2 Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's take a two-minute break and then let's try and get through
5 Mitigations and anything else in 30 minutes or so. I apologize for the lateness of hour everyone.
6 Let's take a two-minute break and then we will reconvene.
7
8 Let's talk about Mitigations first, and perhaps we can do that quickly. Then I would like to get
9 to a point where we talk about our proceedings here and see if we can give, either through some
10 straw poll or some simple head nods from the Commissioners, on the Alternatives and/or bits
11 and pieces of the Alternatives that we believe have the most viability for pursuit, if I can say that
12 in a very general way. So Commissioner Keller, Mitigations.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First I would like a straw poll if I n1ay on the Commissions sense
15 that Go Passes are a feasible but not necessarily adequate mitigation for transportation impacts.
16
1 7 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I think a head no<:1 is all we need here. Is there general support
18 for that?
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Feasible but not necessarily adequate. This has to do with Appendix E,
21 that attachment there. So it turns out that I understand that the City Attorney has said that this
22 would be helpful for us to make such a statement.
23
24 Chair Garber: Just for clarification here, if I have read it correctly as well as understood the
25 Attorney's comments the City would probably look to pursuing that with the applicants not
26 through the CEQA document but the Development Agreement as the tool there. Is that correct?
27
28 Ms. Silver: There are a variety of ways to pursue that. One is the Development Agreement, and
29 one would be a condition of approval through the entitlement process. Ultimately what the City
30 needs to make a finding on is whether that particular Mitigation is in fact feasible.
31
32 Chair Garber: Well I for one an1 in general agreement with that. Commissioners? Fineberg.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: I would agree that the Go Passes are feasible as a mitigation measure.
35 If we are sort of doing this as a group, I would like a little bit of a clarification about whether the.
36 comment of 'not necessarily adequate,' does that mean we are not commenting on the adequacy
37 or is that traveling into the 'it is inadequate?'
38
39 Chair Garber: I suspect all that we really need to give here are some comments that are directed
40 to this.
41
42 Ms. Silver: That is correct.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
45
Page 62 of 76
1 Commissioner Keller: Firstly, I think that I don't take the statement that the Go Passes are
2 necessarily part of the Development Agreement and not part of the CEQA process. In particular,
3 if they are part of the CEQA process then they are considered a mitigation. So the intent of my
4 statement is that they could be considered a CEQA mitigation for transportation or they could be
5 handled as part of the Development Agreement if that is desired, but this is certainly eligible for
6 a CEQA mitigation.
7
8 Chair Garber: Right, we are recognizing that the City may take a flexible approach but in
9 general the concept here is using the Go Pass to mitigate traffic impacts.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Yes, it is a mitigation and whether it is a CEQA mitigation or not is a
12 decision to be made later, but that it is a feasible mitigation for some of the transportation
13 impacts.
14
15 Chair Garber: Conunissioner Fineberg.
16
1 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. So I believe then Commissioner Keller didn't comment
18 about our statement that it is not necessarily adequate. We are not stating that it is an inadequate
19 mitigation. We are simply not commenting on the adequacy now.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: What I am saying is that it mayor may not be adequate but that we are
22 not saying that it is. That is correct.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: . Okay, thank you. I would also like to add the comment that its
25 feasibility at the present time is obviously contingent on the continued existence of Caltrain,
26 which is not 100 percent certainty.
27
28 Chair Garber: CommisSioner Martinez.
29
30 Commissioner Martinez: In the summary Table S-4 I think the Go Passes are listed seven times
31 under Air Quality Mitigation, Traffic Mitigation, and other things. It just seems we are putting a
32 lot of eggs in one basket, or as Commissioner Fineberg says, something we don't know in ten, or
33 15 years is even going to be there. I am not sort of comfortable saying it is feasible. I want it to
34 work obviously. I want other mitigations as well. .
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka, any comments on that?
37
38 Commissioner Tanaka: In general, it seems like the Go Pass is a reasonable mitigation. Whether
39 it is sufficient or not, I don't know, but it does seen1 reasonable.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, something else for us to consider?
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First of all, my understanding is from reading this is that there is
44 need for having a mitigation monitoring process to make sure that the n1itigations are in fact
45 adequate. So if the mitigations are not adequate then presumably additional steps would need to
46 be taken appropriately. Therefore what we are simply saying is throw this in the mix and see
Page 63 0/76
1 how well it works. It is in the foreseeable future, subject to various decisions by other bodies
2 that we cannot evaluate, seems to be feasible.
3
4 The other mitigations I would like to refer to is Mitigation PH-3.1, which is on page 3.13-19.
5 Let me get that. First of all let me say what this is. It is reduce the impacts on the jobs to
6 employed residents ratio. That is the item, and the first bullet under it is the City shall explore
7 amending the zoning code to permit more residential uses particularly multifamily uses. There
8 are two problems with this. Firstly this is something the City is doing and there are secondary
9 impacts from doing that, and it is not clear that Stanford is responsible for those secondary
10 impacts. Secondly, this is a separate process the City is doing independently of this. So I would
11 suggest actually striking this item. To the extent that Palo Alto does this it should be considered
12 mitigation for Palo Alto's ownjob/housing ratio and not as a result of Stanford's additional
13 contributions to the jobs/housing ratio.
14
15 The next point is if you take a look at TR -7.2, which is on pages 3.4-80 through 81. It says
16 provide expanded transit service. I can understand the idea of Marguerite Shuttle and the
17 u-Line. Certainly those are very direct to this. In terms of the cross-town shuttle and the VT A
18 community bus service those are not quantified in terms of what that means. I guess there is a
19 dollar amount. Is that dollar amount a one-time fee or is that an ongoing fee? It is not clear how
20 much this would be and the long-term impact of that. In terms of the community bus service
21 presumably that would be an ongoing cost. So I would like to have this more clarified and
22 quantified to understand what this means.
23
24 What is interesting is in terms of Menlo Park bus shuttle that is actually clearly an annual
25 amount. So it is interesting to me that the next one I am going to make is that in terms of this
26 Menlo Park being part of San Mateo County has a stricter policies in terms of paying for annual
27 shuttle fees, as opposed to what Palo Alto seems to be which is maybe one shot deals as opposed
28 to annual recurring fees.
29
30 In addition, as was mentioned in Attachment E the C/CAG, the City/County Association of
31 Governments for San Mateo County has a policy that if you have additional 100 net trips that
32 you mitigate all the trips, which is much more strict than Palo Alto has and Santa Clara County
33 has, although there is a no new net trips requirement for the Stanford GUP. When we get to this
34 part of the Comprehensive Plan I think we should evaluate whether it makes sense to adopt the
35 kind of policies that Menlo Park and San Mateo County have.
36
37 Two final issues. One is as a potential mitigation or perhaps as a potential public benefit the
38 consideration of including in the OSHPD certified complex, the hospital which is very strong,
39 built to very high standards, those standards are likely to be the standards to which a public
40 safety building would have to satisfy. So the idea of putting in the 911 dispatch center there,
41 making some space available for the 911 dispatch center so that would survive an earthquake. It
42 would be unfortunate for during the earthquake and the hospital were still standing but the 911-
43 dispatch center was not usable. Although you could somehow get help, if you can get help you
44 can get to the hospital, but you can't get the help you need to get there. So that is unfortunate.
45
Page 64 0[76
1 Then finally, as I mentioned the last time or a time or two ago, I think that an interesting
2 mitigation for the greenhouse gas impacts is for Stanford in general, collectively the University,
3 to collaborate with Palo Alto for Stanford to use its wonderful expertise in this area to help Palo
4 Alto reduce both the city's residents and the businesses greenhouse gas impact since there is the
5 idea that we have to reduce our greenhouse gas impact over time, and with the hospital sort of
6 bringing us the other way by increasing its greenhouse gas impact somehow working with Palo
7 Alto or working in terms of the Stanford Industrial Park, or Stanford Research Park that
8 collaboration to try to reduce greenhouse gases overall I think would be fruitful. I think would
9 be a win/win mitigation that would be very cost effective. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioners, anyone else? I have one regarding the bullet point on emission
12 of greenhouse gases on 5-2. A reminder that one of the consultants from PBS&J who is the
13 climate change expert from Los Angeles, I am not remembering his name, had mentioned the
14 possibility of Palo Alto qualifying its Green Ordinance as a way to help mitigate some of those
15 issues .. I don't know what is involved with that but I think that would be a very interesting way
16 of utilizing that ordinance if that can help us. Commissioner Fineberg.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: On the Staff Report page 2-8 it states that one of the objectives of the
19 City of Palo Alto is to "address project induced school impacts not mitigated by school impact
20 fees." So thinking about mitigations, which Alternative satisfies this objective? I should say
21 which Alternatives satisfy this objective, and which Alternatives do not? Where is it analyzed in
22 the DEIR, or is it analyzed?
23
24 Then if we do a Village Concept Alternative with 490 additional homes has the DEIR analyzed
25 the impacts on PAUSD of additional students? The impacts on Public Facilities and all other·
26 impacts caused by the growth? Has that been handled appropriately? If we do have the 490
27' folks from the University versus coming in the GUP does that change anything of whether they
28 are considered primary impacts or secondary, or tertiary that don't require mitigations?
29
30 Chair Garber: Anything?
31
32 Comnlissioner Fineberg: I am sorry. A procedural question if I could. We are also going to be
33 discussing orphaned items from other elements. Should I hold those for later?
34
35 Chair Garber: Yes, let's hold those and see if we can get through the mitigations, and then we
36 will do that. Commissioner Tanaka.
37
38 Comnlissioner Tanaka: I was going to talk about my thoughts on the Alternatives in terms of
39 trying to get a straw poll on that, but if you want to do that later let's do that later then.
40
41 Chair Garber: Well, I think we may be there. Commissioner Martinez, anything on mitigations?
42 One to follow up, Commissioner Keller.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Yes. If the 490 units are part of the 3,000 units already part of the
45 Stanford 2000 GUP, then it is my understanding that the impacts for schools were mitigated by
46 "the $10 million payment by Stanford collectively for Stanford West and the 3,000 units towards
Page 65 0/76
1 the reopening of Terman. That was a payment that was in excess of the amount that P AUSD
2 gets in terms of standard housing. impact Jees, and is quite generous in comparison to what any
3 other housing developer has done in Palo Alto ever in the history.
4.
5 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Tanaka, why don't you start off with the Alternatives?
6
7 Commissioner Tanaka: O~ay. The Altenlative that I thought made a lot of sense was the Tree
8 Preservation Altenlative with the linkages from the Village Concept Alternative. I do agree that
9 having the Village Concept Alternative without actually having more housing is just taking
10 housing from one place and putting it in another doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if that is
11 what is happening. So I think maybe something with some sort of bonus density for a
12 condolhotel, as I mentioned earlier, makes a lot of sense. I would love to hear my fellow
13 Commissioners' thoughts on that and what they had in mind in terms of Altenlatives. Thank
14 you.
15
16 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Commissioner Keller.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Well I had suggested two things. One is considering the Alternative of a
19 variation between Reduced Intensity Altenlative B and one of the full size alternatives, namely a
20 reduction of approximately 25 percent of the rooms corresponding to lopping off one floor of the
21 hospital. I am not sure if that -that is a particular quantified kind of design and scope and could
22 be relatively easily accomplished in the timeframe, and could be studied in a quantified way as
23 condressant with the qualified way that Reduced Alternative B currently has.
24
25 Ms. Silver: Chair Garber, excuse nle. I think if I could just clarify here. In terms of looking at
26 the Altenlatives what would be most helpful for Staff is again in the Alternative Analysis what
27 the EIR does is look at the impacts that cannot be mitigated through mitigation measures. If
28 there is a need further, after imposing mitigation measures, if there is still a residual impact then
29 the Alternatives look at other ways to mitigate that impact. Again, we have mentioned that an
30 Alternative should advance most of the Project Objectives. So it would be most helpful if you
31 could zero in on the particular impacts that hav~ been identified in the EIR and then we can
32 assess whether there is further need for Alternative Analysis.
33
34 Again, the Alternative Analysis in the EIR is meant to try to address those impacts. There are a
35 range of alternatives in the EIR that accomplish that. So it is possible that an entirely new
36 alternative need not be analyzed but maybe your input would help in terms of clarifying some of
37 the existing Alternatives that we have.
38
39 Chair Garber: So, by way of exanlple, most ofnlY focus has been on this description of the
40 Altenlatives considered here on 5-2, and trying to understand. What cannot be mitigated there
41 are these bullet points. Some of the Alternatives are able to mitigate some but not all. So one
42 question that might be asked is is there an Alternative that has not been considered that could
43 mitigate all or most? Commissioner Keller.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: In order for an alternative to make sense for consideration if it does a
46 better job of mitigating a significant unavoidable impact, so it doesn't eliminate it, but it does a
Page 660[76
1 better job it partially mitigates but it is still significant, and yet still substantially satisfies the
2 alternatives, is that worthwhile to consider? One might argue that the Alternative B does not
3 satisfy the Project Objectives and that something in between the full build out and Project
4 Alternative B might satisfy the Objectives and provide better mitigation than the full build out.
5 So I am not sure I agree with this binary nature if either mitigates something completely or it
6 doesn't mitigate it. Simply mitigating it partially isn't that an improvement?
7
8 Ms. Silver: Yes. Alternatives look at lessening or eliminating all together the residual impacts.
9 It might be helpful, I know it is late, but we are getting into a further discussion of Alternatives,
10 we do have our outside counsel, Rick Jarvis here, and he might be able to frame the alternative
11 discussion to optimize your time here.
12
13 Chair Garber: Let's give it a shot.
14
15 Mr. Rick Jarvis, Jarvis Fay Doporto Gibson, LLP: Thank you members of the Commission. As
16 Cara mentioned, my name is Rick Jarvis. I am outside legal counsel for the City with respect to
17 CEQAmatters and bulletproofing and whatnot.
18
19 One observation I would have is the purpose of the Alternatives Analysis is not sort of tie the
20 hands of the City and say well these are the only Alternatives set forth in the EIR that City can
21 consider. The Alternatives in the EIR are examples they don't bind the City in terms of what it is
22 ultimately going to do with the project. The purpose is to make sure that whatever the City
23 decides to do at the end of day, whatever action the City takes to approve the project that the EIR
24 satisfies the requirement that it serves as an informational document that provides the City, the
25 City Council, the public with enough information that whatever that project is at the end of the
26 day there is enough information there to make findings as to what its environmental impacts are
27 going to be. So that is one primary objective of the Alternatives Analysis is to make sure there is
28 enough information for whatever project is ultimately approved that you understand the
29 environmental impacts.
30
31 Chair Garber: Forgive me for interrupting. Just for clarification, and part of the reason I am
32 interrupting you is because I think we have tried to have this conversation before in some other
33 forms, but the Alternatives that are being produced here are not actually any of the solutions that
34 may end up being ultimately pursued between the City and the applicant. It could be some other
35 combination of these things. What is important here is that we are looking at a series of
36 scenarios, a series of solutions that presumably would cover any solution set that is allowable.
37
38 Mr. Jarvis: Right.
39
40 Chair Garber: So we are not pushing the rope. Weare just pushing the rope into the comer and
41 finding out how much area it covers. The distinction here I think for the Commissioners as well
42 as the Council is that anyone of these solutions isn't ultimately the one that we will end up with.
43
44 Mr. Jarvis: It could be any permutation of them. I mean there could be any combination. You
45 could like one element of the one, one element of the other, take and combine them. Youjust
46 want to make -the goal of the Alternatives Analysis, or one of the goals, because there is
Page 67 0/76
1 another important one I want to mention. One of the goals of the Alternatives Analysis is to
2 make that whatever permutation is adopted by the City at the end of day the environmental
3 impacts of that are adequately disclosed in the EIR. So one thing the Commission may look at is
4 is there some alternative, some approach that may be of interest to the City at the end of the day
5 whose impacts are not adequately disclosed by the analysis that is done in the EIR.
6
7 The other important purpose of the Alternatives-Analysis is to make sure that the City actually
8 considers all reasonably potential alternatives for mitigating environmental impacts. That is sort
9 of the other side of the coin there. To make sure that if you have a project that has certain types
10 of impacts those impacts can't necessarily be mitigated through mitigation measures, are there
11 other alternative approaches that would avoid those significant impacts?
12
13 Chair Garber: So, again just to sort of clarify through exanlple here, the conversation that
14 Commissioner Keller and I are having about the Reduced Intensity Alternative B, the reality is
15 that if it is 60 percent or 75 percent the range that we are dealing with there is somewhat
16 irrelevant because you have an example that is less than that, and you have an example that is
1 7 more than that.
18
19 Mr. Jarvis: Right.
20
21 Chair Garber: So it is somewhat academic where that threshold is taken.
22
23 Mr. Jarvis: Yes, the threshold is always going to be arbitrary. EIRs typically need to look at
24 some sort of reduced proj ect alternative. What that percentage reduction is, there is a certain
25 arbitrariness there. Although there is rationale for how they reached that particular reduced
26 alternative.
27
28 Chair Garber: Understood, but relative to the potential impacts what would be more interesting
29 is if you were at a 60 percent or a 75 percent point and that revealed some impact that was not
30 mitigated under some previous scenario then there would actually be, from a CEQA standpoint, a
31 reason to pursue that alternative because it has not been exposed in some other circumstance or
32 scenano.
33
34 Mr. Jarvis: Right. What a reduced intensity alternative will often do is identify ways of
35 reducing even though you don't necessarily fully eliminate the environmental impacts. Then of
36 course, you have to weigh that against the fact that or certainly the argument by Stanford that the
37 reduced density alternative does not fully acconlplish their objectives for the project, and
38 ultimately it is sort of a policy and factual balance the Commission and the Council have to make
39 in terms of weighing what the environmental benefits are versus the failure to fully achieve what
40 Stanford's objectives for the project are.
41
42 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, do you have other questions for the outside counsel?
43 Commissioner Keller.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Yes, so firstly, although for example in terms of evaluating roadway
46 segments and other transportation issues it still says significant unavoidable. The analysis as far
Page 68 of 76
1 as I can tell was not done as to whether any of the roadway segments are now maybe just one
2 of the roadway segments are no longer impacted and reduced to less than significant. It looks
3 like it looked at them as a whole but it didn't look at them individually. If one of the roadway
4 segments is less than significant that might be a difference.
5
6 The other issue is you mentioned the consideration of .....
7
8 Mr. Jarvis: Can I stop you there because the way I would translate that into a comment upon the
9 EIR is, you know it is fair to raise the question do any of these alternatives eliminate any of the
10 roadway segments significant and unavoidable impacts? That is a fair question for the EIR
11 preparers and for Staff to go back to and answer in a response to comnlents.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Because it doesn't look like they have analyzed it to that level of
14 specificity and analytics.
15
16 The second thing is that if it comes out to be that the Reduced Intensity Alternative, while
17 reducing .... for example, if you look at Reduced Alternative B it does drive the needle between
18 impacts on roadway segments. It does reduce it from significant to less than significant. That
19 difference between that and either the Tree Preservation Alternative and the Historic
20 Preservation Alternative and the Village Concept are all significant and unavoidable. Therefore
21 that is a difference that I think our Chair would identify as essentially flipping from one to the
22 other. We don't know the degree of specificity or"that. So for example if 60 percent eliminates
23 all of the impacts on roadway segments to less than significant what would 75 mean? What
24 would 80 mean? Where is the threshold and where does it happen on each of the segments,
25 firstly?
26
27 Mr. Jarvis: That is a little more of a detailed analysis than you would normally see in an EIR's
28 Alternative Analysis calculating out the exact percentage of the size of the project to get to a
29 particular impact. The analysis has be reasonable, provide a reasonable amount of infonnation,
30 but nonnally an EIR is not going to get that comprehensive and detailed in terms of the threshold
31 for each impact.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that but to the extent that the Reduced Intensity Alternative B
34 were deemed not to substantially satisfy the objective of the applicant then the question is is
35 there something in between that does substantially satisfy the objectives of the applicant and yet
36 reduces the impacts on roadway segments, at least some of the roadway segments, to less than
37 significant? Since this does flip the needle here from positive to negative essentially it does
38 toggle the switch here, it does make sense that maybe something in between might be
39 considered, which is considered to be substantially satisfying the project objectives. I doubt that
40 the Reduced. Intensity Alternative would be considered substantially satisfying the project
41 alternatives. That is wh~ I think it is import~nt to look at something in between. I anl just
42 suggesting something to be considered. If somebody wants to suggest something else to be
43 considered that nlight be appropriately discriminating I welcome that for consideration.
44
Page 690f?6
1 Mr. Jarvis: What I interpret you are saying in tenns of the comment upon the EIR is is there
2 another reduced project alternative that better accomplishes the project objectives while still
3 mitigating the roadway segment impacts, for example in this case.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Or at least does a better job than the three biggest alternatives. Thank
6 you.
7
8 Chair Garber: There may be more. We will let you know. Commissioners? Commissioner
9 Fineberg.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: I said it earlier but I will restate it here while we are discussing the
12 Alternatives Analysis. I believe the alternative on Historic Preservation ought to be one that both
13 preserves the historic Stone structure and satisfies the objectives of the applicant and the City so
14 it is not a false choice. That may mean that the proj ect has either a bigger footprint or it might be
15 bigger. I am not going to get into suggestion how it be designed. If having both the historic
16 preservation objective and the other objectives of the hospital satisfied meant there were
17 additional impacts we need to understand that in the DEIR. I don't know if the consultant has a
18 way I should say that that is in DEIR speak, but it is better than what I said. Ifhe is not getting
19 up I think I got it.
20
21 I would say the same thing for the Tree Preservation Alternative. Tree Preservation Alternative
22 is currently stated that we save either 13, or 15, or 23 trees out of a total of 71. Is there an
23 alternative that would both save more of the best of the trees and meet the objectives of the
24 hospital and the City?
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
27
28 Commissioner Tanaka: So I think I understood what our attorneys have said about the Draft
29 EIR. I guess there is that context. There is the legal context of what we need to consider. I was
30 just thinking about it in tenns of a practical context. We heard from the applicant that they are at
31 50 percent of design on the tree alternative option right now. I would assume that as time goes
32 on they are going to progress forward. The City Staff is going to spend time. Our consultants
33 are going to spend time analyzing a particular project. So I understand the Draft EIR legal
34 context, and maybe we are done already. Is it helpful, would it be helpful for Staff, would it be
35 helpful for our consultant, would it be helpful for the applicant to understand where the
36 Commission is sitting right now in tenns of its feeling on the project so that they could get sonle
37 guidance beyond just boundary poles. Get some guidance to how to make this project better so
38 that when it does come forth for a real approval it is a higher test of getting approved.
39
40 Ms. Silver: Is that a question?
41
42 Chair Garber: Do you want us to give our impressions on the solution sets that are being offered
43 here? Is that helpful?
44
45 Ms. Silver: This is a public hearing to receive comments on the EIR. It has been agendized for
46 that so it would be helpful just to keep your comments focused on the EIR.
Page 700/76
1
2 Chair Garber: I think I heard no. Commissioner Keller.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: So let me also point out the discrimination between the Reduced Intensity
5 Alternative and the larger alternatives also comes about in Clinlate Change where the Reduced
6 Intensity Alternative B is reduced to less than significant for the two Climate Change items, and
7 is significant unavoidable for all the full build out alternatives. So again there again some degree
8 of discrimination is also worthwhile considering.
9
10 With respect to the process, I am reminded of a quote by Chopinhower and that is, "In theory
11 there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." In theory the idea
12 is that we will create the FEIR, consider all the alternatives that have been created, then from
13 there go on and say well let's see if we can find a better one or mix and match or whatever. In
14 reality there is no time for that mix and match. Because we are viewing this EIR process
15 essentially six months to a year later than we would have if the Stanford Shopping Center had
16 been included removal of the. Stanford Shopping Center has delayed the process by at least six
17 months. Because Stanford essentially, is my understanding, has to give a submittal to OSHPD
18 by the end of the calendar year, essentially there is no time to come up with alternatives. So my
19 interest in having something in between the ·Reduced Intensity Alternative that might be deemed
20 not satisfying the Project Objectives and something that is the full build out, unless we consider
21 it now in 'such a way that is a feasible change to essentially the Tree Preservation Alternative that
22 the applicant is moving forward to the City Council and the Planning Commission will
23 essentially have no choice but to approve the Tree Preservation Alternative as it evolves to that
24 because of the timing considerations. So that is why I think that unless there are additional
25 unless this example of a Reduced Project Alternative is considered there essentially won't be any
26 time to do it.
27
28 My boss in college, I have quoted this before, had a saying, why is there never enough time to do
29 it right, but always enough time to do it over. The interesting thing is while there may be the
30 time to do it over there is rarely the opportunity. This is a situation in which there will not be the
31 opportunity to do it over. There will not be the opportunity in the future to do the kinds of mix
32 and match when the FEIR comes out if we don't identify those now, and do the studies of them
33 now.
34
35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg a follow up and then Commissioner Martinez.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: Forgive me for having a -this will appear to be a frontal challenge. I
38 am not sure if your statement is correct. I don't know if either City Attorney or outside counsel
39 would want to comment, but if I understood it correctly, the DEIR needs to analyze sort of the
40 impacts of the maximum. build out, and determine the mitigations required to make that possible.
41 Does Council have the discretion at the 13th hour to say okay, maximum build out minus X
42 percent? Figure out how to design it and we will approve it and here are the mitigations. The
43 plan hasn't been analyzed but if it is less than what has been analyzed it is covered.
44
45 Ms. Silver: Yes. The Final EIR will provide adequate CEQA coverage for the maximum project
46 build out. If the Council decides to approve something less than that there is appropriate CEQA
Page 71 0[76
1 coverage so long as all of the impacts associated with a smaller size project have been adequately
2 discussed and analyzed in the EIR.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: I kind of agree with Conlffiissioner Keller, and I apologize for that
7 lukewarm kind of support. I agree in terms of that I think there maybe some mitigation in
8 looking at this other Alternative that is worth the time to try to consider an alternative that looks
9 at a reducyd impact. I am not saying I am in favor of that Alternative but I think there are some
10 significant things, mostly related to traffic, pollution as typically there are in EIRs that I think we
11 need a little bit more digging .to see if we can come up with something that works here. I think
12 that might be a vehicle to get us there.
13
14 This is going to be my last statement of the night I hope. So I sort of want to come back to the
15 beginning. The beginning is why are we doing this? The Objectives at the beginning of the
16 Staff Report lay it all out there. I think there are 50-odd reasons why Stanford is doing this, and
17 close to 20 why the City is doing this. It really comes down to four objectives on either side.
18 For Stanford clearly the first is they have to comply with SB 1953. Either that or go out of
19 business and none of us want that.
20
21 Secondly, and they have talked about this, they want to meet their healthcare spacial program
22 needs. It has been called right sizing but it is more than that. I think if we go through the six
23 weeks of this discussion we know that their third objective is to meet the impacts, to mitigate the
24 impacts as much as it is possible for thenl to do this.
25
26 Let me see what my fourth one was. I think that they want to build in a sustainable way. I was
27 trying to avoid saying it that way, but the intelligent planning and design and consideration of
28 alternative methods really shows that this hospital is going to be significantly different from what
29 we have now.
30
31 On the City's side we want to partner with Stanford to retain our community hospital. We don't
32 want it to g away. We don't want it to move somewhere else. We want it to be safe for the
33 public, and we want it to continue.
34
35 Second, if I can just pick one impact we want to mitigate traffic. We know regardless of how we
36 slice it there are going to be cars, there is going to be more congestion, there are going to be
37 delays, and there are going to be the impacts from all that.
38
39 The third and I think I have heard this from the Council, we want to have a vital, economic,jobs
40 based, employment based, tax base going into the future. This project is important to that.
41
42 Then finally, our Climate Protection Plan is kind of the under-riding guiding force in this project.
43 We want it to adhere to that. I wanted to bring that back because we are not so far away from the
44 applicant and the City that we need to seek further delays, that we need more information, that
45 this document needs to be twice as thick. I think we have enough information in what we have
Page 720[76
1 been given with the exception that I alluded to that Commissioner Keller has asked for to really
2 be able to support the project going forward. Thank you. Good night.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: So one of the objectives of the alternatives is to make sure that we have
7 coverage of whatever alternative is chosen from some combination. One of the things that has
8 not yet been discussed is the, if you will, ranking or the choice of an environmentally preferred
9 alternative. I am wondering not only will having an intermediate alternative allow for better
10 discrimination among those toggles that we identified earlier as flipping from being significant
11 unavoidable to less than significant between the Reduced Intensity Alternative B and any of the
12 full Alternatives, but also from the point of view of identifying an environmentally preferred
13 alternative .. Ifit turns out that this intermediate alternative both meets the objectives of the
14 applicant substantially, and better meets the objectives of Palo Alto with respect for example to
15 Climate Change, and has less impacts either it reduces the significant unavoidable impacts to less \
16 than significant or reduces the significant unavoidable impacts to somewhat less than they would
17 have been otherwise. In other words, it is a significant difference but yet still significant and
18 unavoidable. That would seem to indicate that it could be an environmentally preferred
19 alternative over the full build out alternative. So that is another reason why it would be
20 considered.
21
22 One other point is that essentially the way that we mitigate land use issues with the hospital is
23 essentially by definition. Essentially, the intent is we will redefine the Comprehensive Plan land
24 use issues by simply saying they are not an issue. We are going to have the new Comprehensive
25 Plan changed just for the hospital that defines away the problem. It is certainly feasible to do
26 that, but I think we need to be honest with ourselves that that is what we are doing, and it is
27 arguably for a great cause. Essentially, the land use considerations are simply going away by
28 definition and not by actual doing something about it. Thank you.
29
30 Chair Garber: A couple of final comments from me. In very general terms I believe that the
31 Alternatives that have been outlined in the DEIR are adequate and have adequately described the
32 various inlpacts that will be encountered. There have been a variety of additions that have been
33 discussed this evening that add to that but I think in general they do.
34
35 In my mind, the trade-off here is that for the Alternatives that meet the objectives of both the
36 applicant and the City fully are ones that are the full or the Tree, the Historic, or the Village. The
37 trade-off there is dealing with these significant and unavoidable project specific cumulative
38 impacts that then have to be essentially overridden by the unavoidable consequences of them
39 being there. That is the trade-off that we have to make, is the value that the project brings to the
40 City worth that? I will leave that to the City Council, but I think we have recognized or
41 adequately described what those impacts are.
42
43 I think there is for me, personally at any rate, been some surprises and some learnings as a result
44 of going through this. That is in particular that the Village Concept doesn't have a bigger or
45 doesn't create stronger mitigations of a variety of the impacts that the other Alternatives present,
Page 730[76
1 which does not mean that it doesn't have value in other ways to us. I think that is an inlportant
2 finding that should be recognized as we go forward here.
3
4 I guess the other surprising thing is that even with the housing as part of that project you don't
5 get more significant mitigations, at least as it is being defined in the EIR. We did create the
6 comment that we would like that to be confirmed based on some of Commissioner Martinez's
7 comments as well as mine.
8
9 . Comnlissioners, anything else? We have the topic of orphans and anything else. Commissioner
10 Fineberg.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. This section then is where I am going to make some
13 comments on sections of the DEIR we have reviewed in past meetings. When we talked about
14 the growth-inducing impacts of the project we had talked about the 2,200 employees and about
15 eight percent of them living in Palo Alto generating a certain number of new homes that would
16 then yield as secondary and tertiary impacts students in the schools. When I discussed that
17 before I had questioned whether or not using some kind of County-weighted average would
18 make sense.
19
20 I have since thought about it and I don't know if I can retract a comment, or change my
21 conlIDent. I would like to question now whether the method that was used of multiplying the
22 number of new employees by eight percent is appropriate because that mitigates only the impact
23 of the historic yield, the number of employees that historically have lived in Palo Alto rather than
24 the number of employees that will live in Palo Alto as a result of ABAG's demands for us to
25 balance our jobs/housing. So is there some different methodology that we should be using that
26 will more closely match what we know will be future demand for mitigations based on ABAG's
27 models where they are now demanding we balance jobs and housing more so than they have in
28 the past? That method would be something that mitigates more than eight percent of the impact.
29
30 Secondly, my comments about using the County-weighted average, I retract that. I want to say
31 that taking the 2,200 employees and whatever percentage we are saying are going to live here,
32 and then we divided that by the 1.7 number. I believe that it is not a correct method to divide it
33 by the 1.7. What that is saying is that there is an average of 1.7 employees per household in Palo
34 Alto but that would only apply if the 1.7 employees, basically the two adults in the household,
35 work at Stanford. Both of them cohabitate and work at Stanford, at the hospital specifically. I
36 think that we don't have these numbers, but I would venture to guess that the majority of the
37 2,200 new employees don't live in a household with two Stanford employees. So it is artificially
38 reducing the yield of the number of households. So I would like some further analysis and
39 explanation of why, if that method is used, it is correct, or why if there is let's say 200 new
40 employees why aren't there 200 new homes unless we can say that five percent of the employees
41 cohabitate with another hospital employee.
42
43 I also would like to rephrase some of my questions about the impacts on Palo Alto's schools. In
44 the last five years I believe all projects that have come through City review use the student yield
45 projections based on methodologies developed by Lapkoff & Gobalet, the school district's
46 demographer. This project uses an unrelated method. I would like to know why this project is
Page 740/76
1 using a method that has not been used in all other recent projects. If the Lapkoff & Gobalet yield
2 projection methods are used consistently with what we have done would the fmal yield numbers
3 be significantly different and what would they be? That's it. Thank you.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's close the public hearing and conclude this item. Let me
6 thank the Staff and applicant for waiting this out, and sticking with us through the end here.
7
8 Commissioners, we have a few other things to do this evening. We have the approval of minutes
9 for June 16 and June 17. Commissioner Keller will need to not take action on the meeting of
10 June 17 because he was absent.
11
12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 16 and 17,2010.
13
14 Chair Garber: May I get a motion to approve the minutes of the 16th?
15
16 MOTION
17
18 Commissioner Tanaka: So moved.
19
20 Chair Garber: So moved by Commissioner Tanaka. A second by?
21
22 SECOND
23
24 Commissioner Martinez: Second.
25
26 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Tuma and Lippert absent)
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. All those in favor say aye. ( ayes) That passes
29 unanimously. A motion to approve minutes of the 1 ih?
30
31 MOTION
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: So moved.
34
35 Chair Garber: A second?
36
37 SECOND
38
39 Commissioner Tanaka: Second.
40
41 MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Commissioner Keller not participating, Commissioners Tuma and
42 Lippert absent)
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka. All those in favor say aye. ( ayes) With one abstention
45 and two absent the motion passes.
46
Page 750/76
1 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES.
2
3 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
4
5 Chair Garber: We will note that I am the Commission's representative to Council this month. In
6 August the·Council does not meet so there isn't a representative there. September we will deal
7 with in August.
8
9 Are there any meeting reports? Commissioner Fineberg.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: I was not able to attend the Housing Element Update Technical
12 Advisory Group meeting last month. This month's will be cancelled. However, and for
13 members of the public who are still with us tonight, the Planning Department will be having two
14 community meetings on I believe it is July 27 and July 29. The first at Cubberley and the second
15 at the Arts Center, both of them at 6:30 for people to learn about the Housing Element Update. It
16 is absolutely imperative that we get as much public participation as possible. It is going to have
17 a huge impact on what the City does and whether the community understands what City plans
18 will look like. So if you can be there please attend.
19
20 Chair Garber: With that, Commissioners anything else? Commissioner Martinez.
21
22 Commissioner Martinez: The Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee met today. We are starting
23 work on the Vision Statements. We have a schedule, and I think our first time to come back to
24 the Planning Commission is August 25, right?
25
26 Mr. Turner: I believe so. We have a meeting on August 11 to present our work on the housing
27 opportunity sites. So we received the direction from Council about how we should go about
28 identifying sites. Staff has begun to implement that direction, and it is now producing a list of
29 sites coming up with recommended densities for those sites. So we expect to bring that work as
30 an update item to the Commission on I believe August 11. Then we would have a meeting
31 scheduled I believe in Septerrlber to go over kind of the first aspect of the Subcommittee's work
32 which is the Vision Statements for the various chapters of the Comprehensive Plan focusing on
33 the Housing.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. With that it is 11 :30 exactly on the clock here, and we will adjourn.
36 Thank you all.
37
38 NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting of July 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM
39
40 ADJOURNED: 11:30 PM
41
Page 760[76
Alternatives
I
• CEQA Irequires a range of reasonable alternatives to a
project ~
• Altern tives must attain basic objectives while avoiding
or red cing significant impacts
• Every onceivable alternative need not be analyzed
• Must i clude a "No Project Alternative"
Previous
SUMC Project Alternatives
I
• No Project Alternative A
• .No Project Alternative B
• Reduced Intensity Alternative A
• Reduced Intensity Alternative B
• Historic Preservation Alternative
• Tree Preservation Alternative
• Village Concept Alternative
. Previous Next
No Project Alternative A
I
• Retrofit noncompliant hospital facilities
• No new buildings would be constructed
• N work at Hoover Pavilion Site
• B 2030, one or both of the hospitals would close
Previous
No Project Alternative B
I
• Replac noncompliant hospital facilities with new structures
• Buildout to maximum allowable FAR (additional 9,000 sf)
• No wor at Hoover Pavilion Site
• SoM fapilities would be separated from the hospital and
retrofitted
• Decrea'se in patient beds at the SHC Hospital
• LPCH v¥otJld continue to operate at current capacity or
reduce~ capacity
Previous Next]
Reduced Intensity Alternative A
I
• Repl ce noncompliant hospital facilities with new
stru tures
• Righ -size SHC and LPCH hospital facilities (additional
446, 00 sf)
• No new buildings at Hoover Pavilion Site, but Hoover
Pavi ion would be renovated
• Replace SoM facilities with the same square footage
• No i crease in operations
Previous
Reduced Intensity Alternative B
1
• Rep1lace. noncompliant hospital facilities with new
structures
• Increase of 924,000 sf
• No ~ew buildings at Hoover Pavilion Site, but Hoover
Pavilion would be renovated
• Replace SoM facilities with the same square footage
• Incr ased operations (60% of SUMC Project
ope ations)
Previous Next
Historic Preservation Alternative
• Prese e historic. aspects of 1959 Stone Building complex
and P steur Drive
• Constr ct new SHC Hospital building
• SHC ·Iinics and SoM would occupy 1959 Stone Building
compl x
• Expan LPCH and Hoover Pavilion Site as per SUMC
Projec'
• Same increase in development and operations as SUMC
Projec
Previous Next
Tree Preservation Alternative
• Modified site plan to reduce impacts on Protected Trees:
• Remove hospital module in Kaplan Lawn
• Re¢onfigure SHC garage to be narrower and partially
abdve ground
• Rettonfigure FIM 1 building
• 13 biolpgically and aesthetically significant Protected
Trees would be retained, compared to'SUMC Project
• Same ~ncrease in development and operations as SUMC
Projec'
• Prefer~d site plan
Previous Next
Village Concept Alternative
• The SlJJMC Project as proposed
• Recorrimended dedication . of 490 previously approved
housina units to SUMC em'olovees:
• Qualrry Road/
Arboretum Road
• Quarry Road/
EI Camino Re'al
• Pas eur Drive/
San~ Hill Road
• Pedestrian linkages
tlW?S .,.--r;; ~ ..tF:.F ...• -:c-·-~~-· ~~. -."r,. . ,~-: ~~::; .. '. ;Jc.., -. TT ..... ' 4. 'i'~ .... ~y-~~' .~J'. -~ •• -1>'.' ~.Ittf. '~:'.}'';-':1\...'. ' .. ~~-.:.. •. ··.~i .. ~· .. ·#~.~;:..,. ,1 '" t;-t~~-.f) .. ~ ... ~.;~~ •.. ~ .• -" ~~ ", . ~'~''''''.~-''' .~~ ;:' ~~(-"" ~¥/,~,~~ ~ >~>.: -··5~ . t-~~:-;·"·'·iIi·" of ,.'~ ttj ~.~!\~. -..... ~ .•• ~:.~,.. '.':io ~~ ~;\ -".~ ~ ,:,v. ./1-8--
;} ~J~f .~-::,.r..:. ... :.,. .!" ''"(.. /:"~;;:" :;:~.:: ~~ -,' '-':~~ " ...... L'~" .~ ~b r"/~ '. "'" . 5.~''''''' ,-.' ~" ~ 'VI' /r.' ~ <I' . .,...... .t". "VI"';':"""'. . ..... ~~.;,;-.'.. , .... ~ .. ., .. ~ .. ~. ~~:,: ... i.f ... :'" .JI~-~'.'" .-~ ::..... . ,._ --.f', -. ',' , ..... ~ o. 4 . ~ • ,,:.~ ~-'I -....... :~ .• ~ .• ~/:~~·,'~.3 ...•• ~: t.·. r. .... ,. '."",~ .~.~.~ r.:';~" "-'0' _~'-' ~ ~-i.:-."t -'",,/ ,:~. ' ... ; -.'!."',, '. ;-}if."i j~ ~;:~'~.'~8;~: .-~~.'~~ ~:~i;l~_.~?~.~,/{~:~~ c~:'! ~_~.,~,~{.~ .:~. :':-;.-' .~" '. ",-~;,>,:
.7. ... ',' .... " .. i:l':., •.............. " ..... I'~"'l~ '.' :'.J ""'. .~~~ .~. 0 -~l~.:' .' _. ..;,' ........ ~i· ..... ',.' '. ,. ~ '.:.~ .,.V .~. ~.. ~ "( h.' 4-.,
:' C ,,,, • ":' . ";:' . " ~' 'i:~ :" .. : .• I'·· .~. I~' ..... ,. • . t'''': :"'-' " .. -~" . : .......... ,;.... . .", ,~, '",1. , ". .' J -.~ '. • '" ~' . ..:t.... .. -f~#'."\ .,.~, ...... .,-,~ • .. ~ .... '... ,-:III ... ,':"1'_'"0 •.• tJO ....... 7: r F .... .'~:;.. ..~:...-.... \ ... '~J:'.',T', ~
;. ,." ~ I!-"~ .. :",. ,I;.' .>.; w.· ~.-.• \ . ~,.,. .. ~.-" ~. . .~ ..... ~ . :1~ ..... ~"~ " I:... : ... <,#. .• ",.·tS ", .. }~ .. ~.. . ' ....... ., ~$. I:::-~ '. ~ :~~ ~?"t'v', --. ~ Ulllt~ \.".. ~ ~ 1 • f..; .~~ ~ :~ ... -~ .:' .~:: . ~ .. :.... h 'It_. : " •• ~. ~-::~ •• ' .... ~~. m~~·~~·:·t ~ .t~. <~ .-. . ~ ___ ~ .. ~... :~ ;~ , . ~~
l·,:t:t: 'y';~ " .:c I; '~,'; .' " . .{.,o--.:. . .~ ~,.,
rhi : --:). .. ".~, . y • -tf':"~"" .. ~. . --' .... "-.. ': ,r., L~·j .. " •• ~., ",~ .... ,~ /. ... ,,. ~~~~~:;~.~..i'~~·f:/~··5 ~~~~~. ~ ~ '. . $:f .. ' ... ~'. ~ <t, .' .. ,..~.. . • . t. t"
• '''_ '. C .. ,... () .,.. ........ ,,~ ::';y;~ -,;,~~;,:.:~. r:'~:_
•• , ~. ~;JI' . ... ~~. I W " .' - --',. :,..,.,. -~>o ~ . I -l t; ~'<., . ,i ~ -'. " _.... ~ r '1 . . ":~ -~~ •• 'oJ ':4.r~,"""l. IJ/:'t··. ~.~ -. ~-;, .';.... -... " !." .. ~. . r / . -r.~. l .'~~ ~ . . -~~. ";" .:.. .~-E .. ~? -W~.
,;
'" : ~fr . .~ 1'-; f'," .
Li';/ · o· "'i"" :~,·".~.~;,,61J·:. .... ;l/'" "~ .... -' '\. ' .. ~'/I' .. ~,' .. JF-' • '.~'. ·v·,~-·--.. -"'·.~ ..a-.l -.......... 001· -'=\>."~ •... ·~,o. ~'Jj' ,~. \.,..~~4;·.·-"·-··~*;; ~ ~;.. . ~r ,O~'.;:~~
IJIl -• "~ .. ~.'.r ~ .... '" .. '.; Jly L' :.... . ... :-. 1· ., .~. ~-~~~
':!a .~ .. _",,,#:,. _ '0';;". ~ " • .1 -y_-..J .• f .01:. c:-. .t:. -~ ~/.~ .
Previous Next J
Environmentally Superior Alternative
I
• Reduc~d Intensity Alternative A -Right-sizing SHC and
LPCH
• No incJease in operations
• Avoidsl the following significant and unavoidable impacts
of the $UMC Project:
•.
• Inc~eased traffic on 4 Menlo Park roadways
• Emission of criteria air pollutants during operation
• Greenhouse gas emissions during operation
Previous
.",
CIJ L
::::s
WI ~ nI u
CIJ (])
J:
.~
0 ~
~
C U 0 ~ --.~ ~
t)O
rfJ
--~ --
Mitigation Measures
I
• Identified measures minimize, avoid, rectify, or
comp~nsate for significant impacts
• Mitiga ion measures must be feasible and have a
propo ional nexus to the impact
• All mit gation measures listed in Table 8-4
• If 8U C Project is approved, City must adopt Mitigation
Monit ring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure
imple entation
J Previous I Next
Transportation Demand Management Measures
I
• TOM =1 menu of strategies to reduce travel demand
(partic~larly single occupant private vehicles)
• As a c~arter city, Palo Alto is permitted to require TOM
to redulce traffic impacts
• City has discretion to determine whether TOM is
feasible
Previous Next
Turner, Steven
From: Williams, Curtis
Sent: Friday, May 21,20102:47 PM
To: Turner, Steven
Subject: FW: Error on Stanford Hospital Project EI R
From: John Guislin [mailto:jguislin@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 1:07 PM
ATTACHMENT B
To: Williams, Curtis; Council, City
Cc: jguislin@gmail.com
Subject: Error on Stanford Hospital Project EIR
Mr. Williams, Council Members:
I have begun reading through the EIR for the Stanford Medical Center Renewal and Replacement
Project and I find a error of fact that impacts some conclusions.
In the Transportation Appendix C, Middlefield Road is listed as an arterial.
Middlefield Road within Palo Alto is classified as an arterial. Under the City of Menlo Park
guidelines, it is considered as a minor arterial. Page 1-5
In fact, Middlefield in Palo Alto is classified as a residential arterial. This impacts conclusions
about whether an increase in traffic is significant or not.
For example:
3. 7.1Palo Alto Residential Street Analysis
A street is considered impacted if the TIRE Index increases by 0.1. An increase in the TIRE
Index of 0.1 or more indicates that residents would notice an increase in traffic on the street.
The 'With Project' scenario is compared to the 'No Build' scenario to determine any project
impact. No residential roadway segments would be significantly impacted by the project in 2025
as seen in Table 3-8.
Further, the report finds that the MiddlefieldlWillow Road intersection will be impacted but that
the MiddlefieldlLytton and MiddlefieldfUniversityintersections will not.
Middlefield Road I Willow Road (#18) LOS remains at E but the average critical movements
exceeded 0.8 seconds for this Menlo Park intersection. This intersection is
significantly affected by the project.
This is highly unlikely if the increased traffic is heading to the Stanford Hospital as these
intersections provide the most direct route from Willow Road to Stanford.
And here is another example:
For Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road and Ravenswood A venue that are
classified as minor arterials with No Build volumes greater than 18,000, adding more
than 100 trips in ADT would be considered an impact. The proposed SUMC expansion
is expected to add more than 300 trips on these roadway segments. As such, the
project would impact these roadway segments in Menlo Park according to the City's
7/6/2010
Page 2 of2
significance criteria.
Again if 300 additional cars on Willow Road are headed to Stanford, the most likely route is on
Middlefield to Lytton and University.
I look forward to hearing from you when the error is corrected and with your view of these
questions about the impact on Middlefield Road.
Thank you,
John Guislin
Middlefield North Neighborhood Association
7/6/2010
Stanford Hospital Traffic Mitigations In Light Of Possible Cal Train Closure Page 2 of2
controversial revenue -enhancements, all approved Tuesday by its Board of Directors, and the nearby San Mateo County
Transit District (SamTrans) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) are in similarly desperate straits.
Those three agencies run Caltrain, and all have had to scale back their funding commitments in order to preserve bus and
light rail services in their core communities. "We're rapidly approaching a cliff," Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon told the
Caltrain Board of Directors today, according to the San Mateo Times. "It's going to be very, very painful. It's probably going
to force people back on congested freeways."
Caltrain spokesperson Mark Simon told the Guardian that the agency is fully funded through the current fiscal year that ends
June 30, but after that, "I don't know how long we can survive."
"I don't think 1 need to tell someone at the San Francisco Bay Guardian how bad things are at the SFMTA," he said, adding
that the situation is as bad or worse at the other two agencies, and that Caltrain has no other sources of operating revenue.
"That issue has come to a head and it's come to a head because the state has zeroed out how much money it gives to public
transit," Simon told us. "What's really heartbreaking is that this is a time when we should be adding service."
Indeed, Caltrain has been moving ahead with plans to electrify its track, which would increase train speed and therefore
system capacity while polluting less. But while it seeks federal grants for that capital project, the operating funds that have
traditionally come from the state via SFMTA, VTA, and SamTrans have dried up (state and federal transportation funds are
strictly divided between capital and operating funds).
Unlike Caltrain, SFMTA and many other transit agencies have the authority to put general tax measures on the ballot to fund
transit services, but so far in San Francisco, neither Mayor Gavin Newsom nor the seven SFMTA board members he
appointed have shown any leadership is doing so.
7/6/2010
Turner, Steven
From: Williams, Curtis
Sent: Saturday, May 22,20104:37 PM
To: Turner, Steven
Subject: FW: SUMC EIR
From: Janet Davis [mailto:jadjadjad@sbcglobal.net]
sent: Saturday, May 22, 20109:21 AM
To: city.councll.@menlopark.org; Council, City
Cc: Rich Gordon; Lennie Roberts
Subject: SUMC EIR
Page 1 of 1
I have just started looking at this and the very first thing I looked at was downright wrong. Figure 3.4.3.
showed a class I bike path along the entire length of Alpine Road. Not so! The study did show that the
on and off ramps at Alpine and 1-280 would be at "F." This is a no-brainer since they are already
beyond that, and traffic is often backed up for long stretches along the freeway until quite late in the
morning. The study failed to address the intersections of Stowe Lane, Bishop Lane, Ansel Lane, the
"Dish" parking problems or the difficulties (TIRE analysis) that the residents of Stanford Weekend
Acres already experience trying to access (let alone cross!) Alpine Road. The study was also in error in
its calculation of what constitutes "rush" hour along Alpine Road. That starts before 7 a.m. at which
time around more than 90% of the traffic heads to Stanford. There is a minor "rush" at lunch time and a
, more extensive rush when the medical staff change shifts at the hospital around 3 p.m. It did not
address the level of accidents, the blind comers, the problems with speeding that occurs in offhours, the
minor landslides and the winter flooding.
I live on Alpine and and usually come and go by car, bike or foot several times a day. I have never seen
any traffic engineers doing a study anywhere in the vicinity and have no confidence that one was
actually done.
7/6/2010
Page 1 of1
Turner, Steven
From: tv@sonic.net
Sent: Friday, May 28,2010 10:19 AM
To: Stanford Project
Subject: Draft EIR
As a physician and as a patient in ,the community, I support Stanford's Draft EIR because the community
needs a great hospital. The facilities need upgrading per the State's seismic standards and the city of
Palo Alto should be happy that Stanford is willing to foot the enormous bill to build a new hospital that
will benefit the community of patients and healthcare workers but also bring business to the area. The
increased traffic will not likely to be severe since Stanford is willing to pay for transport passes for all
the workers that need them. Moreover, the area to be developed is already a commercial area. It is not
being built in a middle of houses so really should not inconvenience anyone much.
We need a new hospital so the City of Palo Alto should support Stanford's efforts. The city should not
forget that many of us live here because we have past or present ties to Stanford and our houses are
worth more because of our proximity to Stanford!
Soa Tsung, MD
7/20/2010
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
June 7,2010
Steven Turner
City of Palo Alto
250 Harnilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
M~~~~g~:e~~~hi REcE/~EQ Schwarzenegger
700 Heinz Avenue IJ Governor
Berkeley, California 94710-2721 JlIi~ 0 9' '" 2010
Department of Plann 0
Community Enllo .ng and "Ironment
DRAFT EIR, STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND
REPLACEMENT (SUMC PROJECT), SCH# 2007082130
Dear Mr. Turner:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the Draft EIR document
referenced above and dated May 2010 for hazardous materials related issues. The due date
to submit comments is July 6, 2010. As you may be aware, DTSC oversees the cleanup of
hazardous substance release sites pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Division
20, Chapter 6.8. As a potential Responsible Agency, DTSCis submitting comments to ensure
that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation prepared for this project
adequately addresses any remediation of hazardous substance releases that might be
required as part of the project.
The project consists of demolition and construction of facilities at the Stanford University
Medical Center. The following information was presented in the Draft EIR:
1) The site currently contains an office'building, constructed in '1958, that has been
used primarily as dental offices. Four amalgam separators are located in the
basement of this building. Wastewater from each separator is conveyed to a sump
that, in turn, discharges the wastewater onto either the landscaping or pavement at
four. locations outside the building. Also, an elevator shaft was added in 1993.
2) A Phase I ESA was completed for the site and recommended, prior to demolition,
thorough testing of the four wastewater treatment sumps, sink piping and other
surfaces for mercury, silver, tin, copper and zinc. An asbestos survey was
recommended. A lead survey was recommended. Subsequent to building
demolition, soils beneath the elevator shaft should be tested for PCBs and hydraulic
fluid.
Steven Turner
June 7, 2010
Page 2 of 3
3) A Phase II Soil and Wastewater Quality Evaluation revealed elevated levels of
mercury, silver, and zinc in soil impacted by discharges from the amalgam separator
systems.
4) The Hoover Pavilion site, due to the operation of underground storage tanks, has
vae impacts to soil and groundwater.
DTse has the following comments regarding the Draft EIR:
1) Soil and groundwater sampling should be performed to identify whether currentor
past chemical use may have resulted in a release of hazardous substances. This
sampling should be conducted prior to or in conjunction with the preparation of the
EIR. Any screening levels or criteria that are used in making a determination as to
whether detected contaminants pose a risk to human health or the environment
should be identified. If volatile organic compounds are present in soil or
groundwater, the potential human health risk from vapor intrusion into future
buildings will need to be considered.
3) Any remediation activities that are to be implemented as part of the project should
be discussed in the EIR along with the cleanup levels that will be applied and the
anticipated regulatory agency oversight. Potential impacts associated with the
remediation activities should be addressed by the EIR. If the remediation activities
include soil excavation, the EIR should include: (1) an assessment of air impacts
and health impacts associated with the excavation activities; (2) identification of any
applicable local standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities,
including dust and noise levels; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or
remedial activities; and (4) risk of upset should there be an accident during cleanup.
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 540-3956 or email me at
, abernahi@dtsc.ca.gov.
Sincerely, ~ /
Andrew Berna-Hicks, P.E.
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
* Printed on Recycled Paper
Steven Turner
June 7, 2010
Page 3 of 3
cc: Alyssa De La Cruz (via email)
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
ADelacr1 @dtsc.ca.gov
Nancy Ritter (via email)
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
Department of Toxic Su bstances Control
nritter@dtsc.ca.gov
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (via email)
Office of Planning and Research
P.O Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
State.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov
® Printed on Recycled Paper
Page 1 of2
Turner, Steven
From: steve schmidt [menloparksteve@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 20109:32 PM
To: Stanford Project
Subject: Comment on bike/pedestrian conditions & mitigations
Dear Steven: Below are my comments on the Medical Center DEIR:
Comments on DEIR for Stanford Hospital Expansion
Transportation Section:
1. Map showing bicycle facilities indicates a Class I facility on Alpine Road.
Past the Menlo Park City Limit in San Mateo County, the side path does not
meet the minimum standards for Class I facilities.
2. The discussion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities indicates that two new
bicycle/pedestrian undercrossings of the Caltrain tracks will be built: one at
Everett in Palo Alto and one at Middle Ave. in Menlo Park. It is stated that
these improvements will "facilitate walking and bicycling from residential
and commercial areas in North Palo Alto and South Menlo Park."
The choice of Middle as the site for an undercrossing is premature and
impractical for several reasons:
1. the site has not yielded a design that has been approved by the
Menlo Park City Council, the Menlo Park Bicycle Commission
or the Menlo Park Transportation Commission;
2. the site is not contiguous with the Class II bicycle facility on
Willow Road that serves neighborhoods east of the Caltrain
tracks;
3. the site is nearly % mile from Stanford and Sand I-lill Road;
4. construction at the site is in conflict with a Caltrain vertical
alignment required to accommodate future grade separations;
5. the site would require expensive below grade switchbacks on both
7/20/2010
Page 2 of2
sides;
6. access to the eastern portal of an undercrossing at this site would
create an unprotected mid-block T -intersection with Alma
Street;
7. the site lacks direct and simple connection for users from east
Menlo Park to Stanford Medical Center and Campus;
8. the intersection of Middle and El Camino is encumbered with
commercial ingress and egress on Middle serving a Safeway
superstore and a busy Shell gas station.
An alternative site previously studied is at Willow and Cambridge,
approximately V4 mile from Sand Hill Road and possessing none of the
problems outlined above. It would be considerably less costly to construct
due to the uncomplicated approach and generous elevation of the railroad
tracks. Because of this site's proximity to Stanford it would be more likely to
attract Stanford trips to and from Menlo Park.
If Stanford were to share the costs of constructing an undercrossing at the
Willow/Cambridge location, it would be a far more efficient use of limited
resources for Stanford, Menlo Park and other potential funding partners.
Steve Schmidt
Former Mayor, Menlo Park
650-323 5546
menloparksteve@gmail.com
7/20/2010
PTC mtg. 6/24/10
Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, Palo Alto
I have several questions concerning the adequacy of the Medical Center DEIR,
relating to traffic impacts:
1) While the DEIR acknowledges Stanford knows the home location of all it's
employees by zip code, there appears to be no attempt to correlate that
data with the development of the project's TDM scheme. The TDM
proposal is Caltrain centric, which will help employees living in a city served
by Caltrain. Why then is there not a similar solution for east bay employees,
to encourage and financially assist them in riding BART, and then U Line and
Dumbarton Express busses?
2) Why is there no analysis on the probability that Caltrain can and will have
the wherewithal to deliver sufficient new capacity making the GoPass
solution a valid one, producing the mitigations promised in the DEIR? Will
there in fact even BE a Caltrain when we need it? And, considering the
uncertainty, why then is there no discussion of a back-up plan should
Caltrain, for whatever reason, be unable to perform its role as the primary
service provider for making a reality of the TDM scheme, with it's reliance
on the GoPass?
3) The Trip Distribution map on pg 3.4-48 shows that the vast majority of
regional traffic attempts to access the Stanford projects from the East,
basically exiting off 101 and then sifting westward through the
neighborhoods until finally reaching Stanford. Why doesn't the DEIR
analyze methods of incentivizing motorists to access Stanford off 280 in the
West? Why was there no discussion of encouraging this western access,
thereby avoiding traffic impacts throughout Palo Alto between 101 and EI
Camino Real? Why wouldn't off site park & ride lots at SLAC and behind the
Berry Farm be of benefit in accomplishing this goal?
4) Why is there no discussion of No New Net Trips? No New Net Trips is a
requirement of Stanford's Santa Clara County General Use Permit. Why
doesn't the DEIR discuss the applicability of this County requirement to the
SUMC?
LAF CO
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County
June 17, 2010
Steven Turner, Advanced Planning Manager
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal-and Replaceme.nt Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Mr. Turner:
Thank you for providing the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) with an opportunity to comment on the City of Palo Alto's Draft EIR for the Stanford
University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. We have completed a
preliminary review of the document and have identified a few' areas of the document which
require revisions and or clarification in terms of the role of the Local Agency Formation
Commission of Santa Clara (LAFCO) and the annexation process. The DEIR indicates that the
project includes the annexation of an unincorporated 0.75-acre portion of the SoM area to the
City of Palo Alto.
According to LAFCO/s records the 0.75 acre area is located within the City of Palo Alto's Urban
Service Area boundary. Government Code Section 5657 prohibits LAFCO from reviewing a
"reorganization that includes annexation to any city in Santa Clara County of unincorporated
territory that is within the urban service area of the city if the reorganization is initiated by
resolution of the legislative body of the city." Therefore, the City of Palo Alto will be the
conducting.authority for the annexation or reorganization and will determine whether or not to
approve the proposed alUlexation/ reorganization.
The DEIR (see Page 2-62) identifies" Annexation and pre-zoning of the property at the
northwest comer of the Main SUMC Site, which is currently unincorporated, to the new zone."
Government Code Section 56375(a)(7) requires that the City to pre-zone the territory prior to .
annexing it. Furthermore, information concerning the Cityl s pre-zoning designation should also
be included in the City's adopted resolution approving the reorganization. Once the City
approves an annexation, the pre-zoning becomes effective and must remain in place for a
minimum of 2 years.
Similarly, the DEIR (see Page 2-63) incorrectly identifies ~AFCO as being responsible for
approving the annexation. While it is accurate that LAFCO is a Responsible Agency for this
project, the City is the conducting authority for the proposed annexation because the territory in
question is already located within the City's Urban Service A:rea. LAPCD's role in this instance
is limited to issuing and recording a Certificate of Completion for the anriexation or
reorganization, providing the required documentation to the State Board of Equalization, and
70 West Hedding Street • J 1 th Floor. East Wing I San Jose, CA 95110 • 1408) 299-5127 • (408) 295·1613 Fax • www.santaclara.laFco.ca.gov
COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant. Don Gage, Liz I<niss. Margaret Abe-I<oga, Susan Vicklund-Wilson
ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS; Sam Liccardo, AI Pinheiro, George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull
EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Neelirna PalacherJa
notifying the affected agencies and deparhnents about the City's approval of the
annexation/ reorganization.
I hope this information is helpful in clarifying certain aspects of the apnexation process and in
ensuring that the DEIR contains accurate information. Should you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me at (408) 299-5148 or durua.noel@ceo.sccgov.org. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
J)~~
Dunia Noel
LAFCO Analyst
Page2of2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JULY 26,2010 CMR: 324:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Approval of Stakeholder Task Force and Direction to the City Manager to
Appoint Task Force Members for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 12, 2010, the Council initiated a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluation land use,
transportation, and urban design elements of the corridor. This agenda item outlines the
composition of a proposed stakeholder Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study, to include 15
members representing a variety of interests (residents, businesses, civic organizations, youth,
etc.). The Task Force would provide input to the study and would solicit information from the
broader community, as well as helping design processes to insure maximum community
engagement throughout the study. The Task Force meetings will be open to the public and public
notice will be provided to an extensive group of stakeholders and interested parties. The Task
Force will regularly report to the Council, Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC),
and the Council's High Speed Rail Committee, and its recommendations will be reviewed by the
P&TC prior to recommendation to Council. The next steps in the process will be to solicit
proposals from planning and urban design consultants and to initiate formation of the Task
Force.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study; and
2. Direct the City Manager to appoint the melnbers of the Task Force.
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2010, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with a scope of work and Request
for Proposal for consulting services to assist with preparation of a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study.
Funding for the study was approved by the Council on June 28, contingent on the July 12
authorization for the study. The Council directed, however, that approval of the proposed
stakeholder Task Force be deferred pending further review of the Task Force composition, added
opportunity for public input, and more information about the process of Task Force review
relative to the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Council's High Speed Rail
CMR: 324:10 Page 1 of 4
Commission, and the City Council. The City Manager's Report for the July 12, 2010 meeting is
included as Attachment B.
DISCUSSION
The intent of the proposed Rail Corridor Study is to generate a community vision for land use,
transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor. The study may address
some High Speed Rail (HSR) issues in a timely manner, but is not limited to the HSR effort and
would provide a vision and context for other rail improvements (even without HSR) and the
City's land use, transportation and urban design preferences relative to those actions. The study
area is not specifically defined at this time, but an initial boundary is proposed to include Alma
Street and properties within about 500 feet to the east, El Camino Real on the west, and the city
boundaries of Menlo Park and Mountain View to the north and south (Attachment A). The
boundary is likely to be amended as impact and opportunity areas are more clearly defined.
Stakeholder Task Force
The scope of work for the study proposes a Rail Corridor Task Force to serve as a primary
conduit for input on and information flow regarding the Study to and from key stakeholders and
the larger con1munity. Staff proposes that the Task Force be established and operate as follows:
a) The Task Force would be appointed by the City Manager and would comprise fifteen
(15) members, representing broad stakeholder and community interests, including:
adjacent or affected neighborhoods (3); business interests in downtown, California
Avenue, and elsewhere (3); the Palo Alto Unified School District (1); the Silicon Valley
Board of Realtors (1); an affordable housing developer (1); a social services provider
(e.g., hmVision, Avenidas, Downtown Streets Team) (1); the Palo Alto Youth Council
(1); environmental organizations (e.g., Sierra Club, Acterra) (1); Santa Clara Valley AIA
(American Institute of Architects) (1); Stanford University (1); and a Palo Alto Caltrain
rider (1).
b) Representatives from interested City boards and commissions (e.g., Planning and
Transportation Commission, Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board,
Bicycle Advisory Committee, Citizen Traffic Safety Committee, Parks and Recreation
Commission) would be invited to appoint liaisons to the Task Force to attend and observe
meetings and report back to their respective board or commission.
c) The Task Force should serve as a conduit to and from other stakeholders and should work
with staff to set up networks and techniques at the outset of the process to assure
engagement of the broader community throughout the study. An initial effort of the Task
Force will be to develop a plan for outreach to assure extensive input from all interested
and affected segments of the community.
d) Meetings of the Task Force would be subject to all Brown Act committee requiren1ents.
Meetings would be open to the public and public notice would be provided as prescribed
by the Brown Act, at a minimum (staff anticipates considerably more extensive notice
would be provided to an extensive list of stakeholders and interested individuals).
e) Individuals on the task force would not, however, be subject to filing the Form 700
disclosure statements of conflicts of interest, since any recommendations will be subject
to substantive intervening review by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC), prior to PTC recommendations to Council.
CMR: 324:10 Page 2 of 4
f) The Task Force members will take votes to recommend components of the study to the
Planning and Transportation Commission, which will then report its recommendations to
the City Council.
g) Quarterly status reports of the study progress will be provided by staff to the Council,
Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Council's HSR Committee. Reports
from the Planning and Transportation Commission will be provided for information to
the HSR Committee prior to Council review. Where timely, reports and
recommendations of the Task Force that are relevant and timely to address High Speed
Rail issues will also be forwarded to the Council's HSR Committee.
Revisions Since July 12
Notice of staffs suggested conlmittee composition was e-mailed on July 15, 2010 to the Palo
Alto Neighborhoods list-serve, the Chamber of Commerce, and a total of approximately 50
organizations and individuals who might be considered stakeholders. Staff notes that the
proposed composition of the Task Force has been altered somewhat since the July 12 meeting,
based on comments from Council and the community in the interim, and to bring the participants
up to. the full complement of 15 members. In particular, representation from Californians for
Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) has been omitted, at the request of that organization, which
prefers to remain independent participants of the process. Also, the CalTrain Joint Powers Board
representative has been deleted, as staff believes that agency could better serve as a resource for
the study. Staff has added representatives that appear likely to have a direct stake in the corridor
planning effort, including one each from: students (Youth Council), social services providers
(e.g., InnVision, Avenidas), realtors (Silicon Valley Board of Realtors), architects/designers
(Santa Clara Valley AlA), and a Palo Alto Caltrain rider.
There were several other interested parties considered, but staff believed that all of those would
be represented in some way under the proposal. This composition does not exclude other groups
or individuals from participation in the meetings, and staff expects that the first product of the
Task Force will be a community engagement plan to effectively involve as many interested
parties as possible.
Task Force Review Process
Staff also has proposed a revised process for reVIew of Task Force study reports and
recommendations. In particular, the process would typically result in Task Force
recommendations to the P&TC, which then recommends to the City Council. The process would
not typically include review and recomnlendation by the City's HSR Committee, since they are
focused only on the HSR subject. However, provision is included to report quarterly to that
group and to provide status reports or recommendations that relate closely to HSR and are timely for HSR deliberations. Quarterly status reports to the P&TC and Council are also specified.
Staff believes that the Task Force approach to public outreach is critical to producing a study
within the prescribed budget and timeframe, and to ensure meaningful public input and
engagement. The composition may be altered somewhat, but staff believes that Task Force
nlembership should be limited to 15 to result in successful management of the meetings and
process.
CMR: 324:10 30f4
NEXT STEPS
Staff is in the process of preparing a Request for Proposal, incorporating and expanding the
scope of work, to disseminate to interested consultants. Staff is also proceeding with collecting
and summarizing relevant existing documents and studies. Upon Council direction, staff will
reach out to the various designated stakeholders to set up the Task Force. The Task Force could
proceed with its organization and outreach kickoff prior to the consultant(s) beginning work.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed Study is intended to review the existing policies of the City and to propose
revisions or additions for consideration. At this time, there is no action proposed contrary to
existing policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Study proposal and scope of work do not constitute a project requiring environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act. At this time, staff anticipates that
environmental review for the Rail Corridor Study will be completed as part of the
Comprehensive Plan.
PREPARED BY:
Director of Planning and Comnlunity Environment
APPROVED BY: . ~~ vQ~"v~ ~ STEVE EMSLIE
Deputy City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Preliminary Map of Study Area Boundary
CMR 307:10, Ju, 2010 Rail Corridor Study
COURTESY COPIES
Californians Advovating for Responsible Rail Design
Planning and Transportation Commission
CMR: xxx::10 Page 4 of 4
~ ()
"i' a -:;
" ;;: o ~--i §~ ~§
\
;0 ;00 ~, 0> ~ a = '< 0 c.... 0> ~ ~ 0. w' a: 0.
Q n:
C/) 0' C :::l
'",-0. ~
'-'< r "lJ 3' ~ fl ~= ~r s' 0> -< -" OJ 0 C :::l 0. 0> -<
~~\\~l\~-~J
..... ,
'-
-\
r-(I) ·co (I) :::::s Q.
ATTACHMENT A
o
'/";'/ '<, / :~~ \)-
/ \--~ . ..
-, !
/,
1,,-\---
0 3 t~"--------.p----.. --~~a.,,,,--------"------a."--------------"--------------I Ji g'~
~~ H !l g-
g o~ ~i Q~ ..z ~. 9.~ ~:
Palo Alto
Rail Corridor Study:
Preliminary Boundary
v.071910
;;:~I" ...................................................................................................... ~ ........................ .. o~
ATTACHMENT B
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JULY 12, 2010 CMR: 307:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Recommendation of High Speed Rail Committee for Council Review of and
Direction Regarding Draft Scope of Work for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
and Creation of a Rail Corridor Task Force
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This proposal outlines a scope of work, timeline and budget to prepare a Palo Alto Rail Corridor
Study. The intent of the proposed Rail Corridor Study is to generate a community vision for land
use, transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor, particularly in
response to improvements to fixed rail services along the tracks through Palo Alto. The proposal
anticipates that a Task Force representing 9-15 key stakeholders would be appointed by staff to
provide input to the study and to solicit information from the broader comn1unity. Committee
members would also serve as conduits for sharing information back to the community, formally
and informally. The study is proposed in three phases and the estimated timeframe for
completion is 13-16 months. The approximate cost of $200,000 would include about $100,000 in
the current fiscal year (already approved by Council) and $100,000 in the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
The next steps in the process would be to solicit proposals from planning and urban design
consultants and to initiate formation of the Task Force.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and comment on the Draft scope of work for a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study; and
2. Direct staff to proceed with the study, including issuance of a Request for Proposals for
consultant services.
BACKGROUND On June 23, 2010, the City Council conceptually approved the City'S comments to the California
High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) regarding the Authority's Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis (AA) Report, and directed staff to work with the Mayor, Chair of the High Speed Rail
(HSR) Committee, and accept other Council input to finalize the comments. The letter was sent
to the CHSRA on June 29,2010. The Council and the High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee have
also discussed the need for a rail corridor study to address the City'S vision for this corridor, in
conjunction with or apart fron1 High Speed Rail and coordinated with the City's Comprehensive
CMR: 307:10 Page 1 of 4
Plan update. On June 28, the Council approved a budget with funds designated to support a Palo
Alto Rail Corridor Study for the fiscal year 2011. The funding was approved contingent upon
subsequent Council direction to proceed with the study at the July 12 meeting.
On July 1, 2010, the Council's High Speed Rail Committee voted 3-1 (Chair Klein dissenting) to
recomn1end to the full Council that the study proceed as outlined in the following scope of work.
Most of the Committee discussion dealt with the composition and responsibilities of the
community task force proposed to provide input for the Study (see Discussion below).
DISCUSSION
The intent of the proposed Rail Corridor Study is to generate a community vision for land use,
transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor, particularly in
response to in1provements to fixed rail services along the tracks through Palo Alto. The study
may address some High Speed Rail (HSR) issues in a timely manner, but is not limited to the
HSR effort and would provide a vision and context for other rail improvements (even without
HSR) and the City's land use, transportation and urban design response to those actions. The
study area is not specifically defined at this time, but should begin with at least a boundary of
Alma Street on the east and EI Camino Real on the west, with the city boundaries of Menlo Park
and Mountain View to the north and south (Attachment B), to be expanded as impact and
opportunity areas are more clearly defined. A draft scope of work (Attachment A) for a Palo Alto
Rail Corridor Study, with time line and budget estimates, is included for Council review and is
discussed below:
a. Phased Approach: The scope of work outlines three primary phases of study over a 13-16
n10nth time frame:
o Phase I (4-6 months) would outline the preliminary "Context and Vision" for the
corridor, including' updated goals and policies and definition of key land use and
transportation parameters that will require further analysis and review.
o Phase II ( 6 months) would include the "Analysis" of land use, transportation, and
urban design components of potential rail and development scenarios, resulting in
two or three alten1atives and urban design considerations.
o Phase III (3-4 months) would integrate a preferred approach into a "Plan and
Implementation" to become a part of the Comprehensive Plan, including new or
modified goals, policies, and programs, implementation measures, mitigation, and
financing measures.
The phased approach is not entirely linear, however, as there are certain to be overlapping
components of the various phases, and staff will attempt to time the deliverables to
provide information that is timely to current reviews, such as the HSR effort.
b. Timeline: The scope anticipates a 13-16 month timeline for staff and consultant work
efforts. There is also likely to be about a 6-8 week lead time to bring a consultant aboard,
though staff could begin its work immediately.
c. Budget and Staff Resources: Staff would devote at least 0.5 FTE (half-time) of one
Planner or Senior Planner position to coordinate this effort and conduct the staff synthesis
.CMR: 307:10 Page 2 of 4
of existing and past planning efforts and analysis of Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies. Consultant services will be required for planning and urban design,
transportation, and economic analysis support. Estimated costs for consultant services are
estimated at $200,000 over the 16-month period, about 75% of which would be for
planning and urban design services. About half of this amount has been approved by
Council for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, and the remaining $100,000 would be required in
the following fiscal year to complete the study and plan by late 2011.
d. Public Outreach: The scope of work proposes a Rail Corridor Study Task Force to serve
as the primary conduit for input on and information flow regarding the Study to and from
key stakeholders and the larger community. Staff proposes that the Task Force be set up
and operate as follows:
o The Task Force would be appointed by the City Manager and would comprise 9-15
member~, representing broad stakeholder and community interests, including but not
limited to: adjacent or affected neighborhoods (3); business interests in downtown,
California Avenue, and elsewhere (3); Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail
Design (CARRD) (1); the Palo Alto Unified School District (1); an affordable
housing developer (1); an environmental representative (1); Stanford University (1);
and the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (1).
o Representatives from relevant City boards and commissions (e.g., Planning and
Transportation Commission, Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board,
Bicycle Advisory Committee, Citizen Traffic Safety Committee, Parks and
Recreation Commission) would be invited to appoint liaisons to the Task Force to
attend and observe meetings.
o The Task Force should serve as a conduit to and from other stakeholders and should
work with staff to set up networks and techniques at the outset of the process to
assure engagement of the broader community throughout the study.
o The Task Force will be a Brown Act committee, all meetings would be open to the
public and· notice would be provided to an extensive list of stakeholders and
interested individuals.
o The Task Force members will take votes to recommend components of the study to
the Planning and Transportation Commission and to the Council's HSR Committee.
Those two groups will then make recommendations to the City CounciL
Comn1unity outreach would also include community workshops, web-based interactive
information sharing and input, and periodic updates to the Plam1ing and Transportation
Commission and City CounciL Public hearings before both of those bodies will be
required prior to action on any of the Plan components. Staff believes that this approach
to public outreach is critical to producing a study within the prescribed budget and
timeframe.
The Council has previously voted to conduct a study of the key economic impacts and
opportunities of the High Speed Rail alternatives, rather than incorporate the analysis into the
Rail Corridor Study. This will allow for more timely input on these economic components to be
CMR: 307:10 Page 3 of4
con1pleted within the next 3-4 months. Approximately $40,000 of the funding approved by the
Council on June 28 is intended for the economic analysis (about $100,000 is then available for
the Rail Corridor Study in this fiscal year). Staff from Planning and the Manager's office will
meet later this week to outline the process for moving forward on the economic study, and will
present that outline and schedule to the HSR Committee and Council at upcoming meetings.
NEXT STEPS
Upon direction from the Council, staff will prepare a Request for Proposal, incorporating and
expanding the scope of work, to disseminate to interested consultants. Staff will also proceed
immediately with collecting and summarizing relevant existing documents and studies and
setting up the Task Force. The Task Force could proceed with its organization and outreach
kickoff prior to the consultant( s) beginning work.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed Study is intended to review the existing policies of the C~ty and to propose
revisions or additions for consideration. At this time, there is no action proposed contrary to
existing policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Study proposal and scope of work do not constitute a project requiring environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act. At this time, staff anticipates that
environmental review for the rail corridor study will be completed as part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
PREPARED BY:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
APPROVED BY: ~M~~+
Deputy City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Scope of Work for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
CMR: 307:10 Page 4 of4
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
Draft Scope of Work
July 12, 2010
ATTACHMENT A
A. Rail Corridor Study Intent and Definition: The Rail Corridor Study is intended to
generate a community vision for land use, transportation, and urban design
opportunities along the corridor, particularly in response to improvements to fixed
rail services along the Caltrain tracks through Palo Alto. Those improvenlents
may include any or all of the following: Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification
and/or grade separations, and/or High Speed Rail service. The "corridor" would
. cover, at a minimum, the Caltrain tracks from the Menlo Park boundary on the
north to the Mountain View city limit on the south, Alma Street parallel to the
tracks, and sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected
by potential land use, transportation, and urban design changes. The study would
then be translated into a Plan and implementation measures, and would be
incorporated, at least by into the City'S Comprehensive Plan.
B. Phase I: Context and Vision
1. Intent: Articulation of community values, character, vision
2. Contextlbackground: Comprehensive Plan, HSR Alternatives Analysis,
technical/operational (HSR, Caltrain) analyses, Revised Program EIR (Central
Valley to Bay Area), Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center plamling
3. Work Tasks:
a. Define key land use paralneters and issues: e.g., redevelopment and/or
intensification opportunities, proximity to residential and transitions from
residential; preservation of community character/historic resources
b. Define key transportation paranleters and issues: grade separations, Alma
Street design, Palo Alto High Speed Rail station, pedestrian and bicycle
linkages and opportunities
4. Outreach: Stakeholder/public task force; community meeting; web-based
interactive community involvement; and progress meetings and public
hearings with the PTC and Council; other outreach methods to be identified
5. Deliverables: Updated goals, policies and vision statement(s); identification of
issues and opportunities for detailed analysis
6. Resources: Comp Plan planner (0.5 FTE); planning/urban design consultant
($50,000)
7. Schedule: 4-6 months (timed to provide input prior to release ofHSR DEIR)
Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: July 12,2010
Page 2
C. Phase II: Analysis
1. Intent: Analysis and development of land use, transportation and urban design
alternatives reflecting vision, goals and policies for corridor
2. Context: Phase I products and background, Draft EIR for San Jose-San
Francisco HSR (if available)
3. Work Tasks:
a. Evaluate land use constraints and opportunities, such as redevelopment/mixed
use along corridor (including Alma), open space enhancements, LEED-ND
consistency, housing sites, perfonning arts facilities; and define implications
for schools and parks, business districts, PTOD areas, potential right-of-way
needs (for rail or for grade separations)
b. Evaluate transportation constraints and opportunities, such as grade
separations, upgrading Alma Street, facilitating pedestrianlbike modes and new
linkages; and define key impacts on existing road networks, transit,
bicycle/pedestrian travel; and potential right-of-way needs (for rail or grade
separations)
c. Evaluate urban design constraints and opportunities, such as integration of
transportation network (auto, transit, bike, ped) with land uses, including
mixed use and open/public spaces; historic resource compatibility; public art;
and appropriate transitions from neighborhoods; as well as design of
transportation infrastructure (rail facilities, grade separations, bike/ped
facilities); and impediments to cohesive design (at grade/elevated tracks, grade
separations, etc.)
4. Outreach: Stakeholder/public task force; community workshops; web-based
interactive community involvement; progress meetings and public hearings
with PTC and Council; other outreach methods to be identified
5. Deliverables: Up to 3 alternative land use/transportation scenarios, preliminary
traffic and visual impact analyses, and identification of draft urban design
principles and opportunities
6. Resources: Compo Plan planner (0.5 FTE); planning/urban design consultant
($50,000); transportation/engineering consultant ($25,000)
7. Schedule: 6 months
Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: July 12, 2010
Page 3
D. Phase III: Plan and Implementation
1. Intent: Prepare plan as guidance for corridor development and for integration
into Comprehensive Plan; and implementation measures and schedule
2. Context: Phase I and Phase II products and background; Comprehensive Plan
update; future High Speed Rail studies or decisions
3. Work Tasks:
a. Identify preferred land use/transportation/urban design strategy(ies)
b. Refine vision/goals/policies from Phase I
c. Identify key environmental considerations/mitigation
d. Identify key costs implications/considerations
e. Identify implementation and funding approach (CIP, bonds, tax increment
financing, public/private partnerships, TDR, codes)
4. Outreach: Stakeholder/public task force, community workshops, web-based
interactive community involvement, and public meetings and hearings with
PTC and Council; other outreach methods to be identified
5. Deliverables: Draft Rail Corridor Plan and implementation components for
public review; Comprehensive Plan amendments as necessary
6. Resources: Comp Plan planner (0.5 FTE); planning/urban design consultant
($50,000); transportation/engineering consultant ($25,000); economic
consultant ($15,000)
7. Schedule: 3-4 months (not including EIR)
Total Time and Cost
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Totals
Additional Assun1ptions:
Time
4-6 months
6 months
3-4 months
13-16 months
Cost (excluding staff costs)
$ 50,000
$ 75,000
$ 90,000
$200,000
1. Most public outreach embodied in proposed Task Force (9-15 members); appointed by
staff to represent broad cross-section of stakeholders (adjacent/nearby homeowners,
businesses, CAARD, P AUSD, housing, environmental, Stanford, Caltrain JPB, etc.);
all meetings open to the public and invitees will include an extensive list of
stakeholders
2. Environmental review builds on HSR or Con1p Plan EIR or is an additional task
3. No extensive design study of an HSR station
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS
COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
July 19, 2010
The Council Appointed Officers Committee of the City of Palo Alto
met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:30 p.m.
Present: Espinosa, Klein Price, Scharff
Absent:
ORAL COMMtJNICATIONS
None
1. Discussion and Approval of the Recruitment Process for the
City Attorney
Human Resources Director, Russ Carlsen spoke about the process
that has been used in the past for recruiting for the positions of
City Attorney, City Manager, and City Auditor. He stated that the
City Council could direct staff to do a formal Request for Proposal
(RFP) or to call prominent recruiters. Once the staff had received
the proposals from the recruitment firms, the Council Appointed
Officers Committee would review them and forward their
recommendation to the City Council for approval.
Council Member Scharff asked if there were firms that specialized in
the recruitments for attorneys, and that worked broadly in
recruiting city employees. .
Mr. Carlsen stated typically the public sector recruiters cover all
positions of city government.
1 07/19/2010
City Manager, James Keene stated a specialized firm that recruited
specifically for attorneys may be able to cast a wider net.
Council Member Price asked if it would be better to focus on those
firms that have extensive experience in recruiting for public sector
employees. An RFP would make the process take longer.
Mr. Carlsen advised that when the firms responded, staff would
review them to see how much experience they have had in
recruiting for city attorneys.
Council Member Price asked what Staff is asking from the CAO
Committee.
Mr. Carlsen stated one choice is for the staff to do the recruitment
in-house, which he would not recommend. The second would be a
more focused RFP that focused on companies that specialized in
City Attorney or city government recruitments. The third choice
would be to do a broad RFP, which would protract the process for
several weeks longer.
Council Member Klein stated in 2008 we had two RFP recruitments,
one for the City Manager, and one for the City Auditor. We used
Mr. Murray for the City Manager recruitment, and Mr. Oldani for the
City Auditor recruitment.
Mr. Keene stated he thought that they should look at the past
recruitments that firms have done for City Attorney. He stated
using search firms that don't specialize in public sector is not a
good choice as they don't know the nuances of public sector work.
Council Member Klein stated that he believed that most City
Attorneys come out of the public sector. They work their way up in
city government. The real value of a headhunter is who they know
that may not be looking right now, but may still be interested.
Vice Mayor Espinosa stated that the process we went through in
2008 was a good process. He had concerns about the brochures
that are created and if there has been movement to move away
from these and do more online.
Mr. Carlsen stated we could look at not doing brochures, however
there is a broad scope of people that get the information.
2 07119/2010
Vice Mayor Espinosa stated he wasn't saying to not do them,
however City Managers and others have a broad network who know
possible candidates.
Herb Borock, Palo Alto spoke about the process that was used when
the City hired the current City Attorney.
Council Member Klein stated there are several questions that this
Committee and the full Council will have to address once we have a
. consultant onboard. We will have to look at if we want a citizens
committee, and to what degree. What we did with the City
Manager's recruitment was have a board of public members, city
executive staff, and others to interview the finalists. They
interviewed the candidates and gave their recommendations to the
City Council.
Mr. Keene stated that these type of decisions would be discussed
with the chosen firm. He stated that when you do interviews
involving members of the public in an open session, it could give
Council and the candidate a sense of how they would handle
working in Palo Alto.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Espinosa moved, seconded by Council
Member Price to recommend to Council to have an RFP that takes a
more focused approach in both the recruiting firms and candidates.
Council Member Klein asked if there was a timetable to move
forward on this.
Mr. Carlsen stated he believed their recommendation would be to
bring this to full Council on Monday, July 26, 2010. Once approved,
staff would get moving and could possibly have a 30-45 day
turnaround.
Council Member Scharff asked how many firms might respond to
the RFP.
Mr. Carlsen if you get 8-10 that is a good amount. It not a big
field.
Council Member Klein stated this would come back to full Council to
interview the recommended firms from the CAO Committee.
3 07/19/2010
Mr. Carlsen stated staff would forward the responses to the RFP to
the CAO Committee for their review and recommendations to the
City Council.
Council Member Klein agreed that would be a good process.
Council Member Scharff asked if the CAO Committee could winnow
it down to 3 or 4 firms.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the CAO Committee would
review the RFP responses and select the firms to recommend to the
City Council for final approval.
Vice Mayor Espinosa asked if Staff would have those back in time,
before the September 13, 2010 Council meeting.
Mr. Carlsen stated staff could return to the CAO Committee right
after Labor Day with the RFP's for their review and
recommendations to the City Council at the Council meeting of
September 13, 2010.
Mr. Keene stated the responses to the RFP is perfunctory but it is
the interviews with the firms that matter.
Council Member Klein stated if Council approves this on July 26,
2010 then there is the month of August to move this forward.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to place on the
Council agenda for July 26, 2010 their recommendation to proceed
with for a Request for Proposal for the City Attorney recruitment
process.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
2. Consideration of an Exit Interview of the City Attorney.
Council Member Klein stated that he had been approached by
Sherry Lund about conducting an exit interview of the City
Attorney. He stated that Gary Baum thought it was a good idea, if
it were an informal process.
Council Member Scharff asked if this would be in public or private.
4 07119/2010
Council Member Klein stated this would be handled in a Closed
Session.
Council Member Price stated that this is a good idea to offer that to
the Mr. Baum. She stated it does have value.
Council Member Klein asked if the City had done anything like this
in the past.
Mr. Carlsen stated that staff have used them in the past, but he
was not sure for CAD's.
Mr. Keene stated he has done them for Department Directors.
Council Member"Price asked who would participate in it.
Mr. Carlsen said it could be done by the CAD Committee.
Council Member Scharff stated he would like to include Mr. Keene
and Mr. Carlsen.
Mr. Keene advised that they would check with Mr. Baum to see
what his thoughts were.
Council Member Price stated stated her concerns with the
involvement of Mr. Keene as it was a parallel position to his.
Council Member Klein stated that this did not have to be
. completed until October and that staff should do an informational
report to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m ..
5 07/19/2010
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: JULY 26, 2010 CMR: 306:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
~ .. ~_ SUQ.JECT;~ ... _~ AllJIroval of an Electricll:nte.rpriseFund Contract with Pacheco Utility
Line Builders, Inc. for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $3,000;000 for-~
Providing Overhead Electric Transmission and Distribution System
Construction Services -Capital Improvement Program Budget EL
98003
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
I. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Pacheco Utility Line Builders, Inc. for a period of twelve (12) months in an amount not
to exceed $1,000,000 to provide overhead construction services.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to renew the contract for up to two additional 12
month periods at a not to exceed cost of$1 ,000,000 for the first renewal (FY 20 II) and a not
to exceed cost of $1,000,000 for the second renewal (FY 2012) for a total contract price of
$3,000,000 if the contractor is responsive to the contract requirements, and the quality of the
work is acceptable during the first twelve months of the contract.
Project Description
The work to be performed under the contract is for providing overhead construction services on the
City of Palo Alto's (City) electric transmission and distribution system. The contractor will be asked
to provide two crews (one four-person crew and one two-person crew) to be used full time by the
City's Electric Operations for a period of twelve (12) months, with an option for the City to extend
the term for two additional 12-month periods.
The contractor services mainly include replacements of poles, transformers, air switches, connectors,
insulators, overhead conductors, and any other miscellaneous work related with overhead line
construction. In addition, the crew will be available to assist Electric Operations for general
maintenance and restoration of power during emergency and storm· situations.
CMR: 306:10 Page 1 of3
Staffis recommending the use of a contractor to perform this work because the City'S electric line
workforce does not have adequate staff to meet the current peak workload. Existing staff is barely
keeping up 'With the new business requests, underground construction, and some maintenance work.
The contractor mil be asked to perform overhead services to assist city crews in mecting deadlines
of the different capital improvement projects. Furthermore, there is insufficient city staff to keep up
mth the increased nmnber of poles requiring replacement in the current fiscal year and the poles
planned to be replaced over the next three years. This type of work has been performed by a third
party contractor for the last four years and City SEIU staffs are not being displaced by this contract.
SummaryofBidProc~~~s~ ______ ~ __ ~~~ ____ ~~ __ ~-=~ ______________ ~
: Bid NamelNmnber .. ! Overhead Construction Services/IFB-r 1c-=-----,,~-::"---=:c-"'=c-:------r--"-'-=~~~=~"_'_:c7c.'-=-~_:::_:_-_:---li
LProposed Length of Project .. 11 year mth option toextend for two additional years
I Number of Bids Mailed to. 6
____ .. __.contractOrL I
I:
[
iNumber of Bids Mailed to Builder's 17 ~xchanges .. _---'.1-=-: _____ ----------------11
• Total Days to R,espond to Bid : 21 ~:I
i Pre-Bid Meeting? I Yes, non-mandatory ~
Bid Price Range -Hourly Rate for 4 . From $479.00 to $569.99
I person crew .
: Bid Price Range _. Hourly Rate for 21: From $59.00 to $281.65
I person crew .
*Bid smnmary provided in Attachment B.
Staffhas reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid submitted by Pacheco Utility Line
Builders, Inc. be accepted and that Pacheco Utility Line Builders, Ine. be declared the lowest
responsible bidder.
Pacheco Utility Line Builders, Inc. was selected because of its recent experience mth related
projects, full understanding of the RFP, cost, and the foreman's qualifications and experience.
Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed by Pacheco Utility
Line Builders, Inc. and found no complaints. Staff also checked the contractor's license with the
Contractor's State License Board and found that the contractor has an active license on file.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this capital improvement project are included in.FY 2011 Electric Capital Improvement
Program Budget EL 98003 -and Distribution Operation and Maintenance Budget. Continued work
under this contract for FY 2012 and FY 2013 mil be subject to satisfactory performance by the
contractor and appropriation of required funds in these fiscal years.
CMR: 306:10 Page 2 of3
I
This contract augments the regular workforce to ensure that proper maintenance of the electric
infrastructure is accomplished while meeting peak workload needs.
POLICY IMPLICA nONS
The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies, including the Council-
approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy No.1, "Operate distribution system in a cost effective
manner" and; Strategy No.2, "Invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service".
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to
CEQA guidelines section 15301 (operation, repair, maintenance of existing facilitieS). and section
15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities).
AITACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
. -··-AttacliliienCB:Bfd·SUminary .~-:-r:4--.. ---,.;;>------.-.---........ -
PREPARED BY: AN '\J"J
. fA JIM THOMPSON
Seni~ctric Project Engineer
APPROVED BY: j _~ T.-V~
TOMM MARSHALL
Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering
DEPARTMENT HEAD: VA&'~NG
Director of~s
--~'> £t···}::~-E KEENE
Ci anager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 306:10 Page 3 00
". " ,'c _ I.' .
ATTACHMENT A
~ ----~~~-~~~-----~-~~~
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C11136255
City of Palo Alto
and
Pacheco Utility Line Builders, Inc.
PROJECT
OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Rev. May 6,2010
SECTION 1.
· CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................... 1
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Deflnillons ........................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ............................................................................... 2
SECTION 4. THE WORK ........................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION .................................................................................... 2
6.1 Time Is of Essence ............................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Commencement of Work ................................................................................................... 3
6.3 Contract Time ..................................................................................................................... 3
6.4 liquidated Damages .......................................................................................................... 3
6.4.1 Entitlement.. ................................................................................................................. 3
6.4.2 Daily Amount ............................................................................................................... 3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy ....................................................................................................... 3
6.4.4 Other Remedies .......................................................................................................... 3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time .......................................................................................... 3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR .............................................................. 3
7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 3
7.2 Full Compensation ............................................................................................................. 4
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................ 4
7.3.1 Self Performed Work ................................................................................................... 4
7.3.2 Subcontractors ............................................................................................................ 4
Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 2010.DOC
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 4
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFiCATION ............................................................................................ 4
9.1 Hold Harmless .................................................................................................................... 4
9.2 Survival ............................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ...................................................................................... 5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ................................................................................ 5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ............................................................ 5
SECTION 13. NOTiCES ............................................................................................................ 6
--...... _--_ ..... --'--"'------
13.1 Method of Notice ................................................................................................................ 6
13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................................ 6
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................................ 6
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ........................................................................................... 7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ................................................................................................ 7
14.2.2 Litigation. City Election ................................................................................................. 7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute ...................................................................................... 7
14.3.1 By Contractor ............................................................................................................... 7
14.3.2 By Clty .......................................................................................................................... 8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................................. 8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations ...................................................................................................... 8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 8
14.4.3 Mediation ..................................................................................................................... 8
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ....................................................................................................... 9
14.5 Non-Waiver ....................................................................................................................... 10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT ......................................................................................................... 10
15.1 Notice of Default.. .......... ~ .................................................................................................. 10
15.2 Opportunity to Cure ~efault ............................................................................................ 10
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................... 10
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ................................................................................................... 10
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11
ii Rev. MayS, 2010
IFB Cooslruction Contract Template May 6. 2010.00C
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ......................................................................... 11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default... .................................................... 11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ................................................................................... 11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ................................................................................................. 11
16.2 Delays by Sureties ........................................................................................................... 11
16.3 Damages to City ............................................................................................................... 12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default ........................................................................................ , , .. 12
16,3,2 Compensation for Losses ............ , ........................................................ , .................... 12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience ............................................................................. 12
16.6 Termination Without Cause ............................................................................................ 12
16.6,1 Compensation , .......................................................................................................... 12
16.6,2 Subcontractors .......................................................................................................... 13
16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination .......................................................................... 13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................. 13
17.1 Contractor's Remedies .................................................................................................... 13
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage ................................................................................................... 13
17,1.2. For City's Non-Payment... .......................................................................................... 13
17.2 Damages to Contractor ................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................... 14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access ........................................................................ 14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ...................................................................................... 14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ................................................................................ 14
SECTION 20. NUISANCE ....................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES .............................................................................. 14
SECTION 22. WAiVER ............................................................................................................ 14
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15 .
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES ...................................................................................... 15
IFB Construction Conlr.;ctTemplate May 6. 2010.00C iii Rev, May 6. 2010
SECTION 27
SECTION 28
SECTION 29
SECTION 30
NON APPROPRIATION ................................................................................... 15
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS .......................................................................... 15
ATTORNEY FEES .••.••••••••••••••....•...•••.••••..••••..••••••............................................ 15
SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 15
iv Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 2010.DOC
-~ ... -~-.~~~ ~~~-.... --~--... ----.... _--_ ...... -'--"'--~~~ ~~~-.... -~.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on July 25, 2010 ("Execution Date") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Pacheco
Utility Une Builders, Inc. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
REC ITALS;
A City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor's License Number 750251. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the
State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 1, 2010, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the
.-~ ___ .Olle[head.ConslructiQn..S.eIllice.s("p[Qj~..1.J!lL~sRonse to theIE.BLQontract()r submitted <l biL .. ~.~ ..
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contractfor the Project, and
other services as identified In the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
condUions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference,
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions, If there Is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Overihead Construction ("Project"),
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents,
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreemenf' or "Bid Documents")
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference,
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
1 Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Temptate May 6, 2010.o0C
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto TraffiC Control ReqUirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, Interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitetion, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
SECTIONS TIME OF COMPLETION.
2 Rev. May 6.2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6. 2010.DOC
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City's Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed I8J not later than time determined by project manager. o within calendar days ( ) after the commencement date specified in City's
Notice to Proceed.
Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
'---orContractor'stailure, sliostafitialaamageswhlCh,lr!,b'othexlremelydifflcultand"-....
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may Include, but are not limited to:
(il Loss of public confidence in City and Its contractors and conSUltants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion ofthe
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that In addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, In the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion ofthe entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount Is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City's only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work. within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the·
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Not To Exceed Amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per
year.
3 Rev. May 6. 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6,201 O.DOC
... -~--.... ----... --.--
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be fu II compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses ariSing out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted {either by addition or credit} for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. . Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section .
... ----... ---~---···2.·-~·-Alump.sum.agreed.upon.by.city.and .contractor,.based.DnJb.easllm.aJed..AIIQ>lI.able __ ._
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor's Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed In accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work arlo be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of· every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.·>
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personne!. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in
a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize
in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
4 Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 2010.DOC
... -~--.... ~ .--.... ~~~-~--~~-... -~.~~ ... -~ --... ----... ~ --_ ... _---... --
9.2
(ii) Perlormance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier. of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, eHher on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shail obligate Contractor to Indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sale or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of Indemnity In favor of
Contractor against City or any other IndemnHee.
Survival.
--... --~ .~-Theprovisions-of-£eotlon-9·shall·survlve·the·termination-of-thls·ConstructionContract.~ __ ~_ ... __
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510. Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation. housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2,30,510 pertaining to nondiscrimination In employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AlND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date. Contractor shail provide CHy with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 ofthe General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breacih of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRAINSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any Interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of CHy. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be nuil and void,
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or jOint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or jOint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
5 Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 2010.DOC
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United Stales mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(Iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
-~~···-~eityelerkm~m~-... -~-.. m-~ .m~m~~ . __ m •• ~_ '_~m __
Copyto:D
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
Or
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Jim Thompson
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney's Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
p.o. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Jim Thompson
13.3 Change of Address.
In the evenl of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of Ihe
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delele or replace
any Individuals to whom and addresses 10 which notice shall be provided.
6 Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB ConslruCDon Contract Template May 6. 2010.00C
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not Include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation Imposed by a
governmental agency;
(Ii) Third party tort claims for personal Injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
____ ... __ .... _____ ...._ . __ . ____ ... subc.cmtri!l.cto..rs of any tier;
(iii) False claims liabTfiiy underCallfornliIGovernmenn:;oaeSectlori12650~eC---
seq.;
14.2.2
(iv) Defects in the Work first dlscoverad by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Califomia, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in ils sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of Its election as provided In the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process In the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, CIty's right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
wrillen response denying all or part of a Claim pursuantlo Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City's decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor's Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustmenls to the
Contract Time and
(iI) A detailed. event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
7 Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Templata May 6, 2010.DOC
14.4 c
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute SUbmitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such
events.
Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps In the Contract Dispute Resolution
"-~'Process-Inth6'sequence·theyappear-~elow,~Ea(lh-partyshall·partlolpatefully-and·ln
good faith In each step In the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible
(but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in
a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall
be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full
knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in
the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and
there, subject only to City's obligation to obtain administrative andfor City Council
approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the
assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier,
against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass-
Through Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City's right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have bean deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided. however, that such Informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
B Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6. 2010.DOC
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1. the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator .
. 1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least fIVe (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition. the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills .
. 2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upcn a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice. then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at Its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules .
. 3 Mediation Process_ The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the
purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to
California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation. then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240. et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be Initiated by filing a complaint
In arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5 .
. 2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
eventthe parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator. the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein .
• 3 Hearing Days and location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days. without interruption or
continuance .
. 4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upcn good
cause shown.
9 Rev. May 6. 2010
IFB Construc!ion Contract Template May 6. 2010.DOC
... --..... --~
·5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award .
. 6 limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery In
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depOSitions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbHrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
....... -----evidencec---.. --~------~ ~-.-~~ ..... -~--
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbITrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards .
. 8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its rlghtto
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration In accordance WITh the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor's failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor's failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that Cfty determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or Is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any defautt in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents wHhin two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, If the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such wrHten notice.
IFS Construction Contract remplate May 6, 2010.DOC 10 Rev, May 6, 2010
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions ofthe
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
------eity~may;withullt~terminatlng~the~eunstruction· COntract~and~resel'\ling-to~ilself~all---.
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, In its sole discretion,
appropriate, In which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
speCified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City's authority to deSignate other breaches as material nor limit City's right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
11 Rev. May 6,2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 2010.DOC
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City·s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor's sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties' failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties' abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties' Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties' violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties' failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties' failure to follow City's instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor's default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor's default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience. .
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City's expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such term ination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the
Work:
12 Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 201 D.DOe
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly perfonmed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor .
• 2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close·out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination .
• 3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions In all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting tenmination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
----..... ------...... -conslstentwith this eonstruction Contract'and that afford nogreate rrightsofrecovery-
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of tenmination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes.
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion ofthe Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and anywritlen changes, amendments or
modificetions thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary In order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor
to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(Iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by aSSignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and eqUipment on the Project
Site or In transit thereto.
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor's Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 2010.DOC 13 Rev. May 6,2010
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resuijing from the City's issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums wijhin ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
---and exclusive-compensation andagrees-!owaive anyclaim-foroihercompensatlon-or-losses-, _ .. _-
including, but no! limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
10.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later
of (i) final payment or (Ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
10.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein
set forth.
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
14 Rev. May 6,2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6, 2010.DOC
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permtts, and fees, required by the City or other
govemment jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
~'-~-~~"~-StateofCaliforni8:'~---~'~-----'
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records, shall remain In full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and Implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to Its authority as a
chartered city. has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the CHy of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
15 Rev. May 6,2010
IFB Conslruction ContractTemplale Mays, 2010.DOC
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and In any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attorneys employed by H as weil as any attorney's' fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO PACHECO UTILITY LINE BUILDERS, INC.
!
By:.~ ________________ ___
City Manager Name:, ____________________ ___
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Title: _____ . ______ ___
Senior Asst. City Attorney
16 Rev. May 6, 2010
IFB Construction Contract Template May 6. 201 O.DOC
BID
ITEM
1
2
2010-2011 Overhead Construction Services
IFB NO. 136255
Michaels PAR
BASE BID: Power Electrical
DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
~
~~.
pverhead Services 4-person crew 1 HR $526 $526 $569.99 $569.99
Overhead Services 2-person crew 1 HR $230 $230 $281.56 $281.65
~-
BASE BID TOTAL: $756 $851.64
,
Pacheco I Utility I
UNIT AM~~~T PRICE
$479.00 $479.QO
$59.00 $59.00
$538.01)
All Day
Electric
UNIT
PRICE
$525.00
$260.00
BID
AMOUNT
$525.00
$260.00
$785.00
.~
~
(") ,
tl:l
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JULY 26, 2010 CMR:320:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of Four Multiple Prime Contracts for tbe Civic Center
Infrastructure Improvements -Capital Improvement Program
Project PF-OJ002: 1) Contract with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in tbe
Amount of $367,313 for General Work Items and Finishes;
2) Contract with Everest Waterproof"mg aod Restoration, Inc. in the
Amount of $648,934 for Exterior Improvements; 3) Contract with
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. in tbe Amount of $1,270,695 for
Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinkler and Controls; and 4) Contract
with B.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. in tbe Amount of $749,000 for
Electrical And Fire Alarm
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that Council:
I. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in the amount of $367,313 (Attachment A) for Civic Center
Infrastructure Upgrades: General Work Items and Finishes -Capital Improvement
Program Project PF-01002.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Nexgen Builders, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen
work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed
$55,000.
3. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Everest Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. in the amount of $648,934
(Attachment B) for Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrades: Exterior Improvements -
Capital Improvement Program Project PF-OlOO2.
4. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Everest Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. for related,
additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of
which shall not exceed $97,500.
5. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with ACCD Engineered Systems, Inc. in the amount of $1,270,695 (Attachment C) for
CMR:320:10 Page 1 of6
Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrades: Mechanical. Plumbing. Fire Sprinklers and
Controls -Capital Improvement Program Project PF-OI002.
6. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. for related, additional but
unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not
exceed $190,600.
7. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached coptract
with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. in the amount of $749,000 (Attachment D) for Civic
Center Infrastructure Upgrades: Electrical and Fire Alann -Capital Improvement
Program Project PF -01002.
8. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. for related. additional but
unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not
exceed $112,000.
BACKGROUND
The Civic Center was built in 1969. It houses the majority of the City administrative offices in
86,500 square feet, the police station in 19,000 square feet, and three levels of parking in
250,000 square feet. The building complex has a replacement value approaching $100 million
doUars in today's market. Industry standards recommend spending a minimum of 2% of the
building value on maintenance and repairs annually. equating to $2 million per year, to preserve
and maintain the building. These expenditures are not for upgrades, improvements or
betterments; rather they serve to preserve and maintain the building in continuing good
functional condition.
As part of the on-going capital infrastructure maintenance program, a complete building system
study of the Civic Center was completed in fiscal year 2002-03. The Civic Center Building
Infrastructure Study dated September 5, 2003 may be viewed at the Public Works Department
counter located on the 6th floor at 250 Hamilton A venue, Palo Alto, or by contacting the
Manager of Facilities Maintenance and Projects at (650) 496-6973. Following the
recommendations of the study, an elevator upgrade, the first major infrastructure work, was
completed in 2005. In 2005, the Council awarded a design services contract for the remainder of
the work identified in FY 2002/03, which includes electrical system upgrades, generator
replacement, mechanical system upgrades, and exterior sealing and painting (CMR:282:05). A
contract for Construction Management Services was awarded in March 2008 to assist City staff
with project management (CMR: 160:08).
Due to the overall cost of the project, construction of the major work was broken into five phases
and was intended to be bid in three packages. The first construction phase for the major work,
Bid Package I, was awarded in August 2008 (CMR:334:08) with construction completed in July
2009. TIlls package included replacement of the main building generator, boiler, and
refurbishment of major garage and building mechanical and electrical systems. Bid Packages
originally designated as 2 and 3 have been combined and bid as Bid Package 2 to take advantage
of the current favorable bid climate. This bid package includes the upgrade of the balance of the
mechanical systems; electrical systems, including transformers, panels, etc.; and exterior painting
CMR:320: 10 Page 2 of 6
and sealing. These systems have exceeded their expected useful lives and are in need of
replacement to provide another 30 years of beneficial use of the building. Mechanical and
electrical systems serving the police wing are excluded from the project at this time.
DISCUSSION
The work to be completed under this phase will be completed by four multiple prime contractors
responsible for: General Work Items and Finishes; Exterior Improvements; Mechanical,
Plumbing, Fire Sprinklers and Controls; and Electrical and Fire Alarm. Use of this multiple
prime delivery method, coupled with a construction management finn, provides reduced
overhead cost for the specialty contractors, increases competition for each contract, and
augments project management services of the limited staffing available in·house.
The scope of work under General Work Items and Finishes includes providing all general jobsite
requirements; structural infill of walls, floors, ceilings and roof sla,b as required to support the
other packages; roof patching and repair; modification of elevator lobbies for fire and building
code compliance; and full renovation of the first and seventh floor restrooms for accessibility
compliance including all finishes, accessories and partitions.
The scope of work under Exterior Improvements includes patching and repair of the pre·cast
concrete panels; installing building parapet cap; painting of tower, chambers, and police wing;
and removal and. replacement of windows, window seals and caulking to address ongoing water
intrusion issues. Designated windows will be replaced with breakout windows per code
requirements.
The scope of work under Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinkler and Controls includes the
demolition and re·work of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and control work for the
upgrade of distribution systems on each tower floor. Plumbing upgrades for restrooms and fire
sprinkler system modifications as required by code shall be completed.
The scope of work under Electrical and Fire Alann includes the demolition and re·work of
electrical distribution and fire alarm systems on tower floors including replacement of panels and
installation of lighting controls. Designated transformers throughout the building will also be
replaced.
Work of all four contractors will be concurrent with disruptive work scheduled for evenings and
weekends whenever possible. Construction of this phase is scheduled to begin late summer 20 I 0
with completion in summer 2011.
Bid Process
Notices inviting fonnal bids for the Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrades project four bid
packages were posted at City Hall and sent to forty three contractors and eight builder's
exchanges on June 1,2010. The bidding period was thirty eight days. Bids were received from
fifteen qualified contractors on July 8, 2010, as listed on the attached bid summary
(Attachment E).
General Work Items and Finishes bids ranged from a high of$781,500 to a low bid of$367,313.
Exterior Improvements bids ranged from a high of $1 ,360,423 to a low bid of $648,934.
CMR:320:10 Page30f6
Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinklers and Controls bids ranged from a high of $2,708,842 to a
low bid of$I,270,695.
Electrical and Fire Alarm bids ranged from a high of$I,3 17,581 to a low bid of $749,000.
S fB·d P ummarvo I rocess
Bid NamelNumber Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrades -IFB
Proposed Length of Project 270 calendar days
Number of Bid Packages Mailed to 43
Contractors
Number of Builder's Exchanges 8
receiving Bid Packages
Total Days to Respond to Bid 38
Pre-Bid Meeting June 15,2010
Number of Company Attendees at 38
Pre-Bid Meeting
Number of Bids Received: 4
General Work Items and Finishes
Bid Price Range $781,500 -$367,3 13
Number of Bids Received: Exterior 5
Improvements
Bid Price Range $1 ,360,423 -$648,934
Number of Bids Received: 3
Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire
Sprinklers and Controls
Bid Price Range $1,447,592 -$1,270,695
Number of Bids Received: 3
Electrical And Fire Alarm
Bid Price Range $1 ,077,000 -$749,000 . *Bld summary proVided 10 Attachment E.
Staff reviewed al l bids submitted for General Work Items and Finishes and recommends that the
bid of $367,313 submitted by Nexgen Builders, Inc. be accepted and that Nexgen Builders, Inc.
be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The change order amount of$55,OOO which equals 15
percent of the total contract is requested for unforeseen conditions which may be discovered
during construction.
Staff reviewed all bids submitted for Exterior Improvements and recommends that the bid of
$648,934 submitted by Everest Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. be accepted and that Everest
Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The change order
amount of $97,500 which equals 15 percent of the total contract is requested for unforeseen
conditions which may be discovered. during construction.
Staff reviewed all bids submitted for Mechanical, Plwnbing, Fire Sprinklers and Controls and
recommends that the bid of $1,270,695 submitted by ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. be
CMR:320:10 Page 4 of6
accepted and that ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder.
The change order amount of $190,600 which equals 15 percent of the total contract is requested
for unforeseen conditions which may be discovered during construction.
Staff reviewed all bids submitted for Electrical and Fire Alann and recommends that the bid of
$749,000 submitted by HA Bowen Electric, Inc. be accepted and that HA Bowen Electric, Inc.
be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The change order amount of $112,000 which equals
15 percent of the total contract is requested for unforeseen conditions which may be discovered
during construction.
To take advantage of the favorable bidding climate, Bid Packages 2 and 3 were combined in to a
Bid Package 2 with much of the work previously planned for Bid Package 3 bid as add
alternates. Because the bids came in well under the Engineer's estimate and because there is
existing CIP funding for the work, staff is recommending award of all add alternates. This will
close out all major work recommended in the 2003 Civic Center Infrastructure Study, with the
exception of the Police wing work. Bringing work forward complies with Council direction to
perfonn as much infrastructure work as possible in this favorable bidding climate.
With renovation of an existing facility, there is a high likelihood of additional required repairs or
system replacement triggered by the base construction. In addition, due to the time constraints
placed upon the contractors to complete their work during off hours, the majority of change
orders will be billed at a premium rate for night or weekend work. Typically, ten percent of the
contract amount would be allotted for such unforeseen change orders; however, due to these
factors, fifteen percent contingency funds are requested for all bid packages.
The engineer's estimate of $6,436,505 was prepared based on the project award as a whole.
Breakdown was not provided in a way to compare the four individual packages. The combined
total of $3,035,942 for the four contracts is 53 percent below the engineer's estimate. This is in
large part due to the economic climate, very competitive bidding, and combining the balance of
the phases together to achieve economy of scale and fewer mobilizations of contractors.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that contractors have active licenses
on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractors for previous work performed and
found no significant complaints.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this project are available in Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01002, Civic
Center Infrastructure Upgrades. Prior actual cost to date following completion of the study totals
$8,962,465.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
Sections 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA guidelines as an alteration to an existing facility, and no
further environmental review is necessary.
CMR:320:10 Page 5 of6
; ,
I , , ,
,
ATIACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract for General Work Items and Finishes
Attachment B: Contract for Exterior Improvements
Attachment C: Contract for Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinklers and Controls
Attachment D: Contract for Electrical and Fire Alarm
Attachment E: Bid Summary
PREPARED BY:
KAREN SMITH
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
?iF'C) ~;rJi~Sion
GLENN ROBERTS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: . u:tALlAo
CMR:320:10
~r _ JAMES KEENE l;pr City Manager
•
Page 6 of6
ATTACHMENT A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C11136276
City of Palo Alto
and
Nexgen Builders, Inc.
PROJECT
CIVIC CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE -
GENERAL WORK ITEMS AND FINISHES
Rev. May 6, 2010
SECTION 1.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................... 1
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Definitions .......................................................................................•.................................... 1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...........•...............................................................................•....... 1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ........................................................................ 1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE .......................................................................•...•... 2
SECTION 4. THE WORK ....................................................................•.................................... 2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ..............................•................................................................. 2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION ..................................................................................... 3
6.1 Time Is of Essence ............................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Commencement of Work ................................................................................................... 3
6.3 Contract Time ...................................................................................................................... 3
6.4 Liquidated Damages ........................................................................................................... 3
6.4.1 Entitlement ........................................................ .-......................................................... 3
6.4.2 Daily Amount. ............................................................................................................... 3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy ........................................................................................................ 3
6.4.4 Other Remedies .............................................................. ~ ............................................ 3
6.5 . Adjustments to Contract Time ......................................................................................... , 3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR .............................................................. 2
7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 2
7.2 Full Compensation .............................................................................................................. 2
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................ 2
7.3.1 Self Performed Work .................................................................................................... 2
7.3.2 Subcontractors ............................................................................................................. 2
Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ...............................................................................•....... 2
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ..................................................•.................................•....... 5
9.1 Hold Harmless .............................................................................................................•....... 5
9.2 Survival ................................................................................................................................ 5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ...................................................................................... 5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ...........•.................................................................... 5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ............................................................. 5
SECTION 13. NOTiCES ....................................................................................................•....... 6
13.1" Method of Notice ................................................................................................................. 6
13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................................ 6
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................................. 7
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes ....................................................................................... 7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ..............•.....................................................•....................... 7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ................................................................................................. 7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ................................................................................................. 7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute ....................................................................................... 8
14.3.1 By Contractor ............................................................................................................... 8
14.3.2 ByCity .......................................................................................................................... 8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................................. 8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations ....................................................................................................... 8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ....................................................................................... 9
14.4.3 Mediation ................................................................................................................... " ... 9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ........................................................................................................ 9
14.5 Non-Waiver ........................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT .......................................................................................................... 11
15.1 Notice of Default ............................................................................................................... 11
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ............................................................................................. 11
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................................... 11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ................................................................................................... 11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11
ii Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.. ........................................................................ 11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.. ...................................................... 11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond .................................................................................... 11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ............................. " ................................................................... 12
16.2 Delays by Sureties ............................................................................................................ 12
16.3 Damages to City ................................................................................................................ 12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default ............................................................................................. 12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses .......................................................................................... 12
'16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience ............................................................................. 12
16.6 Termination Without Cause ...................................................................................... : ...... 13
16.6.1 Compensation ............................................................................................................ 13
16.6.2 Subcontractors ........................................................................................................... 13
16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination ................................................................ ; .......... 13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................. 14
17.1 Contractor's Remedies ..................................................................................... ~ .............. 14
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage .................................................................................................... 14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment ............................................................................................. 14
17.2 Damages to Contractor ~ ................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................... 14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access ......................................................................... 14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ...................................................................................... 14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ................................................................................ 14
SECTION 20. NUiSANCE ........................................................................................................ 15
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LiCENSES ............................................................................... 15
SECTION 22. WAiVER ............................................................................................................ 15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES ...................................................................................... 15
iii Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 27
SECTION 28
SECTION 29
SECTION 30
Final Contract.DOC
NON APPROPRIATION ................................................................................... 15
GOVE·RNMENT AL POWERS ........................................................................... 16
ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................ 16
SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 16
'-.
iv Rev. May 6, 2010
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on July 26,2010 ("Execution Date") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Nexgen
Builders, Inc. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
RE C I TALS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor's License Number 709928. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the
State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 1, 2010, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Civic
Center Infrastructure Project -General Work Items and Finishes ("Project").· In response to the IFB,
Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shal.1 have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. Ifthere is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Civic Center Infrastructure Project -General Work Items and
Finishes ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreement" or "Bid Documents")
consist olthe following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
1 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) I nstructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
2 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date spe\cified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City's Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed o not later than
[gI within Two Hundred Seventy calendar days (270) after the commencement date
specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor's failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and conSUltants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion ofthe entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City's only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements ofthe
Contract Documents.
3 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Three Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Three
Hundred Thirteen Dollars ($367,313).
~ [fhis amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates; One and Two]
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms ofthe Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance ofthe Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
'which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor's Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
2 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors,. of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and underst~nds the proviSions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 ofthe General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or jOint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
5 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Gontract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to:[!I City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Karen Smith
Or
o City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney's Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
6 Final Contract.DOC
Rev. May 6,2010
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Karen Smith
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Final Contract. DOC
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to· the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City's right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
7 Rev. May 6,2010
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.1 0
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City's decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor's Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Dispute involving an adjustment ofthe Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolutioh Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery ofthe circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Final Contract DOC
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but
not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a
good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge
of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the
negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there,
subject only to City's obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval
of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion
of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against
Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass-Through
Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
8 Rev. May 6,2010
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City's right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator .
. 1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills .
. 2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules .
. 3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose
of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California
Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
Final Contract. DOC
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein ·shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
9 Rev. May 6,2010
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein .
. 3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall,except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance .
. 4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown .
. 5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award .
. 6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence .
. 7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim-or executory awards .
. 8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor's failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor's failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
10 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion,within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions ofthe
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
Final Contract.DOC
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
11 Rev. May 6, 2010
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City's authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City's right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City's other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor's -sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties' failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties' abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties' Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties' violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties' failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties' failure to follow City's instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor's default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor's default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) ofthe Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City's expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
12 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the
Work:
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor .
. 2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination .
. 3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms ofthe original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does I')ot elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site
or in transit thereto.
13 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor's Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occ!Jrrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City's issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-ofts, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of
(i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set
forth.
14 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or age~cies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction' Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
Thi,s Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
15 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney's' fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO NEXGEN BUILDERS, INC.
By: __________ _
City Manager
Name: -------------------------
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Title: __________ _
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Public Works Director
16 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C11136277
City of Palo Alto
and
Everest Waterproofing & Restoration, Inc.
PROJECT
CIVIC CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT -
EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. May 6, 2010
SECTION 1.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................... 1
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ........................................................................ 1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ............................................................................... 2
SECTION 4. THE WORK ......................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION ..................................................................................... 3
6.1 Time Is of Essence ............................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Commencement of Work ................................................................................................... 3
6.3 Contract Time ...................................................................................................................... 3
6.4 Liquidated Damages ........................................................................................................... 3
6.4.1 Entitlement ................................................................................................................... 3
6.4.2 Daily Amount ................................................................................................................ 3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy ........................................................................................................ 3
6.4.4 Other Remedies ........................................................................................................... 3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ............................................................................................ 3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR .............................................................. 3
7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 1
7.2 Full Compensation, ............................................................................................................. 1
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................ 1
7.3.1 Self Performed Work .................................................................................................... 1
7.3.2 Subcontractors ............................................................................................................. 1
Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 1
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ........•...........................................................................••...... 5
9.1 Hold Harmless .............................................................................................................•....... 5
9.2 Survival ..........................................................•.............................................................•....... 5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ...................................................................................... 5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ................................................................................ 5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ......................... ; ................................... 5
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................ 6
,13.1 Method of Notice ................................................................................................................. 6
13.2 Notice Recipients .............•......................................................................•........................... 6
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................................. 7
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes .................•...................•.....•........................................... 7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes .................................•.......................................................... 7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ................................................................................................. 7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ................................................................................................. 7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute ....................................................................................... 8
14.3.1 By Contractor ............................................................................................................... 8
14.3.2 By City .......................................................................................................................... 8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................................. 8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations ....................................................................................................... 8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ....................................................................................... 9
14.4.3 Mediation ...................................................................................................................... 9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ........................................................................................................ 9
14.5 Non-Waiver ........................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT ................................................................•......................................... 11
15.1 Notice of Default ..........•.................................................................................................... 11
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. ............................................................................................ 11
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................................... 11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ....................•.............................................................................. 11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ........................................................................................ , ....... 11
ii Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.. ........................................................................ 11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.. ...................................................... 11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond .................................................................................... 11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions .................................................................................................. 12
16.2 Delays by Sureties ..............................................................................................•..•.......... 12
16.3 Damages to City ........•....................................................................................................... 12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default ............................................................................................. 12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses .......................................................................................... 12
16.5 SuspenSion by City for Convenience ................................................................ : ............ 12
16.6 Termination Without Cause .......................................................................................•••... 13
16.6.1 Compensation ............................................................................................................ 13
16.6.2 Subcontractors ........................................................................................................... 13
16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination ........................................................................... 13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................. 14 \
17.1 Contractor's Remedies ...............................................................................................•.... 14
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage .................................................................................................... 14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment ............................................................................................. 14
17.2 Damages to Contractor ...............................................................................................•.... 14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................... 14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access ......................................................................... 14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ...................................................................................... 14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ................................................................................ 14
SECTION 20. NUiSANCE ..........................................................................................•............. 15
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LiCENSES ............................................................................... 15
SECTION 22. WAiVER ............................................................................................................ 15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES ................................................... ; .................................. 15
iii Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 27
SECTION 28
SECTION 29
SECTION 30
Final Contract.DOC
NON APPROPRIATION ................................................................................... 15
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS ........................................................................... 16
ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................ 16
SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 16
iv Rev. May 6, 2010
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on July 26,2010 ("Execution Date") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Everest
Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. ("Contracto~'), is made with reference to the following:
. RECITALS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor's License Number 695778. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the
State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 1,2010, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Civic
Center Infrastructure Project -Exterior Improvements ("Project"). In response to the IFB, Contractor
submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. Ifthere is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Civic Center Infrastructure Project -Exterior Improvements
("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreement" or "Bid Documents")
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
1 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda (
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and Specifications qated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govem as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
2 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of WorK.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City's Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed o not later than
[!I within two hundred seventy calendar days (270) after the commencement date
specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor's failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion ofthe
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City's only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies ..
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
3 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Six Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Nine
Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars ($648,934). 00 [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternate One.]
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor's Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
1 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that'in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
5 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copyto:~ City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Karen Smith
Or
o City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney's Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
6 Final Contract. DOC
Rev. May 6,2010
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Karen Smith
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract, Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency; ,
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Final Contract. DOC
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sqle and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City's right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
7 Rev. May 6, 2010
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.1 0
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City's decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor's Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and C
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Dispute invOlving an adjustment ofthe Contract Sum must include both ofthe
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract. Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each ofthe following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Final Contract.DOC
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but
not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a
good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge
of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the
negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there,
subject only to City's obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval
of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion
of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against
Contractor that is in tum being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass-Through
Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
8 Rev. May 6, 2010
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City's right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator .
. 1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In acldition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills .
. 2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of'Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules .
. 3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose
of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California
Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
Final Contract. DOC
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
9 Rev. May 6,2010
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein .
. 3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance .
. 4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown .
. 5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award .
. 6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence .
. 7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards .
. 8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor's failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor's failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for \
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
10 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Defau It.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner speCified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
D~ys (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereofto City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 SUspend The Construction Contract ..
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
Final Contract. DOC
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercis.e--its rights under the Performance Bond.
11 Rev. May 6,2010
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City's authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City's right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City's other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor's sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties' failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties' abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties' Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties' violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties' failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties' failure to follow City's instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor's default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor's default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
·16.4 SuspenSion by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) ofthe Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City's expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the SuspenSion, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the SuspenSion Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
12 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the
Work:
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor .
. 2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its partiCipation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attomey or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination .
. 3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms ofthe original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion ofthe Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site
or in transit thereto.
13 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor's Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergepcy making material ,unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City's issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
·17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of
(i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set
forth.
14 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
. all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
. and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
. the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
15 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attomey's fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attomey's fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attomeys employed by it as well as any attomey's' fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Public Works Director
Final Contract. DOC 16
EVEREST WATERPROOFING AND
RESTORATION, INC.
By: ________ ----' __
Name: --~---------------------
Title: _____ ----,-____ _
Rev. May 6, 2010
ATTACHMENT.C
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C11136279
City of Palo Alto
and
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc.
PROJECT
CIVIC CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT -
MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, FIRE SPRINKLER AND
CONTROLS
Rev. May 6, 2010
SECTION 1.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................... 1
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ......................................................................•. 1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ....................................................................................................................• 1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ..............................................................................• 2
SECTION 4. THE WORK ......................•..............................................................•................... 2
SECTION S. PROJECT TEAM ...............................................................................................• 2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION ..................................................................................... 3
6.1 Time Is of Essence ............................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Commencement of Work ...........................•....................................................................... 3
6.3 Contract Time ...................................................................................................................... 3
6.4 Liquidated Damages ........................................................................................................... 3
6.4.1 Entitlement ................................................................................................................... 3
6.4.2 Daily Amount. ........................................................ -....................................................... 3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy ........................................................................................................ 3
6.4.4 Other Remedies ........................................................................................................... 3
6.S Adjustments to Contract Time .......................................................................................... 3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR .............................................................. 2
7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 2
7.2 Full Compensation ..............•............................................................................................... 2
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................ 2
7.3.1 Self Performed Work .................................................................................................... 2
7.3.2 Subcontractors ............................................................................................................. 2
Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 2
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................ 5
9.1 Hold Harmless ..................................................................................................................... 5
9.2 Survival ................................................................................................................................ 5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ...................................................................................... 5
SECTION 11. "INSURANCE AND BONDS ................................................................................ 5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ............................................................. 5
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................ 6
13.1 Method of Notice ................................................................................................................. 6
13.2 Notice Recipients ..................................... , .......................................................................... 6
13.3 Change of Address ......................................................................... " .................................... 7
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes ............................................................... ; ....................... 7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ............................................................................................ 7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ................................................................................................. 7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ................................................................................................. 7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute ....................................................................................... 8
~::~:~ ~~ g~~~~~~~~~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................................. 8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations ....................................................................................................... 8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ....................................................................................... 9
14.4.3 Mediation .................................................. : ................................................................... 9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ........................................................................................................ 9
14.5 Non-Waiver ........................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT ............................................................................................... ; .......... 11
15.1 Notice of Default ............................................................................................................... 11
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. ............................................................................................ 11
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ............ ' ........................................................ 11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ................................................................................................... 11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11
ii Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract .......................................................................... 11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.. ...................................................... 11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond .................................................................................... 11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions .................................................................................................. 12
16.2 Delays by Sureties ............................................................................................................ 12
16.3 Damages to City ................................................................................................................ 12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default ............................................................................................. 12
16.3.2 Compens~tion for Losses .......................................................................................... 12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience ............................................................................. 12
16.6 Termination Without Cause ............................................................................................. 13
16.6.1 Compensation ............................................................................................................ 13
16.6.2 Subcontractors .................................................................................................... : ...... 13
16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination ........................................................................... 13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................. 14
17.1 Contractor's Remedies .................................................................................................... 14
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage .................................................................................................... 14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment ............................................................................................. 14
17.2 Damages to Contractor .................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................... 14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access ......................................................................... 14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ...................................................................................... 14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ................................................................................ 14
SECTION 20. NUiSANCE ........................................................................................................ 15
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LiCENSES ............................................................................... 15
SECTION 22. WAiVER ............................................................................................................ 15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES ...................................................................................... 15
iii Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 27
SECTION 28
SECTION 29
SECTION 30
Final Contract. DOC
NON APPROPRIATION .................................................................................... 15
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS ................................................................. , ......... 16
ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................ 16
SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 16
iv Rev. May 6,2010
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on July 26,2010 ("Execution Date") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and ACCO
Engineered Systems, Inc. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
RECITA LS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor's License Number 120696. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the
State of California and has the back~round, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 1, 2010, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Civic
Center Infrastructure Project -Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinkler and Controls ("Project"). In
response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good arid valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS,
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. Ifthere is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Civic Center Infrastructure Project -Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire
Sprinkler and Controls ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreement" or "Bid Documents")
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for,Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
)
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, conSUltants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
2 Rev. MayS, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
/
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City's Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed D not later than 00 within two hundred seventy calendar days (270) after the commencement date
specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor's failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve SUbstantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City's only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
c 3 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of One Million Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Six
Hundred Ninety Five Dollars ($1,270,695).
IKJ [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternate One, Two, Three and
Four.]
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance ofthe Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected 'by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor's Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computedas follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
2 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as Ilndemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 ofthe General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
5 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copyto:~ City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Karen Smith
Or
D City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
, Attn: .
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney's Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
6 Final Contract. DOC
Rev. ,May 6,2010
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Karen Smith
. 13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Final Contract. DOC
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sale and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City's right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
7 Rev. May 6, 2010
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.1 0
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City's decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor's Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discoveryofthe circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Final Contract. DOC
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but
not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a
good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each"party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge
of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the
negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there,
subject only to City's obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval
of any agreed settlement or resolution. Ifthe Contract Dispute involves the assertion
of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against
Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass-Through
Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
8 Rev. May 6,2010
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City's right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that sUch informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
.14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator .
. 1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills .
. 2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules .
. 3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose
of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California
Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
Final Contract. DOC
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
9 Rev. May 6, 2010
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein .
. 3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance .
. 4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown .
. 5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a qertified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award .
. 6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery. in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence .
. 7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards .
. 8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor's failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor's failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
10 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
Final Contract.DOC
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
11 Rev. May 6,2010
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City's authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City's right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City's other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor's sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties' failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties' abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties' Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties' violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties' failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties' failure to follow City's instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor's default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor's default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City's expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
12 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract.DOC
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the
Work:
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor .
. 2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination .
. 3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent speCified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms ofthe original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept aSSignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably pbssible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site
or in transit thereto.
13 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract.DOC
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor's Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City's issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of
(i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set
forth.
14 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion ofthe fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
15 Rev. May 6, 2010
Final Contract. DOC
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees through the completion of mediation. If
, the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney's' fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.
8y: ___________ _
City Manager
Name: ___________ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Title: _________ _
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Public Works Director
16 Rev. May 6,2010
Final Contract. DOC
ATTACHMENT D
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C11136280
City of Palo Alto
and
H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc.
PROJECT
CIVIC CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT -
ELECTRICAL AND FIRE ALARM
Rev. May 6,2010
SECTION 1.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS •••.•..•..•••••••••..••••••••.•...•• 1
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ••...•..••...••..•.....•.•.•.•.•.....•.•..•.••..•••.••••.•...•••••.••.• 1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ••.•.•.•.••.•.•.••.•.•...•••••••••••••.•.•••••••••.•.••..•••••••••••.•..•••.•••.••••••••.••...•......••.••••.•••••.• 1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE •.•...•.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••...•.•..•..•••••.•••••.• 2
SECTION 4. THE WORK •..•.•.•.••••..•••••••••..•..•..•..••••••••.••••..•.••••••.••...•...•••••••••••...•••••.•..•.•••.•••••.• 2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM .••••.••••.•••••.•.....•••••••••••...•••••••••••••...•.•....•••••••••••..••••.....•...••.••••••• 2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION •..••••••••..........••...•••.•..••.....••.....••.••..•••....••.•....••..•••.••••••• 3
6.1 Time Is of Essence ............................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Commencement of Work ................................................................................................... 3
6.3 Contract Time ..................................................................................................................... 3
6.4 Liquidated Damages .......................................................................................................... 3
6.4.1 Entitlement. ................................................................................................................... 3
6.4.2 Daily Amount ............................................................................................................... 3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy ....................................................................................................... 3
6.4.4 Other Remedies .......................................................................................................... 3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time .......................................................................................... 3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ••...•.••..••....•••.•......••.••.•.•...•..•...•.••.•..•••••.• 3
7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 1
7.2 Full Compensation ............................................................................................................. 1
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................ 1
7.3.1 Self Performed Work ................................................................................................... 1
7.3.2 Subcontractors ............................................................................................................ 1
Rev. May 6, 2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 1
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFiCATION ..................................•..........•.................•....................•....•.. 5
9.1 Hold Harmless ........•.......................••.•..•....•.........•............................................••.•.............. 5
-9.2 Survival .................................•..•............•...••................•.................••............•.••...........•........ 5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ..........•.•.•.............•.••.•.•.•...........•............•..•...........•........ 5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ................................................................................ 5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ............................................................ 5
SECTION 13. NOTiCES ......•.................•...................•..•..........••.....•.........•.................•......•..•••.. 6
13.1 Method of Notice ................................................................................................................ 6
13.2 Notice Recipients •..•............•.•...•.....•...•..•...•..............•.............................•.....•.••••...•........... 6
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................................ 7
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes .•...........••...•...........•.........•.........................•....•......•....... 7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ......••.•..........••..••.......•.•••.................................••..••........•..... 7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ................................................................................................ 7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ................................................................................................. 7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute .•......•.................................•.•............•.•......................••.• 8
14.3.1 By Contractor .............................. ~ ................................................................................ 8
14.3.2 By City .......................................................................................................................... 8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................................. 8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations ...................................................................................................... 8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 9
14.4.3 Mediation ..................................................................................................................... 9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ................................................................. ~ ..................................... 9
14.5 Non-Waiver ....................................................................................................................... 10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT ......................................................................................................... 11
15.1 Notice of Default ............................................................................................................... 11
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ............................................................................................ 11
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................... 11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ................................................................................................... 11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11
ii Rev. May 6,2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ......................................................................... 11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for DefauIL ..................................................... 11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ................................................................................... 11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ................................................................................................. 12
16.2 Delays by Sureties ..................................................................•.....•...........•...................... 12
16.3 Damages to City .•..............................•.......•..•...........................................•....•..•..•............ 12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default ............................................................................................ 12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses .......................................................................................... 12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience ............................................................................. 12
16.6 Termination Without Cause .•...................................................................•..........•........... 13
16.6.1 Compensation ........................................................................................................... 13
16.6.2 Subcontractors .......................................................................................................... 13
16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination .••.•.•...................•.•.........•.....••.••..•......••.•....•...•..• 13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ...............•.................•......•......... 14
17.1 Contractor's Remedies .................................................................................................... 14
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage ................................................................................................... 14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment. ................................•........................................................... 14
17.2 Damages to Contractor ................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................... 14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access ........................................................................ 14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ...................................................................................... 14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ................................................................................ 14
SECTION 20. NUISANCE ....................................................................................................... 15
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 22. WAiVER ............................................................................................................ 15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ...... , ....................................................................... 15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES ...................................................................................... 15
iii Rev. May 6, 2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
SECTION 27
SECTION 28
SECTION 29
SECTION 30
NON APPROPRIATION ................................................................................... 15
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS .......................................................................... 16
ATTORNEY FEES .•..........••.•.....••..••....••.....•••••...•••..•••..••.•.•••••••..••••••.•.•••••.••...•• 16
SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 16
iv Rev. May 6,2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on July 26, 2010 ("Execution Date") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and H.A.
Bowen Electric, Inc. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor's License Number 384915. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the
State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 1,2010, City issued an Invitation for Bids (lFB) to contractors for the Civic
Center Infrastructure Project -Electrical and Fire Alarm ("Projecf'). In response to the IFB, Contractor
submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions. .
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
c·
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Civic Center Infrastructure Project -
Electrical And Fire Alarm ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreement" or "Bid Documents")
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
1 Rev. May 6,2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, seniices, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
2 Rev. May 6, 2010
FinalContractC11136280.DOC
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City's Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed o not later than
~ within Two Hundred Seventy calendar days (270) after the commencement date
specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor's failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City's only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
3 Rev. May 6,2010
FinaIConiract.C11136280.DOC
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Seven Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Dollars
($749,0qQl.
~ [This amount includes the Base Bid.]
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the reqUirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor's Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in
a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize
in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
1 Rev. May 6,2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as JllndemniteesJl), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following: (
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or jOint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
5 Rev. May 6,2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to:[gI City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Karen Smith
Or
D City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney's Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
6 FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
Rev. May 6,2010
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Karen Smith
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City's right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
7 Rev. May 6, 2010
Fina1ContractC11136280.DOC
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.1 0
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City's decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor's Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such
events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible
(but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in
a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall
be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full
knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in
the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and
there, subject only to City's obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council
approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the
assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier,
against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass-
Through Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
8 Rev. May 6, 2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City's right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator .
. 1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills .
. 2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation ofa Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules .
. 3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the
purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to
California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
9 Rev. May 6, 2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein .
. 3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance .
. 4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown .
• 5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award .
• 6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses·
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence .
• 7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards .
. 8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
PartiCipation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor's failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor's failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
10 Rev. May 6, 2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or eql,lity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by SectiCl>n 15.
City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
11 Rev. May 6, 2010
Fina1ContraclC11136280.DOC
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City's authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City's right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City's other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor's sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties' failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties' abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties' Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties' violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties' failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties' failure to follow City's instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor's default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor's default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City's expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
12 Rev. May 6,2010 .
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such
term ination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the
Work:
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor .
. 2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination .
. 3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts perm itting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Te(mination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of.
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept aSSignment of or request Contractor
to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project
Site or in transit thereto.
13 Rev. May 6, 2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor's Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City's issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-ofts, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later
of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein
set forth.
14 Rev. May 6, 2010
Fina1ContractC11136280.DOC
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or corn mission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of. the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
15 Rev. May 6,2010
FinaIContract.C11136280.DOC
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney's' fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO H.A. BOWEN ELECTRIC, INC.
By:. ___________ _
City Manager
Name:, ___________ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Title: __________ _
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Public Works Director
16 Rev. May 6, 2010
Fina1ContractC11136280.DOC
r-l
~
EXHIBIT E
CC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT ·GENERAL WORK ITEMS·FINISHES
IFB NO. 136276
SID SUMMARY
Nexgen Kuehne D.L. Falk
BASE BID: Builders Inc. Construction 'Constructlon
BIDNII DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
Jobslte trailer and fencing set up, maintenance
and removal. Encroachment permit & Temporary
Lease for potential staging area for trailers and
1 supplies. 1 LS 66,504.00 120,822.00 50,000.00
Perform Digital ConCrete Scanning for
penetrations and expansion anchors as explained
In detail on sheet S-02-BP1, and Specification
2 Section 1049 pg2. 1 LS 5,175.00 4,785.00 12,000.00
Acoustical ceiling work and ceiling finishes in
restrooms and elevator lobbies, from ground
3 through seventh fioors 1 LS 28,000.00 28,516.00 51,370.00
Title 24 compliant restrooms on Levels one (1)
and seven (7); renovation of restrooms on levels
4 two (2) through six (6). 1 LS 114,438.00 20,006.00 186,516.00
Provide permanent and temporary seismic and
non-seismic support needed for all existing
electrical, mechanicai, and plumbing equipment
5 required per plans and specifications. 1 LS 7,500.00 23,400.00 32,500.00
Provide and install all doors, frames, and
hardware. Includes temporary removal and
6 storage of any doors. 1 LS 34,500.00 34,803.00 20,500.00
Remove tube transport system from fioors two (2)
7 through seven (7). 1 LS 7,200.00 4,985.00 9,500.00
All omer Items not covered in the work above, but
included under the "General Work Items and -
8 Finishes Package" scope of work. 1 LS 90,500.00 229,392.00 201,614.00
BASE BID TOTAL: 353,817.00 466,709.00 564,000.00
ADD ALTERNATE:
BIDIII DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID I UNIT BID UNIT BID
ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
Remove and reInstall entire eighth floor tenant
1 suite ceiling and fixtures. 1 LS 8,996.00 17,600.00 19,000.00
--'--Remove and replace portions of eighth floor
restroom and corridor ceilings with new gypsum
board ceilings or new acoustic tile ceilings as
2 shown. 1 LS 4,500.00 8,329.00 14,000.()()
ADD ALTERNATE BID TOTAL: 13,496.00 25,929.00 33,000.00
TOTAL BASE BID PLUS ALTERNATE(S): $367,313.00 $492,638 $597,000.00
Romkonlnc.
UNIT BID
PRICE AMOUNT
30,000.00
25,000.00
90,000.00
110,000.00
35.000.00
25,000.00
30,000.00
395,000.00
740,000.00
UNIT BID
PRICE AMOUNT
25,000.00
,-_. . ....... 16,500.00
41,500.00
$781,500.00 Page 1 of4
BASE BID:
BIDIII DESCRIPTION
ITEM
Provide a certified safe working swing stage
system to perform the work required under this
Bid in accordance with the project schedule.
Provide all scaffolding, barriers, protection
netting, and clean-up to protact all personnel,
1 public and adjacent properties.
Remove (E) sealants, prepare surfaces and
Install sealants at pre-cast concrete panels.
Provide professional installation of all fire rated
caulking, provide all non-rated caulking as
2 required per the plans and speCifications
prepare all SUrfaces TOr paint. ..nme all sunaces
3 as required.
R 7 R selected exterior windows with tempered
4 glazing for emergency use.
R & R all pressure gaskets at exterior glazing
system for entire facility. Provide R-11 Insulation
at spandrel glazing at eighth floor mezzanine
5 level.
Paint exterior of the building (s) Including the
police and council chamber building exteriors;
6 and elastomeric coating at parapet.
Precast concrete repair -Type 1. See sheet A
7 7.00 PH3.
Precast concrete repair -Type 2~ See sheet A
8 7.00 PH3.
Precast concrete repair -Type 3. See sheet A
9 7.00 PH3.
ADD ALTERNATE:
BID
QTY
1
1
1
1
1
1
250:1:
100:1:
2500:1:
EXHIBIT E
CC Infrastructure Project-Exterior Improvements
IFB NO. 136277
BID SUMMARY
EventatVV8terpn)Dflng Urban Brothers Rainbow VVaterprooflng
& Restoration, Inc. Palntlng and Restoration
UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
LS 47,600.00 45,871.00 49,827.00
LS 163,020.00 117,595.00 190,492.00
LS 32,792.00 32,958.00 27,016.00
LS 74,750.00 40,726.00 69,567.00
LS 119,622.00 144,735.00 137,085.00
LS 140,000.00 177,205.00 153,093.00
SF 60.00 15,000.00 206.00 51,500.00 151.65 37,912.50
SF 108.00 10,800.00 336.00 33,600.00 175.70 17,570.00
SF 8.80 22,000.00 8.00 20,000.00 3.75 9,375.00
BASE BID TOTAL: 625,584.00 664,190.00 691,937.50
BID,II DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
repare ana paint plaza areas not InCluaea In
23,350.00 15,000.Oq 18,290.00 1 base building painting scope.
ADD ALTERNATE BID TOTAL: 23,350.00 15,000.00 18,290.00
TOTAL BASE BID PLUS ALTERNATE(S): 648,934.00 679,190.00 710,227.50
Nexgen Southwest Const.
Builders & Property Mgmt.
UNIT BID UNIT BID
PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
14,040.00 125,300.00
23,930.00 96,920.00
67,573.00 70,560.00
54,865.00 83,784.00
c
956,849.00 676,732.00
150,585.00 210,067.00
23.00 5,750.00 70.84 17,710.00
75.00 7,500.00 30.80 3,080.00
7.00 17,500.00 24.22 60,550.00
1,298,592.00 1,344,703.00
UNIT BID UNIT BID
PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
54,290.0q 15,720.0~
54,290.00 15,720.00
1,352,882.00 1,360,423.00
Page2of4
BID
ITEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
BID
ITEM
1
2
3
4
EXHIBIT E
CC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT -MECH., PLUMBING, FIRE SPRINKLER & CONTROLS
IFB NO. 136279
BID SUMMARY
ACCO Engineered N.V. Heathorn Co. Ray L. Hellwig
BASE BID: Systems, Inc. Mechanical Co.
DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
Demolish all existing HVAC ductwork and Insulation; install all new HVAC
ductwork and insulation; safe off all required HVAC work as required per
plans and specifications. 1 LS $264,952.00 $261,060.00 $325,648.00
All demolition and safe off required for the fire sprinkler system. Design,
coordination and installation of the fire sprinkler system (piping, valves,
etc.) to create a complete and operating system. 1 LS $25,850.00 $87,657.00 $78,125.00
Provide and install all necessary control work, including all testing. 1 LS $217,563.00 $189,842.00 $75,400.00
Provide testirig and balancing of HVAC system including all components. 1 LS $54,890.00 $35,119.00 $64,600.00
Furnish and Install all plumbing, plumbing valves and pumps. Include all
plumbing associated with Levels one (1) through seven (7) Restrooms. 1 LS $89,540.00 $123,287.00 $107,000.00
Complete all other items not covered in the work above, but included
under the "Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinkler and Controls Package"
scope of work. 1 LS $0.00 $0.00
BASE BID TOTAL: $652,795.00 $696,965.00 $650,773.00
ADD ALTERNATE:
DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
Remove existing duct mounted electric heating coils on Level A and
Ground Level through Seventh (ih) floors and replace with new water
heating coils. Extend hot w~ter branch piping to new coils. 1 LS $402,314.00 $367,844.00 $492,745.00
Remove exhaust ductworks associated with roof fan exhaust removal
(Phase 1) 1 LS $36,076.00 $10,000.00 $7,272.00
Remove three (3) fan coils units on the mezzanine level and replace with i
three (3) new dx-cooling fan coil units with new condensing units and
chilled water coils located on the roof of the council chambers 1 LS $82,560.00 $186,026.00 $181,004.00
Remove roof mounted air-conditioning units serving the 8th floor attorney
office and provide new variable-sir-volume distribution from the tower air
handling systems and new terminal units 1 LS $96,950.00 $112,950.00 $115,798.00
ADD ALTERNATE BID TOTAL: $617,900.00 $676,820.00 $796,819.00
!
TOTAL BASE BID PLUS ALTERNATE(S): $1,270,695.00 $1,373,785.00 $1,447,592.00 Page 3 of4
BID
ITEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
EXHIBIT E
CIVIC CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT·ELECTRICAL AND FIRE ALARM
IFB NO. 136280
BID SUMMARY
H.A. Bowen Rosendin Cupertino ,
BASE BID: Electric Electric Electric, Inc.
DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
Fire Alarm work per plans and specifications. 1 LS $41,000.00 $68,138.00 $52,000.00
All electrical work, including disconnect and
connection for startup required for modified and
added equipment. 1 LS $640,000.00 $166,517.00 $265,000.00
Provide temporary power and lighting throughout
the project as required. 1 LS $40,000.00 $115,260.00 $43,000.00
Provide and Install disconnect switches, electrical
panels, feeders, VAVs, transformers, " receptacles, and new lighting. Provide temporary
and permanent seismic and non-seismic support
for low, medium and high voltage electrical
equipment and wiring work. 1 LS $15,000.00 $540,228.00 $537,500.00
Provide local lighting control switches on Levels 5
and6 1 LS $3,000.00 $6,194.00 $4,500.00
Complete all other items included under the
"Package 4 -Electrical (Low & High Voltage and
Voice and Data) & Fire Alarm" scope of work. 1 LS $10,000.00 $0.00 $175,000.00
TOTAL BASE BID: $749,000.00 $896,337.00 $1,077,000.00
/
Page40f4
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JULY 26,2010 CMR:318:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. One to Existing Contract No. C09127499
with Assetworks, Inc. in the Amount of $9,832 for the Purchase of
Additional Components Required to Complete the Implementation of
the Fuel Transaction Management System
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute an amendment to existing contract no. C09127499 with AssetWorks,lnc. in the amount
of $9,831.48 for the purchase of additional components required to complete the implementation
of the fuel transaction management system.
DISCUSSION
Vehlcle Replacement.Fund Capital Improvement Project VR-06801 authorizes the replacement
of the City's existing fuel transaction management system. This system is used to record and
archive vehicle and equipment fuel transactions from six City fuel sites; to facilitate the
reconciliation of fuel inventories; to collect vehicle and equipment utilization data (the system
will upload mileage and hourmeter readings during the transaction), and to secure the City'S fuel
inventories by restricting fuel access to authorized staff only. The ability to track vehicle and
equipment utilization is a vital in addressing the City Auditor's Fleet Utilization and
Replacement recommendations to "right size" the City fleet. The original system, installed in
1999, is functionally and physically obsolete. In addition, it will not allow Equipment
Management to meet the objectives of: fully automated fueling (requiring no user input);
interface with the City's existing Veeder-Root fuel inventory and tank monitor system, and full
integration with the existing fleet management software application.
Staff is currently in the process of implementing the new system at the Municipal Services
Center, Fire Station One, and on the tanker truck that serves mobile equipment at the landfill and
emergency generators throughout the City. The implementation includes outfitting selected
vehicles with a fueling module (Vffi) and a fill neck antenna. The original order in the amount
of $162,474 submitted under C09127499 included 75 VIB units designed forinstallation on
automobiles and light trucks equipped with ODB-II compliant engine management systems.
After surveying the fleet, staff determined that the following additional hardware is now needed
to complete the installation:
CMR:318:10 Page 1 of2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JULY 26, 2010 CMR:317:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of the Sale of Surplus Fire Equipment to Oaxaca, Mexico in
the Amount of $20,000
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the sale of three surplus fIre apparatus to Oaxaca,
Mexico in the amount of $20,000.
BACKGROUND
In 2009, a contingent of dignitaries from Palo Alto's sister-city of Oaxaca, Mexico visited Palo
Alto in conjunction with Neighbors Abroad. Members of the contingent included the Mayor and
Fire Chief of Oaxaca. During that visit, Palo Alto Neighbors Abroad contacted the Fire
Department and requested consideration for Oaxaca concerning the sale of upcoming surplus ftre
apparatus. Subsequently three ftre apparatus were identified for potential resale to Oaxaca. Over
the past fIve years, the Fire Department of Oaxaca has expanded signifIcantly. The department
is currently planning to construct two new ftre stations and considering more in the future.
During the visit in October 2009, the Palo Alto Fire Department staff convened with the
Neighbors Abroad local representatives and conftrmed with Oaxaca's Fire Chief the drastic need
for such equipment and the willingness to coordinate with the Mexican federal government
should the request to sell surplus equipment be approved by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The Fire Department has three remaining surplus Type I ftre pumper apparatus available that
have been set aside for possible purchase by Oaxaca. This equipment was replaced in 2009 after
22 years of front-line service. City Policy 4-1 (Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance and
Replacement) prescribes a 20-year life for fire pumper apparatus. Because this equipment has
exceeded its useful life, it is no longer needed by the Fire Department. The market value of these
units (based on an independent appraisal, and sales prices for similar units) is approximately
$10,000 each. The Fire Chief of Oaxaca has been able to procure funds in the amount of
$20,000 for purchase as authorized by the Mexican government. Staff fully realizes that in
today's economic environment, the City must maximize its return on surplus equipment. City
staff did attempt to negotiate for a sale price equal to the full appraised value of the equipment;
however, the funds available to Oaxaca are limited, and $20,000 is the maximum it can expend.
Although staff is recommending the sale of this equipment to Oaxaca at a reduced price, the
benefIt to our sister-city would be signifIcant in meeting their needs. The Neighbors Abroad
CMR:317:10 Page 1 of2
July 20,2010
SR. MANUEL A. MAZA SANCHEZ
JEFE DEL H. CUERPO DE BOMBEROS
DEL GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO DE OAXACA
AV. JORGE L. TAMAYO CASTILLEJOS SIN
COL. CANDIANI. C.P. 68130
OAXACA, OAX. MEXICO
Chief Maza:
C:itY-of P'!lo Alto
Police Department
ATTACHMENT A
This letter serves as an official agreement between the City of Pal 0 Alto, CA, USA, and
the City of Oaxaca, Mexico regarding the sale ofthree vehicles under the terms and
conditions described herein:
I. Vehicles to be sold:
The City of Palo Alto agrees to sell the following vehicles to the City of Oaxaca:
*61141987 Pierce-Arrow (Open cab) Pumper -Detroit 6V92 Diesel-Allison
transmission-1500 GPM Waterous midship pump -500 gallon water tank -31,000 lbs.
(Loaded laden weight) 29" long 124" inches high 178 inch wheelbase 38,400 Ibs GVWR,
12R22.5 tires, water cannon, hose wi reel, storage compartments, auxiliary lighting,
emergency lights and siren.
*61131987 Pierce-Arrow (Open cab) Pumper -Detroit 6V92 Diesel-Allison
transmission -1500 GPM Waterous midship pump -500 gallon water tank -31,000 lbs.
(Loaded laden weight) 29" long 124" inches high 178 inch wheelbase 38,400 lbs GVWR,
12R22.S tires, water cannon, hose wi reel, storage compartments, auxiliary lighting,
emergency lights and siren.
*61121987 Pierce-Arrow Pumper -Detroit 6V92 Diesel-Allison transmission -1500
GPM Waterous midship pump -500 gallon water tank-31,000 lbs. (Loaded laden
weight) 29" long 124" inches high 178 inch wheelbase 38,400 Ibs GVWR, 12R22.S tires,
water cannon, hose wi reel, storage compartments, auxiliary lighting, emergency lights
and siren.
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650329.2406
650.329.2565 fax
650.6173120 Administration fax
2. Sale Price and Payment
Because of the "sister city" relationship between the City of Palo Alto and the City of
Oaxaca, Palo Alto has offered to sell, and Oaxaca has agreed to purc:!lase the vehicles
described in section one of this agreement for the total sum of$20,000 in United States
dollars payable to the City of Palo Alto. Payment is due no later than 20 days of the City
of Oaxaca's communication to the City of Palo Alto of its acceptance of this agreement.
Funds are to be forwarded to the City of Palo Alto via a wire transfer per instruction in
Attachment B.
3. Transportation of Vehicles to Mexico:
Upon payment, the engines will become sole property of the City of Oaxaca Fire
Department. The City of Oaxaca agrees to assume all responsibility for shipping the
engines from Palo Alto, California to Oaxaca, Mexico. The City of Palo Alto shall not be
liable for damage, destruction, or any and all other loss caused in transport.
4. Hold Harmless:
The City of Palo Alto makes no representation or warranties whatsoever regarding the
condition of the vehicles and the City of Oaxaca agrees to accept the units as-is. The City
of Oaxaca further agrees to hold the City of Palo Alto, its City Council members,
officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all demands, claims,
injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person,
property damage or any other loss and including without limitation al damages, penalties,
fines, and judgments arising out of or resulting in any way from or in connection with
performance of this agreement or use of the above units.
5. Authority to Enter Into Agreement
Each party signing this Agreement represents and warrants that slbe has the authority
from the City of Palo Alto and the City of Oaxaca to execute this Agreement on behalf of
such party.
If the terms and conditions of this letter agreement are acceptable to the City of Oaxaca,
kindly have t4e appropriate authority communicate acceptance thereof on behalf of
Oaxaca in the space provided below.
Sincerely.
k~
Chief Dennis Burns
Interim Director of Public Safety
Agreed:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
lames Keene
City Manager
City of PalQ Alto
CITY OF OAXACA
Sr. Manuel A. Maza Sanchez
Jefe Del H. Cuerpo De Bombero
Oaxaca, Oax, Mexico
(
City of Palo Alto
Wire Transfer Instructions
Listed below are the wire transfer instructions for the City of Palo Alto. These instructions shall be used
whenever sender is requested to use this method of payment. These instructions will remain in effect
until sender is notified otherwise.
Bank Name:
Bank Routing IABA Number:
Account Number:
Type of Account:
Wells Fargo Bank
121000248
4121076145
Checking
ATTACHMENT B
Branch Location:
Federal Tax ill #
550 California Street; San Francisco, CA 94104
946000389
If you have questions call Tarun Narayan @(650) 329 -2362.
Note: For Utility payments, in the wire description field put your Utility (aka Contract) account number(s).
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JULY 26, 2010 CMR:322:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with
Carollo Engineers, Inc. in an Amount of $981,266 for Preparation of
the Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for
the Fiscal Year 2011 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of
$481,266 to Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-l000l, Plant
MasterPlan
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Attachment A) in an amount of $892,060 for engineering
design services for preparation of the Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), Capital Improv~ment Program (CIP) Project
WQ-10001; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more contract
revisions to the contract with Carollo Engineers, Inc. for related additional services as
specified in the contract, the total value of which shall not exceed $89,206 and
3. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for $481,266 (Attachment B) to transfer
$481,266 from CIP Project WQ-04010, Replace Existing Reclaimed Water Pipe, to CIP
Project WQ-10001, Plant Master Plan.
DISCUSSION
The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) treats wastewater from
approximately 229,800 residents and 170,460 jobs. This wastewater is generated in the cities of
Los Altos, Mountain Vi~, and Palo Alto, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the East Palo Alto
Sanitary District, and Stanford University. The City owns and operates the RWQCP with
operating and capital costs shared by participating agencies. This project has been explained to
the neighboring agencies. The RWQCP was built in 1972 at the site ofthe pre-existing Palo Alto
wastewater treatment plant built in 1934. The Plant was upgraded to tertiary treatment in 1980.
Plant capacity was increased in 1988. Some of the original plant structures remain in service.
CMR:322:10 Page 1 of5
Plant facilities meet all current regulations and operate reliably, however aging facilities,
changing regulations, and opportunities for greater effectiveness will require substantial capital
facility changes for the RWQCP. The plant has the opportunity to plan efficient and effective
long range facilities that will adapt to evolving environmental regulations, utilize more reliable
waste treatment technologies, take advantage of newer waste-to-energy solutions, meet future
demands, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the consultant has been tasked
with development, evaluation, and recommendation of promising biosolids treatment alternatives
that will be alternatives to the present incineration process, including standard wet anaerobic
digesters producing methane gas that can be converted into electricity to run the plant, state-of-
the-art incineration technologies with energy recovery of exhaust heat, and arc plasma
incineration running on a carbon neutral electricity supply. Developing the plant's future
biosolids technology is synergistically interwoven with development of the liquid treatment
system alternatives. The project presents numerous challenges that require a coordinated effort
of technical and planning experts in the treatment ofbiosolids and wastewater.
Coordination with CompostlEnergy Feasibility Study
Council recently directed staff to prepare an anaerobic digestion/energy generation
(compost/energy) feasibility study at an eight to nine acre park/landfill site south ofthe RWQCP.
A staff report and recommendation that Council approve a consultant contract for the
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Initial Study is currently scheduled
for the August 2, 2010 City Council meeting. The timeline for that project includes a community
scoping meeting in September 2010, submittal of a Preliminary Financial/Greenhouse Gas
Analysis in March 2011, and submittal of a final feasibility study and workplan for CEQA
documentation in Fall 2011. The outcome of the energy/compost feasibility study at the landfill
site will be coordinated with, and is compatible with, the Long Range Facilities Plan. The
compost/energy study will evaluate the feasibility of composting biosolids, green waste, and
food waste at the landfill site. Although the study may conclude that composting of food waste
and green waste is feasible and biosolids composting is not, the Long Range Facilities Plan
would still proceed as planned. If the opposite holds (i.e., anaerobi~ digestion of biosolids is
viable at the landfill site), then the Long Range Facilities Plan would adapt to include this option
in the Long Range Facilities Plan. Each project's scope of work requires data sharing (e.g.,
Carollo will provide biosolids data for all anaerobic digestion alternatives). Furthermore,
Carollo will provide the feasibility study's consultant with specific data related to traditional wet
anaerobic digestion alternatives such as project costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and methane
production.
Scope of Services Description
The consultant will provide services to develop the RWQCP's Long Range Facilities Plan. The
Facilities Plan will forecast needs for capital improvements over a 50-year planning horizon. A
general list of the consultant's services includes:
• Characterizing existing and future plant flow, capacity, energy, pollutant, and waste
loadings
• Evaluating trends and impacts from the air, water, and solids disposal regulatory
environment
CMR:322:10 Page 2 of5
• Evaluating impacts of sea level rise and greenhouse gas emissions
• Evaluating community goals .and concerns
• Evaluating options for rehabilitation or replacement of existing facilities
• Evaluating alternatives for waste-to-energy, regulatory compliance, land adjacency
issues, and operational considerations
• Assisting the City in public outreach meetings
• Developing benefits and costs of the most promising alternatives
• Preparing the Long Range Facilities Plan report
• Preparing a scope of work for a subsequent CEQA program level environmental review
of the Long Range Facilities Plan
ummarvo o lCl Ion rocess S fS r ·tat" p
Proposal TitlelNumber Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant -RFP136268
Proposed Length of Project 24 months
Number of Proposals mailed &/or 24
emailed
Total Days to Respond to Proposal 35
Pre-proposal Meeting Date May 11,2010
Number of Company Attendees at 17 firms
Pre-proposal Meeting
Number of Proposals Received: 3
Number of Companies Interviewed 3
Range of Proposal Amounts $687,490 to $1,109,819
Submitted
Several firms not submitting proposals indicated that they didn't have the necessary resources,
were not able to offer a competitive price, and were currently overloaded with work.
Evaluation of Proposals
The proposal evaluation committee consisted of five persons from the Public Works Water
Quality Control Plant and Environmental Compliance Division staff. Proposers were
interviewed June 14,2010. The finns interviewed are knoWn, respected, and experienced project
personnel in the wastewater engineering field. The committee carefully reviewed each firm's
qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the Request for Proposal. The
criteria used to evaluate the proposing firms included: quality and completeness of proposal;
quality, perfonnance, and effectiveness of the work plan; proposer's experience; proposer's
ability to perfonn the work within the time specified; cost; proposer's financial stability;
proposer's prior record of perfonnance with the City; and proposer's compliance with applicable
laws and regulations.
Staff selected Carollo Engineers because: a) the depth of the team's professional experience,
especially in regional planning, biosolids management, and working with 'the public; b) Carollo's
CMR:322:10 Page 3 of5
understanding of the City's needs, issues, and objectives; and c) the quality, innovation, and
thoroughness of Carollo's proposed work plan.
Contract Price and Project Budget
The contract price for the Long Range Facilities Plan Project is $892,060. The recommended
total budget for the project is $981,266, including $89,206 (10 percent) for additional services
identified in the scope of work. Additional services include supplemental technical analysis in
support of dry anaerobic digestion and energy generation, an analysis of an outfall extension
beyond the salt marsh and brackish marsh habitat, or other miscellaneous uhforeseen services.
Additional services must be pre-authorized by the Project Manager and executed by contract
change order. Through partnership agreements, the neighboring cities that contribute sewage to
the plant will pay their share of project costs, approximately 63%, while Palo Alto wastewater
ratepayers will cover approximately 37% of project costs. Long Range Facilities Plan project
costs will be paid from the Wastewater Treatment ~ Fund capital budget, which is typically
budgeted at about $2.5 million per year.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The FY 2010 adopted capital budget included $500,000 funding for the project (CIP Project
WQ-10001: Plant Master Plan). Additional funds are required to impJement the full range of
services needed for the Long Range Facilities Plan; the additional costs of the services were
unanticipated during capital budget development in early 2008. An additional amount of
$481,266 is required to fund the $981,266 total project budget. Fupds in the amount of
$1,105,115 are available in the CIP Project WQ-04010: Replace Existing Reclaimed Water Pipe;
the pipeline project was completed in 2009 and project funds are no longer needed in CIP WQ-
04010. Unused funds in WQ-0401O will be moved to the Wastewater Treatment Fund Rate
Stabilization Reserve in mid-year FY 2011.
To secure funds from CIP Project WQ-0401O, staff requests that Council adopt a BAO
transferring $481,266 from CIP Project WQ-0401O: Replace Existing Reclaimed Water Pipe to
CIP Project WQ-10001: Plant Master Plan. The proposed BAO has no impact on the
Wastewater Treatment Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Authprization of this project does not represent a change in existing policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is a planning and feasibility study and is statutorily exempt from CEQA. CEQA
review will be performed during development of any resulting projects, as necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract with Scope of Services
Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance
PREPARED BY: JAMES B. FLANIGAN, Senior Engineer
CMR:322:10 Page 4 of5
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl 1 136268
EXHIBIT "'B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perfonn the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased
by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as
all work is completed within the tenn of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a
detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the
notice to proceed.
Milestones
] . Kickoff meeting:
2. Outreach phase begins:
3. Outreach completed:
4. Project completed*:
*Project completion estimated summer of 20] 2
Completion
No. of Weeks
fromNTP
5
26
78
104
Professional Services
Rev. January 11,2010
\\CC· TERRA \jarreoIIPURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36268 Long Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCP\Contracl ('11136268
(' AROLLO ENGlNEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136268
EXIDBIT"C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULT ANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hQurly mte schedule attached
as exhibit C-l up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth be]ow.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULT ANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$892,0()0.00. CONSULT ANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
. expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shaH not exceed $981,266.00. Any work performed or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
. compensation set forth herein shan be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULT ANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
. between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $892,060.00 and the tota]
compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $89,206.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $8,810
(Project Initiation)
. Task 2 $37,002
(Evaluation Criteria and Methodology)
Task 3 $61,708
(Chamcterization of Wastewater, Biosolids and Recycled Water)
Task 4 $56,874
(Regulatory, Environmental and Community Constraints)
Task 5 $67,238
(Existing Facility Assessment)
Task 6 $33,412·
(Off site Pipeline Analyses)
Task 7 $25,945
(Summary of Needs and Opportunities)
Task 8 $150,222
Professional Services
Rev. January II, 2010
\\CC -TERRA \jarreoIlPURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI36268 Long Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCPIContract C 11136268
CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF T~E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 TO PROVIDE
AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $481,266 TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT WQ-10001, PLANT MASTER
PLAN
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds
and qetermines 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 28, 2010
did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2011; and
B. In fiscal year 2010, the City Council appropriated
$500,000 for CIP Project WQ-10001(Project) to cover the costs of a
study of the existing water treatment facilities. The study will
include capital replacement needs, regulatory compliance, land-
use, economic and environmental issues; and
C. This project was put out to bid; the low bid is higher than
the amount appropriated, and an additional funding of $481,266 is
needed to award the bid of the Project; and
D. Instead of drawing from the Waste Water Treatment Fund Rate
Stabilization Reserve (RSR) to fund the additional amount needed,
additional appropriation of $481,266 will be funded by a transfer
from CIP Project WQ-04010 Replace Existing Reclaimed Water Pipe
Project. The Reclaimed Water Pipe Project has been completed and
has remaining appropriations that were not yet returned to the
RSR; and
E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2011
budget to make available the funds needed for CIP Project WQ-
10001, Plant Master Plan.
SECTION 2. The appropriation for CIP Project WQ-04010, Replace
Existing Reclaimed Water Pipe is hereby reduced by Four Hundred
Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Six Dollars ($481,266).
SECTION 3. The sum of Four Hundred Eighty One Thousand Two
Hundred Sixty Six Dollars ($481,266) is hereby appropriated to CIP
Project WQ-10001, Plant Master Plan.
SECTION 4. The transactions above will have no impact on the
Wastewater Treatment Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve.
SECTION 5. ~s 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 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 7. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that this project is a planning and feasibility study and is
therefore, statutorily exempt from California Environmental
Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REPORT TYPE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
JULY 26, 2010 CMR:308:10
CONSENT
Adoption of a Resolu(ion Authorizing Use of a Design-Build Project
Delivery Method for Design and Construction of Replacement Fuel
Pumps and Related Equipment at Foothills Park (VR-92006)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing use of the design-build project delivery
method for the design and construction of new fuel pumps and related equipment at
Foothills Park (VR-92006).
BACKGROUND
The existing conventional fuel station at Foothills Park was constructed in approximately 1970
and consists of a 500 gallon diesel tank, a 1,000 gallon gasoline tank and a fuel pump. The fuel
station is located within an enclosed staff equipment and work area and had been used primarily
by Open Space staff, with seasonal use by Fire Department staff. The fuel station could also be
used by State fire crews in the event of a fire emergency in the foothills.
DISCUSSION
The fuel station at Foothills Park has not been operational since approximately January, 1999.
As a result staff is required to drive four trucks to the Municipal Service Center (MSC) off of
East Bayshore Road for fuel. Fueling trips for the four trucks occur approximately four times a
week, a trip of 30 minutes in each direction. In addition to the lost work time due to travel times,
there are costs related to increased fuel usage, vehicle mileage and greenhouse gas emissions.
In July 2007, staff entered into a contract with Blymyer Engineering for design services related
to a new fuel station at Foothill Park, which would have consisted of improved fuel tanks, pumps
and lighting. A construction contract for this work was never awarded as bid prices exceeded the
construction budget. Since that time, staff has reduced the project's construction cost by
including only the most critical items in the scope of work and has revised the plans in-house in
order to save money on design fees. The construction documents prepared by staff are
approximately 90 percent complete.
To finalize the design and complete construction, staff believes that it would be more cost
effective to conduct on a design-build procurement, rather than the more traditional design-bid-
build. The construction documents previously prepared by staff would be reviewed, revised and
CMR:308:10 Page 1 of2
stamped by a licensed Engineer who specialized in this type of work and the State and County
permits needed for the project. Council's approval of the attached design-build resolution will
allow staff to advertise the project with sufficient information for a specialized contractor-
designer team to finalize the design, obtain the permits, and propose a not to exceed fee for the
total project including construction. This will ensure that design fees are not expended only to
find out after the construction bid process that there is no money remaining in the budget for
permits. and construction. Section 2.30.300 of the Municipal Code authorizes design-build, but
requires Council adopt a resolution supporting the use of an alternative delivery method.
The plans for this design-build concept would be advertised for fee proposals through a Request
for Proposals (RFP) process. The successful design-build proposer will complete the
construction documents, secure the necessary permits and install new fuel pumps, electrical
wiring and improve the concrete pad area.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for a design-build contract are included in Capital Improvement Project (CIP) VR-92006,
Foothills 'Park Gas Pump Replacement. If the proposed design-build fees are well over the
$86,000 CIP budget, a contract will not be awarded and funding for the fuel station upgrade will
be proposed as part of a future year CIP. If the design-build fees are close to the budget, staff
may return to Council requesting approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies, and with Municipal Code Title 2,
section 2.30.300, Public Works Contracts, with respect to alternative delivery methods. The
design-build model, however, is a departure from the City's customary design-bid-build practice.
TIME LINE
The project will be advertised as an RFP shortly after any Council approval of a design-build
delivery system.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Replacement of the fuel station pumps and improvement of the existing concrete pad area is
determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
pursuant to Section 15301, "existing facilities".
PREPARED BY: /~------
KAREN BENGARD
DEPARTMENT HEAD: 7!l~1£4-
GLENNS. ROBERTS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
. D71 OfP:hli~ Works ~Lo:iJ~
CMR:308:10 Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENT A.
Not Yet Approved
Resolution No. ~~~
Resolution of the Council of the City Palo Alto
Authorizing Use of a Design-Build Project Delivery Method
for Design and Construction of Replacement Fuel Pumps and
Related Equipment at Foothills Park VR-92006
WHEREAS, the existing conventional fuel station at Foothills Park was constructed
in approximately 1970 and consists of a 500 gallon diesel tank, a 1,000 gallon gasoline tank and
a fuel pump; and
WHEREAS, the fuel station is located within an enclosed staff equipment and work
area and had been used primarily by Open Space staff, with seasonal use by Fire Department
staff; and .
WHEREAS, in the event of a fire emergency in the foothills the fuel station could
also be used by State fire crews; and
WHEREAS, in July 2007, staff entered into a contract with Blymyer Engineering for
design services related to a new fuel station at Foothill Park, which would have consisted of
improved fuel tanks, pumps and lighting; and.
WHEREAS, a construction contract for this work was never awarded as bid prices
exceeded the construction budget; and
WHEREAS, since that time, staff has reduced the project's construction cost by
including only the most critical items in the scope of work and has revised the plans in-house in
order to save money on design fees; and
WHEREAS, Council's approval of the attached design-build resolution will allow
staff to advertise the project with sufficient information for a specialized contractor-designer
team to finalize the design, obtain the permits, and propose a fee for the total project; and
WHEREAS, the term "design-build" is defined by California Public Contracts Code
Sec. 20133(c)(2) as "a procurement process in which both the design and construction of a
project are procured from a single entity; and
WHEREAS, the term "design-bid-build" is the traditional project delivery method in
which the agency contracts with separate entities for both the design and construction of a
project; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.30.100 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code defines a
public works contract as a contract paid for in whole or in part out of public funds for the
construction, alteration, repair, improvement, reconstruction or demolition of any public
1
100721 jb 0130608
Not Yet Approved
building, street, sidewalk, utility, park or open space improvement, or other public improvement;
and
WHEREAS, the Foothill Park New Fuel Pump Station is a public works contract; and
WHEREAS, Section 2JO.300 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code provides that
public works contracts not exempt from competitive solicitation requirements under Section
2.30J60 or by resolution of the city council shall be solicited via a competitive bidding process;
and
WHEREAS, in order to allow consideration of qualitative factors such as a bidder's
experience and performance on prior jobs, in addition to price, design-build contracts are usually
awarded by some process other than formal competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.30'JOO(c) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code provides
that the Council may determine by resolution that a particular public works project may be
solicited and contracted for using alternate project delivery methods, including but not limited to
design build, construction manager at risk, or competitive negotiation, provided that any such
resolution shall set forth the reasons supporting the use of the alternate project delivery method
for the project and describe the solicitation method to be used and the criteria for determining the
party to whom the contract should be awarded; and
WHEREAS, the award of the this contract will not involve or require any funding by
bonded indebtedness of the city or by assessment against any particular property in the City; and
WHEREAS, several factors support the use of the design build alternative project
delivery method for this project:
(1) A 1997 study of 351 design-build projects by the Construction Industry
Institute and Penn State University that found that project delivery time,
including design and construction, was 33 percent faster, construction time
was 12 percent faster and project costs were 6 percent lower when the design-
build method of project delivery was used, compared to when the traditional
design-bid-build delivery method was used;
(2) A 1996 study by the University of Reading in the United Kingdom found that
the design-build method reduced construction risks by 14 percent when
compared with design-bid-build method;
(3) The design-build method's structure allows the design-build engineer and
builder to jointly consider options to improve the design, cut project costs
during the bid process and streamline the schedule;
(4) The design-build method, with its single point of responsibility, minimizes
the contract's administration burden and allows leveraging of available staff
resources;
2
100721 jb 0130608
Not Yet Approved
(5) Staff has already completed considerable design work in-house, but lacks the
expertise to complete the specifications relating to fuel pump particulars; and
(6) Staff estimates that by using the design-build method, the project will be
completed approximately 6 month sooner than a traditional design bid build
project and that this process would save approximately $20,000 in design
costs in that a large portion of the staff design could be utilized by the design
build team. Additionally, design fees that would have been needed to
complete the staff design would not need to be expended only to later
discover that the project cannot be awarded due to high bid prices.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that each of the
findings set forth above are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Authorization for Design Build Project Delivery Method.
Council hereby determines that findings outlined above support the use of a design-
build solicitation method for the New Fuel Pumps and Related Equipment at
Foothills Park Project.
SECTION 3. Criteria for Contract Award. City staffwill select the design-build team
for contract award using the following criteria:
II
II
II
II
(1) Quality and completeness of the proposal.
(2) Proposer's understanding of the scope of work outlined in the RFP.
(3) The proposer's stated work plan, including text, preliminary
layoutsldrawings, equipment control strategies, etc.
(4) Quality of materials and equipment to be furnished, beyond what is required
in the proposal and on which the bid price was based.
(5) Any realistic and innovative ideas proposed.
(6) Evidence that the proposer can meet the schedule, such as from the
description of project management method or clarity of the work plan in
terms of task detail and interrelationship ofthe activities.
(7) Cost Proposal
(8) Staff experience on similar projects
3
100721 jb 0130608
Not Yet Approved
SECTION 6. Replacement of the fuel station pumps and improvement of the existing
concrete pad area is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
review pursuant to Section 15301, "existing facilities".
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: . APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Director of Public Works
4
100721 jb 0130608
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS OF $22,780 FOR VERIFICATION OF
PETITION SIGNATURES WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA REGISTRAR OF VOTERS REGARDING PALO
ALTO PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTER'S, LOCAL 1319, INITIATIVE
COSTS
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 prOV1Slons of Section 12 of Article III
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 28,
2010 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2011; and
B. The City Clerk's Office did not anticipate a budget for
the costs associated with the Palo Alto Professional
Firefighter's initiative to freeze staffing levels; and
C. Palo Alto Professional Firefighter's, Local 1319,
collected enough registered voter signatures to qualify its
initiative for the November ballot; and
D. The signatures were sent to the Santa Clara County
Registrar of Voters for verification; and
E.City Council authorization is needed to amend the
Fiscal Year 2011 budget to make an additional appropriation of
$22,780 (Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Dollars) for
the cost associated with the Palo Alto Professional Firefighter's
initiative costs.
SECTION 2. The sum of $22,780 (Twenty Two Thousand Seven
Hundred Eighty Dollars) is hereby appropriated to Inter-Agency
non-salary expenses in the City Clerk's department, and the
Budget Stabilization Reserve is correspondingly reduced.
SECTION 3. The Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased
by the sum of $22,780 (Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty
Dollars) . As a result of this change the Budget Stabilization
Reserve will be reduced from $25,980,894 to $25,958,114.
ATTACHMENT A
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. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that this is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is
necessary.
SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director
Services
of Administrative