HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-04 City Council (12)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC. WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MAY 4, 1998 CMR:214:98
DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOMS - APPROVAL TO
NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT WITH JCDECAUX FOR
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
AUTOMATIC PUBLIC TOILETS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to negotiate with JCDecaux for the
installation of two automatic public toilets (APT), based on information assembled by the
City of San Jose in its Request for Proposal process. Staff intends to place the two units at
Lytton Plaza and Parking Lot D, if approved.
BACKGROUND
In July 1997, staffpresented various alternatives for providing restrooms in the downtown
area, (CMR:311:97). These options included the rental of portable restrooms, use of
restrooms in downtown City-owned facilities, construction of a wood-framed permanent
restroom facility, installing a prefabricated restroom facility, purchasing/leasing automatic
public toilets, and including permanent public restrooms in the design of new downtown
development and parking structures.
Automatic Public Toilets (APT) are modem restroom facilities that were.popularized in
Europe, and have now been adopted in some U.S. cities, including San Francisco and San
Jose. These coin/token operated systems are completely self-contained, providing the user
with a sanitary environment at each use, 24 hours per day. The units are maintained daily
by technicians provided by the manufacturer, and are ADA-approved facilities that can
visually blend into the physical street environment. The units do require City utilities in the
form of water, sanitary sewer, electricity, and telephone.
While researching the alternatives, staffwas contacted by the City of San Jose regarding Palo
Alto’s interest in a joint program for APTs. They had evaluated a number of proposals
received from two earlier Request for Proposals (RFPs), and were at that time preparing a
draft agreement with the firm of JCDecaux for the installation and maintenance of
approximately six APTs.
CMR:214:98 Page 1 of 5
The 1996 City of San Jose RFP requested a no-cost-to-City option through the use of
advertising to cover the cost of the APTs. Only two proposals were received by the City in
response to this RFP. One proposal was considered non-responsive, since i~ involved a lease
option, and one proposal offered a high ratio of advertising structures to APTs (17 to 1).
Both proposals were rejected by the City of San Jose.
The second City of San Jose RFP included consideration of options to lease or purchase the
APTs, and requested costs for various quantities of APTs. In addition, City of San Jose staff
researched the feasibility of involving other South Bay cities and agencies in a joint
maintenance agreement for the APTs to offset the high maintenance and operations costs.
On March 12, 1997, the second City of San Jose RFP was distributed to five firms, known
manufacturers of APTs.
Three written proposals were received on April 25, 1997:
JCDecaux San Francisco, Inc.
Collishaw Construction Inc.,
Strategic Technologies International, Inc.
Following evaluation of the written proposals, the three proposers were asked to attend an
oral interview with the evaluation panel. The purpose of the interview was to allow the
evaluation panel to expand on questions asked in the proposal, and give the proposers an
opportunity to present their product and services. The panel subsequently selected
JCDecaux. Considerations favoring the JCDecaux proposal include: extensive experience
internationally and locally (San Francisco); the appearance and design of the APT; the
material quality of the APT; the close proximity of the central control system to San Jose,
improving the opportunity for responding to system failures in a timely way; and the
emphasis that the firm places on a high standard of maintenance and service. The other
vendors did not have adequate experience in either construction or maintenance of APT units
within the United States.
In l~lay 1997, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency was authorized to take the lead to
negotiate an agreement with JCDecaux to lease a minimum of six APT units for a term of
twenty years. This agreement was finalized on January 6, 1998. Installation is expected this
sUmmer. Following the initial order, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency decided to install
one extra unit. An amendment to the agreement is currently in process.
The key points of the JCDecaux proposa! are as follows:
1.Supply and installation by JCDecaux of universally
compliant APTs.
accessible, ADA-
CMR:214:98 Page 2 of 5
Maintenance of the APT units by JCDecaux, with at least two visits per day
to each toilet by qualified technicians, including Saturdays, Sundays and bank
holidays. In addition, all of the toilets will be connected to the vendor’s
central computer for immediate dispatch of a technician in case of failure of
any systems.
o The City pays all fees in connection with the acquisition of the necessary
permits for installation of the APTs.
The City pays for utility consumption including power, water, sewer and
phone.
Vandalism costs of up to $2,000 per unit per year are paid by JCDecaux.
Contract duration is 20 years.
Annual lease price is the price listed per number of units plus all applicable
taxes (escalated annually using the CPI index for California). The City of San
Jose annual price per unit is $61,500.
DISCUSSION
The City of San Jose substantially followed the Palo Alto RFP process in selecting
JCDecaux. Therefore, the City of Palo Alto may proceed with negotiations with the selected
vendor as provided for in Section 2.30.100 of the Municipal Code. City of Palo Alto staff
thoroughly reviewed the information made available by the City of San Jose staff, and
affirms that the selection of JCDecaux would be the best choice for Palo Alto. The key
factors supporting this decision include:
Local experience in the City of San Francisco and City of San Jose.
Benefit of scale - JCDecaux has advised Palo Alto staffthat the annual unit
rate pricing quoted for the larger (7 APT unit) San Jose contract will be
extended to Palo Alto.
Timely automated maintenance response system.
High standard of cleanliness and customer satisfaction.
Pleasing urban architecture of the APT units.
Small footprint of structure enabling the siting of APT’s to be more flexible.
CMR:214:98 Page 3 of 5
The estimated annual cost per unit will be $61,500 (plus tax) including installation and
maintenance. Two major issues that will be negotiated with the vendor include the
possibility of a trial period to lessen the impact of a 20 year lease and to seek the best price
for the Palo Alto APTs. Although the provision of public toilets was not .included in the
scope of the Downtown Urban Design Improvements Project (CIP #19608), strong support
for such facilities was expressed at the public workshops and public hearings held during the
development and review of the project. Consequently, the Master Plan identified seven
potential locations. These were subsequently reduced by staff to two locations based on
discussions with Planning and Public Works staff, and the representative from JCDecaux
regarding economics and typical service areas for APTs.
Staff favors limited installation of APT units in separate and geographically suitable
locations near high use areas within the downtown. The recommended sites are Lytton
Plaza at the corner of University Avenue and Emerson Street, and Parking Lot D at the
corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street, opposite the Palo Alto Post Office. The
APT installation will be limited to two units in order to evaluate usage and public response.
Following a two-year trial period, staff will evaluate APT usage and make a recommendation
on whether to expand the APT program past that time.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives were discussed within CMR:311:97, which is attached to this report. The APT
alternative was further explored within the City of San Jose’s RFP and interview process,
which resulted in the selection of JCDecaux.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Following completion of negotiations with JCDecaux, staff will return to Council with a
Budget Amendment Ordinance and annual lease agreement. Funding for the first year’s
lease will come from the Budget Stabilization Reserve; in future years, this expense will be
budgeted in the Public Works General Fund operating budget.
In another staff report in this packet, (CMR 221:98), staffhas provided information on a
cooperative effort undertaken with the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown property
owners to identify .and implement an augmented maintenance program for the Downtown.
This is envisioned to involve a public/private partnership in which certain of the costs of the
augmented maintenance program .would be borne by the City, and others would be
incorporated into a special tax district, contiguous with the Downtown. The formation of this
special tax district is anticipated to occur, with property owner approval, at the same time
that the Downtown parking structure would be scheduled for approval in November 1999.
In the discussions which have occurred relative to this public/private partnership, the
automated public toilets have been assumed to be a City expense.
CMR:214:98 Page 4 of 5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The siting and installation of public restrooms in the Downtown area is consistent with the
Downtown Urban Design Improvements Master Plan and the Urban Design Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, Policy 5, "Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to keep them
economically healthy."
TIMELINE
After completion of negotiations with the vendor, the agreement will be presented to
Council for approval. This is expected to occur this summer 1998. Concurrently, staff will
submit documentation for Architectural Review Board approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Placement of public restrooms in the downtown area is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303, (Construction and
location of small facilities and structures). The possible loss of one or two parking spaces
per public toilet location was addressed in the Negative Declaration prepared for the
Downtown Urban Design Improvements Master Plan certified by Council on August 11,
1997.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR:311:97 Approaches to Improve Quality of Life in the Downtown Area
Attachment B: Photograph of APT
PREPARED BY: Jim Harrington, Senior Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD: /~ ~/~, ~@
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: "~~. H~ ~
EMILYr-HARR~SON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:214:98 Page 5 of 5
TO:
ATTACHMENT,
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
CITY blANA GER DEPARTMENT: Com mu nit)" Services
JULY 8, 1997 CMR:311:97
SUBJECT:APPROACHES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN
THE DOWNTOV~SN AREA
This report responds to the City Council’s request for information concerning the
development of a comprehensive approach to downtown needs (Attachment 1). This report
gives Council an update on staff’s efforts to explore public restroom options in the downtov,-n
area and provides a review of the programs developed to address the issues surrounding
employment and shelter for the homeless. The reportalso updates staff activity as it relates
to many items addressed in the August 1, 1996, Report of the Homelessness Task Force of
Palo Alto (Attachment 2).
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report is informational only,
POLICY 1-MPLICATIONS
This report does not represent any change to existing City policies.
BACKGROUND
On January 15, 1997, Council requested the development of policy direction in areas that
provided for improved quality of life in the downtown locality, including:
¯Providing restroom facilities in the downtown area.
Providing training and short-term, transitional employment opportunities to the
homeless population.
\Vorking with other agencies to provide additional housing and shelter opportunities
for those who are homeless.
CMR:311:97 Page 1 of 7
DISCUSSION
1R.estrooms
Staffis exploring various alternatives to provide public restroom facilities in the downtov,’n
area. These include the rental of portable rest.rooms, use of restrooms in downtown City-
owned facilities, constructing a wood-framed permanent rest.room facility, installing a
prefabricated rest.room facility, purchasing/leasing automatic public toilets, and including
permanent public restrooms in the design of new downtown development and parking
structures.
Staff has not yet completed a detailed examination of the alternatives. After fully
investigating all options, including exploring how other cities have found solutions and
completing a full cost analysis, staff will return to Council with a funding and
implementation plan in fall of 19977
The following is a brief review of the alternatives being considered:
Portable toilets (Exterior finish: Fiberglass. Disposal: 250 gallon holding tank):
Althoug3a an inexpensive way to provide this service, these units can be aesthetically
unpleasing, difficult to keep sanitary, present odor issues, and can be an attractive
nuisance for vandalism. The approximate annual rental cost is $480 per unit, with
an annual maintenance cost of $960 per unit. Total cost for three years would be
approximately $17,280 for four units. This option could be implemented in a 2- to
3-week period.
Modular trailer units (Exterior finish: wood siding. Disposal: sewer): These are
larger portable units that are on wheels. They are seismically braced and leveled on
asphalt, concrete or dirt. The disadvantage of these units is that the)’ require a large
footprint due to the requirement of a disabled access ramp, which makes finding a
suitable location difficult. They are also an unattractive design, would need frequent
repairs at City cost, are an attractive nuisance for vandalism, and would require
connection of sanitary sewer, water utility, electrical, and special paving.
The appro "ximate unit cost is $16,500 for installation plus $21,000 in annual rental and
maintenance. The total cost for three years will be approximately $80,000 per unit.
Total time required to implement this option would be 2 to 3 months.
Use of downtown Cit2,." facilities: Presently, the CMc Center and Downtown Library
rest.room facilities experience fiequent daytime use by the downtown population. The
Teen Center and Senior Center have been considered as possible alternatives, but
CMR:311:97 Page 2 of 7
these options create securitT and s~afety issues tl~at may not be possible to remedy.
Approximate cost to expand this option is dependent on the hours of operation,
maintenance levels and staffing requirements.
Prefabricated permanent restrooms: (Exterior finish: Choice of exterior finishes
and roofing. Disposal: server): These are prefabric~ated, permanent, outdoor buildings
that have separate men’s and women’s restrooms with one toilet and sink in each.
These facilities are ADA-approved and can be customized to blend into the physical
environment. (For instance, if in Cogswell Park, the exterior could be customized
with adobe style architecture to match the Senior Center.) This is a low-cost solution
that woiald add a permanent structure to the downtown area. The disadvantages could
include increased maintenance issues associated with an unmonitored facility, limited
hours of use, depending on whether the facility is locked during evening and night
hours, and the structure could provide an attractive nuisance for vandalism.
The approximate, one-time cost for purchase, construction and installation is $65,000,
and $10,600 for annual maintenance consisting of one sen’ice per day. The time re-
quired to implement this option is approximately 8 to 12 months.
Wood-framed permanent restrooms: (Exterior finish: Plywood!Paint/Stucco.
Disposal: Sewer.) This option entails construction of a permanent wood-fi’amed
rest.room facility in the downtown area. The City of Mountain View has recently
hired a contractor to build such a facility in a park. The facility contains a men’s and
women’s room with a total of six toilet fixtures and two sinks. This option has
considerably higher construction costs than the prefabricated unit mentioned above,
but can be designed and customized to visually fit into a physical setting. This option
may also have a larger footpriht than other alternatives, ma "king a suitable site more
difficult to find. Additionally, a permanent structure could require a hi.rob level of
maintenance to ensure sanitary conditions, and it may present an attractive nuisance
for vandalism.
The approximate cost to construct a permanent restroom facility’ is $150,000 for
design and construction and $10,600 for annual maintenance consisting of one service
per day. This option could be implemented in 12 to 18 months.
Automatic Public Toilets (APT): (Exterior finish: Choice of exterior finishes that
can include murals, maps, amvork, etc. Disposal: sewer): These are the systems that
were popularized in Europe and have nov,’ been adopted in some U.S. cities, including
San Francisco. These coirt/token operated systems are completely self-contained,
.providing the user with a sanitary environment at each use, 24 hours-per-day. The
CMR:311:97 Page 3 of 7
units must be maintained daily by technicians provided by the manufacturer and
present ADA-approved facilities, that can visually blend into the physical street
environment. Other than cost, which is higher than other alternatives, this option has
very few disadvantages. A major advantage is that the Cit.v would be minimally
responsible for repair and maintenance. The units do require Cit~" uti-lities in the form
of water, sewer, electricity, find telephone.
The approximate, annual per unit cost is $70-80,000 for lease and maintenance, or
$250,000 for per unit purchase with no maintenance or repairincluded. There would
also be a one-time installation cost of approximately $40,000 per unit. The time
required to implement this option would be 8 to 14 months.
The Cit)’ of San Jose has recently advertised a request for proposal and
has received proposals from three vendors to supply APT units in their
downtown area. San Jose has proposed that Palo Alto and others citieg
make use of the San Jose research, and, it" mutually beneficial, partner
with San Jose in the purchase, lease and/or maintenance of these systemsl
Staff witl continue to work with San Jose to ascertain the benefits of such
an arrangement.
Potential opportunities with downtown developmenti Staffhas also considered
exploring the potential opportunities that new downtown development represents,
Planning staff has strongly encouraged developers of downtown zone projects to
provide public restrooms as a public benefit. A possible scenario is providing
incentives for developers to design exterior restroom facilities into new or renovated
buildings as a public/private p .artnership. Staffwill continue to explore this option
and will return to Council with additional information, if the idea seems plausible.
Inclusion of restrooms in proposed parking structures: The newly proposed
parking structures in the downtown area can be designed to inclfide permanent
restroorn facilities or be adapted to contain the Automatic Public Toilets discussed
above. This may be an ideal long-term solution to this issue. The only disadvantages
could be an increased cost for maintenance. Cost is unknown at this time, and
implementation time would be approximately 3 years.
Possible sites for the location of restroom facilities have been detailed in the draf~ Master
¯Plan for Downtown Urban Design Improvements. The document suggests locations
including Par’king Lot H at Cowper and Hamilton, Parking Lot T at Lytton and Kipling, Cit~’
Hall Plaza, Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza.
CMR:311:97 Page 4 of 7
Employment Opportunities for the Homeless
During FY 1996/97, the City employed eight homeless persons through the Seasonal Jobs
for the Homeless Program, and is planning to hire an additional ten homeless or at-risk of
homeless persons-during FY 1997-98. Six homeless persons are emp!oyed through the
City’s and Urban Ministry’s collaborative "The. Homel~.ss Garden Project." The Urban
Minist~"s Lawn Sen’ice Project employs an additional four to six people. Through these
sources, 28 to 30 local homeless persons have gained employment within the last two years.
Future expansion or enhancements of the programs could occur by developing partnerships
with corporations, businesses, public entities and nonprofit institutions in’the mid-peninsula
region. Outside agencies could fund either additional slots for the employment and training
progam, or place graduated program participants into their operations. Other examples of
long-term pro~’am enhancements could include developing partnerships with Opportunities
Industrialization Center West o fEast Menlo Park and the Veterans Workshop Employment
Program in Menlo Park, which could assist in training and placement needs of program
participants.
Staffwiil continue to examine these alternatives and return as additional recommendations
develop, as the second phase of the Seasonal Jobs for the Homeless Progazn is implemented.
Housing and Shelter for the Homeless:
The City is engaged in providing housing and shelter opportunities for the homeless and at-
risk of homeless population. The current inventory of available shelter that is funded through
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Human Services Resource
Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding’is:
~: Provides 15 to 20 beds, depending upon size of participating rotating
churches, at no cost to the user.
~.B~Ik.e,~KoXN: 26 rooms from $350 to $433 monthly.
Additional subsidies available for eligible participants
Housing Corporation
through Palo Alto
Future City-funded or partially City-funded shelter opportunities include:
o The CLARArMATEO Alliance (CMR:251-97): This is a communi.ty shelter on the
Menlo Park Vetera,ns Administration grounds. Fo~" beds will be available for up to a
90-day stay and five beds for up to 24 months. A series ofproNa.’n offerings will be
CMR:311:97 Page 5 of 7
made available to shelter occupants, including but not limited to: holistic case
management service; psychiatric counseling and mental health service; alcohol and drug
treatment services; vocational rehabilitation employment training and placement; and
general health care services. The opening ceremony is scheduled for Wednesday, July 9,
1997.
¯753 Alma SRO: 106 rooms will be provided at an average of $375 per month. Some
additional subsidies will be available for eligible participants who partake in the Shelter
Plus Care Pro~am. (Plarmed Opening: January 1998)
Additional private shelter opportunities include:
¯Craig Hotel: 63 rooms from $30.80 (w/out bath) to $51.70 (w/bath) daily
¯Palo Alto Hotel: 59 rooms from $28 (v, qout bath) to $34 (w/bath) daily
FISCAL IMPACT
In fall of 1997, when all res~room options have been fully explored, staff will return to
Council with an implementation and funding request.
ENVIRONWIENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment may be necessary once direction for installation ofrestroom
facilities has been determined.
ATTACHMENTS
January 15, 1997, Memorandum’to Council
Report-.ofthe Homelessness Task Force of Palo Alto
PREPARED BY: Richard James, Administrator, Community Services Department
DEPART~IENT HEAD REVIEW."(/
PAUL THILTGEN
Director of Community Services
CMR:311:97 Page 6 of 7
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
Human Relations Commission
Planning Commission
Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Marketing Committee
Downtov,’n Urban Design Committee
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Urban Ministry
CMR:311:97 Page 7 of 7
DESIGN J C D E C A U X