HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-25 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers
July 25, 2011
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are
available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
1 July 25, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Call to Order
Study Session
1. Study Session: on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System
Improvement Program (Hetch Hetchy System)
Special Orders of the Day
2.Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Contribution to the City in the Amount of
$1.25 Million for the Art Center Renovation
3.Council Direction to Reopen Recruitment for the Architectural Review Board
and to Communicate to the Two Applicants that their Applications are Still
Active
City Manager Comments
Minutes Approval
4.Approval of Minutes June 6, 2011
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
2 July 25, 2011
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.
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
5.Approval of Extension of the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle
Abatement (AVASA) for Third 10-Year Term and the City of Palo Alto’s
Continued Participation
6.Approval of a Contract with RBF Consulting in a Total Amount Not To Exceed
$350,000 for Design Services for the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor
Project
7.Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Restricted Parking Zones Established
by Resolution 7659 to Include the Downtown Library Parking Lot and Adjacent
Streets in the Coral Zone
8.Approval of a Record of Land Use Action approving a Conditional Use Permit
for Community Facility Use of the Historic Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue.
9.Approval of a Recommendation from the Historic Resources Board to
Designate 1005 University Avenue as a Category 2 Structure on the City’s
Historic Inventory and Record of Land Use Action
10.Approval of Contract Amendment No. Four in the Amount of $258,041 with
Group 4 Architecture, Inc for Costs Related to the Design of the Main Library
and the Temporary Main Library (PE-11000 and PE-11012) for a Total Contract
Amount Not to Exceed $7,681,751
11.Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $3,545,904 for
Improvements to the Palo Alto Art Center; Approval of a Contract in the
Amount of $5,123,800 with Big D Pacific, Inc., for Improvements to the Palo
Alto Art Center; Approval of a Contract in the Amount of $369,920 with Mark
Cavagnero Associates for Construction Administration Services and Approval
3 July 25, 2011
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.
of Contract Amendment 1 for Construction Management Services in the
Amount of $344,705 with Nova Partners (PF-07000)
12.Approval of a Contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for a Period of One Year
for Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services with Funding in the Not-to-
Exceed Amount of $172,000
13.Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the
Implementation Plan for the Proposed Employee Hotline
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.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
14.Finance Committee Recommendation for Rate Increases for the FY 2012
Refuse Fund Budget
15.Approval of Ordinance Adding Section 9.06.010 to the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to Prohibit Human Habitation of Vehicles STAFF RECOMMENDS TO
CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 2011.
16.Adoption of Two Resolutions (1) Adopting Utility Rate Schedule E-16
(Unmetered Electric Service), as Amended, Adding a Wireless Facilities
Attachment Fee; and (2) Approving the Master License Agreement and Exhibits
for the Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and
in Conduits by Wireless Communications Facilities and Related Equipment
17.Stanford Community Benefits Discussion and Appointment of City
Representatives to Joint Committee for Community Health and Safety
Programs
18.Adoption of Resolution Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and
Regulations to Incorporate a Side Letter with SEIU Local 521 to Extend the
4 July 25, 2011
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.
Term of the Memorandum of Agreement for One Additional Year, Through
June 30, 2012, and Add a Provision for a Flexible Spending Arrangement
19.Adoption of an Ordinance Dissolving the Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabiltities who require auxilliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like
information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550
(Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the
notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue
that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and
deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to
speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
5 July 25, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk
Informational Report
Notice of Vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission For One
Four-Year Term Ending July 31, 2015 (Lippert)
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk
Supplemental Information
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1849)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 1
(ID # 1849)
Summary Title: Palo Alto Art Center Foundation
Title: Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Contribution to the City in the Amount of
$1.25 Million for the Art Center Renovation
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Attachments:
·Attachment A -Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Fact Sheet (DOC)
Prepared By:Karen Kienzle, Manager Art Center
Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Mission of the Art Center Foundation
The mission of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, a private nonprofit 501(c)(3)
organization founded 1973, is to support the mission and goals of the Palo Alto Art
Center, promote unique art experiences and education for people of all ages, and serve
as the Art Center’s advocates and ambassadors in the community.
The Foundation serves the Art Center by means of a City Council–acknowledged
public/private partnership. The mission of the Art Center (founded 1971) is to foster
creative process and thought by forging a greater appreciation and understanding of
the visual arts through exhibitions, studio experiences, and related educational
programs. The Foundation, through its fundraising efforts, enables the Art Center to offer
innovative educational experiences for children and adults, produce high-profile
exhibitions and catalogues, pay artists equitable participation fees, and broaden its
audience to serve the community as a truly regional art center. The Foundation is also
spearheading the planning of a $10 million expansion and renovation of the Art Center.
What is the Relationship between the Art Center and the Foundation?
The Palo Alto Art Center is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto as a program of
the Division of Arts and Culture, Department of Community Services. The Palo Alto Art
Center Foundation, a private nonprofit organization, supports the Art Center by means of
a public/private partnership. Through this partnership, the Foundation significantly
enhances the extent and quality of the Art Center’s programs through fundraising
initiatives and volunteer service.
How is the Art Center funded?
The budget of the Art Center is approximately $1.4 million. The City of Palo Alto provides
approximately $1 million a year for staff salaries and basic program operations of the Art
Center as well as maintaining the facility. The Art Center Foundation’s budget also
directly supports the Art Center programs, providing an additional $350,000, or 26% of the
Art Center’s budget. Cultural Kaleidoscope is entirely funded by the Foundation. The
Foundation also provides funding for Project LOOK! and pays for a program assistant for
the children’s programs as well as underwriting Family Days, traveling exhibitions,
publications, scholarships and special equipment. The Foundation is supported by
membership and individual contributions, corporate and foundation grants, and special
events as well as proceeds from The Gallery Shop.
History of the Foundation
The Palo Alto Art Center Foundation was founded in 1973 to advise and support the Palo
Alto Art Center. Since its inception, the Foundation has engaged in fundraising to assist
the Art Center’s efforts to educate, motivate and involve people in the visual arts.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
July 25, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Council Direction to Reopen Recruitment for the Architectural Review
Board and to Communicate to the Two Applicants that their
Applications are Still Active
RECOMMENDATION:The City Clerk respectfully requests Council direction to reopen
recruitment for the Architectural Review Board and to communicate to the two applicants that their applications are still active.
BACKGROUND:The City Clerks office has recruited for the Architectural Review Board for two
terms (Lee and Malone-Prichard) ending on September 30, 2014. We have only received two
applications with one incumbent reapplying.
The applicants are
Whitney Lundeen
Clare Malone Prichard (incumbent).
Due to the fact that we have received only two applications, the City Clerk recommends
reopening the process. The Planning Director has agreed to work with the City Clerk in this
recruitment.
At the Council Meeting on July 25, 2011, Council may move to interview all applicants or reopen
the recruitment. Copies of the applications are attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Applications Redacted (PDF)
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 7/20/2011 2:42 PM by Ronna Gonsalves A Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1856)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1856)
Summary Title: AVASA Agreement
Title: Approval of Extension of the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle
Abatement (AVASA) for Third 10-Year Term and the City of Palo Alto’s Continued
Participation
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Adopt the attached resolution approving the extension of the Santa Clara
County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority (AVASA) for a third
10-year term beginning May 1, 2012; and
2.Approve the City’s continued participation in AVASA.
Background
Sections 9250.7 and 22107 of the California Vehicle Code provide for the establishment
of a service authority for abandoned vehicle abatement if the County Board of
Supervisors and a majority of the cities within a county adopt resolutions supporting
such action. This program imposes an annual vehicle registration fee of one dollar on
the vehicles registered to owners with an address in each county. Revenue collected by
the Department of Motor Vehicles is used to reimburse participating agencies based on
the following formula: 50 percent based on the jurisdiction’s population percentage and
the other 50 percent based on a jurisdiction’s percentage of vehicles abated county-
wide.
In 1991, Santa Clara County established the AVASA program and the City Council
adopted a resolution authorizing the City of Palo Alto’s participation. This service
authority was established to provide County law and code enforcement agencies with
resources to facilitate the proper removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles. Santa
Clara County’s current AVASA agreement sunsets on April 30, 2012.
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1856)
Discussion
Senate Bill 106 amended Section 9250.7 of the California Vehicle Code which
established the AVASA program. The amendment authorizes the extension of the
service fee for each service authority for increments of up to 10 years if the County
Board of Supervisors, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a
majority of the incorporated population within the county, adopt resolutions providing
for the extension of the fee. Palo Alto has approximately 3.6% of the County’s
population. Approving the extension of the program is required for the program to
continue. Adoption of this resolution would reauthorize the City’s participation in the
AVASA program until April 30, 2022.
Resource Impact
Currently, approximately 50 percent of a community service officer’s time in the Police
Department’s Traffic Division is spent on abandoned vehicle abatement in Palo Alto.
Over 1,000 abandoned vehicles were processed last year, and over 6,000 abandoned
vehicles were abated in the last ten years. The City has received approximately
$458,250 in reimbursement funds from the AVASA program in the last ten years.
Including equipment, salary and benefits, and administrative overhead, the City spends
approximately $47,000 a year to provide this service. By participating in AVASA, about
97 percent of these costs have been reimbursed to the City over the last ten years.
In FY 2010-2011, the City of Palo Alto projected AVASA revenues are estimated to be
approximately $42,000.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policy.
Attachments:
·AVASA Resolution (PDF)
Prepared By:Karen McAdams, Parking Manager
Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1856)
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
Resolution No. ---
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving
the Extension of Authority for The California Department of
Motor Vehicles to Collect the Vehicle Registration Fee for
Distribution to the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle
Abatement Service Authority
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 22710 authorizes the establishment of a
service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles in a county and the imposition of a one
dollar ($1.00) vehicle registration fee, if the board of supervisors, by a two-thirds vote, and a
majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county have
adopted resolutions providing for the establishment of the authority and the imposition of the fee;
and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 1991, the Council approved Resolution No. 7039
authorizing the establishment of a service authority within Santa Clara County, thereby making
funds available to the City for abatement activities through the imposition of a one dollar ($1.00)
per vehicle annual registration fee on all vehicles registered in Santa Clara County;
WHEREAS, the number of vehicles abandoned on public and private property is
constantly increasing, and it is increasingly difficult for the City to sufficiently fund programs to
abate abandoned vehicle nuisances; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto has established a plan for the abatement of
abandoned vehicles pursuant to Chapter 9.64 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code section 9250.7(g) authorizes the vehicle
abatement registration fee to be imposed by a service authority only for a period of 10 years from
the date that the collection of the fee commenced, provided, however that the fee may be
extended in increments of up to 10 years by two-thirds vote of the County Board of Supervisors
and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the County
adopting resolutions providing for the extension of the fee;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby declares that it
approves the extension for an additional period of ten years the collection by the California
Department of Motor Vehicles for distribution to the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicles
Abatement Service Authority that vehicle abatement fee authorized by California Vehicle Code
Section 22710.
110630 dm 0120515
*NOT YET APPROVED*
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby declares that it
approves the extension for an additional period of ten years the collection by the California
Department of Motor Vehicles for distribution to the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicles
Abatement Service Authority that vehicle abatement fee authorized by California Vehicle Code
Section 22710.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Police Chief
Director of Administrative Services
110630 dm 0120515
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1534)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 6/20/2011
June 20, 2011 Page 1 of 7
(ID # 1534)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Summary Title: El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project
Title: Study Session Regarding the Valley Transportation Authority’s El Camino
Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council receive the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff report
regarding the VTA El Camino Bus Rapid Transit project and provide comments and discussion.
Executive Summary
The El Camino -Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is supported by the VTA’s Measure A Transit
Sales Tax program along with federal and state sources. The goal of the project is to improve
transit access along the El Camino Real Corridor by providing faster service with target stops
and more reliable service with specialized transit vehicles and facilities.
The El Camino Real BRT Corridor extends from Downtown San Jose (Arena Station) to
Downtown Palo Alto (Palo Alto Transit Center) passing through the cities of Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Mountain View. The El Camino Real Corridor is currently served by
the VTA Local 22 bus route and the VTA Rapid 522, which together carry 20% of the VTA’s daily
ridership. The current Rapid 522 is the first step to initiating a BRT type of service with limited
stops, but lacks the upgraded stations and branded vehicles. An example of a branded VTA BRT
vehicle is illustrated in Attachment A.
In May 2009, the VTA Board of Directors adopted the El Camino Real BRT Strategic Plan, which
identifies the goals that the BRT project would be measured against. The goals are described in
more detail in the Discussion section of this report.
Staff from VTA will be making a presentation to Council regarding the El Camino Real BRT
Project. Staff and VTA will outline the next steps in the process.
June 20, 2011 Page 2 of 7
(ID # 1534)
Background
The 2000 Measure A VTA Transit Sales Tax program identified an integrated transit network
linking target “activity centers” comprised of regional business districts, shopping centers, and
mixed-use projects throughout Santa Clara County, through an enhanced bus service known as
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). In March 2008, VTA initiated a BRT Strategic Plan, the goals of which
are to:
1) Establish a brand identity for VTA’s future network of BRT services,
2) Evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of developing BRT facilities in the candidate
corridors,
3) Seek input from project stakeholders prior to beginning engineering efforts, and
4) Develop an action plan for implementation in each corridor.
The El Camino Bus Rapid Transit project supports the goals of the ongoing Peninsula El Camino
Real Grand Boulevard Initiative by enhancing El Camino Real as a multi-modal complete street
by making improvements to the pedestrian connections at stations and to the streetscape in
selected areas. The BRT network will create a pedestrian oriented environment and maintain
and improve mobility of people and vehicles.
Discussion
VTA has contracted with Parsons Transportation Group as the lead design consultant for the El
Camino Real BRT Corridor project. Meetings with City staff began in summer 2010 in the form
of a Project Development Team (PDT). The PDT meetings include staff from the northern
County cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Mountain View, along with VTA and the consultant
team. The PDT meetings focus on potential roadway configurations along El Camino Real to
help support BRT activities including the use of exclusive (dedicated) bus lanes down the center
of El Camino Real,shared-use mixed-flow lanes travelling along the curb lanes of El Camino
Real, and enhanced station location alternatives. In Palo Alto, mixed-flow lanes (at the curbs)
with two potential enhanced stations are proposed.
A Policy Advisory Board (PAB) for the El Camino Real BRT Corridor was established in 2010,
comprised of elected officials.The PAB meetings began in February 2011 and the group meets
quarterly. Councilmember Shepherd represents the City of Palo Alto at the PAB.
Design Options
The El Camino Real BRT Corridor project represents a unique opportunity to implement
specialized transit access through the City of Palo Alto with vision-setting civil improvements
through the City’s most heavily-traveled corridor. Alternatives proposed for the BRT have three
potential cross sections:
·BRT operating with automobile traffic in mixed flow lanes (at the curbs) with the existing
six travel lanes (three lanes in each direction)
·BRT operating in an exclusive median lane with six travel lanes, and
·BRT operating in an exclusive median with four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction)
June 20, 2011 Page 3 of 7
(ID # 1534)
Proposed renderings for each of the potential street cross-sections are provided in Attachment
B. An illustration of the BRT branded vehicle is provided in Attachment A.
Based on input from the PDT, preliminary design, and cost estimates, VTA staff is
recommending that the project include a combination of BRT operating in either a mixed flow
lane with six travel lanes or BRT in the center (dedicated) median lanes with four regular travel
lanes on El Camino Real. Cross sections with BRT in the median lanes with the six travel lanes
will have significant impact on private property along El Camino Real, especially at the station
locations and intersections.
Where conditions do not warrant dedicated bus lanes, such as is the case through the City of
Palo Alto, BRT would operate in mixed flow lanes along the curb (with appropriate street and
signal enhancements) alongside local automobile traffic. Staff has expressed concern with the
impacts that a dedicated lane would have in the City, such as loss of parking, right of way take
of private properties and removal of the landscaped medians along El Camino Real. Segments
with the dedicated BRT lanes, such as through the City of Mountain View, would have two 12-ft
lanes in the median and would be restricted to only the BRT buses. These 12-foot wide lanes
would be placed in the median and would be separated from the mixed flow lanes by 6-inch
concrete curbs. On these streets, the original number of traffic lanes would be maintained to
the extent possible, with additional width gained by removing existing curbside parking or by
cutting into the existing medians and dedicated left-turn lanes. Additional right-of-way
acquisition may be required where center median BRT stations are needed. These buses would
also have Bus Signal Priority, so that as the bus approaches the intersection, the traffic signal
will turn green to allow the vehicle to move through without sitting at a red light. Buses would
also be able to accommodate additional bikes both outside of the vehicle and possibly inside.
More detail will be available as VTA continues with the design phase of this project.
BRT Stations
Station locations will be selected based on transit demand, station visibility and access,
connections to bus and rail, surrounding land uses, station spacing, public support and right-of-
way impacts. The potential BRT station locations in Palo Alto are being proposed at the vicinity
of Maybell Avenue/Arastradero Road, California Avenue and the Palo Alto Transit Center (near
University Avenue).
Station design would include an off-board fare collection system where passengers would buy
tickets at the station and board the bus through the front and rear doors without needing to
show proof of payment. This would allow faster boarding and, like the light rail, transit officers
would be onboard checking passengers for tickets.
The enhanced stations would be more substantial than regular bus stations by providing
shelters for weather protection, more seating and better lighting for safety. The station
locations in the areas without dedicated lanes (mixed –flow option) would be designed to have
June 20, 2011 Page 4 of 7
(ID # 1534)
sidewalk bulb-outs, where the station platform would extend out into the travel lane, so that
the bus would stop in the travel lane while the passengers board. This would potentially speed
up the travel times since the buses would not have to pull in/out of traffic, like regular buses
do.
Development of this study will also include data collection efforts for ridership modeling, traffic
analysis, parking inventory and occupancy survey, urban design inventory and land use analysis
of the El Camino corridor. Staff from both Planning and Transportaion will review and provide
comments as needed. Architectural and design elements for the BRT will be a focus of
intensive design study and stakeholder outreach in the Preliminary Engineering phase of the
project. The community outreach process during preliminary engineering will build on the
outreach work already accomplished in conceptual engineering by continuing to include
business and property owners along the project corridor. VTA will also continue to work with
Caltrans on the approval of the design of the roadway since El Camino Real is a State highway
(Route 82).
More information can be found on VTA’s project website at:
http://www.vta.org/brt/index.html, which covers the entire El Camino Real corridior.
El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Goals:
The BRT project will be measured against quantitative and qualitative goals that will be
revisited as the project progresses. The following sets of goals have been adopted by the VTA
Board of Directors and the 2009 Bus Rapid Transit Strategic Plan. The primary goal of the
project is to improve transit in the El Camino Corridor by providing faster, more frequent and
more reliable service with specialized transit vehicles and facilities. Also, as part of the effort to
improve transit, improvements will also be made to pedestrian connections to the stations and
improvements to the streetscape in selected areas
The Policy Advisory Board was asked to endorse the following goals at its May 13, 2011
meeting:
1)Ridership
El Camino BRT project will achieve increased ridership (compared to the existing bus
service) and improve efficiency, consistent with VTA's Service Design Guidelines:
o Average boardings per revenue hour: 45 -55
o Average boardings per route mile: 200 -350
o Boardings per station per day: 150 –350
2)Transit Travel Time Savings
El Camino BRT Project improvements will reduce bus in-vehicle travel time by30% when
compared to a local bus (Line 22).
June 20, 2011 Page 5 of 7
(ID # 1534)
3)Competitiveness with automobile travel times
El Camino Rapid BRT Project exclusive lane improvements will achieve Rapid Transit travel
times within 10% of automobile travel times.
4)Bus Signal Priority
All signals on El Camino will have bus signal priority for Rapid Transit vehicles.
5)Station Design
All BRT stations will have branded shelters and amenities such as real-time arrival and
departure information, fare collection machines and upgraded lighting.
6)Vehicle Design
All BRT buses will be articulated, hybrid powered, branded vehicles.
7)Support City Land Use Plans
The BRT Project will be consistent with the goals of city general plans and precise plans.
8)Enhance El Camino as Multimodal “Complete” Street
Ensure good pedestrian environment adjacent to stations.
9)Create a pedestrian-oriented environment and improve streetscapes, ensuring full
access to and between public areas and private developments
Provide an integrated pedestrian environment with wide, continuous sidewalks,
landscaping, lighting and signage, all with human-scale details, with a commitment to
maintain those amenities
10)Develop a balanced multimodal corridor to maintain and improve mobility of people
and vehicles along the corridor
·Design transit stops for easy passenger loading, unloading and fare payment.
·Improve signal timing
·Implement transit-preferential street treatments such as signal priority, bulb out stops,
bus by-pass lanes and high occupancy vehicle (HOV)/Bus-only lanes where needed and
feasible
·Implement programs designed to reduce auto trips during congestion periods
VTA staff will continue to provide updates on how well the goals are met throughout the
project definition process.
Timeline
The VTA is proposing the following schedule for the El Camino Real BRT Corridor project:
·Conceptual Engineering thru Summer 2012
June 20, 2011 Page 6 of 7
(ID # 1534)
·VTA Board Approves Project Description Fall 2011
·Begin Environmental Studies Fall 2011
·Final Environmental Document Winter 2012
·Preliminary Engineering Begins Summer 2012
·Final Design Summer 2014
·Construction Award Fall 2014
·Begin Operation 2016
Conceptual engineering will continue through Summer 2012 and will include civil engineering,
transit operations, branding and marketing of the vehicles and stations. Staff from the
participating cities and Caltrans will continue to meet monthly to provide input to the study.
The Policy Advisory Board will continue to provide policy input. Community input will be
sought through multiple outreach effort later this year and as planning activities proceed.
Resource Impact
Staff participates in monthly Project Development Team meetings. Upon project
implementation, the corridor will be operated and maintained by the Valley Transportation
Authority so there are no on-going resource impacts to the City of Palo Alto.
Policy Implications
The propsed BRT project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan policies:
·Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling and public transit
use;
·Policy T-4: Provide local transit in Palo Alto.
·Policy T-6: Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within
Palo Alto.
·Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for
intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara
County and adjoining counties.
·Policy T-10: Encourage amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage at bus stops to
increase rider comfort and safety.
The propsed BRT project is consistent with the El Camino Real Master Planning Study which was
drafted in 2003 providing detailed design guidelines for the El Camino Real Corridor through
Palo Alto. This project also supports the ongoing Peninsula El Camino Real Grand Boulevard
Initiative, with the goal of improving the performance, safety and aesthetics of El Camino Real
for all users.
Environmental Review
Upon completion of the conceptual design/engineering, VTA will begin environmental analysis
of the proposed alternatives in order to identify impacts, if any, along the El Camino Corridor.
June 20, 2011 Page 7 of 7
(ID # 1534)
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Proposed BRT Vehicle (PDF)
·Attachment B: Proposed BRT Cross Sections (PDF)
Prepared By:Shahla Yazdy, Traffic Engineer
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
Attachment A
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
2
3 Travel Lanes, BRT in Mixed‐Flow Attachment B
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
3
3 Travel Lanes, BRT in Dedicated Lane,
Parking Removed
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
4
2 Travel Lanes, BRT in Dedicated Lane
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1878)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1878)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Resolution to Modify Coral Zone Parking Area
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Restricted Parking Zones
Established by Resolution 7659 to Include the Downtown Library Parking Lot and
Adjacent Streets in the Coral Zone
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council amend the City’s Restricted Parking Zone to add to the Coral
Zone the parking lot at the Downtown Library located at 270 Forest Avenue and four (4) on-
street parking spaces on the west side of Bryant Street, adjacent to the Library. Staff also
recommends that the Library lot be designated as lot “M”.
Executive Summary
In 1997, after a two year trial program, Council approved implementation of the Restrictive
Parking Zone program (Resolution 7659). The Resolution established the four color zone
parking areas within the Downtown Business District and prohibited re-parking within the same
zone during the same business day.
The Library Department requested that the Transportation Division consider this modification
based on ongoing inappropriate use of the Downtown Library parking lot prior to the recent
modification of the Downtown Library. The Police Department made similar observations, in
that the current 2-hour parking restrictions are insufficient to deter parking abuse because
people re-park in the same area. This situation limits parking available to library patrons.
Therefore, Staff recommends amending the Restrictive Parking Zones to include the Downtown
Library lot and adjacent on-street parking spaces along the Bryant Street frontage of the Library
in the Coral Zone.
Background
Council approved permanent implementation of the Restricted Parking Zone on April 7, 1997.
The resolution established the color zone parking program by dividing the downtown area into
the four color zones: Purple, Coral, Lime and Blue. It prohibits re-parking within each zone for
longer than the time allowed. This program was established to address “sleeper” (persons
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1878)
inhabitating parked vehicles overnight) and other long-term parking issues, and to increase the
number of available parking spaces for visitors to the downtown area.
The color zone restriction boundaries are currently defined as follows: from the North side of
Lytton Avenue, to the North side of Forest Avenue, and from the East side of Alma Street to the
East side of Webster Street. Attachment A provides a revised map of the color zone network
that includes the proposed additions in and around the Downtown Library.
Discussion
The Library Department has requested that the Transportation Division include the Downtown
Library in the Restricted Parking Program. When the color zone parking program was
established, the Coral Zone boundary to the South included only the north side of Forest
Avenue. The Library is located on the south side of the Forest Avenue, so it is not covered by
the existing zones.
The parking lot has sixteen 2-hour and one (1) handicap parking spaces; the four Bryant Street
on-street parking spaces currently include a 2-hour daytime parking restriction. The Police
Department and Library Staff report that parkers are regularly observed moving from one space
to another to avoid the 2-hour parking restriction. Because the lot and on-street spaces are
outside the color zone restriction, parkers are able to re-park as many times as possible without
having to leave the area. This practice significantly impacts the availability of short term visitor
parking at the Library. The segments of the streets (Bryant and Ramona) immediately adjacent
to the Library experience similar problems.
The proposed changes to the Coral Zone boundaries would prohibit re-parking in the Library
parking lot or adjacent on Bryant Street or Ramona Street. This will increase parking availability
for Library users.
Timeline
The Downtown library reopened on July 16, 2011. The signage modifications to include the
parking lot and Bryant Street frontgage on-street parking spaces can be signed immediately
upon approval of this resolution by the City Council.
Resource Impact
There is no resource impact in amending the Restricted Parking Zone Resolution. Increased
enforcement costs and revenues from parking ticket fines are expected to be negligible and
within the scope of current parking enforcement for the color zones. Funds are available in the
PL-12000 Parking and Transportation Improvements Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
project to cover the cost of the sign conversions.
Policy Implications
Modification of the Restricted Parking Program to include the Downtown Library and Bryant
Street frontage on-street parking spaces is consistent with Goal T-8 (Attractive, Convenient
Public and Private Parking Facilities) and its associated programs and policies.
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1878)
Environmental Review
The Restricted Parking Zone program and this addition are categorically exempt from CEQA
review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution Amending Restricted Parking Coral Zone Boundary(PDF)
·Attachment B: Exhibit A to Resolution -Parking Zone Map (PDF)
Prepared By:Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
** NOT YET APPROVED **
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Restricted Parking Zones Established by Resolution 7659
to Include the Downtown Library Parking Lot and Adjacent
Streets in the Coral Zone
WHEREAS, consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010, the
Council may establish parking restrictions; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1997, following a two-year trial period for downtown
parking restrictions, the City Council passed resolution 7659, adopting four parking zones in the
Downtown area and establishing reparking restrictions within each zone, prohibiting reparking in
the same zone within the same business day; and
WHEREAS, one of the parking zones established by Resolution 7659 was the Coral
Zone, which includes “all parking spaces on city streets and city-owned or leased parking lots or
structures within that area bounded by Lytton Avenue (north and south sides), Forest Avenue
(north side only), Bryant Street (east and west sides), and Emerson Street (both sides of which
are included in the Purple Zone rather than the Coral Zone).” Parking in the Coral Zone is
restricted such that re-parking in the same zone during the same business day is prohibited; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Palo Alto Library is located directly adjacent to the
Coral Zone. Library staff have observed that the availability of short term parking in and around
the Downtown Library parking lot is very limited, and recommended including the Library’s
parking lot in the Coral Zone to restrict reparking and provide better availability of short term
visitor parking at the Library.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2(2) (Coral Zone) of Resolution No. 7659 is hereby amended
as follows to add the Downtown Palo Alto Library parking lot in the Coral Zone:
“The Coral Zone is established as including all parking spaces on city streets and
city-owned or leased parking lots or structures within that area bounded by Lytton
Avenue (north and south sides); Forest Avenue (north side); Bryant Street (east
and west sides) and Emerson Street (both sides of which are included in the
Purple Zone rather than the Coral Zone”); plus the south side of Forest Avenue
between Bryant Street and Ramona Street, the west side of Bryant Street and east
side of Ramona Street 155 feet south of Forest Avenue, and the Downtown
Library Parking Lot.”
A map of the City’s restricted parking zones is attached as Exhibit “A.”
110715 sh 8261647 1
** NOT YET APPROVED **
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds that this project qualified
for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA guidelines (Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities) and procedures adopted by the City of Palo Alto, and therefore no further
environmental assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
______________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
110715 sh 8261647 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1767)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1767)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: 300 Homer Ave Conditional Use Permit
Title: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action approving a Conditional Use
Permit for Community Facility Use of the Historic Roth Building at 300 Homer
Avenue.
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council approve the
Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA, Attachment A) approving the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
for a Community Facility use within the City-owned Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue.
Conditions of Approval in Attachment A reflect the modification of one condition as
recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC).
Executive Summary
Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.77.060 provides that the City Council may approve a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on consent calendar, following public hearing and
recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), when such hearing
has been requested following a tentative decision by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (Director). On June 8, 2011, the P&TC recommended approval of the CUP;
therefore, the Council may adopt the findings and recommendation of the P&TC by approving
the ROLUA for this CUP on consent. The ROLUA reflects the P&TC recommended modification
to Approval Condition #21 related to the use of a $1,250 parking impact payment by the
applicant.
Alternatively, upon a vote of three Councilmembers, the Council may (a) remove this item from
the consent calendar to discuss the CUP, adopt findings and take action on the CUP based upon
evidence presented at the P&TC hearing, or (b) direct staff to schedule a new hearing of the
CUP before City Council. Staff does not recommend these alternatives.
Background
In April 2000, the City Council approved the purchase of the Roth Building at 300 Homer
Avenue and its .41 acre site for potential development as a "public facility or alternative use if a
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1767)
public facility is not feasible," in conjunction with the South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area
Plan Phase I (SOFA CAP I). In May 2002, Council approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) and
directed staff to solicit proposals for the lease of the Roth Building. The RFP specified that
preference be given to non-profit groups located in or serving Palo Alto, that the property be
improved and operated at no cost to the city and required public access to the Roth Building
restrooms by users of the neighboring park. In April 2004, the City Council accepted a proposal
by the Palo Alto Historical Association to restore, preserve and improve the facility for use as
the Palo Alto History Museum. A Lease Option Agreement between the City and PAHM was
approved by the City Council in June 2007 and extended to June 30, 2011. The City Manager
exercised an option to extend the Lease Option Agreement for an additional six months to
December 2011.
In compliance with conditions of the Option Agreement, the applicant submitted a
development project application for Historic Review and Architectural Review to the Planning
Division on May 11, 2010 for the proposed rehabilitation and additions to the rear of the
building. The application also included a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), since the
proposed museum is categorized as a community facility, which is a conditionally permitted use
in the PF zone in which the Roth Building is located.
Public hearings were conducted before the Historic Resources Board (HRB) on February 16,
2011 and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on February 17, 2011. At the public hearings,
the HRB and ARB recommended approval (with conditions) of the Architectural Review
entitlement along with Minor Exceptions for parking and a three-foot setback encroachment
into the street side yard. Minor exceptions are allowed per provisions in the SOFA CAP I. On
March 21, 2011, the Director approved the applications for Historic and Architectural Review
and Minor Exceptions, and tentatively approved the CUP application, which was subject to a 14-
day request for hearing period. The ARB and Exceptions approval was subject to a 14-day
appeal period. The HRB and ARB staff reports may be found on the City’s website.
On March 29, 2011, Mr. Ken Alsman requested a hearing on the CUP by the P&TC as set forth in
PAMC 18.77.060(e). The issues raised in Mr. Alsman's March 29, 2011 letter (Attachment D) are
related to parking, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, and compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These items were addressed in the June 8, 2011
P&TC report (Attachment B) and discussed by the P&TC as reflected in meeting minutes
(Attachment C). At the June 8, 2011 public hearing, the P&TC unanimously recommended
Council approval of the CUP, with modification to one of the approval conditions, as further
described later in this report and reflected in the ROLUA.
Discussion
The Director's tentative approval on March 21, 2011 of the CUP was for a community facility
use allowing the operation of the Palo Alto History Museum. On June 8, 2011, the P&TC
discussed the concerns presented in Mr. Alsman’s March 29, 2011 letter and addressed in the
staff report, and recommended approval of the CUP. Following the P&TC hearing, and as of the
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1767)
date this report was prepared, no new information had been presented to staff by Mr. Alsman
for Council consideration.
Mr. Alsman's primary concerns are related to parking. Prior to the Director's decision, City staff
had prepared a comprehensive set of conditions that not only addressed the parking impacts
that would be generated by the project, but also initiated proactive steps with the intent of
identifying parking problems and solutions on a larger scale than the potential parking issues
related to the proposed project.
The following three CUP approval conditions related to parking concerns were included in the
March 21, 2011 Director's decision and remain in the attached ROLUA:
·Condition #15: Visitors of the Roth Building and renters of its community room shall be
informed via various media -including websites, rental agreements and brochures -of
the availability of parking spaces during specific times at 260 Homer Avenue, pursuant
to the Easement and Maintenance Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Tall
Tree Partners I LLC. Pursuant to the agreement, 60 spaces are available Monday
through Friday from 6:00 p.m. to 10 p.m., and from 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends
and specific legal holidays listed in the Easement and Maintenance Agreement.
·Condition #16: All employees, patrons, sub-tenants and renters shall be encouraged to
use alternate modes of transportation such as bicycling, walking or carpooling.
·Condition #17: Employees including employees of sub-tenants shall park only in City
parking lots/garages and shall purchase and maintain parking permits as soon as
sufficient permits are available. An account of the total number of employees and the
number of permits shall be submitted to the City's Transportation Division, with the first
report due three months from the initial occupancy date, and annually thereafter.
(Please note that employees who do not drive to the Roth Building are not required to
purchase parking permits. Nevertheless, the number of employees who do not drive to
the Roth Building shall be noted in the said report required for submission to the City's
Transportation Division.) Shared parking on other properties, in-lieu or in addition to the
purchase of City parking permits, may be allowed subject to the Director's approval.
Additional CUP approval conditions in the Director’s approval outline restrictions on hours of
operation, use of the facilities, and occupant load of the building, and are also contained in the
ROLUA (Attachment A); these approval conditions were also attached to the June 8, 2011 P&TC
Staff Report for P&TC review.
The City has taken active steps to address parking concerns raised by residents in the
Professorville neighborhood since prior to Mr. Alsman’s request for a hearing on this CUP. The
City of Palo Alto is currently studying downtown parking in an effort to ease street parking
demands of the nearby Professorville neighborhood. In response to resident complaints, a new
parking manager was hired by the City to study the downtown and surrounding neighborhood's
parking issues. A community meeting to discuss alternatives suggested by the parking
consultant occurred on April 26, 2011. Residents were mixed in their reactions to the idea of
July 25, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1767)
creating a residential parking permit program, with some meeting attendees agreeing that they
would like the City to explore other options first. According to the City's Chief Transportation
Official, the City would not implement a permit program unless requested and supported by
the community. The City is also looking at ways to better manage City parking lots and on-street
spaces. A second community meeting is scheduled for July 28, 2011.
Planning & Transportation Commission Recommendation
The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on June 8, 2011 to
review the CUP. The Commission unanimously recommended (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Tuma
and Keller absent) approval of the CUP, with a recommendation for Council to adjust Approval
Condition #21. Condition #21 has been adjusted per P&TC recommendation in the attached
ROLUA (Attachment A). The Commission's verbatim meeting minutes are provided as
Attachment C.
The original Approval Condition #21 was worded as follows: “Prior to occupancy of the
museum, the applicant shall remit $1,250 to the City of Palo Alto to cover approximately half of
the costs for street improvements associated with establishing a two hour parking limit (if
feasible, see below) along the south side of the entire block of Homer Avenue between the
intersections of Waverley and Bryant Streets, and along Bryant Street extending to the rear
lease line of the Roth Building. A handicapped accessible parking space would be provided
along Bryant Street.”
The P&TC recommended that the $1,250 payment as part of this condition be used to
contribute to the downtown residential neighborhoods parking study rather than as payment
for costs for street improvements associated with establishing a two hour parking limit. The
original staff-recommended condition had anticipated that these parking changes would be
implemented upon completion of the Downtown Palo Alto Parking Management Program and
prior to occupancy of the Roth Building, if the improvements were found to be an appropriate
parking strategy for this project. Otherwise,the funds provided by the applicant could have
been used to implement other parking strategies in proximity of the site, at the discretion of
the Director.
The P&TC recommended condition #21 (as worded in the ROLUA) is as follows:
“Prior to occupancy of the museum, the applicant shall remit $1,250 to the City of Palo Alto to
fund the downtown residential neighborhoods parking study.”
Policy Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the SOFA CAP I, and staff
believes there are no other substantive policy implications.
Resource Impacts
The SOFA I Coordinated Area Plan anticipated that this site would be used as a public facility,
and therefore no revenue was anticipated from development of the site, which is owned by the
City. The Palo Alto History Museum will be responsible for upgrading the structure and for its
July 25, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1767)
subsequent maintenance, relieving the City of Palo Alto from the burden of such costs with the
exception of the cost of maintenance and utilities for the restroom open to the park public.
The estimated annual cost to the city for restroom maintenance and utilities is $15,000.
Timeline
* Director's Tentative CUP Approval March 21, 2011
and ARB and Minor SOFA Exceptions Approval
* Request for PTC Hearing of CUP by Mr. Ken Alsman March 29, 2011
* PTC Review and Recommendation on CUP June 8, 2011
* Final Action on CUP by the City Council July 18, 2011
Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15331 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action for 300 Homer (PDF)
·Attachment B: June 8, 2011 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (PDF)
·Attachment C: Excerpt of June 8, 2011 PTC Minutes (PDF)
Prepared By:Lata Vasudevan, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
Action No. 2011-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 300 HOMER AVENUE (ROTH BUILDING): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [10PLN-
00000-00174](PALO ALTO HISTORY MUSEUM, APPLICANT)
On XXXX, 2011, the Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to
allow Community Facility Use of the 19,182 s.f. Roth Building and
1,462 s.f. building addition, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.The City Council of the City of Palo
Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A.On May 11, 2010, Ambrose Wong of Garavaglia Architecture,
on behalf of Palo Alto History Museum, applied for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to allow Community Facility Use of the 19,182 s.f. Roth
Building and 1,462 s.f. building addition. The project (“Project”)
application also included a request for Historic and Architectural
Review and “SOFA CAP 2 Minor Exceptions” for parking and street side
yard building encroachment.
B.On March 21, 2011, the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (Director) granted tentative approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and simultaneously granted formal approval of the other
application components (Historic Review, Architectural Review and
associated SOFA CAP 2 Minor Exceptions) following reviews and
recommendation by the Historic Resources Board and Architectural
Review Board (ARB) on March 16 and 17, 2011, respectively.
C.Upon a timely request for Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) hearing of the Conditional Use Permit filed by
Mr. Ken Alsman, the CUP component was reviewed by Planning and
Transportation Commission on June 8, 2011. The hearing requester did
not submit a form and associated fee to appeal the HRB/ARB entitlement
and associated SOFA CAP 2 Minor Exceptions granted by the Director on
March 21, 2011.
D.The Commission recommended, on a 5-0-2 vote, that the City
Council approve the CUP application subject to staff recommended
conditions of approval, included in Section 6 of this document, with a
modification to Approval Condition #21, thereby modifying yet
upholding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the project. The
Commission’s action is contained in the CMR: XXXXX.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review.This project is exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per
Sections 15301 and 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3.Conditional Use Permit Findings
2
1.The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
The proposed history museum, which also includes a café, community
room, public restroom and offices for a sub-tenant would aptly be
located in a historic building adjacent to the City’s Heritage Park.
The proposed use would not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity in that Architectural Review
conditions of approval have been incorporated to ensure sidewalks
would be repaired and that important trees are maintained. Since the
museum would be located near residential areas, specific conditions
have been incorporated in the Conditional Use Permit to minimize
potential noise and parking impacts during special events at the
museum.
2.The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Comprehensive Plan designation of the project site is ‘Major
Institution/Special Facilities, and the proposed project is
consistent with Goals L-7 and L-8, and Policies L-51, L-52, L-53, L-
58, L-59, L-61, L-62 and L-64. Furthermore, the project is
consistent with the South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1
(SOFA CAP I), which requires the restoration of the Roth Building to
its original form and reuse for public, residential, or other uses.
Furthermore, the purpose of the PF zone district is to accommodate
educational and community services. The proposed history museum
would serve as an important community facility where people of all
ages would be able to learn more about the history of Palo Alto and
engage in related/or unrelated group meetings and events.
SECTION 4.Conditional Use Permit Granted.Conditional Use
Permit No. 10PLN-00000-00174 is granted to allow Community Facility
Use of the 19,182 s.f. Roth Building and 1,462 s.f. building addition.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial
conformance with those plans prepared by Garavaglia Architecture
titled, date stamped February 1, 2010,except as modified to
incorporate the conditions of approval in this Record of Land Use
Action. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning
and Community Development.
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
PLANNING
3
1.The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building
Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with the
revised plans date stamped February 1, 2010, project details and
materials labeled ‘Exhibit A’, except as modified to incorporate
these conditions of approval.
2.Minor exceptions pursuant to provisions in the SOFA CAP I are hereby
granted with respect to a three foot encroachment into the required
street side yard of 20 feet, and an exception to waive on-site
parking for the proposed use of the historic Roth Building as a
history museum by Palo Alto History Museum.
3.All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of
the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building
Inspection Division.
4.The following items shall be presented for review and approval by
the ARB Sub-committee prior to building permit submittal:
·Landscape plans showing plantings in access area to the public
restroom and in the area of access to the café adjacent to Bryant
Street. The plans shall also show graphic representations/concept
sketches of all signage.
·Details of all doors, windows, trellises and railings.
·A revised design of the east elevation wall (near the rear
façade) such that the parapet is lowered to expose the edge of
the existing tile roof.
·Cut sheets for outdoor café seating and other furnishings, with
layouts of all seating shown on the landscape plan.
·Locations of condensers or any other exterior mechanical
equipment on the site plan.
5.The project applicant shall make a written request for an Amendment
No. 2 to Option Agreement and Lease to Martha Miller, City of Palo
Alto Real Estate Division to establish development limitations for
the site. No building permit applications shall be submitted until
after City Council approval of the Amendment.
6.To participate in the Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) Program
the applicant shall submit a written request to the City Manager for
designation of the Roth Building as an eligible sender site. TDRs
may be sold prior to the renovation as long as two conditions are
met. First, there shall be an execution of a protective covenant in
favor of the City pursuant to PAMC Section 18.18.070(e). This code
section specifically requires such a covenant “If the property is to
be rehabilitated after the sale” of the TDRs. Additionally, PAMC
Section 18.28 requires that the proceeds of TDRs from City-owned
buildings be set aside for the renovation of that building or other
City-owned historic buildings.
4
7.No signs are approved in conjunction with this approval. Signage
shall require a separate application and approval.
8.A mural proposed on the east façade facing the tot lot shall be
presented to the Historic Resources Board for review and
recommendation at a future date if it is still proposed. This
proposed mural is not approved in conjunction with this
Architectural Review approval.
9.The design of the entry gate (if still proposed)shall be submitted
for Historic Resources Board review and recommendation.
10.As required by County Ordinance, in the event of the discovery of
human remains during demolition/construction, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara
County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as
to whether the remains are Native American. If the coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall
attempt to identify descendents of the deceased Native American. If
no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of
the remains pursuant to state law, then the land owner shall re-
inter the human remains and items associated with Native American
burials on the property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbance.
11.Upon submittal of an application for a building permit, the project
is required to comply with the City’s Green Building Program (PAMC
16.14). The project is required to complete a green building
application, and implement the programs requirements in building
plans and throughout construction. More information and the
application can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainability_green_buildin
g/green_building/applications/default.asp and all questions
concerning the City’s Green Building Program should be directed to
Kristin Parineh at (650) 329-2189.
12.The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of
project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts:
a)All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice
daily.
b)All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall
be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard.
c)All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
the construction site shall be paved, watered three times
daily, or treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers.
d)All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
the construction site shall be swept (with water sweepers)
daily.
5
e)If visible soil material is carried onto public streets, the
street shall be swept (with water sweepers) daily.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The following conditions are stated in conjunction with the
Conditional Use Permit approval for this project application. The
proposed use of the Roth Building as a museum with associated uses,
including a café and community room, is categorized as a ‘community
facility’, which requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
pursuant to PAMC Section 18.28.040.
13.The use of the Roth Building as a community facility shall be
conducted in substantial conformance with the project plans labeled
‘Exhibit A’, and Conditional Use Permit Request Letter of September
8, 2010 and email correspondence of March 10, 2011, both labeled
‘Exhibit B’, on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division,
except as modified by these conditions of approval.
14.Pursuant to Exhibit B, the hours of operation for the museum shall
be limited to:
·M -Sat. 9:00 a.m. –5:00 p.m., Sun. 9:00 a.m. –4:00 p.m., plus
one weekday evening until 9:00 p.m.
·The subtenant space shall be occupied by an office use only and
shall be open only from M –Sat. 9 a.m. –5 p.m.
·The café window service hours of 7 a.m. –9 a.m., 7 days with the
café seating area open from 9:00 a.m. –4:00 p.m., 7 days.
15.Visitors of the Roth Building and renters of its community room
shall be informed via various media -including websites, rental
agreements and brochures -of the availability of parking spaces
during specific times at 260 Homer Avenue, pursuant to the ‘Easement
and Maintenance Agreement’ between the City of Palo Alto and Tall
Tree Partners I LLC. Pursuant to the agreement, 60 spaces are
available Monday through Friday from 6:00 p.m. to 10 p.m., and from
8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends and specific legal holidays listed
in the ‘Easement and Maintenance Agreement’.
16.All employees, patrons, subtenants and renters shall be encouraged
to use alternate modes of transportation such as bicycling, walking
or carpooling.
17.Employees including employees of subtenants shall park only in City
parking lots/garages and shall purchase and maintain parking permits
as soon as sufficient permits are available. An account of the total
number of employees and the number of permits shall be submitted to
the City's Transportation Division, with the first report due three
months from the initial occupancy date, and annually thereafter.
(Please note that employees who do not drive to the Roth Building
are not required to purchase parking permits. Nevertheless, the
6
number of employees who do not drive to the Roth Building shall be
noted in the aforesaid report required for submission to the City’s
Transportation Division.)
Shared parking on other properties, in-lieu or in addition to the
purchase of City parking permits, may be allowed subject to
Director’s approval.
18.The community room shall be available for rental use M -Th from
9:00 a.m. –9:00 p.m. and F, Sat., and Sun., from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
with the following limitations and requirements:
(1) During the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. M –F, the community
room shall be available for use by groups of not more than 25
people. Use after 6:00 p.m. M -F by groups of 26-50 people shall
not occur more than once per week.
(2) Use of the community room for groups larger than 50 people shall
be limited to evenings 6:00 p.m. –11 p.m., weekends from 9 a.m. to
11 p.m. and specific legal holidays indicated on the ‘Easement and
Maintenance Agreement’ between the City of Palo Alto and Tall Tree
Partners I LLC regarding the use parking spaces at 260 Homer Avenue.
(3) Such museum-related and non-museum special events with more than
50 people shall occur no more than a total of once a month, with the
exception of June and December where two special events with
gatherings of more than 50 people may be held. PAHM is responsible
for submitting a notice to the City’s planning staff (addressed to
the Director) and residences within 150 feet radius from the
boundaries of Heritage Park including the lease lines of the Roth
Building at least 72 hours in advance of such upcoming events. The
notice shall include the event hours, description of the event, the
anticipated number of people at the event and special accommodations
made for traffic and parking.
(4) Tables, chairs or other similar accoutrements may not be placed
outside of the Roth Building lease lines. Consumption of alcohol is
strictly prohibited outside of the lease lines.Rental agreements
shall specify compliance with these requirements and shall require
that guests maintain noise levels that do not disturb nearby
residences. Encroachments into the park or Heritage Park
improvements in conjunction with the museum use may be made in the
future, subject to City approval.
19.At no time shall the occupancy of the building exceed the building
occupancy load.
20.Noise levels emanating from the building shall not exceed the
maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10.
21.Prior to occupancy of the museum, the applicant shall remit
$1,250.00 to the City of Palo Alto to fund the downtown residential
neighborhoods parking study.
7
22.Revocation or Modification of Approvals: The Director may issue a
notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition
of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a
conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to
the public health, safety and welfare.
ARBORIST
23.Compliance is required with all recommendations and tree protective
measures contained in the approved Arborist Report dated January 13,
2011.
24.SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the
following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets:
a.Sheet T-1 and T-2_Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp),Appl
icant shall complete the Tree Disclosure Statement. Inspections
and monthly reporting by the project arborist are mandatory.
Inspections #1-7 shall be checked.
b.The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the TPR
approved by the City titled, Assessment of recommendations for
Seventeen (17) regulated trees at 300 Homer Palo Alto, CA and
revised 1/13/2011, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 and/or
T-2 and added to the sheet index.
c.Protective Tree Fencing Type.Delineate on grading plans,
irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type II fencing
around Street Trees and Type I fencing
around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing
the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation
Report) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1,and the
City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans.
d.Site Plan Notes. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All
tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design
recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be
implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated in
the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans”.
Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site
plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall include a note
applying to the trees to be protected,
including neighboring trees stating:"Regulated Tree--before
working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at (650-
697-0990)_"; Note #3 (if applicable). “Basement foundation plan.
Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the
TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch
piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into
the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires
City Arborist approval, please call (650) 329-2441.” Note #4.
Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility
trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected
tree.Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no
trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by
8
contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1
for instructions.”
25.LANDSCAPE PLANS.
a.Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the
City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements
are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City
Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of
the following:
i.Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and
are acceptable.
ii.Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has
been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal,
soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will
not cut through any tree roots.
iii.Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including
delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical
Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously
topped trees are subject to rejection.
26.TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading
or building permit issuance, a written verification from the
contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall
be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing
shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until
final inspection of the project.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
27.EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any
approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall
be preformed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual
hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer
line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall
remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is
used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and
Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans.
28.PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during
construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the project site
arborist, (name of certified arborist of record and phone #), with
written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the
city for review.
29.TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall
implement all protection and Contractor and Arborist Inspection
Schedule measures, design recommendations and construction
scheduling as stated in the TPR, and is subject to code compliance
action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing
shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the
project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented
9
in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory
Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City
beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template
in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.
30.TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply
to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist
inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30.
Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any
publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course
of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25.
31.GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply
to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil,
vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure
area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
32.LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt
of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected
all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are
installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans.
33.TREE INSPECTION. The contractor shall call for an inspection by
the Project Arborist. A final inspection and report by the project
arborist shall evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as
indicated in the approved plans, the activity, health, welfare,
mitigation remedies for injury, if any, and for the long term care
of the trees for the new owner. The report shall provide written
verification to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs,
planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified
in the approved plans.The final arborist report shall be provided
to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or
final occupancy. The final report may be used to navigate the
security guarantee return process, when applicable.
34.PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner
shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify
Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures,
fixtures, colors and site plan accessories.
POST CONSTRUCTION
35.Prior to issuance of building permits, a “Roth Building Historic
Landscape Maintenance Program” (Roth –LMP) would be required for
use by contractors and staff. This document shall: (i.) be
consistent with the Tree Technical Manual Section 5.00 ‘Tree
Maintenance Guidelines’, (ii) recommend pruning controls for all
10
historic plantings, both old and new (for example, the flowering
pears and ornamentals should be reduced and/or maintained at
approximately ‘x’ height, and the oak shall be inspected yearly for
safety, etc.), (iii.) include plant replacement and pruning need
protocols with permissions and phone numbers of the authorized
person responsible for the Roth -LMP, and (iv.) include the
requirement for an annual Roth -LMP summary with maintenance
recommendations for following years.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
36.SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: The site plan submitted with the
building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement
work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined
no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-
of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed
contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public
Works at the Development Center.
37.STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public
right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees;
or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees
must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953).
This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction
protection of the trees per City requirements.
38.WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any
work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk
replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must
include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that
the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work
Permit from Public Works at the Development Center.
39.SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says,
“The contractor using the City sidewalk to work on an adjacent
private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians
using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the
2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the
height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place
construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around
construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8
feet, the contractor must obtain an Encroachment Permit from Public
Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and
covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” No storage of
construction materials is permitted in the street or on the
sidewalk.
40.STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized
"Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be
included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at
the Development Center or on our website.
41.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If the project will be creating or
11
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface, the
applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed
impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The
Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and
instructions are available at the Development Center or on our
website.
42.GREASE INTERCEPTOR: If a food service/commercial kitchen is
being proposed as part of this project, a grease interceptor may be
required to be installed.
43.PERVIOUS SURFACES: New onsite pathways or walkways shall be of
porous materials.
PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY
Please note the following issues must be addressed in building plans
prior to final approval by this department:
44.PAMC 16.09.106(e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities:New
dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to
prevent water run-on to the area and run-off from the area.Note:
The dumpster areas appear to be covered.
45.PAMC 16.09.032(b)(8) Condensate from HVAC:Condensate lines shall
not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
46.PAMC 16.09.160(b) Architectural Copper:Copper roofing materials.
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper granule
containing asphalt shingles and copper gutters shall not be
permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial
building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing
for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt
from this prohibition. Replacement roofing and gutters on historic
structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall
be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption,
the definition of “historic” shall be limited to structures
designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current
edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources
Report and Inventory.
47.PAMC 16.09.106(g) Storm Drain Labeling:Storm drain inlets shall
be clearly marked with the words "No dumping -Flows to Bay," or
equivalent.
48.Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:The dumpster
areas appear to be covered. The kitchen/café appears to be very
small. A smaller grease removal device is an option dependant upon
the proposed operations.
49.Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section
16.09.103(a) & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes:
12
(a)The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and
installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
(b)GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007
California Plumbing Code.
(c)GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500
gallons.
(d)GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans.
See a sizing calculation example below.
(e)The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger
than what is specified on the plans.
(f)GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be
installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be
installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access
points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection,
cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors
shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance
of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5)
(g)All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of
three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle
(divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall
clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The
Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may
authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three
manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate
visibility.
(h)Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
(i)All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2
& 1004)
(j)GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated
and indicated on plans.
50.Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.106(c) & cited
Bldg/Plumbing Codes:
(a)To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the
correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly
labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge
connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be
included on the plans.
(b)A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall
be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the
sizing calculation.
(c)All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a
GCD. These include but are not limited to:
a.Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks (direct connection)
b.Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) (direct connection)
c.Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers
shall connect to a GCD (direct connection). Examples: trough
drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small
drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or
silverware soaking sinks.
d.Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
13
e.Prep sinks (indirect connection)
f.Mop (janitor) sinks
g.Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be
covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a
GCD.
h.Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
i.Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease
generating cooking equipment with drip lines (indirect
connection)
j.Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor
drains/sinks
(d)The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and
non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited.
The following shall not be connected to a GCD:
a.Dishwashers (direct connection)
b.Steamers (indirect connection)
c.Pasta cookers (indirect connection)
d.Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens (indirect
connection)
e.Hand sinks (direct connection)
f.Ice machine drip lines (indirect connection)
g.Soda machine drip lines (indirect connection)
h.Drainage lines in bar areas (indirect connection)
(e)No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a
FSE. (PAMC 16.09.103(e))
(f)Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking,
food preparation and storage areas.
(g)Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be
individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5)
51.Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC,
16.09.032b(16)
(a)New buildings constructed to house FSEs shall include a
covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for
the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking
fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow.
(b)The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent
water run-on to the area and runoff from the area.
(c)Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle
and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are
optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD.
(d)If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized,
segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the
covered area.
52.Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.032b(16): SEs shall have a
sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large
enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor
mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or
cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more
useful.
14
53.GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC):
Sizing Criteria:GCD Sizing:Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons)Pre-rinse sink 4 8 5003 compartment sink 3 21 7502 compartment sink 3 35 1,000Prep sink 3 90 1,250Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500Floor drain 2 216 2,000Floor sink 2
Example GCD
Sizing
Calculation:
Note:
·All resubmitted
plans to Building
Department which
include FSE
projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality.
·It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size
larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention
and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many
manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes
and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete
and metal)
·The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to
the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at
all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD
maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction
projects.
PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS RECYCLING (AND REFUSE) COMMENTS
54.Service will have to be cart based –no room for front end loader
Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item
Number
DFUs Total
1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4
1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3
2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor
sink, Item 4
3 6
1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3
1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt
skillet, Item 7
2 2
1 Floor trough, Item 6 &
steam kettle, Item 8
2 2
1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok
stove, Item 9
2 2
4 Floor drains 2 8
1,000 gallon GCD minimum
sized
Total:30
15
containers. Will need 6 to 10-96 gal carts for service (Dimensions
34.5”x 29.25” x 46.75”).
55.Based on drawings carts will have to be serviced curbside.
Driver will not be able to go in to get the carts.
BUILDING DIVISION
56.Architectural Comments:On the First Floor Plan & Second Floor
Plan, provide on the plans the minimum required plumbing fixture
count for the restrooms on each floor based on the 2007 CA Plumbing
Code, CPC Table 4-1
57.Structural Comments:A geotechnical report is required for the
construction of the commercial building addition.
58.General Comment:The completed plan submittal package should be
sent to an approved Outside Plan Check Consultant for plan review.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
59.Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler & NFPA 72 fire alarm system
under separate permit.
60.All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves
and inspector's test valves, as well as the main drain, shall not
discharge within the building.Water discharged from these points
shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the
sanitary sewer system.Maximum flow capacity to sanitary sewer is
30 gpm. Main Drain test discharge flow rate shall be impounded and
attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity before discharge.
61.Elevator to be equipped with a shunt trip circuit breaker.
62.When the Main Electrical Shutoff is located in the interior of
the building, an exterior shunt trip or other approved means of
emergency shutoff shall be provided. Please contact the Building
Div. for details.
63.A valid Use & Occupancy Permit is required.
UTILITIES ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL
64.A completed Electric Load Sheet shall be submitted by the
applicant (if this has not occurred already). This information is
needed to determine if an upgrade is required to the existing
electric facilities.
65.Applicant shall show the location of the existing electric meter
on the site plan. If applicant plans on relocating the electric
meter, the new meter location shall be shown on the site plan.
16
66.The Applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility
Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan
review.
67.The Applicant shall be responsible for identification and
location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work
area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least
48 hours prior to beginning work.
The Following Shall be Incorporated in Submittals for Electrical
Service
68.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be
included with all applications involving electrical work. The load
sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal.
69.Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient
lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically
8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design
and construct the electric service requested.
70.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
(Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.)
71.If the electric service is over 400 amps, this project will
require a padmount transformer; the location of the transformer
shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities
Department and the Architectural Review process. Utilities Rule &
Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). Utilities shall
require a 10’ x 10’ area for the installation of the transformer.
The transformer shall have 8 feet of clearance in the front and 3
feet of clearance on the sides and back.
72.The customer shall install all electrical substructures
(conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the
customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be
according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule
& Regulations #16 & #18.
73.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the
site plan and approved by the Architectural Review process and
Utilities Department.
74.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and
any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and
irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between
the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground
equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the
building design and setback requirements.
75.For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required
17
to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between
the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main
switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the
Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
76.For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM
conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary
terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to
padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly
between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear,
the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required.
77.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and
other required equipment according to the National Electric Code
requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation
#18.
78.Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant
that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be
subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities
charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as
well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
79.Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary
distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities
will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the
Electric Utility.
UTILITIES ENGINEERING WGW
80.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow
preventer device) is required for all existing and new water
connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of
California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and
directly behind the water meter, above ground, within 5’ of the
property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required
for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. The
applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for
all backflows.
81.An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for
the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector
assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to
the property line, above ground, within 5’ of the property line.
Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the
plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is
required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the
assembly.
18
82.A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new
gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must
conform to utilities standard details.
83.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto
Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested
for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.).
84.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility
construction. The plans must show the size and location of all
underground utilities within the development and the public right of
way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service
requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and
any other required utilities.
85.Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases,
or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or
wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation
from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found
in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities,
Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as
needed to meet field conditions.
86.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any
auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled
water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
87.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading
the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle
anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs
associated with the design and construction for the
installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
88.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot
above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected
by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0.
The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the
plans.
89.Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30
GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to
achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
90.Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
•The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or
less.
•The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’
19
from the City clean out.
•The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time shall
not to exceed 20 seconds each cycle.
91.Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or
PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
92.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees
associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be
installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved
relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will
be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the
relocation.
93.A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to
irrigate the approved landscape plan for each parcel. Show the
location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be
designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will
be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans
submitted with the application for a grading or building permit
shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
94.All existing water and wastewater services that will not be
reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures
before any new utility services are installed.
95.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of
Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
SECTION 7: Terms of Approval If the Conditional Use Permit
granted herein is not used within one year of the date of City Council
approval, or within two years of this approval upon Director’s
extension of the CUP, the approval shall become null and void,
pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.090.
SECTION 8.Indemnity Clause.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify
and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees
and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or
approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without
limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation.The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own
choice.
PASSED:
AYES:
20
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
______________________________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_______________________________________
City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by Garavaglia Architecture date stamped February 1, 2010.
approved Amendment No.1 to the Lease Option Agreement extending the term until June 30,
2011. A copy of this Option Agreement is included in Attachment C.
In compliance with conditions of the Option Agreement, the applicant submitted a development
project application for Historic Review and Architectural Review to the Planning Division on
May 11, 2010 for the proposed rehabilitation and additions to the rear of the Roth Building. The
application also included a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), since the proposed
museum is categorized as a 'community facility' , which is a conditionally permitted use in t1).e PF
zone in which the project site is located. Staff based the development requirements for the project
using the Heritage Park boundaries and required that P ARM obtain a setback exception for a
three-foot encroachment into the street side yard requirement abutting Bryant Street and a
parking exception since there are no viable options for onsite parking.
Using the Heritage Park boundaries as the lot lines requires that the project obtain a setback
exception for the four-foot encroachment of the rear addition into the required street side yard of
20 feet and a parking exception since there are no viable options for onsite parking. The proposed
floor area, site coverage, and rear setback of the Roth Building are compliant with zoning
standards, and an amendment to the Option Agreement will formalize and restate the .
development standards applied to the Roth Building. The development regulations indicated
below are proposed draft development standards for inclusion into the proposed amendment to
the Option Agreement:
• Gross Floor Area:
The maximum allowable gross floor area is limited to the floor area of the proposed Roth
Building as depicted in the project plans, which would be approximately 20,580 square
feet. .
Setbacks:
Front -minimunl front setback shall be 20 feet.
Interior Side -minimum interior side setback shall be the same setback as the existing
structure with uncovered stairways, ramps and landings allowed within the lease line.
Street Side the street side setback shall be 20 feet from the lease line with uncovered
stairways, ramps and landings allowed within the street side setback as shown in the
project plans. A minor exception granted by the Director pursuant to the provisions of
SOFA CAP I allows a four foot building encroachment into the street side yard
requirement of 20 feet as shown on approved plans.
Rear -the lease line shall be the setback line.
• Site Coverage: shall be limited to the site coverage indicated on the approved plans.
• Parking: A minor exception granted by the Director pursuant to the provisions of SOFA
CAP I allows the project without additional parking, provided that the project complies
with all floor area, setback and site coverage requirements listed above. Bicycle parking
as provided in'the project plans shall be maintained.
• CUP: (The CUP conditions of approval will be restated in the Option Agreement.)
Public hearings were conducted before the Historic Resources Board on February 16,2011 and
before the Architectural Review Board on February 17,2011. At the public hearings, the HRB
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and ARB recommended approval (with conditions) of the Architectural Review entitlement
along with Minor Exceptions for parking and a three-foot setback encroachment into the street
side yard, as provisioned in the SOFA CAP I. On March 21, 2011, the Architectural Review,
Minor Exceptions and CUP entitlements were tentatively approved by the Director of Planning
and Community Environment subject to a 14-day appeal and request for hearing period.
On March 29, 2011, a request for hearing on the Director's tentative approval of the CUP for the
project was submitted by Mr. Ken Alsman (Attachment E), in accordance with P AMC Section
18.77.060. Mr. Alsman's concerns primarily focus on parking impacts and conditions.
Project Description
The historic Roth Building is located in the PF (Public Facility) zone district and was recently
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project includes the historic
rehabilitation of the 19,182 square foot Roth Building and a 1,462 square foot addition at the rear
of the building for use as a museum, including gallery space, office space for museum staff,
offices for a future subtenant on the second floor consisting of approximately 1,200 square feet, a
community meeting room approximately 900 square feet in area, a gift shop, cafe, restrooms,
archive storage space and mechanical! utility spaces. Minimal exterior modifications on the east
side will accommodate a public restroom and the code-required second stairway. The applicant
for the museum project proposes to have approximately 12 full time staff members and two part-
time staff members including: (1) museum -three full time employees and a one part-time
historian, (with anticipated volunteer participation), (2) subtenant four to five full time
employees and one part-time/full-time employee, and (3) cafe -two to four employees. Use of
the proposed community room and the entire museum for special events, classes and speaker
series are also proposed as described in Attachnlent D of this report.
The Option Agreenlent originally executed on June22, 2007 with City Council time extensions,
required a plan for fulfilling parking requirements. In conjunction with this requirement, the
applicant submitted an easement agreement for the availability of 60 public parking stalls across
from the project site at 260 Homer A venue included in Attachment F and executed between the
City and Tall Tree Partners, LLC (owners of 260 Homer Avenue) in May 2006. However, the
availability of the parking spaces is for public use and not exclusively for use by the proposed
museum. Also, these 60 parking spaces at 260 Homer Avenue are available during the evening
hours and the weekends and do not coincide entirely with the proposed operating hours of the
museum. Therefore, the Director included additional conditions of approval #13 -#19 to
minimize impacts on the neighborhood with respect to parking impacts as shown in Attachment
A.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
The Planning and Transportation Commission's authority is to make a recommendation on the
CUP for final action by the City. The basis for the Planning and Transportation's
recommendation is to determine whether the findings outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.010 are
met, as included in Attachment A of this report. In summary, the Director has detennined that
sufficient conditions have been incorporated in the tentative granting of the CUP for the
proposed use of the Roth Building as a museum such that the use would not be detrimental to the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
general welfare or convenience in the vicinity of the project site, and that the proposed use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the SOFA CAP I.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Mr. Alsman's request for hearing letter included in Attachment E, dated March 29, 2011,
specifies nine concerns with the Director's tentative approval of the CUP as discussed below
along with staff's responses to his comments in italic font.
Items #1, #2, #3 and #7 in Mr. Alsman's letter indicate that the proposed provision of bicycle
parking spaces is insufficient, that the parking available at 260 Homer during limited hours is not
expressly marked for public use, and that parking demands generated by museum employees and
volunteers would generate the need for more parking spaces, that would impact three to four
blocks of adjoining neighborhoods.
The project was reviewed by the City's Transportation Division, which determined a
maximum capacity of 270 people including 12 staff employees for the proposed,
rehabilitated Roth Building. Based on a capacity of 270 people for the proposed
museum use, 68 parking spaces would be required. The proposed 14 bicycle spaces,
plus three long-term bicycle parking spaces is consistent with the requirements of
PAMC Section18.52.040. Staff acknowledges that the availability ofparking at 260
Homer during specific hours is not apparent. However, condition of app roval #15 in
Attachment A requires that PAHM inform employees and visitors of the availability of
parking at 260 Homer Avenue via various media. Also, staff could, at the Planning .
and Transportation Commission's direction, strengthen condition of approval #13 to
strictly limit the number of staff and volunteers to a maximum number of persons.
Staff finds that Mr. Alsman's concern raised in item #4 of his letter indicating that employees of
the museum would be required to park in the City Hall garage is not consistent with the wording
contained in condition of approval #17.
This condition of approval requires that all employees park in any City parking facility
and not just the City Hall garage. The availability of parking permits at the City
garages varies weekly. Staff will provide an account of the availability of parking
permits at City garages and lots at the public hearing.
Staff has the following response with respect to Mr. Alsman's item #5 regarding staff's original
recommendation to restrict parking along Homer Avenue (abutting Heritage Park and Roth
Building side of the Street and a portion of Bryant Street to two-hour limits. .
Staff in itially proposed changing the all day parking allowed along Homer Avenue and
a portion of Bryant Street adjacent to the Roth Building to two hour limits. However,
the Director determined that such a change should not occur unless it is feasible or
desired by the community· upon completion of a Downtown Palo Alto Parking
Management Program as stated in condition of approval #21 in Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Staff acknowledges item #6 in Mr. Alsman's letter and the impacts of new downtown
development as a result of the potential sale of transfer of development rights (TDRs) ge11erated
from the proposed rehabilitation of the Roth Building. However, it is important to note the
purpose of the City's TDR program and its limitations as set forth in P AMC Chapter 18 as
discussed below.
The purpose of the TDRprogram is to implement the guidelines of the Comprehensive
Plan by encouraging historic and seismic rehabilitation of buildings in City-designated
Historic and Seismic Category List. The TDRs may be transferred to eligible receiver
sites in the Commercial Downtown (CD zone districts. However, PAMC Section
18.18.040 requires that the Department of Planning and Community Environment
monitor the number non-residential square feet in the CD zone districts and this
section stipulates a moratorium on further nonresidential development when 350,000
square feet of non-residential development have received final design review approval
pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76. PAMC Section 18. 18.040further specifies that the
moratorium remain in effect for one year while the City undertakes a study to
determine what regulations would be appropriate for the CD zone district. TDRs apply
to the cap, but are not specifically applied until a development is proposed to use
TDRs. The rehabilitation of the Roth Building project is eligible for TDRs, with the
requirement that the City Council (at a date to be determined) designate the Roth
Building as a sender site. TDRs from the Roth Building project would be used only if
there are eligible buyers of the TDRsfor use on sites as described in PAMC Section
18.18.080, with limitations on its use as described in PAMC Section 18.18.080(j).
In addition to the parking impacts, Mr. Alsman also raised CEQA compliance issues in Item #8
of his letter in Attachments E and in an email correspondence included in Attachment O.
It is staff's opinion that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301
'Existing Facilities' of the CEQA Guidelines. The reuse of the Roth building as a
pUblic, residential or other uses is identified on page 18 of the SOFA CAP I, with the
requirementfor restoration and reuse of the Roth Building under Policy DC-14. As
such, even though the Roth Building is presently vacant, its reuse is anticipated and
such reuse has already been analyzed in the EIR preparedfor the SOFA CAP I, as
certified in Resolution No. 7950, with a determination of less than significant
impacts regarding its reuse. Also, a traffic impact analysis was not requiredfor this
project according to the City's Transportation Division since it was determined that
the proposed museum is anticipated to generate, on average, less than 50 peak hour
trips. Furthermore, parking impacts on surrounding areas as a result of a proposed
project are not considered environmental impacts according to CEQA as a result of
the outcome of a relevant court case. In "San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown
Plan v. City & County of SF", 2002), the CEQA Checklist's Transportation/Traffic
topic, question (j) asks, "Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?"
The court found that concern for a "parking deficit" per se is a social matter, not an
environmental matter for CEQA review. Nevertheless, parking is addressed in the
conditions of approval for the CUP for the proposed museum.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Staff has the following comments regarding Mr. Alsman' s primary concerns related to the City's
role in addressing parking impacts listed under item #9 of his letter.
Staff believes that Mr. Alsman' s concerns relate to parking issues that are more
substantial than issues of this project. The City has taken active steps to address
parking concerns raised by residents in the Professotville neighborhood since Mr.
Alsman ' s letter. The City of Palo Alto is currently studying downtown parking in an
effort to ease street parking demands of the nearby Professorville neighborhood. In
response to residents' complaints,' a new parking manager was hired by the City to
study the downtown and surrounding neighborhood's parking issues. A community
meeting to discuss alternatives suggested by the traffic-data consultant occurred on
April 26, 2011. Residents were mixed in their reactions to the idea of creating a
residential parking permit program, with several meeting attendees agreeing that
they would like the City to explore other options first. According to the City's Chief
Transportation Official, the City would not implement a permit program unless
requested by the community. The City is also looking at ways to better manage its
parking lots and on-street spaces. The efforts made so far to address parking impacts
on nearby residences is consistent with condition of approval #24 in Attachment A.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the SOFA CAP I, and staff
believes there are no other substantive policy implications.
TIMELINE:
• Director's Tentative Approval of Architectural Review, March 21, 2011
Minor Exceptions and CUP
• Request for Hearing before PTC submitted by March 29,2011
Mr. Ken Alsman
• PTC Review and Recommendation June 8, 2011
• Final Action on CUP by the City Council July 18, 2011
• Approval of new Lease Option agreement between July 18, 2011
City and P AHM, which would formalize and
re-state the development standards and CUP requirements
for the proposed rehabilitation and use of the Roth Building, along
with other stipulations. (Current Option Agreement expires on
June 30, 2011)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15331 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Director's letter for tentative approval, (including findings) of Architectural Review,
Minor Exceptions and CUP, March 21, 2011
B. Location Map
C. Amendment No. 1 to Option Agreement between City and PAHM
D. Conditional Use Permit Project Request Letter from applicant, September 8, 2010*
E. Request for hearing letter from Mr. Ken Alsman, March 29,2011
F. Parking Agreement between City of Palo Alto and Tall Tree Partners, LLC (for public use
of 60 parking spaces)
G. Email correspondence from Ken Alsman received on March 31, 2011 (wI email
attachment)
H. City of Palo Alto Resolution No. 7950
I. Project Plans (Commission and Libraries only)
COURTESY COPIES:
PAHM
Garavaglia Architecture
Ken Alsman
Robin Kennedy
Mr. and Mrs. Frankenfield
PREPARED BY: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY: Steven Turner, Advanced Planning Manager
DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:_~~~wk£~~\~N~~....c.;~=-=:;..:::"~~r-__
Curtis Williams, Director
City of Palo Alto Page 7
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 1 of 33
PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION1
Verbatim Minutes2
June 8, 20113
4
300 Homer Avenue*: Request by Palo Alto History Museum (PAHM) for a Conditional Use 5
Permit for Community Facility use of the 19,182 s.f. Roth Building and additional 1,462 s.f. 6
area.Historic and Architectural Review approvals included exceptions from the South of Forest 7
Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1 parking requirements and from the minimum street side yard 8
setback. Request for hearing by Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, Palo Alto. Environmental 9
Assessment: Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15331 of the CEQA10
Guidelines.11
12
Ms. Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner: Good evening Chair and Commissioners. About 11 13
years ago in 2000 the City Council approved the City purchase of the Roth Building at 300 14
Homer Avenue and it underlying approximately .4 acre site on which the building sits in 15
conjunction with the south of Forest Avenue Coordinated Plan Phase I, or SOFA CAP I, as it is 16
commonly referred to. Moving forward in January 2004 the City Council approved a resolution 17
dedicating the approximately two-acre portion of the Roth Building site as parkland. It is called 18
Heritage Park, as you know, right now. This dedication essentially resulted in the adjoining 19
approximately .4 acre Roth Building site with the limited specific boundaries that are shown as 20
an attachment to my Staff Report basically with no space for onsite parking. 21
22
A few months later, after the parkland dedication, the Palo Alto History Museum, or PAHM as I 23
am going to refer to it in the future in my presentation, submitted a proposal to restore, preserve, 24
and improve the historic Roth Building for use as a Palo Alto History Museum, which was 25
accepted by the City Council in April 2004. The City Council subsequently approved a lease 26
option agreement between the City and PAHM, which is also an attachment to my report. 27
28
In compliance with the conditions of the option agreement the applicant submitted a 29
development project application for historic review and architectural review to the Planning 30
Division in May of 2010 for the purpose of rehabilitation and additions to the rear of the Roth 31
Building. The application also included a request for a Conditional Use Permit since the 32
proposed museum is categorized as a community facility, which is a conditionally permitted use 33
in the PF, or Public Facility, zone in which the project site is located. The proposed project, as 34
Commissioner Lippert mentioned, includes the historic rehabilitation of the approximately 35
19,000 square foot Roth Building and a rear addition for the museum. The museum includes 36
gallery space, office space for museum staff, offices for a future sub-tenant on the second floor 37
consisting of approximately 200 square feet, a community hall, a gift shop, café,and of course 38
archive storage space. Minimal exterior modifications on the east side will accommodate a 39
public restroom that is a restroom that is required for public access by Heritage Park users, and 40
code required access.41
42
The applicant for the museum project proposes to have approximately 12 full-time staff members 43
and two part-time staff members. Use of the proposed community room and the entire museum 44
for special events, classes, and speaker series are also proposed as described in Attachment D of 45
the Staff Report. Attachment D is the Conditional Use Permit description provided by the 46
applicant.47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 2 of 33
Given that the lease lines for the Roth Building are just the lease lines per se within the entire 1
Heritage Park, and they are not the lot lines, Staff based the development requirements for the 2
project using the Heritage Park boundaries, and required that PAHM obtain a setback exception 3
for a three foot encroachment into the street side yard requirement abutting Bryant Street. The 4
street side requirement is 16 feet. And a parking exception since there are no viable options for 5
onsite parking. 6
7
The proposed floor area, site coverage, and rear setback of the Roth Building are compliant with 8
zoning standards. An amendment to the option agreement, which will be presented to the City 9
Council at a later date, will formalize and restate the development standards applied to the Roth 10
Building. The standards are described in my Staff Report. It is important to restate these 11
development standards as we do need to place limitations on floor area and setbacks and so forth, 12
because this is a unique situation. The Heritage Park if you use it as a lot line is 105,000 square 13
feet. The PF zone allows a 1:1 floor area ratio. So we do need to place specific limitations not 14
just on floor area but setbacks and other zoning requirements as I have indicated in my Staff 15
Report.16
17
With respect to the HRB and ARB hearings, public hearings were conducted before the Historic 18
Resources Board on February 16 and before the Architectural Review Board the following day 19
on February 17 of 2011 on the proposed rehabilitation and the additions to the museum. At both 20
of the public hearings the HRB and the ARB recommended approval with conditions of the 21
architectural review entitlement along with minor exceptions for parking, and a three foot 22
setback encroachment into the required street side yard requirement, as provisioned in the SOFA 23
CAP. On March 21 of this year, a few months ago, the architectural review and minor 24
exceptions and Conditional Use Permit entitlements were tentatively approved by the Director, 25
subject to a 14-day appeal and request for hearing period. 26
27
The option agreement originally executed on June 22, 2007, with City Council time extensions 28
as I have described in my Staff Report, required a plan for fulfilling parking requirements. In 29
conjunction with this requirement the applicant submitted an easement agreement for the 30
availability of 60 parking spaces across the street at 260 Homer. That agreement is included as 31
an attachment to my Staff Report. However, the 60 parking spaces are not exclusively for use by 32
the museum. They are actually public parking spaces. These spaces also don’t coincide entirely 33
with the proposed operating hours of the museum. Therefore the Director included additional 34
Conditions of Approval. This is related to the Conditional Use Permit aspect of the application. 35
Conditions of Approval number 13 through number 19 in Attachment A of my Staff Report to 36
minimize impacts on the neighborhood with respect to parking impacts. 37
38
On March 29 of 2011 a Request for Hearing on the Directors Tentative Approval of the 39
Conditional Use Permit aspect of the application for the project was submitted by Mr. Ken 40
Alsman. His letter is included in Attachment E,and this was submitted in accordance with the 41
Municipal Code. Mr. Alsman’s concerns focus primarily on parking impacts and related 42
conditions. 43
44
The Planning and Transportation’s authority in this public hearing is to make a recommendation 45
on the CUP for final action by the City Council. The basis for the Planning and Transportation 46
Commission’s request for Hearing tonight is to determine whether the findings outlined in the 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 3 of 33
Municipal Code Section 18.76.010, for conditions for granting a Conditional Use Permit, are met 1
and can be made in the affirmative. 2
3
In summary, the Director has determined that sufficient conditions have been incorporated in the 4
Tentative granting of the CUP for the proposed use of the Roth Building as a museum such that 5
the use would not be detrimental to the general welfare or the convenience of the vicinity of the 6
project site, and has ensured that the proposed use is consistent with the policies of the 7
Comprehensive Plan, and the SOFA CAP Phase I. 8
9
I have included an informational packet in front of you, and also in the front entry area that 10
includes excerpts of the SOFA CAP Phase I that relate and essentially encourage the reuse of the 11
Roth Building as a public facility. While adaptive building reuse policies are specified in the 12
SOFA CAP Phase I, there are important policies in the Comprehensive Plan also include policies 13
that require adaptive reuse of historic buildings. Even in spite of the fact that there are these 14
policies there are no special exceptions in the Municipal Code with respect to parking reductions 15
allowed especially for historic buildings. There are parking reductions for example for shared 16
parking, offsite parking requirements, the facilities near transit facilities, and so forth but there 17
are no specific parking reductions that are specified for historic buildings.18
19
Mr. Alsman’s Request for Hearing letter included the Attachment to my report specifies 20
basically nine main concerns with the Director’s Tentative Approval of the Conditional Use 21
Permit. Items one, two, three, and seven in Mr. Alsman’s letter indicate that the proposed 22
provision of bike parking is insufficient, and that the parking available at 260 Homer during 23
limited hours is not expressly marked for public use, and that parking demands generated by 24
museum employees and volunteers would generate the need for more parking spaces that would 25
impact three to four blocks of adjoining neighborhoods. 26
27
The Staff’s response is that the project was reviewed by the City’s Transportation Division, 28
which approved a maximum capacity of 270 people as proposed by the museum, including 12 29
staff employees. Based on a capacity of 270 people for the proposed museum use that would 30
normally require 68 parking spaces based on the City parking requirements of one is to four-31
person capacity. 32
33
The proposed 14 bike spaces plus three long-term bicycle spaces is consistent with the 34
requirements of the Municipal Code with respect to bike parking requirements. Staff 35
acknowledges that the availability of parking at 260 Homer during specific hours is not apparent. 36
You basically have to approach the parking garage from around Homer, from Ramona, from the 37
Oak Court Apartment buildings. However Condition of Approval number 15 of part of the 38
Tentative Approval of the CUP requires that the history museum inform employees and visitors 39
of the availability of parking at 260 Homer via various media, flyers, brochures, and so forth. 40
Staff had also mentioned in the Staff Report that the Planning and Transportation Commission 41
could provide direction to strengthen Condition of Approval number 13 to strictly limit the 42
number of staff and number of volunteers to a maximum number of persons. 43
44
Staff finds that Mr. Alsman’s concern raised in item number four of his letter indicating the 45
employees of the museum would be required to park in the City Hall garage is not really entirely 46
consistent with wording contained in Condition of Approval number 17. This Condition of 47
Approval requires that all employees park in any City parking facility and not just the City Hall 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 4 of 33
garage. The supplemental information in front of you includes the location of all the City 1
parking lots.2
3
The availability of parking permits at the City garage varies weekly. I also included that in my 4
informational package. Right now there is a wait list, but two months ago there were quite a few 5
parking spaces in the Webster garage. Also in this informational packet is an analysis of 6
Downtown City parking facilities, again prepared by the City’s Transportation Division 7
essentially showing that the City parking facilities are not at the full capacity in the AM and PM 8
hours. This is again before evening time, between 8:00 and 10:00 and then between 12:00 and 9
2:00. Basically, again they are not used. They are not at full capacity. There are spaces.10
11
I have also included a permit parking chart and also kind of the pricing that is involved. These 12
permits do cost approximately $420.00 for a yearly permit. They are also available quarterly, 13
and a daily permit is also available.14
15
Staff has the following response with respect to Mr. Alsman’s concern regarding Staff’s original 16
recommendation to the ARB to restrict parking along Homer Avenue. Staff initially proposed 17
changing the all day parking along Homer Avenue, especially along the side of the Roth 18
Building and Heritage Park side, which is now not limited. You can park all day. Staff at the 19
ARB suggested changing it to allow just the two-hour limit. However, the Director determined 20
that such a change shouldn’t occur unless it is feasible or desired by the community upon 21
completion of a Downtown parking study, as stated in Condition of Approval 21 in our 22
Conditions of Approval for the CUP. 23
24
Staff acknowledges item six in Mr. Alsman’s letter and impacts the new Downtown development 25
as a result of the potential sale of TDRs, Transfer of Development Rights. It is important to note 26
that the purpose of the City’s TDR program and its limitations, as I have described in my Staff 27
Report, there are limitations. The rehabilitation of the Roth Building project is eligible for TDRs 28
for historic rehabilitation with the requirement that the City Council, at a date to be determined, 29
designate the Roth Building as a sender site. TDRs from the Roth Building project would be 30
used only if there are eligible buyers of the TDRs for use on sites as described in the Municipal 31
Code in the CD, Commercial Development Downtown District, with limitations on its use as 32
described in the Municipal Code. 33
34
In addition to parking impacts CEQA compliance issues were also raised in Mr. Alsman’s letter. 35
It is Staff’s determination that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 Existing 36
Facilities of the CEQA Guidelines. The reuse of the Roth Building as a public facility or 37
residential or other use is identified on page 18 of the SOFA CAP Phase I document with the 38
requirement for the restoration and reuse of the Roth Building under Policy DC-14, again in the 39
SOFA CAP Phase I document. As such, even though the Roth Building is presently vacant its 40
reuse was and is anticipated and such reuse has already been analyzed in an EIR prepared for the 41
SOFA CAP I document.42
43
Also, a traffic impact analysis was not required for this project according to the City’s 44
Transportation Division since it was determined that the proposed museum is anticipated to 45
generate an average of less than 50 peak hour trips. Furthermore, parking impacts on 46
surrounding areas as a result of a proposed project are not considered environmental impacts and 47
the City Attorney perhaps can elaborate more on that. They are not considered environmental 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 5 of 33
impacts according to CEQA as a result of a relevant court case that I mention in my Staff Report. 1
It is considered basically a social concern. Nonetheless, the Director has addressed parking in 2
the Conditions of Approval for the CUP for the proposed museum, again to minimize and 3
address any parking concerns.4
5
Staff has the following comments regarding the primary concerns related to the City’s role in 6
addressing parking impacts listed under item number nine of his letter. Staff believes that Mr. 7
Alsman’s concerns related to parking issues are basically more than just the issues of the Roth 8
Museum itself. The City has taken active steps to address parking concerns raised by residents 9
in the Professorville neighborhood since Mr. Alsman’s letter. There has been a neighborhood 10
meeting I believe on April 28. The City of Palo Alto is currently studying Downtown parking in 11
an effort to ease street parking demands on the nearby Professorville neighborhood. In response 12
to residents complaints and new parking manager was hired by the City to study the Downtown 13
and surrounding neighborhood parking issues. According to the City’s Chief Transportation 14
Official the City would not implement a permit program unless requested by the community. 15
The City is also looking at ways to better manage its parking lots and on street spaces. The 16
efforts made so far to address parking impacts on nearby residences is consistent with Condition 17
of Approval number 24,which again is the Tentative Approval of the CUP. Again, my 18
informational packet is further evidence showing the use of the parking garages during different 19
times of the day provides further evidence that the City is actively studying parking impacts in 20
the Downtown and adjacent Professorville areas. 21
22
So in conclusion, this item will be going to the City Council for final action. It is scheduled on 23
July 18. Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission tonight 24
recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community 25
Environment’s Tentative Decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Community 26
Facility use of the Roth Building as a museum as conditioned. 27
28
Before I conclude my presentation I would like to point out two things. I would like to add that 29
Staff so far has received three correspondences, which I believe are placed in front of you, and 30
included on front desk. I would like to kind of point out a technical error in my report on page 2, 31
paragraph two of my Staff Report. Basically it should say that the exception is for a three-foot 32
and not a four-foot encroachment of the rear addition into the street side yard setback. So with 33
that I will finally end my presentation and be happy to answer any questions you may have. 34
35
The Palo Alto History Museum is here and will speak at this time. Thank you.36
37
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. I forgot to mention at the very beginning that this is a quasi-judicial 38
hearing. So as such I have a disclosure to make,which is that I was contacted by the Palo Alto 39
History Museum Secretary, Barbara Wallace. I just simply reviewed with her our procedures for 40
this evening that they would have a 15-minute presentation and then open the public hearing. So 41
are there any other Commissioners that have disclosures? Commissioner Fineberg.42
43
Commissioner Fineberg: I need to disclose that about six months or a year ago I had the 44
opportunity to walk through the facility with Karen Holman. We didn’t talk about the project 45
itself or many of the matters that are on tonight’s item. They were unknown as of yet. What we 46
focused on was mostly the architecture, looking at some of the lovely features of the meadow 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 6 of 33
grills, some of the beautiful copper rain gutters that have been pulled down, the conditions of 1
some stairwells in the rear, and it was mostly kind of an architectural expedition.2
3
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tanaka.4
5
Commissioner Tanaka: Yesterday I was contacted also by Barbara Wallace, and had about a ten 6
to 15 minute conversation. We didn’t talk about anything that wasn’t in our Staff Report. So 7
there isn’t much to disclose. Thank you.8
9
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber.10
11
Commissioner Garber: I was contacted by Barbara Wallace. I listened to her voicemail and I am 12
embarrassed to say that I didn’t have a moment to return the call. So I apologize.13
14
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Martinez.15
16
Commissioner Martinez: I want to know why I wasn’t contacted by Barbara Wallace. 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Fineberg had one other disclosure.19
20
Commissioner Fineberg: Thanks, I almost inadvertently forgot. I received a phone call from 21
Gail Woolly who asked if we could speak about this. We did not discuss anything other than 22
why I wouldn’t discuss it and mostly because of my feelings about our policy on the quasi-23
judicial matters with ex parté contacts. I encouraged her to come tonight to speak so that we 24
would be able to simultaneously learn, and the public would be aware of whatever it is she has to 25
communicate.26
27
Vice-Chair Lippert: So with that I will give the applicant, which is the Palo Alto History 28
Museum, 15 minutes to make a presentation.29
30
Mr. Steve Steiger, Palo Alto History Museum: Good evening. The Palo Alto History Museum 31
seeks to create a local history museum and provide to the community a research, education, and 32
entertainment resource that currently does not exist within Palo Alto nor Stanford University. 33
We have worked hard to qualify the Roth Building, which is the former Palo Alto Medical Clinic 34
site, for National Register, which has been successful and allows the building to satisfy the 35
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as required by the SOFA I plan. 36
37
A large portion of the 47 addition to the building was removed leaving a blunt façade. The 38
museum plans include a small addition to the rear to return the visual interest and function to the 39
rear of the building on the park side. This requires the small three-foot side setback exception 40
that is allowed by SOFA I CAP. 41
42
I would like to run a short video slideshow showing the building, with help from Staff here. We 43
are going to look at the building as it currently exists. We are just going to fly around. We are 44
now on the Bryant side. The rear side, this is where the two wings, the 47 addition were chopped 45
off. This is the side facing the playground. As we come around back to the Homer Street.46
47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 7 of 33
Now this our architect’s drawing of what it would look like of everything goes according to our 1
plan. This is again the Bryant side. This is the rear three foot. He has just tried to mimic the 2
effect of those two wings in a short space.3
4
Coming around to the park side here there is a symbol of El Palo Alto but that is planned for a 5
mural by Greg Brown. We have been in discussion with him about that. You also saw the door 6
to the public restroom there. Then the back. We can stop it here.7
8
The Palo Alto History Museum has been endorsed by the Palo Alto Women’s Club, the 9
Historical Association, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation their Oak Creek project is directly 10
across the street, the Stanford Historical Society, the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, the Palo Alto 11
Chamber of Commerce, and the Museum of American Heritage, which is located again across 12
the street on Homer.13
14
Additionally the museum has conducted two community meetings, one for nearby neighbors at 15
the Women’s Club and a subsequent meeting for everyone within the notification area of the 16
project. Both presentations were met with support by the attendees.17
18
The subject of the appeal really as indicated in the letter from Mr. Alsman is the lack of parking 19
on the site and the demands that parking would result on the project’s function. Any use of the 20
Roth Building would require a parking exception because as the City when they designed the lot 21
and the plan for both the park and the Roth Building site did not allow for any parking. They 22
wanted to make Heritage Park as big as they could, and it at nearly two acres they did so. They 23
also wanted to make the Roth Building less attractive for any commercial use should that ever be 24
proposed.25
26
There was no specific use planned for the Roth Building when they devised this plan, and it 27
wasn’t until the RFP went out and we responded with the idea of a history museum that the 28
history museum became the primary idea for this site. By the way, we were the only applicant to 29
respond to the RFP at that time. 30
31
Uses associated with the museum are typical of a local history museum or any type of small 32
museum. A small café, a bookstore/gift shop, there is also a community meeting room, and the 33
outside restroom to serve park visitors. We will build it into the building but then it becomes the 34
responsibility of the City to maintain it. Both of these latter two things were stipulations in the 35
RFP that the City required of any applicant to develop the Roth Building.36
37
To support the museum’s function and provide space for another nonprofit, which is 38
accommodated in the lease agreement, we are making accommodations on the second floor for 39
space for another nonprofit. We are in discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and the 40
Visitor’s Bureau to have them be subtenants to us. We think their use of the building would 41
enhance the visibility of the entire project, both their use and the library to the community.42
43
Both the museum and the Chamber employee levels are quite low. The Staff Report says 12 44
staff members. This would essentially be full-time equivalents because we don’t envision our 45
numbers being anywhere near that. This is a 20,000 square foot building and the employees are 46
required to attain parking permits or other accommodations. So they are not going to be 47
permitted to have on street parking use.48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 8 of 33
1
What is not clear in the thing is in the application the range of operating hours for the museum 2
are quite generous because we were advised to ask for what you think would be your wildest 3
successes that you would want has hours, and start from a smaller operation and maybe get to 4
their if you are really successful. The model we are really looking at is the Museum of American 5
Heritage across the street. Especially when they started their operation was Fridays and 6
weekends. Most of their functions are in evenings or on the weekends. The exception for us 7
would be possibly school visits during the week, but we don’t anticipate a large range of heavy 8
use during the week. It is just not what local history museums are.9
10
We are sympathetic to the parking situation in that area, and we understand why Ken Alsman has 11
his concerns, but we ask for your support for the history museum project as proposed, and in 12
doing so your support in creating a local resource not now in existence in a facility that will have 13
far less impact on the neighborhood than any other use that I can think of. Thank you.14
15
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you Mr. Steiger. With that we will open the public hearing. The 16
first speaker will be Ken Alsman. He will be speaking on behalf of Victoria Curtis, Diana 17
Wahler, and Deanna Dickman. We would give three minutes per speaker, so you have a total of 18
12 minutes.19
20
Mr. Ken Alsman, Applicant: Hopefully I won’t need all of that. I live on Ramona Street here in 21
Palo Alto in Professorville. I am a 20-year plus resident of that area. One of the first people to 22
buy what was described by the realtor as a teardown and restore it. I have lived there very 23
comfortably for some time.24
25
As I hope you know, there has been a major invasion of all day employee parking in 26
Professorville. There are no parking spaces that are not free for more than a couple of minutes as27
the day progresses. It is very disconcerting to many of us, and some of us have been working at 28
it for two, three, four years to see if we couldn’t get the City to do something. I am very glad to 29
say that Jaime and the Staff seem to be moving in a direction that we might actually see some 30
solutions for the existing situation. 31
32
A number I want to point out to you thought to start off is that 12 to 15 employee parking 33
demands, that means if you have 12 to 15 employees who don’t have a designated, usable 34
parking space is equivalent to further invasion into the neighborhood of one city block. So for 35
every 12 to 15 people who are employed in Downtown or at the museum or wherever else, or if 36
you eliminate all day parking for those people that currently exists they have only one choice, 37
and they will move into the neighborhood even further. 38
39
I am six blocks away from University Avenue. Employees are now parking one block past me 40
onto Kipling. So this is a single-family residential neighborhood, and a National Register 41
Historic District. We are providing the commercial parking for a large number of uses and it 42
looks like we may be providing parking for the museum.43
44
Let me first of all say that I have no doubt that you will approve this application for the museum. 45
I think if I were sitting in your place I probably would too. I am supporter of it. A long time 46
person involved in historic preservation, and someone who feels it is an important part of our 47
community. But I also feel that Professorville is an important historical part of the community. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 9 of 33
1
I came to the Historic Resources Board meeting not knowing that this application was on the 2
docket. I came to ask them if they would provide some support to the other people in the city to 3
help protect Professorville from this invasion of parking. I made my pitch. I sat down excited 4
about hearing what was going to happen with the museum, and the more I heard the more I 5
realized that no consideration was given to the negative impacts of this project. The traffic 6
report was by formula, absolutely correct but by formula. No consideration was given to 7
external impacts of people wandering around in the neighborhood looking for parking. None of 8
that was considered. I understand it is difficult but it is a fact. No consideration was given at all 9
to how this parking was really going to be provided. 10
11
I guess the thing that was most critical was very blithely the Staff said, oh and we are going to 12
change all of the all day parking along Bryant and Homer to two hour parking. That is over 30 13
parking spaces that are currently used by Downtown employees. Now that has been changed 14
subsequently and I thank Curtis and others for at least considering it. But it makes all the sense 15
in the world. Who wants those pesky all day employees parking by the museum for God’s sake? 16
Nobody wants that. But where are they going to go? 17
18
We had a Downtown major developer recently quoted in the paper as saying that parking is 19
prosperity. Parking is prosperity. It is prosperity for them but we are providing the subsidy for 20
his prosperity and we are providing a subsidy to the museum, and we may be willing to do that, 21
but not to take all of that problem that is coming from Downtown and the commercial interests. 22
We live in a single-family residential neighborhood, a National Register Historic District. We 23
are not a commercial district. Commercial entrepreneurs, commercial businesses should all pay 24
attention to the parking needs. We should not be subsidizing that. We should not be providing 25
it. It is changing the character of my neighborhood. It is less safe. It is less friendly. It is less 26
attractive. We constantly see whatever coffee happens to come along with the drivers, the cups 27
laying in the planter strips. I won’t go into that that is a little bit beyond this, but it is part of this 28
overall problem. 29
30
I think there is going to be some level of solutions coming out of what Staff is doing, but they are 31
as they should be predicating their analysis on existing conditions. No one has analyzed the 32
impact of what is in the pipeline. By my quick estimate it is over 200,000 square feet of new 33
office that is either undeveloped, in the process of being built, or unoccupied. I also sense that a 34
large number of buildings in this area are being converted from relatively low intensity use to 35
office use, high tech, start up companies, the kind of place that my two kids would love to work. 36
They would work cheek by jowl with everybody else so that the standard of one parking space 37
for every 250 square feet is blown away. It does not exist anymore. These people like to close 38
to each other. They put lots of them in a small space, and there are no parking spaces. There are 39
several examples of this but there is absolutely no review of this by the City that I am aware of, 40
that I have been told about. There is no review.41
42
So these are problems that go beyond the museum. I apologize to the museum for bringing these 43
up during this presentation but it is something that is in your purview as Transportation and 44
Planning people. 45
46
I am sorry I missed the first part of the presentation earlier today. I think there are a lot of 47
assumptions that are being made about exceptions for Downtown development, incentives for 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 10 of 33
transit oriented. They are just very wonderful wishful thinking. My neighborhood is a result of 1
that wishful thinking. My neighborhood is being destroyed, and we are six blocks away from 2
University. It just doesn’t make sense to me that nobody is paying attention to it until I happen 3
to go to the HRB meeting, and happen to hear this presentation, and happen to think my God, we 4
ought to do something. This is nuts. Nobody is paying attention to this residential 5
neighborhood. 6
7
I apologize for being as direct as I am. I apologize to the museum for delaying their project. But 8
I don’t apologize for the need for the City to take some decent action. Thank you.9
10
Vice-Chair Lippert: If you would hold your applause. We don’t either applaud or jeer at 11
speakers. It makes them very uncomfortable and then people are reluctant to speak at all. So 12
please. 13
14
Before we go to the public I forgot I was going to ask my Commissioners if they had any process 15
questions regarding the CUP process that they wanted to ask Staff. What we will do is we will 16
have three-minute questions apiece. So Commissioner Garber followed by Commissioner 17
Fineberg.18
19
Commissioner Garber: You had mentioned that our auspice this evening is reviewing this 20
against the findings. There are architectural findings, there are SOFA CAP I minor exception 21
findings, and then there is the whole Conditional Use Permit approval and letter. All of those?22
23
Mr. Donald Larkin, Senior Assistant City Attorney: it is the Conditional Use Permit findings 24
that you are making. The broader findings might be encompassed within that second finding 25
which is located in a manner in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this 26
Title, but it is really the findings that are the Conditional Use Permit that are the main findings 27
that the Commission is asked to make tonight.28
29
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Fineberg.32
33
Commissioner Fineberg: That was my question. So just to reiterate, so the findings required 34
would be from what is in Attachment D, if I am reading it correctly, is the Conditions of Use 35
Permit Approvals found by the ARB?36
37
Mr. Larkin: No, it is the findings under the Conditional Use Permit. I will just read them so that 38
it is clear. It is that the granting of the use permit is not detrimental or injurious to property or 39
improvements….40
41
Commissioner Garber: Excuse me, which attachment are you reading from? I apologize.42
43
Mr. Larkin: It is Municipal Code Section 18.76.010 C, Findings. I am not reading it from the 44
report. I believe that is it. For members of the public the findings are that the permit is not 45
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental 46
to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Two, the project be located and 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 11 of 33
conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this 1
title zoning.2
3
Mr. Williams: It is Attachment C that is Conditional Use Permit Findings.4
5
Commissioner Fineberg: I am sorry unless I am reading my labels wrong my Attachment C is 6
Amendment 1, number 1 to Option Agreement.7
8
Mr. Williams: It is actually embodied in Attachment A, because Attachment A includes several 9
attachments to that and Attachment C as part of that is a one page Conditional Use Permit 10
Findings.11
12
Commissioner Fineberg: That is on the backside of a page, so as we flip through it is easy to 13
miss. Okay, thank you very much for that clarification.14
15
Vice-Chair Lippert: Great. Any other process questions? Okay, with that we will go to the 16
public. The third speaker will be Chet Frankenfield followed by Elaine Meyer. You have three 17
minutes apiece. 18
19
Mr. Chet Frankenfield, Palo Alto: Thank you. The last time this item appeared before the 20
Commission I spoke in strong support of the project. I still strongly support the proposal to 21
restore, preserve, and improve the Roth Building for use as the Palo Alto History Museum. I 22
urge you to uphold the Planning and Transportation Director’s Decision to approve a Conditional 23
Use Permit.24
25
I live on Bryant Street. My address is Channing but my unit is on Bryant Street next door to the 26
Roth Building. I experience the same parking problems as Mr. Alsman. So I can appreciate his 27
concerns. We do have a serious parking problem and hopefully the City is making progress in 28
trying to solve it. However, on Friday afternoons and weekends the major hours that the 29
museum plans to be open to the public street parking is usually available in our neighborhood. 30
In today’s Palo Alto Online, and I quote, “Mr. Alsman acknowledged the museum might be a 31
relatively small component in the total problem.” I totally agree. 32
33
The City has owned the Roth Building for over ten years and many people have been working 34
very hard for almost that length of time to provide the City with a place to share Palo Alto and 35
Stanford University’s history. They have almost achieved their goal. Please don’t let this last 36
obstacle deprive the whole city of this one-time opportunity. Thank you very much.37
38
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Frankenfield. Elaine Meyer followed by Joy Ogawa.39
40
Ms. Elaine Meyer, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Lippert and members of the Commission. 41
Parking is indeed a very severe problem in the Downtown area, in the residential areas. So many 42
times you the Planning Commission and the City Council and the ARB approve developments 43
with exceptions for the parking requirements. You are creating the problem not solving it.44
45
Why was given so many abuses of the parking situation? Why would someone decide to protest 46
this particular project? Is the problem that nobody is making a million dollars off of it so you 47
might as well kick it? 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 12 of 33
1
The City needs to attempt to solve the problem not just do parking studies. For example, there 2
are 63 parking spaces under 800 High Street that were the major public benefit for that huge PC. 3
Not only was that the supposed public benefit that seems to have disappeared, but the City gave 4
the developer underground rights, without charging the developer, they just gave them 5
underground rights to build that parking garage. 6
7
In 2003 when 800 High was a controversial project Mr. Alsman sent a letter out the 8
neighborhood and I would like to quote a few sentences from his letter. “There will be a huge 9
parking benefit for our neighborhood, and especially to those near the project. That is because 10
the developer must build a 200 parking space garage under the project, and 63 spaces will be for 11
public use taking employee and business parking off the streets. That makes employee parking 12
off of four maybe five residential blocks, and this parking will be built at the developer’s cost not 13
ours, at a value to the City and our neighborhood of about $2.0 million.”14
15
However, the City appears not to enforce its own ordinances and the PC parking spaces under 16
that building are invisible. Nobody knows they are there, and the people who live in that 17
building say that it is partially empty. It is largely empty most of the time. 18
19
So I think the City’s parking problem can be partially alleviated by using the spaces that are 20
already available to the public and publicizing them. Thank you.21
22
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Joy Ogawa followed by Herb Borock. If there are 23
any other speakers please complete a speaker card and hand it to one of the Staff members.24
25
Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Hi. I brought my laptop because I just happen to have the CEQA 26
Guidelines on my laptop. I want to read to you part of the CEQA Guidelines, 15301, which Staff 27
is depending on to say that this is exempt from CEQA. So it says, “ Class 1 consists of the 28
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alternation of existing 29
public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving 30
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s 31
determination.” 32
33
I am sorry but this is like a huge change in use. It is an expansion of use. The use for the past 34
ten years has been nothing, vacant. This whole thing about anticipated use is all mumbo jumbo. 35
I am sorry I don’t think it will hold up in a court of law if somebody wanted to take it to court.36
37
My big problem here is not –I think it is a great project. I just think it is not an excuse for 38
shoddy environmental analysis, or in this case no CEQA analysis. The ends don’t justify the 39
means. Actually, they are exposing this project to attack. Somebody could take it to court and I 40
think it is a really strong basis for saying they did absolutely no CEQA analysis and they are 41
using like ridiculous excuses for why it shouldn’t have had any CEQA analysis. 42
43
Why don’t you just do a good CEQA analysis on every project? Don’t make decisions before 44
hand like this is a popular project so we don’t have to do any CEQA analysis.I thought Elaine’s 45
comments were very interesting, but for me it is not a matter of who is appealing or just kind of 46
like the overall parking situation. It really is a matter of doing a sincere good effort every time 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 13 of 33
on CEQA analysis. Just because I like the project doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have 1
done a CEQA analysis. You should do a decent CEQA analysis every time.2
3
I also am wondering this project required a CUP for the use so how could the use have been 4
anticipated when it is a CUP for the use? Even the applicant says that at the time that the site 5
was acquired and the RFP went out the City did not anticipate, had no concept or presupposition 6
of what the use is to be. So how can they say that the SOFA CAP environmental analysis 7
considered this particular use? It didn’t. My time is up.8
9
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Ms. Ogawa. Herb Borock. If there are any other speakers, 10
again this is the time to get your card in.11
12
Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Lippert, and good evening Commissioners. 13
Elaine Meyer had quoted from Ken Alsman’s letter on 800 High of October 25, 1983 and the 14
statements that he made about employee parking were wrong. However, he does have I believe a 15
legitimate concern about the parking issue. 16
17
The Condition, I believe, number 17 is not enforceable in any practical way. Requiring people to 18
buy parking permits doesn’t mean they are going to use them. They can still park in the 19
neighborhood. If someone says they are not using a parking permit no one is going to be going 20
around checking every car to see whether any of them belong to employees in the building. 21
22
But there is one practical thing that can be done, and that is to remove the non-museum use, the 23
Chamber of Commerce and now I understand also the Visitor’s Center don’t have to be there, 24
but they do impact the parking issue both with employees and also with people coming to visit 25
during regular business hours when there is a parking problem in the neighborhood. That would 26
alleviate to some extent Mr. Alsman’s concerns by eliminating for example the Chamber of 27
Commerce or similar uses from the building. 28
29
I also note, by coincidence that the project appears to be building additional floor area of about 30
1,400 square feet, and that the non-museum uses being leased are about 1,200 square feet. Now 31
they are on different floors of the building, but the fact is that that is not an appropriate place for 32
these uses. 33
34
At one time it was thought that this site would be included as part of Heritage Park, and there 35
have been court opinions, and Attorney General’s opinions that a community use such as a 36
museum is compatible with park usage, but the Chamber of Commerce is not. I would suggest 37
as a mitigation for the potentially significant effect of the parking is to remove the non-museum 38
uses from the project. Thank you.39
40
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Borock. With that I will give Mr. Alsman three minutes to 41
make any final comments that he wishes to make.42
43
Mr. Alsman: Thank you. I didn’t know I was going to have three more minutes. With respect 44
to CEQA I tend to agree that the CEQA analysis –I mean the idea that parking is a social 45
concern, maybe we should have Mr. Zuckerman come in and talk about that. It is way beyond. 46
Believe me, in my neighborhood it is way beyond a social concern. In Palo Alto it is an issue. It 47
is an environmental issue. So I am not challenging the CEQA work. I am not challenging the 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 14 of 33
museum. I am challenging you guys to think hard about the exceptions that you grant, about 1
how just 12 to 15 people who don’t have a parking space impact a city residential block. That is 2
what you need to keep in mind in my view, because you make grand decisions, grand 3
recommendations based upon wonderful philosophy. 4
5
I worked for the City of Mountain View for a long time. I started in 1968 by the mid 1970s we 6
were doing parking incentives to encourage transit. Let me just tell you it ain’t happened yet and 7
I don’t think it is going to. We brought light rail in, we did all kinds of things, but still people 8
use their cars and they park. We didn’t have anything like Palo Alto has in terms of a business 9
center and again, what is happening with even the smallest –next to my store is a little space. It 10
used to be the Pacific Art League’s spaces. They used it a couple of times a month. It is now 11
going to become a little office building for high tech development. I don’t know how many 12
people they are going get in that 2,000 square feet, but when I asked the guy who was looking at 13
it, I said, where are you going to park? He said, well, in the neighborhood. He is going to have 14
to park four blocks away from that store to find a parking space. Thank you.15
16
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, with that I will give Mr. Steiger three minutes. No, okay. With that 17
we will return to the Commission. Go ahead, Curtis.18
19
Mr. Williams: What I was thinking is that it might be useful for you to get just a couple of 20
minutes from Jaime Rodriguez to give you some context of what the parking study is looking at. 21
I want to note that Jaime was up all night helping install a signal controller. So I would like to 22
let him make that presentation and take off if he would like.23
24
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, Mr. Rodriguez.25
26
Mr. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Good evening Commissioner Lippert and 27
members of the Commission. Let me start by saying we have really been hearing the community 28
within the greater Downtown regarding their concerns about parking, and I would like to think 29
we have been extremely responsive in trying to address those concerns. One of the major things 30
we doing now is we are initiating a huge parking effort, analysis, and study within the 31
Downtown core. We did hold already one large community meeting back in April to look at 32
potential –well to share with the residential community some of the parking solutions that we 33
were considering both within the Downtown core and within the neighborhood. At that time in 34
April we did focus on a recommendation to potentially look at a residential permit parking 35
program within the Downtown core that is around this area of this particular project. 36
37
At that meeting, one of the outcomes that we heard back to Staff was to try and look at other 38
solutions within the Downtown core before there were considerations for modifications to 39
parking within the residential community. That is what we have been focusing our solutions on 40
in the last month and a half or so, as well as starting a similar analysis within the California 41
Avenue Business District. 42
43
What we plan to do in the near term is in July we are going to be holding a second community 44
meeting within the Downtown core to focus on some of the parking management strategies that 45
we are looking at within the Downtown core itself. When I say the Downtown core I am talking 46
about the core between Lytton, University, and Hamilton, down to along the edge of Forest. So 47
that includes parking strategies to better manage our off street parking inventory. That includes 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 15 of 33
surface lots and garages. It includes the deployment of way finding strategies that we will be 1
presenting in July as well. 2
3
That ties back to some of the concerns that we were hearing from the audience today, in that 4
there are a lot of public benefit uses that were deployed within the projects in the Downtown 5
core, specifically the one that was referred to several times as the 801 High Street. That is an 6
area that we don’t really advertise in the city as a public benefit. Great benefit, but not one that 7
we advertise. That will change with the way-finding program that we develop. That way-8
finding program will extend to those public/private partnership parking facilities that we have 9
within the Downtown core. Another good example of one is the garage parking that is adjacent 10
to Nolo’s on Ramona as a good example. So another good one is also the lot behind the Westin 11
Hotel, it is another public/private partnership facility that we don’t really get a lot of use of 12
parking in. So those all tie back together into way finding, tie back together into management 13
uses in the way we distribute our parking permits. 14
15
When we were looking at the specific project at Staff level one of the things that we had a 16
concern about was employee parking. We raised some of the immediate same concerns that we 17
are hearing from the audience tonight. One of our solutions was to try and develop this 18
partnership with this project was to make sure that even though they are outside the Downtown 19
Business District, which would allow them to participate in any permit parking program, we will 20
actually require that they would purchase those in a partnership with the City. We would make 21
them available to them. 22
23
I apologize, am I speaking too fast? I am always conscious about that. What we would do first, 24
one of the main things we wanted to do was make permits available to the first lot that had a 25
capacity. This ties back to some of the changes we are already making. I will start with the 26
garage at Bryant Street. Just last week we converted the fourth floor of that garage from hourly 27
parking to permit parking. That allowed us to eliminate our queue of people that were waiting 28
for permits at that garage. We actually distributed approximately 130 permits just last week that 29
cleared out that queue, as well as opened up permits at other garages where people wanted a 30
permit. At Bryant Street they had to wait until an analysis was done and we could see how many 31
permits we could release. So that makes sure that when this project were to move forward if it 32
were to move forward quickly we could make permits available to them right away at the Bryant 33
Street garage or the Cowper Street garage where there is capacity. We would also work with this 34
particular project to make sure that we add on to our waiting list where there is perhaps more 35
convenient parking, say at the Civic Center, which we are also seeing as a location where we 36
have capacity and can expand that permit parking use as well.37
38
So all of these strategies fit together. Way finding is a huge one. It is one of the ones we are 39
really focusing on for our community meeting coming up in July. What we have recently been 40
hearing also is that there is a new interest within the community to not just look at the Downtown 41
parking solutions, and table solutions within the residential community, but continue to move 42
them forward at the same time. That is something that we are going to revisit with the 43
community in the July timeframe. So that is a real quick synopsis of where we are going. I 44
would be happy to answer any specific questions if you have any.45
46
Mr. Williams: I might just add to that that we are planning then to come to both the Planning 47
Commission and the City Council subsequently with a parking analysis, talk about some of the 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 16 of 33
things we have done, and then get your input on some of the sort of policy directions to go on 1
some of the other issues.2
3
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you, Curtis. That is true.4
5
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, what I am going to do is leave the public hearing open because I 6
know that Commissioners are going to have some questions for not only the applicant but also 7
possibly Mr. Alsman, and Staff. So with that we will begin with Commissioner Garber and we 8
will do one round of five-minute questions each.9
10
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. So Jaime, this is certainly not the first time that this 11
Commission has heard issues such as this. I know that as a Commissioner the friends of mine 12
that do live in this neighborhood are constantly querying me, querying would be a polite term, 13
about parking issues in this neighborhood. We have also heard this in any number of other 14
developments in any number of the other communities or neighborhoods around the city. This 15
has been an issue that has come forward, the issue of modeling parking and traffic impacts is an 16
issue that has been an active topic of conversation for some number of years. 17
18
The way that we have understood it to date is that the sort of standard of the industry way of 19
modeling does not or somehow is missing the variables that need to be studied. We recognized 20
in the course of the last couple of years with Stanford that we could have zero development in 21
Palo Alto and over the next 15 to 20 years we would still have dramatic increases in the parking 22
requirements to our city, and the traffic impacts as a result. It is not because of development that 23
happens directly in Palo Alto but it is happening regionally, but standard or industry models of 24
modeling that do not always take into account that. There has always been this additional 25
problem of how do we get to that. How is your study that you are doing now trying to get a 26
handle on some of these things that have been so mysterious in the past?27
28
Mr. Rodriguez: Let me take a stab real quick and kind of brainstorm ideas as I am talking. It is 29
actually a really good question. Specifically I think some of the ways we are trying to tackle that 30
issue is by trying to think of what is the immediate, what is the technology solutions that we are 31
going to be able to deploy within the Downtown core to make sure that we can meet the existing 32
and the future needs. A lot of that comes back to just parking management. In our particular 33
case of Palo Alto I really think it is kind of a lack of that parking management. We don’t do it 34
very well. We are not smart about it.35
36
Commissioner Garber: Let me interrupt you, because I know you have been up late and you are 37
talking quickly. I just want to make sure I am understanding you there. Were you talking about 38
allocation management? Is that the phrase that you said??39
40
Mr. Rodriguez: I was saying parking management. When I say parking management it is the 41
way that we use our existing facilities. I am talking specifically first about the surface lots and 42
the parking garages. We have a huge investment as a community, not just as a city, but in 43
partnership with our business community to make sure that people use those garages. What we 44
don’t really do today very well is make sure that if people are moving into our Downtown core 45
they can get a permit right away. We end up having queues of waiting lists for employers to 46
offer permits to their employees. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 17 of 33
The flipside then becomes you will begin to see extrusion of that business community to within 1
the surrounding residential communities. I think we are hearing that loud and clear. We 2
recognize that input from the community, and our data does show that extrusion happens during 3
the build up peak times of the day, and in the morning. We went very far. You will see this data 4
in August, at your particular level, at this Commission again. We studied the Downtown core 5
several times of the day, at midnight, at the eight to ten o’clock morning timeframe as people 6
were arriving to the Downtown core, between the lunch period, during the seven to nine dusk 7
period as people were leaving, and then again on a Saturday. 8
9
Really the data was very consistent with some of the comments that we are hearing. That there 10
was a lot of capacity in the garages, that people were not taking advantage of them, and that we 11
were also hearing from the business community that they were having a hard time finding a good 12
way to get those permits to their employees if they were not already providing them. So the 13
technology solutions that we are looking at I think will solve that because it helps us distribute 14
permits more quickly. 15
16
It also meets a goal that I think we have at the Transportation level, and I will go as far out on the 17
limb as saying it is our City policy that we don’t want to see anybody that is a visitor Downtown 18
get a citation. It is not good business. It is not being a friendly city. We want to make sure that 19
parking becomes available and if you want to park in Downtown that you can park. We are also 20
looking at pricing management strategies to go along with that. We want to encourage free 21
parking within the Downtown core but we don’t want to encourage free parking all day long. If 22
you exceed a certain time limit of free parking, we want to encourage people to stay so they 23
don’t have to worry about moving their car, and leave shopping, but that they can stay at a rate 24
structure beyond the free allocation. So those are some of the solutions that we are looking at.25
26
We are also looking at the Transportation Demand Management solutions that go along with the 27
expansion of development.I think we are actually at one of the forefronts in Palo Alto with 28
some of the more recent developments where we are encouraging transit subsidy by new 29
development. Specifically I will talk about --you probably have heard a lot in some of the past 30
projects you have seen where developers encourage participation in a VTA Eco Pass. It is a 31
great program but VTA transit service within the City of Palo Alto is actually extremely limited. 32
It is probably the best program that we should be encouraging at a TDM level for employers to 33
be participating in. So we have been working with the newer developments like the Birch Plaza, 34
we are working with the 101 Lytton project, we are working with the Westin Hotel expansion 35
project to encourage them to become GO Pass contributors and entities contributing towards 36
Caltrain to make sure that there is a really truly feasible option of transit that is meaningful for 37
them to participate in. It helps sustain the region as well as it helps to make sure there really is a 38
good option for people to get to these Downtown cores and the core dwelling station areas as 39
well.40
41
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Fineberg followed by Commissioner Martinez.42
43
Commissioner Fineberg: Given that you were up last night installing new adaptive traffic signals 44
this may be one of the only times I can honestly say that I happy that our City Staff is losing 45
sleep in the process of their work. Thank you for that, and please go home when we are done 46
and get some sleep. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 18 of 33
I would like to follow up a little on Commissioner Garber’s question. I don’t know that this is 1
where he was taking it, but we have issues with adequate parking throughout the city for many 2
different reasons. In our Downtown core you are talking about focusing on the commercial areas 3
and how we allocate, distribute, and ration our sites that have permits. I am a little confused 4
because in one respect I am hearing that there are waiting lists. People can’t get permits. Then I 5
hear that there are low utilization rates. How can that be happening simultaneously?6
7
Mr. Rodriguez: I think part of it is that we do find that people do have permits and we find that 8
people don’t actually use them. What they do with the permit if they don’t have I don’t know. I 9
would probably say it would be reasonable to assume, just like you are hearing from some of the 10
comments from the audience, that if they have a permit but they see a space on the street they 11
would rather park there first, because it is in fact the most convenient. Now a lot of that falls 12
back to some of the strategies that we want to deploy and the systematic manner to try and curb 13
that type of behavior. We don’t want to see intrusion into the community and we don’t want to 14
see a low usage of our parking facilities. Those are the types of things that we are trying to 15
change. Those are the types of solutions that we are going to be taking to the community, to 16
yourself, and to the Council over the remainder of the summer and into the early fall as study 17
sessions for consideration and implementation.18
19
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So without going down a path of trying to specifically redesign 20
that, and I appreciate that answer, I think like many other of Mr. Alsman’s points he has raised 21
we have some serious work to do. We have some serious analysis to do. The issues are much 22
bigger than specific items that relate to just this project. Tonight’s focus needs to be on whether 23
the findings are present or not on this project. So the rest of my questions are going to try to 24
focus more on this specific project rather than knowing that many of those other greater solutions 25
the burden is on us and on Staff to make sure that those greater solutions come over time.26
27
Would it be possible or viable to have as one of the Conditions of Approval some form of valet 28
parking? Can that be some kind of use that five permits or 20 permits or whatever number and 29
for large events there be valet parking using permitted spaces? I throw that out. I am not 30
expecting you to say yes or no tonight. But as a possible mitigation if there a finding that there is 31
a shortage of parking that might be a kind of an out of the box solution. I don’t know whether 32
that is something that can be done with permits or it has to be one person, one car. Maybe that is 33
something we can throw into the mix of how we use some of those underutilized permit spaces.34
35
One of the other things I didn’t see in some of the traffic analysis is a lot of the groups that come 36
and use the facility, particularly the student groups, did the analysis include the assumption that a 37
lot of them would be coming in buses or minivan pools? I can speak for at Palo Verde when our 38
kids go on field trips the teachers know who has the minivan that can hold five kids. So we will 39
get a class of 20 kids in four cars, which is absolutely consistent with the assumption of four or 40
five people per car. If you told me anybody was doing that to go to the mall I would say, 41
preposterous. But for that kind of function I would concur that those high numbers for the 42
student groups. 43
44
Then also something I have not heard talked about is right now is when many of our school 45
groups study the history of Palo Alto they go to the Pena Adobe House in San Jose. That has a 46
lot more of a carbon footprint than a two or three mile trip to something that is actually in Palo 47
Alto, aside from kind of being preposterous that we are studying Palo Alto history in San Jose. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 19 of 33
So I think that there are some benefits of keeping our kids local, keeping them off the highways, 1
reducing carbon footprint, and it is consistent with a lot of the goals that we have in the 2
Comprehensive Plan as far as how we use transportation.3
4
Vice-Chair Lippert: This is supposed to be a round of questions. We are going to comments 5
after this. Commissioner Martinez, do you have questions?6
7
Commissioner Martinez: As Commissioner Fineberg just said this seems to be a hearing not 8
about the project but using the project as kind of a foil to talk about parking in the neighborhood. 9
I wanted to ask the Planning Director whether this kind of Director’s approval of a Conditional 10
Use Permit is there a place where it can go forth where there are concerns sort of as we find here 11
or is this the only form and forum we have to address related concerns, but not directly about the 12
project?13
14
Mr. Williams: Well, we have created and I think one of the reasons Mr. Alsman brought this 15
forward was because there really wasn’t sort of a mechanism for having that discussion 16
elsewhere, and wanting to highlight it with Commissioners and the community. Simultaneous 17
with that because we knew this was a much bigger issue we started with the parking study and 18
that. So I think we have created another forum for that and moving ahead with this project we 19
can still proceed with the parking study and the forum will ultimately be not only with the 20
community but eventually with the Commission and the Council to discuss some of these bigger 21
issues.22
23
Mr. Larkin: I would just add though that I think the broader issues are appropriate to discuss. 24
The Commission’s action is limited to action on the Conditional Use Permit.25
26
Commissioner Martinez: I understand that. I appreciate that. It just seems like a rather kind of 27
cumbersome way to talk about an important topic, and setting aside really what we are supposed 28
to be here to approve or disapprove today, or recommend or not recommend.29
30
I wanted to ask Staff is there is sense, I know in your recommended Conditions of Approval the 31
ten, or 12 staff to park in City owned lots and that is taken care of. There are 68 potential 32
visitors or cars at any one time. Is there a sense of how much off street parking is being 33
projected to be accommodated in that, or is it an unknown? Mr. Alsman contends that there is 34
going to be 68 more cars and we are saying no, there are probably zero cars? Is there some idea 35
of what really the total number is, or the projected number of cars that are sort of out there in the 36
neighborhood by this project?37
38
Ms. Vasudevan: Commissioner Martinez, I am not sure if I am answering your question 39
correctly. Are you asking what is the current parking situation right now surrounding the Roth 40
Building?41
42
Commissioner Martinez: No, what I am asking is I am trying to get back on the project so we 43
can have a sense of it. I understand that in your recommendations the ten to 12 staff are going to 44
be directed to park in City lots. You have also in your report indicated there may be as high as 45
270 visitors to the museum with potentially 68 vehicles that would have to be parked. Now what 46
I am asking is some of that is going to be accommodated in the adjacent parking garage at some 47
times and all of it may be at some times. I still get a feeling there is sort of a net number of cars 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 20 of 33
that are driving around the neighborhood that we are not accounting for. I wanted to get a sense 1
is it 30 cars, 20 cars, ten cars? Do we know or have a good projection of what that could be?2
3
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we have a real good sense of what that could be. First of all, to have 4
270 people at this facility is an incredible number to start with. It may be capable of handling 5
that but that seems to me that the only time anything like that is likely to happen is under some 6
our, we have some language about special events that are over 50 people and having special 7
parking plans for those and that kind of thing. Just for it to happen as a matter of course would 8
seem to be on the extremely high side. So if we start out and say that maybe most of the time 9
maybe there is a school class and some other public and maybe there are 50 people there. That is 10
a much lower number for most of the time. 11
12
Now yes there are going to be those few times when you bump up near the maximum but for 13
most of the time maybe there is a need for 20 or so parking spaces. Like you said, I think it 14
really is going to depend on what time of day that is. If that is during eleven and two then it is 15
pretty hard to imagine they are not going to be looking for –they may very well be on the streets 16
in there. If it is nine or ten in the morning before the lunch crowd hits then the City Hall parking 17
garage can park all of those people during those hours assuming again they are probably there 18
less than three hours at the history museum. So I think you would have to do a very time 19
specific analysis. We would have to probably work with the museum more on a realistic normal 20
kind of expectation of what kind of traffic there would be in there, and then look at those outliers 21
as far as what would cause it to get to be over 200 people at one time. We have not gotten to that 22
level of detail of trying to then say does that mean there are 20 more cars parked in the 23
neighborhood or none. Those are the kinds of factors that would have to work into that and I do 24
think it is going to be very dependent on the time of day and the extent of use, and a special 25
event certainly would trigger a different type of approach than normal traffic to it. We have also 26
talked about during lunchtime there probably would be more foot traffic going there, people 27
from offices that would walk over and walk through the museum. That wouldn’t be an 28
automobile impact but then you may still have the school class that comes down at eleven and 29
there are five or six parent cars and they might not be able to find a spot in the parking garage 30
and they look outside too. So there are a lot of factors that go into it. I think the bottom line is 31
that there is likely to be some impact on that neighborhood parking in the absence of doing some 32
of the things Jaime is talking about in trying to free up spaces elsewhere in Downtown.33
34
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tanaka.35
36
Commissioner Tanaka: I have some questions for our Chief Transportation Official. So you 37
heard some of the comments about the area kind of adjacent to the Roth Building in terms of the 38
parking situation. Given what you know so far is that an accurate representation? Is parking a 39
pretty big problem there?40
41
Mr. Rodriguez: Within the specific area that is one of the more congested areas during that 42
afternoon peak period. That is what we are seeing. 43
44
One quick note that I did want to highlight is that actually one block over from this particular 45
project on Ramona, the block between Homer and Channing, there is actually public parking that 46
is also available within that underground garage for the project immediately next door. Those 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 21 of 33
are also part of those public use spaces that we don’t really take advantage of yet at the City level 1
and advertising those. That is another thing that really needs to change. 2
3
One of the other items that we are going to be developing as part of our parking program that I 4
forgot to mention earlier is actually outreach materials. We have a pretty nice map right now 5
available online that shows parking between Lytton, University, and Hamilton, but doesn’t really 6
expand south or north or east or west. We are going to expand that out to capture those 7
partnership public benefit areas that we don’t do today.8
9
Commissioner Tanaka: So today it sounds like the assessment that various members of the 10
public have made is fairly accurate in terms of the parking issues. So with your new program, 11
with all this Transportation Demand Management that you are going to be trying to do, and the 12
way finding, do you think it is still going to be a problem? I know this is very qualitative, but 13
what is your expert opinion based on what you are finding so far, and once you actually have this 14
program up and running is it going to be a problem still? Right now is it just a way finding issue, 15
you just have to figure out which garage to park in, or is this really still a long systemic problem, 16
even after all this way finding?17
18
Mr. Rodriguez: I really think that is going to depend on how much change the community 19
together is willing to make. It is not just the City. It is the partnership with the businesses, it is a 20
partnership with the residential communities, and it is a partnership with the Chamber. A lot of 21
people have input on this particular issue. I think that one of the bigger elements that will dictate 22
what happens with the surrounding community here will be their long-term interest in the 23
development of a residential permit parking program, which I think we threw out to the 24
community when we met with them back in April.25
26
Commissioner Tanaka: I am really talking about just this particular area.27
28
Mr. Rodriguez: This is the area again where that RPP was originally kind of being focused, and 29
targeted. At least for now we are going to bring that back to the community in July.30
31
Commissioner Tanaka: Well I guess I am asking you to make a guess or an opinion for this 32
particular area after all this way finding, and all this outreach what is your best estimate of is this 33
still going to be a problem like it is today or is it going to be a solved problem? What does your 34
gut feel tell you?35
36
Mr. Rodriguez: You are putting me on the spot. I have to be careful when I respond. I really do 37
think that it is going to depend on what type of parking management strategies the community is 38
going to want to accept. We won’t force anything down a community’s throat that they don’t 39
want. That is not what we want to do at Staff level. It is not a good relationship builder. So I 40
think it is going to depend on how much change the community will accept. If they don’t want 41
to accept any type of change, and they don’t ever want to look at an RPP program, if we don’t 42
want to look within the business community in allowing a change within that parking 43
management I guess my immediate answer will be that it will stay the same, because if you don’t 44
change and you continue to change the uses well you have to accept that fact. I think though if 45
we can work together, and we are outreaching as much as possible to the businesses and to the 46
neighborhoods, and we can come together to build consensus I think we can build change. I 47
think that our goal is to try and get to less than 85 percent occupancy on the street. That would 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 22 of 33
be our goal. That means that you may continue to see use throughout the day but if you drive to 1
that block you should be able to park without having to drive around the block. That is what our 2
goal would be.3
4
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So it sounds like you are saying that, and I am interpreting 5
because I didn’t really hear a clear answer, is that you think that this will solve the problem.6
7
Mr. Rodriguez: I do think that there are solutions that we can work together to implement.8
9
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Now, in other neighborhoods where there is a lot of intrusion 10
from commercial properties the residential neighborhood asked for a permit parking program. I 11
guess if this is a big systemic problem today why hasn’t this happened yet? Is this in process or 12
what is the current status? It seems like this is crying out for something like that, and why hasn’t 13
that kind of been the place? Why don’t we see this kind of –I think it is certain number of 14
signatures, a certain number of people to want this. Why hasn’t it happened yet?15
16
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, long-term it needs to become a policy decision with input from this 17
Commission.18
19
Commissioner Tanaka: No, I am just curious for the residents.20
21
Mr. Rodriguez: From the resident perspective we actually did start that process off. That 22
actually was one of the very first projects that we took on as part of our parking program, but 23
based off the last community meeting we were kind of directed by the community to not do that. 24
To stop, to hold off, and develop those other strategies within the core before considering 25
opportunities like that within the community.26
27
Mr. Williams: If I could add to that. So a number of folks in the area south of Downtown have 28
come to us in the past and asked about residential parking program, and have done a lot of 29
studies to justify that, and indicated what they think their fellow residents will pay to help 30
support that. We were busy with the College Terrace program and frankly did not want to move 31
forward. These programs take some Staff time to put them together even if there is a lot of 32
legwork done by the residents, time, and money and we are in a budget crisis. We are losing 33
people not gaining them. So we basically said let’s see a couple of years on the College Terrace 34
project and then we will come talk to you about it. So we were pretty much on schedule I think 35
with doing that. There was a lot of frustration that built up then, but it is a situation like Jaime is 36
saying where we just don’t go out and impose it either. There has to be broad support for it and 37
we have heard sort of both sides of that issue now. It is not a unanimous thing that everybody 38
out there wants to move forward with a residential parking program. So it is not easy to 39
implement.40
41
Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so basically it has been kind of mixed and there have been 42
resourcing issues to make this happen as well. If it did happen it would probably solve this 43
problem.44
45
Mr. Williams: If it did happen I am confident that generally that problem would be resolved. 46
Now there are down sides to it that some residents see out there too.47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 23 of 33
Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. I have one last question.1
2
Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually we are probably going to do another round of questions and if 3
people want to make comments at that point they can do so.4
5
Mr. Williams: Could I ask if his question is of Jaime that he ask it now and that you finish that 6
so we don’t keep him around for the whole meeting.7
8
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, but I will probably have some questions of Jaime as well.9
10
Mr. Williams: That is what I have said, if you have made your round on questions. I can answer 11
the rest of them.12
13
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Ask your question.14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So you mentioned about the fact that people who buy these 16
permits for the parking they don’t necessarily park in the garage or where they are supposed to 17
be parking. They park in the first available street parking. As part of this new thinking about 18
parking have you thought about making people park in the garage in terms of if they don’t park 19
there and they are found with that sticker on the street that they get perhaps a ticket or some sort 20
of citation or notification they should be parking where their designated park is? That way you 21
kind of make sure that people park off the street like they are supposed to.22
23
Mr. Rodriguez: We did think about that. We talked about it internally how we can make that 24
type of a solution work. They are public streets at the end of the day. We can’t restrict people 25
from parking there unless there is a policy that allows for that such as a community supported 26
residential permit parking program that allows a restriction of the people who are parking within 27
that boundary area. So I think it would be extremely difficult to enforce that just because you 28
have a permit if you don’t park in the garage and you park on the street. What I think we are 29
trying to do is make sure that people do park in the garages. I will come back to this example of 30
the Bryant Street garage where we just converted the floor last week. The people that had 31
permits said oh gosh, I can’t park in the lower two levels and we are driving up. As we were 32
changing the signs they were stopping us and saying thank you. Thank you for converting this 33
floor because I hated parking on the fifth floor because my car got hot, it was a much more 34
difficult walk for me on the stair well. So being in the shaded area was a big comfort for them. 35
So that is what we are seeing. People will take advantage of that parking facility as long as it is 36
convenient, and those are the types of things we are trying to develop right now or to identify 37
what are those convenience factors that will make people change their behavior.38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you.40
41
Vice-Chair Lippert: With that I have a couple of questions. Regarding the CUP are there uses 42
for that building that don’t require a CUP?43
44
Ms. Vasudevan: Public City office, public facility is a permitted use.45
46
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so City offices. What would be the parking load for something like 47
that?48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 24 of 33
1
Ms. Vasudevan: I believe one is for 250 and one is for 300 square feet.2
3
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so we are talking about it is a 20,000 square foot building so we are 4
really talking about 100 parking spaces maybe, maybe 80.5
6
Ms. Vasudevan: Similar to 68 to 80 parking spaces, yes. 7
8
Vice-Chair Lippert: So the parking load for the museum is less than that but it requires a 9
Conditional Use Permit, correct?10
11
Ms. Vasudevan: Yes. Again, we are assuming a 270-person capacity, which again is pretty 12
high.13
14
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. I am just saying here we have one load that is greater that doesn’t 15
require a Conditional Use Permit if it was office.16
17
Ms. Vasudevan: Correct.18
19
Vice-Chair Lippert: If it was medical it would require none because it originally was a medical 20
office building, and with medical office building use if it had remained there in fact it is historic 21
and it is allowed to keep its use and not have to increase or provide parking. Is that correct? It is 22
a hypothetical question so let’s ….23
24
Ms. Vasudevan: That is correct. If it were remaining at one is 300 square feet.25
26
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So here we have a building that is 20,000 square feet and 66 parking 27
spaces. So it is less than and it requires a Conditional Use Permit.28
29
Ms. Vasudevan: Correct.30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, I framed that correctly.How many parking spaces are required for a 32
park? There is a park next to the building. People us it, occupants. Do we require parking for 33
parks? Mitchell Park has parking.34
35
Mr. Larkin: I believe at the time Heritage Park was dedicated it did not require parking.36
37
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So I could have 200 of my friends in the park and we are not 38
required to park them, are we? Okay. 39
40
Across the street from the Roth Building we have the Museum of American Heritage. What is 41
their requirement in terms of parking?42
43
Ms. Vasudevan: I am not familiar, I am not sure. It is probably the same as this. It is considered 44
a community facility as well and it is one is to four person.45
46
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 25 of 33
Vice-Chair Lippert: Mr. Steiger, you were shaking your head. Do you have something that you 1
want to add to that? Do you know what the Museum of American Heritage has? Can you speak 2
at the microphone?3
4
Mr. Steiger: My understanding is they only have about fewer than ten parking spots onsite.5
6
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. While you are up there the Palo Alto Women’s Club that also is a 7
public facility so to speak. Does that have any parking associated with it?8
9
Mr. Steiger: One.10
11
Vice-Chair Lippert: One parking space, and how many members of the Palo Alto Women’s 12
Club are there?13
14
Mr. Steiger: There are 225.15
16
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, 225. So we have a variety of public uses in that community that 17
don’t require any additional parking so to speak. Am I correct? Okay. Let me just ask you one 18
quick question because my time is running out here and I am going to have to go back my other 19
Commissioners. How many employees are we looking at?20
21
Mr. Steiger: Up to 12 full time equivalents. That is including the subtenant.22
23
Vice-Chair Lippert: do they live in Palo Alto or are they coming from other areas?24
25
Mr. Steiger: Some could come from other areas. Most of the volunteers I would imagine would 26
be Palo Alto or Stanford.27
28
Vice-Chair Lippert: They would be Palo Alto residents.29
30
Mr. Steiger: A good number of them, certainly.31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: So they would be parking at their houses or in front of their houses on the 33
street, but then when they come to the Downtown or they come to the Roth Building they would 34
be required to purchase parking they couldn’t park on the street.35
36
Mr. Steiger: Plus, our commitment to provide offsite indoor bicycling and a shower facility was 37
encouraging employees to use that wasn’t allowed to be factored into the formula either.38
39
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am going to allow myself one more question. The Roth Building is within 40
half a mile of the transit center, is that correct? I will answer the question myself. It is. I picked 41
that up from the last presentation that was prior to this.42
43
Okay, so let’s go to another round of questioning. We will go in the same order. Commissioner 44
Garber, Fineberg, Martinez, Tanaka, and Lippert.45
46
Commissioner Garber: Ken. I hear your issues. Let’s just talk for a moment about the building 47
itself and its immediate impacts. You are a well-known Planner and a good one. You have gone 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 26 of 33
through the Conditions of Approval are there thoughts that you have specific to the Conditions of 1
Approval that may help tactically the neighborhood to manage this potential issue that not only 2
you but others are potentially seeing there?3
4
Mr. Alsman: As I said, from my standpoint I think there is general agreement that this is a good 5
use. The design of the building is something that we can support. Even the issues of the 6
Transfer of Development Rights and the tenants and the addition of a cafeteria make a huge 7
amount of sense. Nothing that they propose doesn’t make sense. 8
9
The problem is that it was never evaluated or thought given to how dramatic the impact is going 10
to be on the adjoining neighborhood, nor were any solutions looked at. So we are on the horns 11
of the dilemma. So we support the conditions.12
13
Commissioner Garber: Before go through the horns, or maybe at the point of the horns, what I 14
am asking specifically about the building, because I acknowledge all of the criticism that you are 15
citing here. As we have heard from others there are a variety of other uses in the immediate area 16
that have a variety of exceptions that were allowed to them.17
18
Mr. Alsman: That is right. The neighborhood is already impacted by uses that don’t have 19
parking.20
21
Commissioner Garber: So presumably there is a piling on, an accumulation of different issues.22
23
Mr. Alsman: Right.24
25
Commissioner Garber: That are frankly beyond this immediate project, but they are ones that 26
both the community suffers from immediately as well as the City needs to deal with in a more 27
global way. Specific to the project though I am thinking the conditions you can proactively 28
create the communication program that is being discussed here. You can create a TDM 29
requirement such that we establish some baseline measures today and then we come back in a 30
year and figure out if there is any direct impact as a result of this new use coming in, or there is 31
some other duration that we can put into place there.Then I guess my question would probably 32
be to Staff relative to the policing, which Commissioner Tanaka had asked about a moment ago, 33
are there ways that you can actually police this.34
35
Mr. Alsman: There are some ways that are external to the site itself. For instance, the opposite 36
side of the street has got two hour parking. You can convert that all to all day parking. You 37
could convert other –one of the things that has happened is a huge amount of Downtown has 38
been converted from all day to two hour parking. You can reconvert that. You could look at 39
easing up parking requirements and prices.40
41
Right now if you go any day to one of the parking structures you will find 400 empty permit 42
parking spaces in the morning or the afternoon. Four hundred empty just permit spaces and 43
maybe three times that amount in the other. 44
45
Let me compliment Jaime. I think that he is trying to attack a very difficult animal here, and I 46
think he is doing a great job. The only problem is I guess it is in response to Greg’s question, is 47
this going to solve it? The thing that is missing from Jaime’s evaluation as far as I understand it 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 27 of 33
is there is no projection of the impact of those things in the pipeline or the total development 1
Downtown, or the exceptions that are being provided. So Jaime is trying to do it. He will do it. 2
He will come up with answers based upon current situation. So that is the answer tonight. It is 3
going to take underground parking, private underground parking at apartments and all that can be 4
used during the day.5
6
Commissioner Garber: Ken, let me pull you back here, because again I am going to 7
acknowledge the larger problem here. I hear all the issues and I am with you on them. Relative 8
to our action this evening, my question to you is really very specific. Are there….9
10
Mr. Alsman: Do not allow the all day parking spaces to be converted to two-hour parking 11
spaces. That is the only solution I have. That is the only solution. That is the thing that started 12
this off. That is 30 cars and the Staff has not said we are not going to do, they said we are going 13
to evaluate it.14
15
Commissioner Garber: Okay.16
17
Mr. Alsman: I am suggesting that you convert more two hour parking to all day parking, and 18
that will help relieve things, and give some opportunity for reasonable use of the museum.19
20
Commissioner Garber: Great. Just before we go can we ask Staff to respond to that suggestion? 21
I am seeing Jaime stand up here.22
23
Mr. Alsman: I have one other point relative to something that Jaime said earlier.24
25
Commissioner Garber: Sure.26
27
Mr. Alsman: That is that the residents at the last meeting did not want to go ahead with a 28
residential permit parking system. That was not at all universal. There are currently actions 29
being taken to do take inventory and circulate a petition to find out who is interested in doing it 30
because we know that it is going to be the only salvation in our neighborhood is to get the 31
residential permit system. As much as many of us hate it, but we are going to do it.32
33
Commissioner Garber: Okay. 34
35
Mr. Williams: Just to respond to that. So Condition number 21 of the project says that the 36
applicant shall remit $1,250 to the City of Palo Alto to cover approximately half of the cost for 37
street improvements associated with establishing a two-hour parking limit if feasible. See below, 38
and then below talks about the completion of the Downtown study, etc., etc. That would be 39
along the south side of the entire block of Homer Avenue. So that condition sort of morphed 40
from initially a condition that required going to the two hour parking and the museum 41
contributing to the cost of doing that to one that is basically they contribute the equivalent 42
amount and then we determine whether that is part of the ultimate parking strategy or not. 43
44
I would suggest that it might be clearer at this point just to say prior to occupancy the applicant 45
shall remit $1,250 to contribute to parking solutions to minimize their impacts on the Downtown, 46
and leave out any of the wording about establishing a two-hour parking limit. That is a big 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 28 of 33
picture item, one of 50 ideas to look at Downtown. There isn’t any reason why we need to 1
mention it specifically in that Condition number 21.2
3
Commissioner Garber: I get that it would give the City flexibility to find ways. My only caution 4
there would be let’s make sure that we look at the impacts of two hours versus all day, etc., and 5
understand what that is as part of that.6
7
Mr. Williams: Right but it doesn’t have to be specific to this project.8
9
Commissioner Garber: Understood.10
11
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg followed by Martinez.12
13
Commissioner Fineberg: We are talking about issues related to parking in Professorville that are 14
bigger than just this project. I want to make sure that our kind of brainstorming relating to this 15
project doesn’t get generalized into recommendations that affect the entire neighborhood that 16
may relate to this project, but not be to the best benefit of the entire parking program. One of the 17
elephants in the room is whether all of this all day parking is really being generated from the 18
people who work Downtown or whether there is even some spillover from Stanford in order to 19
have no net new trips. We hear from numerous residents in different neighborhoods that 20
Stanford people park and take the Marguerite Shuttle. So converting neighborhood streets to all 21
day parking from two-hour parking and then striping the available parking from our commercial 22
district and possibly making our commercial districts’ retail not viable is not necessarily a good 23
thing. So before any of those decisions are made I think there needs to be a big picture look. So 24
I think that your solution of striping as a specific solution before that analysis is done is a good 25
one.26
27
I would like to address Mr. Alsman for just a moment. Thank you for your questions and appeal 28
of this project. I think you raised some issues that need to be addressed publicly. I am 29
struggling with the question exactly that Commissioner Garber raised of if this project gets 30
approved how do we best address the issues you have raised? I am not sure what tools we have, 31
and I am frustrated that we know the area is under-parked. I absolutely agree with you that we 32
are doing citywide a pretty, forgive my poor choice of words, but lousy job of modeling our 33
traffic. We are basing it on a lot of assumptions that give us results that don’t make common 34
sense. I don’t see a way that we can burden a specific project with finding solutions for that.35
36
You are absolutely right when you talk about us not looking at cumulative impacts. We are not 37
doing it possibly, I don’t know all the details on the square footage of proposed projects in the 38
specific commercial Downtown area, but we don’t do it when we look at the impact on schools 39
and the requirement for construction of new classrooms. We need to do a better job at those 40
citywide on many areas. I think maybe this is a time that the Commission as a whole can look at 41
what do we as a Commission need to do to become more proactive and not just react on a 42
project-by-project basis. So for helping me see that, thank you.43
44
Mr. Alsman: I appreciate the comments. These folks are my friends from the museum. I hope 45
they are still my friends. It is out of that kind of concern that I am also at a loss as to okay, what 46
the heck do we do? The only answer I can come up with for all of you is that street side parking 47
is very viable. It is very easy to measure the impact of that if it isn’t there. I do think that there 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 29 of 33
are some options in some of the private underground parking lots for some use of those, if they 1
can come up with some agreements, but I don’t think you can make that a condition. These are 2
good folks. They are going to try to do the best they can to make it happen.3
4
I have accomplished my purpose in this appeal by bringing this to your attention. I believe that 5
in all honesty you can see the concerns, and I appreciate that very much. Thank you.6
7
Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. One question if I could. Curtis just left so I don’t know if 8
you can take this one. I am making an assumption that when this whole SOFA plan was done 9
many years ago, ten years ago, there was an assumption that there would be an occupant in the 10
building. There would be a use. As Chair Lippert said, maybe 60 to 100 cars would have to 11
park. Did those assumptions become part of the CEQA analysis that was done for the area plan, 12
and are we using that as the justification for not doing additional CEQA analysis? If our City 13
Attorney could respond.14
15
Mr. Larkin: Well, parking in and of itself is not an environment impact. I think Mr. Alsman 16
raised a good point that the use of ‘social impact’ is probably not a good choice of words. That 17
was the court’s choice of words. It would not have been mine. What the courts have said and 18
what the CEQA Guidelines say is that parking is not an environmental. So that most likely 19
wasn’t studied.20
21
The only way that parking becomes as issue is if parking is so impacted that people have to go or 22
basically can’t park so they let their cars idle. That would be the only time that you would 23
actually study parking. So parking wouldn’t have been studied in that EIR and it is not 24
something we would study for this. It doesn’t mean the parking is not a concern, and what the 25
CEQA Guidelines actually say is you find other ways to address parking issues. The CUP is a 26
perfectly appropriate way to try to handle parking issues associated with the specific project.27
28
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Martinez.29
30
MOTION31
32
Commissioner Martinez: I want to make a motion. I move that the Planning and Transportation 33
Commission recommend to the City Council that it uphold the Director of Planning and 34
Community Environment’s Tentative Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Community 35
Facility at the Roth Building, with the exception that item number 21 of the Conditions of 36
Approval be modified to delete the two-hour parking requirement and instead be reworded to 37
state that it be used to study parking options at the City’s …….38
39
Commissioner Garber: The south side of the entire block of Homer Avenue.40
41
Commissioner Martinez: Yes. 42
43
SECOND44
45
Commissioner Garber: I will second.46
47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 30 of 33
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, it has been moved and seconded. Does the maker wish to speak to 1
their motion?2
3
Commissioner Martinez: I do.I think that Ken’s written document of the parking problem in 4
the neighborhood was brilliant. If this were a debate I would declare Ken the winner and Staff 5
the loser. It points to an important issue I think that we all understand tonight. But what is6
before us of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Palo Alto History Museum is an 7
insignificant issue part of that entire problem. Insignificant in that the applicant has I think done 8
an admirable job in addressing the parking problem that they present to a substantially high level 9
in directing their staff and the staff of their tenant to park in City owned lots, and to find off 10
street parking that doesn’t impact the neighborhood for visitors to the museum, and that the 11
hours of usage of the museum and the days of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday is going to present 12
the smallest of all the parking issues of the neighborhood. So I think that this application should 13
move forward.14
15
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber.16
17
Commissioner Garber: I wasn’t going to say anything but I just wanted to add a coda that I 18
guess I don’t think of it as a debate. I don’t think of the Staff as the loser. I think this is a 19
discussion. Just the same, I have nothing more to add. I was just going to speak to your 20
hyperbole. 21
22
Vice-Chair Lippert: Anyone else wish to talk to this item? Commissioner Fineberg followed by 23
Commissioner Tanaka.24
25
Commissioner Fineberg: I will echo the comments of Commissioner Martinez. I will be voting 26
in support of this. I am absolutely comfortable that the required findings that were read into the 27
minutes earlier by our City Attorney regarding Municipal Code and the additional support of the 28
findings of the ARB and the HRB are present. 29
30
The one area of concern I have, and I am not sure that I want to escalate it to a friendly 31
amendment depending on what other Commissioners might think is I do have some concerns, as 32
I have stated on numerous other projects, about how we monitor and enforce conditions of 33
approval. This applicant included some pretty tight restrictions on hours of use, and uses of 34
parking. It will be very easy to drift from that, but I am hesitant to say that we should somehow 35
impose some tougher monitoring than we do on commercial projects, which are tens or hundreds 36
of sizes larger where the impact of a deviation from the conditions has a much greater impact. 37
So maybe if we can add to our list of things we need to look at that are outside the scope of this 38
project, but we need to address the monitoring of the Conditions of Approval so the burden 39
doesn’t come on either the neighborhood because there is no enforcement, or the Staff because 40
there is no means or funds to enforce. How we solve that is for another project.41
42
Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tanaka.43
44
Commissioner Tanaka: I also will be supporting this motion. I agree with all of my fellow 45
colleagues’ comments. The one thing I will add is I realize Staff is kind of maxed out right now, 46
but maybe after the community meetings that Jaime is planning to do in this area that we actually 47
have a study session or something like to actually discuss this problem per Ken’s arguments, just 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 31 of 33
to understand what is a more global solution to this problem. I know we are looking at this 1
project right now and we are not trying to fix that problem. I think my suggestion is that we at 2
some point when it is appropriate, and when Staff actually has time to actually look at this more 3
closely. Thank you.4
5
Vice-Chair Lippert: My comments are basically that first of all I support the motion and uphold 6
the Director’s decision. I am rather perplexed. I don’t see how you could have a higher density 7
use in that building and get away with having that without a Conditional Use Permit, and yet 8
having a rather benign use, just a great use that this community supports and require a 9
Conditional Use Permit. I think that there is something wrong here with that.10
11
I appreciate Mr. Alsman bringing together the issue of parking in Professorville, but all 12
neighborhoods are impacted by parking.I live in Downtown North I have people parking in 13
front of my house all day long. I welcome people parking in front of my house all day long for 14
one very good reason. When I see people coming here to work in Palo Alto I know that we have 15
a thriving economy, I know that there is business going on here, I know that there are people that 16
are walking to the Downtown, and that they are using it. I wish they weren’t in their cars. I wish 17
they came by train. I wish they came by public. I wish they rode their bicycles, but the truth is 18
that people are going to come in their cars. As long as we have streets and we have street 19
parking people are going to park on them.20
21
With regard to the proposal here at hand I think that it is a reasonable solution to the problem. I 22
have a friendly amendment I would like to entertain, which is that as part of Condition number 23
21 the City has a plan right now that is still in development for actually having diagonal parking 24
spaces along part of Homer Avenue and that that be looked at in front of the Roth Building and 25
the park. What that allows for is where we currently have 38 on street parking spaces we can 26
actually get in 44 on street parking spaces. What that will allow for is an increase of six parking 27
spaces. So as part of Condition number 21 that was included in the motion that this also be 28
looked at as part of that Condition number 21. Does the maker accept that as a friendly 29
amendment?30
31
Commissioner Martinez: I believe that it is a good idea and the City should look at it, but I 32
would not impose that on the applicant.33
34
Vice-Chair Lippert: It is not imposed on the applicant it is part of Condition 21.35
36
Commissioner Martinez: That the City would look at doing that?37
38
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, as part of that $1,250.39
40
Commissioner Martinez: Their $1,250 goes a long way. Yes, I accept that.41
42
Commissioner Garber: Let me just ask though, because this would just be one of a variety of 43
things that the City should be looking at and evaluating against each other. So my tendency is 44
not to accept it because we are not listing all the other ones that they should be doing as well. I 45
think let’s make sure that this is included in it, and I would take that as a comment and a 46
direction because we also want it looked at. I don’t know what the other solutions could possibly 47
be but I would hope that there is more than just one.48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 32 of 33
1
Mr. Williams: We would certainly be willing to look at that and I will pass that along to Jaime, 2
and be sure he does. The other concern I have about it is we really shouldn’t have conditions 3
that are conditions on the City to do something. These are conditions on the applicant.4
5
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well that is correct, but it says here that the applicant shall remit $1,250 to 6
the City of Palo Alto to cover approximately half the cost of street improvements. What I am 7
suggesting is that could be included as part of those street improvements.8
9
Mr. Williams: It could and so could –but we have eliminated the one thing that is specific to 10
talk about the street improvement. In fact, we are not going to say street improvements anymore. 11
We are just going to say the cost of ameliorating parking conditions, the parking study, or 12
contributing to that effort, and leaving it open for what those solutions may be.13
14
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. What I am trying to get at here is that I think there is a way to 15
actually get more parking on the street, which is another alternative, which I don’t necessarily 16
think has been explored. Six parking spaces are half the parking spaces that we are requiring 17
them to pay for on a monthly basis. That is why I think it is a really good solution. 18
19
I drove down Homer Avenue several times today to look at what the parking was like there. 20
Guess what? I could find half a dozen parking spaces. So between the half a dozen parking 21
spaces that already exist along Homer Avenue and half a dozen spaces that we could get by 22
restriping that are the 12 parking spaces that they have to pay for on a monthly basis. It is a 23
nonprofit organization that comes out of pocket.24
25
Commissioner Garber: Yes, I am not arguing against that. All I am arguing is let’s give the City 26
flexibility to do the study and evaluate all the things relative to each other, and take the time to 27
do it rather than pretending to give them a solution that we have not considered with all of its 28
possible impacts.29
30
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, I will accept it as not being accepted as part of the friendly 31
amendment. I think that there are other solutions out there. To give you an example St. Thomas 32
Aquinas Church has parking behind the church that is not being used during normal business 33
hours and there could be an offsite parking agreement between the museum and the church to use 34
those parking spaces behind the church. That might be another option right there. So I think that 35
there other options besides having to pay for parking. We are within half a mile of the transit 36
center. They could pay into GO Passes as opposed to having to pay for parking spaces for those 37
people that work there that are coming from other cities.38
39
Lastly, I wanted to comment that the one thing that is sorely lacking is parking for handicap 40
people. If this is going to be a public facility there is a necessity to have stripped zones for 41
handicap accessible/van accessible parking spaces immediately adjacent to front of the building. 42
That has not been necessarily identified.43
44
Those are my comments, and with that I will close the public hearing and return to the 45
Commission for a vote.46
47
MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Tuma and Keller absent).48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 8, 2011 Page 33 of 33
1
All those in favor of the motion as originally stated say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes with 2
Commissioners Tanaka, Fineberg, Lippert, Garber, and Martinez voting yea and none opposed, 3
and Commissioners Keller and Tuma are absent.4
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1801)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1801)
Summary Title: Historic Designation of 1005 University Ave.
Title: Approval of a Recommendation from the Historic Resources Board to
Designate 1005 University Avenue as a Category 2 Structure on the City’s
Historic Inventory and Record of Land Use Action
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff recommend that the City Council approve the
designation of the residence at 1005 University Avenue as a Category 2 historic building based
upon the findings in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The property owner is requesting Historic Inventory designation of the subject property to
facilitate restoration of the house after a fire in September 2010 caused significant damage to
the roof and interior. Municipal Code section 16.42.040 allows any individual to propose
historic designation, and specifies that the Council will make a final decision on the designation
following recommendation from the Historic Resources Board. The criteria required to support
a historic designation include the extent to which the structure is (1) identified with the lives of
historic people or events in the city, (2) particularly representative of an architectural style or
way of life important to the city, state or nation; (3) an example of a type of building which was
once common, but is now rare;(4) connected with a business or use which was once common,
but is now rare; (5)connected with an important architect or building; and/or (6)contains
elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or
craftsmanship. The owner has proposed a Category 2 designation for this building, which is
defined as any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works
of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic
development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior
modifications, but the original character is retained.
Upon designation the owners of this home would be allowed to restore it using the California
Historical Building Code where needed to preserve character-defining historic features.
Designation would also provide the property owner with partial relief from the City’s other
building codes, including required Green Building measures, to the extent full compliance with
other codes would impact historic features.
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1801)
The house is a large early example of Craftsman bungalow design, an American style that had
its origins in the British Arts and Crafts movement. That movement was a response to the
Industrial Revolution’s replacement of traditional all-around craftsmen by factory workers
organized under the efficiency principle of the division of labor. The American Craftsman style
featured hand-made artisanship which helped revive the concept of the dignity of labor and it
used local natural materials which reflected a renewal of the Romantic period’s valuation of the
natural world that would later lead to the birth of environmentalism.
The house at 1005 University was initially constructed in 1901 by one of Palo Alto’s most
important pioneer builders, James W. Wells. Located prominently on a corner lot, the house is
the second oldest residence on University Avenue after 509 Hale Street (1897) across the street
and is one of the oldest Craftsman houses in the City. Preservation of the house would help
maintain the earliest residential character of University Avenue that is represented by a group
of circa 1900 homes on the 800, 900 and 1000 blocks.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The HRB, at its meeting on June 1, 2011, found that the structure meets the historic designation
criteria outlined above and unanimously recommended that the City Council designate the
house in Category 2 as requested by the owner. Application materials provided for the HRB’s
review and attached to the HRB staff report include a circa 1903 photograph of the house as
originally built, a brochure by the local nonprofit PAST Heritage summarizing the history of the
house, and a State of California Department of Parks and Recreation form (DPR 523) for 1005
University prepared for the property owner by a consultant who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Qualification Standards for Architectural Historians. The DPR form concluded that the
house appears eligible for the historic California Register under Criterion 3
(Design/Construction). During the HRB’s discussion of the proposed designation Board
Members commented that the builder, James W. Wells, was very significant and that the house
maintains its original character although there have been some changes over the life of the
building. In addition, the HRB motion on June 1, 2011 also included a statement concluding
that the minor additions to the rear of the house and other minor modifications included as
part of the proposed restoration project would maintain the Municipal Code’s definition of a
Category 2 building.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no direct impact on City resources associated with the recommended action.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommended action furthers the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies encouraging the
conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1801)
Historic designation of a property is not a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per Section 21065. The proposed renovations of this property, which are not subject
to Council approval, are categorically exempt from CEQA.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (PDF)
Prepared By:Lata Vasudevan, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
ACTION NO. 2011-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 1005 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: CATEGORY 2 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
11PLN-00174 (CODY ANDERSON WASNEY ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT)
On July 25, 2011 the Council approved the designation of
the residence at 1005 University Avenue as a Category 2 historic
building on the City’s Historic Inventory, making the following
findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On April 26, 2011, Cody Anderson Wasney, on behalf
of Norman Beamer and Diane Tasca, requested Historic Resources
Board review for the designation of the residence at 1005
University Avenue as a Category 2 historic building on the
City’s Historic Inventory, as provided in Municipal Code Chapter
16.49 (“The Project”).
B. Following staff review, the Historic Resources
Board (HRB) reviewed the project on June 1, 2011, and
recommended approval of the Category 2 designation (5-0-1-1).
The HRB’s actions are contained in the City Council Staff Report
#1801.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The historic
designation of a property is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 21065.
SECTION 3. Designation Findings
A. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.29.040, the
following criteria shall be used as criteria for designating
historic structures/sites to the historic inventory:
1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of
historic people or with important events in the city, state or
nation;
2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an
architectural style or way of life important to the city, state
or nation;
3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building
which was once common, but is now rare;
4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use
which was once common, but is now rare;
5. The architect or building was important;
2
6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating
outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials
or craftsmanship.
The project meets criteria 2, 3, 5 above for the following
reasons:
• The residence is one of several bungalows in the shingled
Crafts style that is representative of the very early 1900’s
period of Palo Alto;
• The residence is a very early 1900s example of Craftsman style
architecture in the City’s original grid that has become
increasingly rare in Palo Alto because several similar
structures have been demolished in the past; and
• The builder, James W. Wells, was one of Palo Alto’s pioneer
residents and one of the most important builders in early Palo
Alto.
B. The definition of Category 2 must be met to allow the
designation of the house.
Category 2 Definition: "Major building" means any building or
group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious
works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an
architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture
in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior
modifications, but the original character is retained.
The project meets the Category 2 definition for the following
reasons:
• The building is one of the earliest examples of a Craftsman
bungalow in the region;
• The building demonstrates the attention to quality and detail
of James W. Wells, one of the most important builders in early
Palo Alto;
• Although the building has undergone some exterior
modifications, the original character has been retained; and
• The building has been found by a qualified historic consultant
to be eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources under Criterion 3 (Design/Construction).
SECTION 4. Project Approval Granted. Application
11PLN-00174 is approved to designate 1005 University Avenue as a
Category 2 historic building on the City’s Historic Inventory.
3
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1438)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Summary Title: Main Library Amend 4 with Group 4 Architect
Title: Approval of Contract Amendment No. Four in the Amount of $258,041
with Group 4 Architecture, Inc for Costs Related to the Design of the Main
Library and the Temporary Main Library (PE-11000 and PE-11012) for a Total
Contract Amount Not to Exceed $7,681,751
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. Four
(Attachment A) to contract C09130744 with Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning,
Inc., (Group 4 Architecture) in the amount of $258,041. This amount is allocated as
follows:
Design Service
(Basic Services)
Add Service
(Contingency)
Totals
Main Library $157,403.$15,740.$173,143.
Temp Library $28,232.$2,823.$31,055.
Art Center $48,948.$4,895.$53,843.
Totals $234,583.$23,458.$258,041.
The revised total contract amount is not to exceed $7,681,751 including $7,006,189 for
basic services and $675,562 for additional services.
Executive Summary
Measure N approved $76 million in funding for improvements to the Downtown Library
(PE-09005), Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (PE-09006) and the Main
Library (PE-11000). Of the total funding, $18 million was allocated for the design and
construction of the Main Library improvements and expansion.
During Architectural Review Board meetings, public meetings and design meetings with
user groups the project team was asked to consider nine additions to the scope for the
Main Library, described in the body of this staff report and with an estimated cost of
approximately $1,500,000. In addition, at a November 2010 Architectural Review
Board and at a community meeting, questions were raised as to whether the Main
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Library site could be better integrated with the adjacent Art Center. In responding to
these requests for a more campus-like feel, Group 4 Architecture has developed
conceptual options for a redesign of the landscaping and parking areas on the south
side of the Main Library to provide improved parking and circulation as well as a visual
connecting link with the adjacent Art Center. These conceptual options have been
presented to the community and boards and commissions and it is recommended that
Group 4 further develop the options in the course of the work being approved by this
Contract Amendment No. 4. The refined options would then come back to Council for
ultimate selection of an option (or no option). The estimated cost for the parking and
circulation improvements is $1,000,000.
The construction contract for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPLCC)
was awarded approximately $8 million below the engineer’s estimate. These savings
present the City with an opportunity to address the additional renovation
recommendations for the Main Library. Collectively, the overall projected costs are
currently approximately $8.7 million below the bond ceiling of $76 million approved by
the voters in 2008.
Staff is requesting approval of Contract Amendment No.4 with Group 4 Architecture in
the amount of $258,041 for design services to add additional improvements at the Main
Library, to provide construction documents for the Temporary Main Library and to study
site integration between the Main Library and the Art Center.
Background
On July 7, 2008, Council directed staff to proceed with placing a library/community
center bond measure on the November 2008 ballot. Measure N, which passed on
November 4, 2008, includes funding for construction of a new and expanded MPLCC,
renovation of the Downtown Library and renovation and expansion of the Main Library.
Detailed history of the design development can be found in past City Manager’s Reports
(CMR) to Council (CMR:286:02, CMR:119:06, CMR:343:06, CMR:434:06; CMR:225:07,
CMR:321:08, CMR:473:08, CMR:149:09), CMR:248:10, CMR:334:10 and CMR:435:10
that can be viewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/reports/cmrs.asp.
The design of the Main Library has started and the design was reviewed at community,
Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board and Library Advisory Commission
meetings. The Main Library improvements will include small group study rooms that
are acoustically separated from the rest of the existing building, and a new adjacent
program space that will seat 100 people. To accommodate the new program space, the
Main Library will expand by approximately 4,000 square feet from the current 21,000
square feet on the ground floor of the building (CMR:434:06). The interior of the
existing library will also be reconfigured to make better use of the space. Lighting and
other existing building systems will also be upgraded. All of the improvements will be
made with consideration for the historic nature of the existing building. The building
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 15
(ID # 1438)
will be designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design “Silver” level.
Improvements to the Main Library will be the final phase of the Measure N Bond
measure projects.
Discussion
Temporary Main Library
On December 6, 2010, Council approved locating a temporary Main Library at the
auditorium of the nearby Palo Alto Art Center (CMR:435:10), and authorized $500,000
to renovate the Art Center auditorium for this purpose (CIP project PE-11012
Temporary Main Library Projects). The design of this space is currently underway and
will be included in the bid package for the Palo Alto Art Center in the summer of 2011
as doing so will reduce the amount of construction disruption and likely result in lower
construction costs. The upgrades to the auditorium are bondable costs and will include
accessibility and lighting improvements, shelving, new flooring, and other basic
upgrades to the auditorium. The temporary library will be used as a place to pick up
holds, drop off books, use public computers, and browse a limited selection of library
materials. The collection size at the auditorium would be roughly 10,000 items. The
historic collection will be relocated to the existing temporary library at the Cubberley
Community Center and staff from the Main Library will be dispersed to work at the
temporary Main Library in the Art Center auditorium, the existing temporary library at
the Cubberley Community Center and the new MPLCC. Group 4 Architecture completed
preliminary design options but design services needed to complete construction
documents are included for approval as part of Amendment No. 4 with Group 4
Architecture. Design Costs that would be included in this amendment to the Group 4
Contract are as follows
Temporary Main Library Design:
Construction Documents $ 22,410
Reimbursable Expenses $5,822
Contingency $ 2,823
Temporary Main Library Total (PE-
11012):
$ 31,055
Main Library
The design of the Main Library improvements is approximately 50 percent complete.
The focus of the design has been on improving library services by renovating the
interior and expanding the building within an historic context. These plans were
presented at meetings held primarily in November of 2010 with the community, Library
Bond Stakeholder’s committee, Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review
Board (ARB), Library Advisory Commission and the Public Arts Commission. Additional
community meetings were held in May 2011 and the project will continue to be
reviewed by subsequent boards and committees.
July 25, 2011 Page 4 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Several additional proposals for renovation and rehabilitation of Main resulted from the
above outreach meetings. Staff and Group 4 Architecture have reviewed these
proposals and identified additional design features which are currently outside of the
current design scope of service. The additional design items that are being
recommended are listed below, along with their estimated construction costs. They are
separated into four categories: Deferred Maintenance, Code Compliance, Functional
Improvements and Parking and Circulation. Since Parking and Circulation would be
shared between the Main Library and the Art Center, it is discussed separately.
Normally these added design services would be paid for from the Additional Services
contingency budget, however, that budget is not sufficient to cover all or even most of
the items below. Approval of contract Amendment No. 4 with Group 4 Architecture
would provide for the design of all of the items listed below. If Council wishes to
approve only some of the recommended design features, staff would issue a deductive
contract change order to Amendment No. 4 to reflect only the items authorized by
Council. Design Costs that would be included in this amendment to the Group 4
Contract are as follows
Main Library Scope Development Amend. 4 Estimated Estimated
Deferred Maintenance Items:Design Fee Constructi
on
Total Cost
1.Replace roofing $6,600 $235,000 $241,600
2.Refurbish landscaping & walkways $23,936 $275,000 $297,936
3.Replace fire sprinkler system $14,025 $120,000 $134,025
4.Re-face exterior siding at staff area $4,400 $60,000 $64,400
Code Compliance Items:
5.Replace basement sump pumps $8,635 $65,000 $73,635
6.Upgrade stormwater treatment $23,975 $190,000 $213,975
7.Upgrade parking lot lighting $5,720 $70,000 $75,720
Service Enhancements:
8.Provide teen room after-hours
entrance
$12,100 $40,000 $52,100
9.Provide a broadcast center $9,064 $80,000 $89,064
Subtotal:$108,455 $1,135,000 $1,243,455
CONTINGENCY, 10%$10,846 $113,500 $124,346
Main Library (PE-11000) Totals for
Deferred Maintenance, Code Compliance
and Service Enhancements
$119,301 $1,248,500 $1,367,801
The construction costs listed above are estimates as detailed designs have not been
prepared. Currently, construction costs are very competitive and the recommended
work could likely be done now at very reasonable prices. With the additional $ 1.5
million in estimated design and construction costs, the estimated cost of the Main
July 25, 2011 Page 5 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Library would be roughly $ 19.5 million, or approximately eight percent above the $18
million that was estimated during schematic design. Based on the May 2011 cost of
current and projected construction, the $1.5 million in improvements from items 1
through 9, the final bond measure costs would be about $ 7.2 million below the bond
limit. This continues to leave a comfortable buffer to cover changed market conditions
or additional change orders. All the costs are “renovations” consistent with the
language in Measure N, and have been determined to be paid by Measure N bond funds
The items included for approval in Amendment 4 with Group 4 Architecture for the Main
Library can be placed into four main categories: deferred maintenance, code
compliance, service enhancements and parking and circulation as follows:
• Deferred Maintenance Items:
‘Deferred Maintenance’ items include features that were not included when the
construction costs were estimated for the Main Library. The additional items are all
bondable costs. Now that the Main Library has begun design, these items have been
identified and staff believes it would be beneficial to replace them now, while
construction costs are low. An example of this is the pedestrian paving and
landscaping, which is functional, but outdated and in need of repairs. During schematic
design of the libraries and Community Center improvements prior the Measure N bond
election, certain deferred maintenance items were excluded from the construction cost
estimates. This was done in order to keep the bond costs down or because the items
would be beneficial to upgrade, but still functional and not strictly required by the
building code requirements. Below is a more detailed explanation of the recommended
deferred maintenance items.
Item 1:Replace the existing wood shake roofing
The existing wood shake roof is reaching the end of its natural life and has
already been patched in several places. Additional patches will be required as
part of the seismic upgrade work. Staff recommends that all of the roofing be
replaced at this time as construction costs are low and future disruptions to
library operations will be avoided. The cost of writing specifications and
detailing connections with the building is included in this fee.
Item 2:New/replacement pedestrian paving & landscaping
The plantings in and around the patios and parking lots are significantly
overgrown and in some cases have been identified by City and Project Arborists
as unhealthy or unsafe and in need of removal and replacement. There are a
number of large pieces of concrete in the patios and walkways surrounding the
building that are in need of replacement due to material and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance issues. New walkways and patio paving and
planting are proposed as part of this scope.
Item 3:Replace the existing fire sprinkler system
July 25, 2011 Page 6 of 15
(ID # 1438)
The existing fire sprinkler system in the basement is corroded and is in need of
replacement. The system on the ground floor is of the same vintage and will
need significant modifications and eventual replacement. Replacing the entire
system at this time addresses both issues and allows for higher-pressure long-
throw sprinkler heads to be used in historic areas to avoid interfering with the
luminous ceiling (i.e., the heads would be located at the perimeter of the
ceiling instead of the middle).
Item 4:Re-face the existing staff area exterior plywood walls
The additional staff areas that were part of the building renovation and
expansion in the early 1980s were clad in unpainted exterior-grade plywood.
This type of material is prone to decay when in contact with moisture, which
can lead to material failure. Given the age of the material and its close
proximity to the ground plane, there are concerns that in many places it may
be reaching the end of its service life. The proposal is to remove the exterior
plywood cladding and replace it with a longer-lasting material, possibly a
cementitious board system. This may require the partial removal and
reconstruction of some areas of the existing terra cotta screen wall, which is
being reinforced as part of the original scope of work.
• Code Compliance Items:
‘Code Compliance’ issues were not included in the original scope of work because the
schematic design was prepared under the building code current at that time. Design
requirements changed, however, when a new building code was adopted in January
2011. The costs are bondable and the design revisions are required in order for the
design to proceed. Below is a more detailed explanation of the recommended code
compliance items.
Item 5:Replace and reconfigure basement sump pumps
The existing basement sump pumps (there are a total of three) serve several
functions: to remove any water that infiltrates the basement walls and floor,
pump out water that is periodically drained from the fire sprinkler system as
part of its required testing and maintenance procedures, and pump out drain
water from the first floor drinking fountain and any water heater discharge.
The pumps currently discharge this water directly into the storm drain, which
does not comply with current codes. The proposed reconfiguration also
replaces all existing pumps and creates larger sump pits to meet current pump
manufacturer specifications. The proposed scheme also reconfigures some of
the piping so that the discharge paths comply with current codes.
Item 6:Stormwater treatment regulations
The existing bay area stormwater regulations have different thresholds that
trigger different levels of compliance. One of the triggers for a higher
compliance level is the amount of new hardscape, including replacement
July 25, 2011 Page 7 of 15
(ID # 1438)
hardscape. The schematic design that was developed prior to the Measure N
bond election was for a basic level of compliance because no work in the patios
or surrounding hardscape was anticipated. During the current project phase,
however, work in the patios and area between the Library and Art Center
described in item 2 above is being contemplated Should this substantial
amount of new and replacement hardscape; move forward, then the project
will be very close to triggering a high level of compliance.
Item 7:Upgrade Library parking lot lighting (north and northeast side of
building)
The existing lighting in the parking lots does not meet current illumination
standards. This creates potential safety issues. The proposal is to replace the
existing cobra-head style luminaries with updated fixtures and add additional
fixtures to create more even lighting levels in the parking lots.
• Service Enhancements:
‘Service Enhancements’ are items that were not included during the schematic design
phase, but that upon further study were considered to be beneficial to library users.
Below is a more detailed explanation of the recommended service enhancements items.
Item 8:Provide a Teen Room entry from Lobby
Questions were raised at a November 2010 community meeting regarding
whether meeting spaces could be provided for smaller groups of 15-20 people
in the Main Library. Because of site and building constraints, the new program
room cannot be divided into two smaller spaces. Group 4 Architecture has
created a design concept for using the southern third of the Teen Room as a
flexible area that could be closed off to create a meeting room of the requested
size. For added flexibility, the room would have a door that opens directly from
the lobby space of the new addition to allow for after-hours use. To facilitate
this entry, a portion of the exterior terra cotta screen wall will be removed.
Item 9:Broadcast center
On January 20, 2011, members of the design team were invited to a meeting
that included multiple City departments and the local community cable
television station. The television station would like to have infrastructure
installed at the Downtown, MPLCC and Main libraries that would allow for the
live broadcast of City and community meetings and events from these
locations, similar to what is currently done at City Hall. The local television
station will bring a mobile broadcast van with specialized equipment for these
events.
If this item approved by Council, the design team will work with the appropriate
stakeholders and City staff to determine the amount of infrastructure required
and include it in the construction documents for the Main Library. Since the
July 25, 2011 Page 8 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Main Library is currently under design, it is easy to accommodate the conduit,
lighting, cameras and other design elements that will be needed to support
broadcasting.
Additional Background for Broadcast Centers at Downtown and MPLCC:
Interest in broadcasting capabilities for the Downtown Library and the MPLCC
did not become known until both libraries were under construction, making it
more difficult to include this element within the existing budget. Design costs
for these two sites are already funded from their respective additional service
contingencies and are not a part of this amendment.
During construction of the Downtown Library, empty conduit and other
connection pieces were installed in the wall of the program room in order to
receive future cameras and media equipment. A media room at the Downtown
Library will allow for broadcasting of the Library Advisory Commission meetings,
storytelling, author interviews and other media events. The cost for the
cameras, wiring and other needed media pieces is still being evaluated. Monies
for the media center equipment may be available within the existing
contingency funds for the Downtown Library, but if not, staff may return to
Council to request additional funds.
The evaluation effort for additional broadcast centers at the MPLCC is also
currently underway. Media rooms are being considered for the Community
Center’s computer room (to broadcast classes), in the large multi-purpose room
(for classes and public meetings) and for the library’s program room (to
broadcast storytelling, author events, etc.). Once a better evaluation of the
need for and cost of these room(s) has been completed, staff will return to
Council to request additional funding as the cost is likely beyond what the
contingency budget can accommodate.
Parking and Circulation Improvements Between the Art Center and Main
Library
Also included in Amendment 4 with Group 4 Architecture is the cost of evaluating
different design scenarios for integrating the Main Library and Art Center sites.
Background
The issue of integrating the Main Library and Art Center had originally been explored
during the previous 2002 library bond, Measure D. Renovations for the Main Library
and Art Center sites later began the design process as separate projects. Because
these renovations were being planned separately, under different design firms and
project managers, little attention was paid to the overall integration of the campus. It
was only during design development presentations of the Main Library project to the
Architectural Review Board and at a community meeting in November 2010 that the
July 25, 2011 Page 9 of 15
(ID # 1438)
issue of improving the connection of the Art Center, Main Library and Community
gardens into an overall campus site was raised.
As a result of these inquiries, Group 4 Architecture was asked to make a cursory
exploration of the feasibility and cost related to making the site have a more campus-
like feel. These initial designs were discussed in a joint exploratory meeting between
the library and Art Center stakeholders and staff in the spring of 2011. Both groups
recommended exploring the concept further. The design concepts were also presented
to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Library Bond
Oversight Committee (LBOC), Library Advisory Commission (LAC), Parks and Recreation
Committee (PARC) and at a community meeting.
Site Issues
Several issues related to connecting the two sites were identified as a result of the
exploration of design options:
Safety:
-The driveway in front of the Art Center is used by cut-through traffic avoiding
the traffic signal at Embarcadero and Newell. Combined with reduced
visibility due to landscaping, this creates unsafe conditions for people
accessing the parking lot.
-The storage shed in one of the parking lots between the two sites is dark and
attractive to vagrants. People are unclear if the area under the shed roof is
open to the public.
-During high-participation events, drivers jog from parking lot to parking lot
via Newell Road, creating increased traffic and impacting a bicycle lane.
Access:
-No easy and clear access between sites for pedestrians or drivers
Wayfinding:
-Visitors new to the site often cannot easily locate individual facilities
-Campus lacks an overall, cohesive plan with walkways and gathering spots
Parking:
-The community has expressed concerns about insufficient site parking during
large events.
-With a new community room planned for the Main Library and anticipated
increased visitorship to the Art Center, parking demands may increase. In
addition, no additional parking was ever provided for gardeners with the
creation of the Community Gardens.
-There are four separate parking lots on the campus, three of which are linked
(Art Center side) and one of which is not (Library side).
July 25, 2011 Page 10 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Design Options
Several design options were developed by Group 4 Architecture in response to the site
issues. These concepts are very preliminary in nature and within these concepts there
are elements that could be removed, combined or taken as stand-alone improvements.
For example, the shed could remain in the parking lot, or the driveway connecting the
Art Center and Main Library could be eliminated. Design concepts are shown on
Attachment B.
-Concept 1: retain the redundant driveway in front of the Art Center but
improve pedestrian safety by widening the crossing to the Art Center and
removing shrubbery; create pedestrian plazas and integrate landscaping
between the two sites; remove a storage shed to increase parking; add a
new driveway to connect the Main Library and Art Center. Net parking
impact is estimated at -1 parking spaces.
-Concept 2: remove the redundant driveway in front of the Art Center to
improve safety caused by speeding and cut-through traffic from Embarcadero
and Newell; reconfigure the parking area to a curved space to slow traffic and
better align the entrances to the Art Center and Main Library; create
pedestrian plazas and integrate landscaping between the two sites; remove a
storage shed to increase parking; add a new driveway to connect the Main
Library and Art Center. Net parking impact is estimated at +6 spaces.
-Concept 2B: Similar to Concept 2, but instead of certain parking spaces a
drop-off zone would be added. Net parking impact is estimated at +2 spaces.
Community Gardens Impact
The Community Gardens would be impacted if the driveway element is included in any
of the three concepts. Initial explorations suggested that connecting the Art Center and
Library parking lots with a driveway would require the relocation of up to twelve garden
plots. The relocation of these plots, however, could be mitigated by placing the plots in
an area used as an internal access road. With design refinements, this could result in a
net increase in the number of plots. The conceptual designs indicate that no redwood
or oak trees would need to be removed to construct the driveway, although one other
tree might need to be removed. This tree is not a heritage tree and its possible
removal has been reviewed and conceptually approved by the Planning Arborist.
At a community meeting on May 5, 2011, gardeners associated with the Community
Gardens expressed concerns about the possible loss of garden plots, the noise and
safety impacts of a driveway near the garden and the need for a buffer zone and
increased parking needs resulting from the loss of approximately two parking spaces in
the library parking lot needed for the driveway (see Attachment C). Gardeners
questioned whether some of the lawn area at the Main Library might be used for
parking, whether ‘parking lot full’ electronic signs could be employed or whether speed
July 25, 2011 Page 11 of 15
(ID # 1438)
tables could be used to improve crossing safety in front of the Art Center. While all of
these are good ideas that merit further study, Group 4 Architecture could not delve
further into the options without Council direction and additional funding.
Discussion
The overall feeling from the public meetings was that the idea of integrating the two
sites merited further study, but that a driveway connecting the Main Library to the Art
Center through the Community Gardens might at worst be dangerous and at best be
unnecessary. Staff recommends that all of the concepts be developed further in order
to better identify the impacts to trees, garden plots, parking and safety. Staff believes
that mitigations may exist for the new driveway at the community garden, however, if
Council so desires further work on the parking and circulation piece could be eliminated
from further consideration by issuing a deductive change order to remove it from
contract Amendment 4.
Funding and Timing
If pursued, all or selected parts of design concepts 1, 2, and 2B would be more
completely developed, to a level at which tree, parking, cost and other impacts could be
more accurately identified. In addition, other options identified at various meetings
(such as using the lawn of the Main Library for overflow parking) would be considered.
The more detailed plans would then be reviewed at boards and commission meetings
(ARB, HRB, LAC, PARC), by the library and Art Foundation stakeholders groups, at a
community meeting and finally by Council. It is estimated that staff would return to
Council in late 2011 or early 2012 for direction on a preferred design, if any. The fee
for Group 4 is for complete construction documents so if Council later decides to not
continue with the parking and circulation design effort, the remaining portion of the fee
would not be used.
If a design option is selected by Council, that design would be completed and
advertised for construction bids, likely in early 2012. The Art Center is currently closed
for construction and the goal would be to have any new parking or landscaping
completed prior to its re-opening in the summer of 2012. If Council were to approve
the connector driveway, it and any related garden relocations or mitigations could be
deferred until the end of the construction of the Main Library. The Main Library is
currently estimated to be completed in late 2013 and if that schedule is maintained any
work on the driveway and garden area could be deferred until the summer or fall of
2013.
The design costs for parking and circulation improvements would be evenly split
between the Art Center (CIP PF-07000) and the Main Library (PE-11000), since the
improvements jointly benefit each site. Design Costs that would be included in this
amendment to the Group 4 Contract are as follows
July 25, 2011 Page 12 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Parking & Circulation Design -
Amendment 4:
PF-07000
Art Center
PE-11000
Main Library
Totals
Design Services $ 41,948 $41,948 $483,896
Meetings and Participation $7,000 $7,000 $14,000
Additional Services/Contingency $ 4,895 $4,895 $9,790
Parking/Circulation Design Total: $53,843 $53,843 $107,686
The estimated construction costs of $1 million would also be shared between the Art
Center and Main Library projects. The exact cost-sharing proportion can be better
determined when and if a final design option is selected, but at this point an
assumption of 50 percent, or $500,000 to each site, could be assumed.
Main Library Window Upgrades
The Main Library design currently includes an upgrade of 1,125 square feet of windows
and 11 sliding glass doors in the staff area, which will increase the construction cost.
The existing sliding glass doors do not meet ADA requirements and need to be
modified.Significant portions of the existing window wall systems will need to be
removed and reinstalled as part of the proposed re-facing of the existing staff exterior
walls (Item 4).Instead of re-installing the old windows and sliding doors, more energy-
efficient ones would be installed, and would include ADA compliant doors.The cost of
replacing these windows and sliding doors was not included in the original bond
measure because the extent of remodeling work in the wall was not known at the
schematic design phase.The upgrade would be included in the bid package and it is
estimated that it will increase the bid price by approximately $170,000.The existing
windows in the public areas of the library will remain unchanged because they are
original and contribute to the historic fabric of the building.The staff-area windows and
doors that are proposed to be changed as part of this work are not original and are do
not contribute to the building’s historic identity (they were changed in the 1981 remodel
when the staff area was expanded). This information is presented for Council’s
information because it will lead to a construction cost increase. There is no design fee
increase from Group 4 Architecture for this item.
Library Bond Oversight Committee Review
These items may all be funded by bond funds, as they are consistent with the Measure
N language explaining that the buildings would be “renovated.” However, because
these items were not part of the initial design and cost estimates developed for the
bond election process, the Library Bond Oversight Committee recommended that
Council decide if it wishes to use bond funding to pay for items 1-9 above. Approval of
the additions to the Group 4 design contract by Council, as proposed by staff in this
report, would constitute that approval to use bond funding for those items.
Resource Impact
Funding for the additional $ 173,143 in design fees for the Main Library is available in
July 25, 2011 Page 13 of 15
(ID # 1438)
PE-11000 and $31,055 from the Temporary Main Library PE-11012 CIP budgets.
Funding for $53,843 in design fees for the Art Center share of Site Integration Design
would be funded from the Art Center PF-07000 CIP budget outside of bond funding.
Even with the additional nine design elements, the parking and circulation piece
between the Main Library and Art Center and the window upgrades, the future
construction cost can be accommodated within the $76M bond proceeds due to the low
bids that have been received on the library projects to date. While approving the design
changes discussed in this staff report could increase the construction costs at the Main
Library by approximately $2 million, recent construction bids on the Downtown and
College Terrace libraries have been up to 30 percent below the engineer’s estimate.
There is currently anticipated to be little change in the construction climate by early
2012 when the project will be advertised for construction bids.
The Group 4 Architecture contract is for services at the Downtown, MPLCC and Main
libraries. It includes three previous contract amendments with a current value of
$6,771,606. The authorized contingency is $652,104, making the total authorization to
date for this contract $7,423,710. If approved by Council, Amendment No. 4 would
increase the contract authorization as follows:
Original Previous Proposed Revised
Contract Amendments
Amendment No.
4 Totals
Design Contract $3,483,080 $3,288,526 $234,583 $7,006,189
Contingency $344,200 $307,904 $23,458 $675,562
Total
Authorization $3,827,280 $3,596,430 $ 258,041 $ 7,681,751
A second bond issue has been scheduled prior to construction of the Main Library
improvements, regardless of whether any of the above improvements are approved.
For details on the bond issuance and the applicable tax rates and assessments for 2011,
see the Discussion section in CMR 337:10, August 2, 2010. Once the second series of
bonds is issued for Main Library work (estimated to begin in the fall or winter of 2012),
property owners will see a second increase in their property taxes. This increase is
dependent upon the amount of bonds required for the second issue and the prevailing
interest rate at the time of the bond sale. With the addition of the proposed
improvement items 1 through 9 above, and assuming the library’s share of the parking
and circulation improvements to be $500,000, the overall final library bond measure
costs are estimated to be roughly $ 6.8 million below the bond limit of $76 million.
The cost breakout for Amendment 4 to each CIP project is as follows:
Design
Element:
PE-11000
Main Library
PE-11012,
Temp Main
Library
PF-07000,
Art Center
Totals (includes
Contingency)
July 25, 2011 Page 14 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Items 1-9 $ 119,300 $119,300
Item 10, Art
Center/Library
Integration
$ 53,843 $ 53,843 $107,686
Design of
temporary Main
$ 31,055 $31,055
Totals
(including
contingency)
$ 173,143 $ 31,055 $ 53,843 $ 258,041
Policy Impacts
As discussed above the infrastructure improvements presented above are bondable
expenses under the Measure N bond, which called for renovations of the three
buildings. Since detailed design is typically not completed before bond funding is
authorized, it is common not to have all design elements identified during the
preliminary design phase and instead to be identified during more detailed design,
during the public review process, or during re-evaluation of the budget after actual
construction bids are known. Items 1-9 above are considered to fit into that category.
The Art Center and Main Library site integration was not considered nor discussed at
any public meetings leading up to the Measure N bond but only became identified
during the public review process of the Main Library. Although it is not related to code
compliance, deferred maintenance or library service enhancements, the integration of
the Art Center and Main Library sites is a renovation that would contribute to the
functionality of the library building and enhance the user experience by improving
entry, exit, and parking for the building.
While staff recommends further developing the concepts presented herein and
returning to Council for final approval of any concept arising from the public review
process, it should also be considered that if this particular improvement was not done,
bonds would not need to be issued to cover that amount, reducing the potential
property tax assessment,.
Timeline
The Downtown Library re-opened on July 16, 2011 and the MPLCC will be completed in
summer 2012. The design for the Main Library is approximately 50 percent complete.
Construction on the Main Library is anticipated to start in the fall or winter of 2012 and
last approximately one year.
The temporary Main Library will be located in the Art Center Auditorium and is included
as part of the Art Center construction. It is expected to be completed in summer 2012.
Costs for the temporary Main Library have been determined to be bondable and will be
funded with Measure N bond monies.
July 25, 2011 Page 15 of 15
(ID # 1438)
Environmental Review
On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s approvals of a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final Environmental Impact
Report for the Main Library.
Attachments:
·Attachment A Contract Amendment (PDF)
·Attachment B: Parking and Circulation improvements (PDF)
·Attachment C: Community Garden meeting minutes (PDF)
·Attachment D Public Comment Letters (PDF)
Prepared By:Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
MAIN LIBRARY:EXISTING SITE PLAN
Remove shed, (+4 parking spaces)
New connector driveway allows shared New connector driveway allows shared
use by both Library and Art Center
Visitors, (-2 parking spaces)Retain current parking
patterns & drive lanes: net 18
spaces (-3 spaces)
Create new central plaza,
Widen crossing and create
‘midway plaza’
p,
integrate landscape with
current Library Landscape
Design
Net impact: -1 parking space
MAIN LIBRARY & ART CENTER:Site Integration – Concept 1
Remove shed, (+4 parking spaces)
New connector driveway allows shared New connector driveway allows shared
use by both Library and Art Center
Visitors, (-2 parking spaces)Revise both parking patterns
& drive lanes: net 23 spaces
(+2 spaces)
Create new central plaza,
Widen crossing for drop-offs
& create new Art Center
forecourt with planting
p,
integrate landscape with
current Library Landscape
Design
forecourt with planting,
seating and improved
pedestrian circulation to east
parking lot.
Net impact: +6 parking spaces
MAIN LIBRARY & ART CENTER:Site Integration – Concept 2
Remove shed, (+4 parking spaces)
New connector driveway allows shared y
use by both Library and Art Center
Visitors, (-2 parking spaces)Revise both parking patterns
& drive lanes: net 21 spaces
(+0 space)
Create new central plaza,
Art Center – Library crossing
and forecourt with planting,
seating and improved
integrate landscape with
current Library Landscape
Design
seating and improved
pedestrian circulation to east
parking lot.
Expanded Drop-off zone
Net impact: +2 parking spaces
MAIN LIBRARY & ART CENTER:Site Integration – Concept 2B
Consolidated Bicycle
Parking
Expanded Drop-
off zone
Remove exiting shed.
New connector driveway
allows visitors to both the
Library and the Art
Center access all parking
resources
Provide pedestrian access to
East Parking lot from Art
Center Entrance
MAIN LIBRARY & ART CENTER:New Parking layout
Community Garden Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: May 5, 2011
Location: Community Garden
Time: 6:00pm-7:00pm
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services, started the outreach meeting with an
introduction of City staff and the members of the community who were present at the
meeting. Greg stated that the purpose of the meeting is for City staff to hear the
community’s concern and ideas on way to connect parking areas and pathways of the
Main Library and Art Center.
Mr. Betts outlined the problems that City is hoping to address during the renovation of
the Art Center and Main Library:
Increase public parking for the Library, Art Center and Community Gardens
Accommodate parking for the new public meeting room that will be added to the
Main Library and for additional patron visitation at the Art Center
Reduce dangerous cut-through from cars travelling from Newell Road to
Embarcadero Road
Improve the efficiency of the separate parking lots at the Art Center and Library.
Reduce the number of drivers who jog from parking lot to parking lot via Newell
Road
Increase the number of community garden plots, if possible
The following are the community’s concern and comments on the idea of a connector
driveway between the rear library parking lot and east Art Center parking lot (see
drawing):
One person said that she had attended Monday night’s City Council meeting to
inform City Council that there was currently no information available on the
project which affects the garden plots.
Concerned about the existing shed being removed. What’s going to happen to the
plots next to the shed?
Likes the existing emergency access road (unpaved, between rows of garden plots).
It serves as a buffer between the parking lot and the garden. The Italian stone pines
currently provided shade for the gardeners.
Wanted to know who initiated the plans for the pass through road.
Would like to be informed when City staff meets with design consultant for the
design so that they can help organize the garden area during the design.
Is there another way to manage cut-through traffic in front of the Art Center
between Newell Road and Embarcadero Road?
Concerned that if City makes this road goes through, it’s just moving the problem
of cut-through traffic.
Suggestion: Install a no-turn sign at the entrance to the art center parking lot (so
that entrance is only from Embarcadero Road).
The lawn area in front of Main Library on Newell Road is useless and consumes a
lot of water. Can the City put the cut through road or parking in this lawn area?
Make sure that the connectivity piece is not just for cars but for people, too.
If a connecting road must go through the two areas, how about keeping it to only
one very slow lane? This will cut down on the amount of road needed, it will keep
cars going slowly.
Recommended that City staff e-mail conceptual plans out to the gardeners for
comment.
City may want to consider the loss of two parking spaces if the cut through road is
installed. (Staff mentioned that any design would need to net additional parking
spaces, not any less.)
City may want to consider using the ivy area on the north side for parking. People
currently parallel park there anyway.
Concerned about the existing Art Center carport being removed and replaced with
parking.
“I like the way that the parking is presently divided in a oblong shape, near the
garden parking area. Cars go slowly around that loop, and it is easy to drop off
books by car.”
Consider the clearance distance from parking to garden plots.
Cars exhaust effect on garden plots?
Encourage people to take more public transportation or ride bikes.
What about putting the parking lot under the Main library?
A participant enquired whether there’s a minimum parking space requirement for
the Main Library & Art Center project? Has the City met these requirements?
(Jonathan Hartman from Group 4 Architects responded by saying the plans for both
the Library and Art Center projects meet parking requirements)
Concerns about safety for children going from the garden to the Main Library.
What about a pedestrian path connecting the two sites, instead of a driveway?
What about a ‘parking lot full’ indicator at the entrance to each lot so that people
don’t have to drive back and forth (via Newell) searching for a spot?
ADA access to the garden is lacking. Any connectivity should address this issue. A
smooth accessible pedestrian trail would be preferential over vehicle connectivity.
Would like to see a very large oak tree replace the stone pines that are to be
removed.
Would like to see picnic tables and bike racks added to the area near the garden.
Would like to see the existing fencing around the garden improved.
Participants then said they would like to hear the project design from the Architect’s
point of view and would like to see the design options for the garden area. Dawn Merkes
and Jonathan Hartman shared a rough conceptual design with the audience (attached) but
stressed that the sketch was only a conceptual idea of how the two parking areas might be
connected for better circulation. Further design would have to be approved by Council.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00pm to Lucie Stern Center for next part of community meeting
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1663)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 9
(ID # 1663)
Summary Title: Art Center Construction Contracts
Title: Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $3,545,904
for Improvements to the Palo Alto Art Center; Approval of a Contract in the
Amount of $5,123,800 with Big D Pacific, Inc., for Improvements to the Palo Alto
Art Center; Approval of a Contract in the Amount of $369,920 with Mark
Cavagnero Associates for Construction Administration Services and Approval of
Contract Amendment 1 for Construction Management Services in the Amount of
$344,705 with Nova Partners (PF-07000)
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendations
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) in the amount of
$3,545,904 for the construction of electrical, mechanical, roofing, deferred
maintenance, a children’s wing, paving and other improvements to the Palo Alto
Art Center (PF-07000);
2.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract
(Attachment B) with Big-D Pacific Builders, Inc., in the amount of $5,123,800 for
construction of improvements at the Palo Alto Art Center. Of this amount
$4,606,197 will come from Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PF-07000, Art
Center Electrical and Mechanical Improvements, $353,084 will come from CIP
PE-11012, Temporary Main Library and $164,500 will come from CIP PF-93009,
Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
3.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or
more change orders to the contract with Big-D Pacific Builders, Inc., for related,
additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total
value of which shall not exceed $1,024,760. Of this amount $973,000 will come
from Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PF-07000, Art Center Electrical and
Mechanical Improvements, $35,308 will come from CIP PE-11012, Temporary
Main Library and $16,450 will come from CIP PF-93009, Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance;
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 9
(ID # 1663)
4.Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. One
(Attachment C) to contract S11139458 with Nova Partners, Inc., to add up to
$344,705 for construction management services for the Palo Alto Art Center.
This amount includes $314,705 for basic services and $30,000 for additional
services, for a total amount not to exceed $422,705
5.Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract (Attachment D)
with Mark Cavagnero Associates, Inc., in the amount of $369,920 for
construction administration services for the Palo Alto Art Center. This amount
includes $321,670 for basic services and $48,250 for additional services.
Background
The 28,000 square foot Art Center facility and its building infrastructure and systems
have not been significantly upgraded since the facility was constructed in 1951 as Palo
Alto’s City Hall. The only major repairs made to the facility have been seismic
improvements in 1987.
In 1999, the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation began to address the need for renovations
proactively by focusing on two programmatic concerns and facility challenges: 1) the
need for upgrades to the gallery spaces of the Art Center to support the popular
exhibition program, and 2) the need for additional children’s art classrooms and
program space to meet the demand in the community. In March 1999, the City Council
approved a proposal from the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation to explore the
development of a public/private partnership that would make possible a capital
campaign to expand and renovate the Art Center.
In August 2001, a Joint Site Planning Committee comprised of City and Art Foundation
representatives was convened with the goal of developing a site design that would
allow the Main Library and the Art Center to expand while addressing the limitations
and opportunities offered by the site, neighborhood considerations, and the desires of
community stakeholders. In September 2001, the Art Center Foundation received a
second $50,000 grant request from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation that was
matched by the City (CMR:226:02). Using these funds, the Art Foundation contracted
with Mark Cavagnero Associates in association with SWA Group to develop the joint site
plan. The resulting Site Planning Study for the Palo Alto Main Library and Art Center
was completed on February 8, 2002. A Public Draft Environmental Impact Review (EIR)
of the site was prepared for the City of Palo Alto by Thomas Reid Associates and
completed on April 17, 2002.
In 2002, Mark Cavagnero Associates continued work on the master plan and design for
the Palo Alto Art Center improvements, which were reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Board. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was approved
unanimously by Council at its July 15, 2002 meeting (CMR:340:02), describing the City’s
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 9
(ID # 1663)
commitment to contribute $5M to finance a fund set up through a public/private
partnership over five years. This MOU was intended to go into effect upon successful
passage of a library bond measure in November 2002. However, the bond measure was
ultimately unsuccessful.
In the spring of 2003, the Art Foundation Board unanimously voted to commit to the
implementation of the master plan for the Art Center. Supported by a $10,000 grant
from the Non-Profit Finance Fund, the Art Foundation worked with fundraising and
organizational development consultants to prepare for the possibility of a future capital
campaign.
In 2005, the Art Foundation contracted with Mark Cavagnero Associates to develop the
improvements to the building, including a children’s area. Since then, the City and Art
Foundation have continued in a partnership for the building improvements, with the Art
Foundation maintaining the design contract with Mark Cavagnero Associates. Now that
the project is about to begin construction, the contract with Mark Cavagnero Associates
will shift to the City, per a Construction Agreement between the City and the Art
Foundation for the management of the bid and construction, represented in a
Construction Funding Agreement that was approved by Council on February 7, 2011
(Staff Report 1301). Staff Report 1301 also contains a detailed history of the project
and the various agreements between the City and the Art Foundation.
Discussion
Art Center Facility Improvements:
The City’s scope of work includes mechanical, electrical and accessibility upgrades to
the facility, while the Art Foundation’s scope of work includes the creation of a
Children’s Wing and an upgrade of the exhibition galleries. While the scope of City-
sponsored work differs from the Art Foundation-sponsored work, both parties agree
that it will be more efficient, cost-effective, and less disruptive to the community to
have the work completed concurrently.
In addition to the above-mentioned electrical, mechanical and Children’s Wing
improvements, the City has added deferred-maintenance items to the project such as a
new roof, new gutters, new downspouts, seismic upgrade to roofing envelope, exterior
painting, additional interior painting, termite treatment and dry rot repairs, new window
safety glazing, exterior lighting improvements and parking lot maintenance. While
these items will increase the construction cost, they will result in an overall cost-savings
by including them as part of a larger project and by making these repairs now when the
construction climate is favorable. It will also eliminate future construction disruption to
the Art Center’s occupants and patrons. The roof, which is the most costly of the
deferred maintenance items, had been scheduled for replacement in FY 2014, shortly
after completion of the Art Center rehabilitation project. Funding for the roof had been
planned for a future CIP PF-14001, ($200,000) however, that roofing estimate did not
include the seismic upgrades that would be needed, which will increase the roofing
July 25, 2011 Page 4 of 9
(ID # 1663)
cost. The seismic work is desirable in order to provide better protection for the building
and its occupants and will be easier to accomplish now that the roofing is part of a
larger project. The roof replacement and funding for the remaining unfunded costs
would be paid from the Infrastructure Reserve. In addition, the City has added 1
percent of the construction cost as funding for public art.
Temporary Main Library:
The Art Center auditorium was identified as the preferred location for a temporary
library during the renovation of the adjacent Main Library (CMR:435:10). The
auditorium was not part of the Art Center improvement project, but will have improved
lighting, carpeting and other amenities added as part of the temporary library work.
Combining the library’s auditorium upgrade with the rest of the Art Center project will
result in a better price for the auditorium work and will not involve the disruption of
shutting off the auditorium for temporary library conversion work shortly after opening
the new Art Center. Having the same electricians, painters and other trades for both the
auditorium and the Art Center work will result in a better work product and require less
staff oversight than managing two separate contractors.
Contractor Prequalification
Given the size, complexity and location of the Art Center project, staff wanted to ensure
that any contractor selected would be capable of completing the project at a high level
of quality and in a timely fashion. In March 2011, a Request for Prequalification of
Bidders was advertised and posted at local Builder’s Exchanges. Any contractor who
intended to submit a bid was required to complete a questionnaire that presented the
company’s financial status, ability to obtain bonding, experience on similar structures,
and references. The application focused on essential requirements for public bids,
history and organizational performance, safety, LEED and relevant technical experience,
performance on recent projects, historical building experience and customer feedback.
Approved companies demonstrated a successful, established organization with a
positive track record in similar public projects. Of the 12 applicants, 6 contractors
passed the initial review. Project data sheets showing relevant, successful work of
significant dollar value were the main differentiators.
A notice inviting formal bids (IFB) for the Palo Alto Art Center improvements was sent
to the six pre-qualified contractors. The bidding period was 28 days. Bids were
received from 2 contractors on June 28, 2011, as listed on the attached bid summary
(Attachment E). Bids ranged from a low of $5,165,139 to a high of $5,638,120. These
prices include the cost for two bids Add Alternates. The low bidder is determined based
on the cost of the base bid plus all bid alternates. The construction manager, Nova
Partners, contacted the four firms that chose not to submit a bid and the response from
the firms was that they did not submit because it was not a prevailing wage job.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number IFBXX Palo Alto Art Center Improvements
July 25, 2011 Page 5 of 9
(ID # 1663)
Proposed Length of Project 12 months
Number of Bids Mailed to
Contractors
6
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s
Exchanges
N/A (prequalified contractors only)
Total Days to Respond to Bid 28
Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-Bid Meeting
16
Number of Bids Received 2
Bid Price Range*Low of $5,165,139 to a high of $5,638,120 with
the inclusion of Add Alternates B and C
*Bid summary provided in Attachment E
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that Big-D Pacific Builders, Inc.
be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff recommends that the City award the
Base Bid ($5,040,000) plus Add Alternate B ($83,800) for a total contract award of
$5,123,800. Add Alternate B includes the cost for new sewer lines, safety glass and
flooring hazardous material abatement and replacement flooring. The base bid of
$5,040,000 by Big-D Pacific, Inc., is approximately 7 percent above Mack 5’s estimate
of $4,692,000, however, Mack 5’s estimate was prepared shortly before the final
completion of the design plans and did not include certain deferred maintenance items
such as a new roof, roof-related seismic upgrades, parking lot repaving, etc.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an
active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous
work performed and found no major complaints.
A construction contingency amount of 20 percent is requested for the Art Center
renovation because of the age and accuracy of the as-built plans used to prepare the
current construction documents; the historic nature of the project; as well as the
increased potential for unforeseen building conditions such as termites or dry rot. For
comparison, a contingency of 25 percent was used for the renovation of the historic
College Terrace Library (although only 16 percent was actually used). For work on the
Temporary Main Library (PE-11012) and its related ADA compliance items (PF-93009),
10 percent of the estimated construction cost was added to the overall contingency
budget as these work items are relatively small and straightforward in scope.
Nova Partners Contract Amendment –Construction Management
With the library and Community Center Measure N bond projects now under
construction, the project administration workload for this project is beyond what Public
Works staff can administer without assistance. Amendment No. 1 to the contract with
Nova Partners (Attachment C) will provide for staff from Nova to supplement Public
Works staff during the construction of the Art Center. Nova Partners will be present on
July 25, 2011 Page 6 of 9
(ID # 1663)
the job site to oversee the contractor’s work, provide liaison for and resolve issues
common to the City, architect and contractor and to track contractor design queries and
progress payments to ensure that they are properly answered and recorded.
City staff will oversee the construction management of the Temporary Main Library
portion of construction but will work closely with Nova Partners throughout the job.
Mark Cavagnero Associates Contract –Construction Administration
The contract with the design architect, Mark Cavagnero Associates (Attachment D) will
provide for the architect’s general construction administration oversight during the
construction phase of the Art Center. As the designer of record, under this contract
Mark Cavagnero Associates will respond to design questions and issues raised by the
contractor, attend meetings at the job site, oversee green building submissions and
assist in the preparation of the record documents.
Group 4 Architecture is the lead for the Measure N library and community center bond
measure design, and will be involved in the construction administration for the
Temporary Main Library portion of the work.
Resource Impact
The Temporary Main Library will be constructed within the auditorium of the Art Center.
Since the auditorium is part of an overall Art Center construction contract bid package,
it would have been difficult for the contractor to segregate the electrical, paint, carpet
and other improvement items as separate bid items. Instead, the construction
manager, Nova Partners, prepared an estimated cost of $388,392 (including 10 percent
contingency) to construct the Temporary Main Library improvements within the
auditorium. That cost is bondable under the Measure N Library and Community Center
bond measure and will be encumbered to the construction contract through CIP PE-
11012, Temporary Main Library. During construction the temporary library costs will be
tracked separately from the Art Center improvement costs.
In order to keep pace with the Art Center construction schedule, design contingency
funds from the Main Library were used to pay for the initial design of the temporary
Main Library. A new CIP for the Temporary Main Library (PE-11012) was established as
part of the Fiscal Year 2011 mid-year budget and any Main Library (PE-11000) funds
that were used for the Temporary Main Library in the past will be transferred to the
new CIP.
Since work on the Art Center (PF-07000) and the Temporary Main Library (PE-11012)
are both included in one construction contract, a portion of the construction and
construction administration contracts for Big-D Pacific and Mark Cavagnero Architects
will also be paid from library bond measure money. The share paid by the Temporary
Main Library CIP for these two contracts is equal to the proportional value of the
temporary Main Library’s construction cost to the construction cost of the overall Art
Center improvements. Proportional costs for the construction manager, Nova Partners,
July 25, 2011 Page 7 of 9
(ID # 1663)
is not included in the cost-sharing as the renovation of the auditorium is a relatively
small project that can be managed by staff.
Art Center (PF-
07000)
Temp Main
Library (PE-
11012)
ADA
Compliance
(PF-93009)
Total
Construction
Contract
Amount
Contract, Bid-D
Pacific Builders
$4,606,197 $353,084 $164,500 $5,123,800
Construction
Change Orders,
Bid-D Pacific
Builders
$ 973,000 $ 35,308 $ 16,450 $1,024,760
Subtotal, Big-D
(Construction):
$5,579,197 $388,392 $180,950 $6,148,560
Nova Partners-
Construction Mgmt
$314,705
Nova Partners-
Additional Services
$ 30,000
Subtotal, Nova
(Construction
Mgmt):
$344,705
MCA Architect –
Construction
Admin
$285,322 $24,768 $11,580 $321,670
MCA Architect-
Additional Services
$ 42,798 $3,715 $1,737 $48,250
Subtotal, MCA
(Construction
Admin):
$328,120 $28,483 $13,317 $369,920
TOTALS:$6,252,022 $416,875 $194,267 $6,863,164
The original budget for the Art Center project was $4,340,000. The extent and cost of
additional deferred maintenance items was being developed in tandem with the budget
process (Staff Report 1301, Feb 7, 2011) and was unknown until more detail could be
added to the design plans.
The Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) is necessary to accept and approve
expending the Art Foundation contribution up to $2,000,000, of which $1,250,000 has
been deposited with the City. The remaining Art Foundation contribution beyond
$1,250,000 will be on a reimbursable basis at the conclusion of the project once actual
July 25, 2011 Page 8 of 9
(ID # 1663)
costs have been reconciled. In addition the inclusion of deferred maintenance costs in
the project makes it necessary for additional funding. To minimize the impact of the
draw on the Infrastructure Reserve staff has identified surplus funding in the amount of
$1,330,000 from recently completed projects. One project, the Public Safety Building
(PE-98020) has been inactive and much of the funding has been returned to the
Infrastructure Reserve. If significant design work is required on the project in the
future, staff will need to return with a request for additional funding. The net impact to
the Infrastructure Reserve will be a reduction of $965,904.
Construction Funding Agreement with Art Foundation
On February 7, 2011, the Council approved a Construction Funding Agreement between
the Art Foundation and the City where the Art Foundation agreed to fund a major
portion of the project upgrade (Staff Report 1301). The Construction Funding
Agreement outlines the administrative, reporting, and financial requirements of both
parties. As outlined in this Agreement, the City will manage the construction project and
the Art Foundation will fund their proportion of these costs. Construction management
services have also been added to the cost-sharing agreement due to current staffing
shortfalls related to the Measure N Library and Community Center bond project
workload. The City’s portion of the funding for the renovation was approved in the FY
2007 Capital Improvement Program project budget (Art Center Electrical and
Mechanical Upgrades, PF-07000) and currently has $3,856,000 (which does not include
monies raised by the Art Foundation) of funding appropriated. The Art Foundation has
already deposited $1,250,000 with the City and has raised the additional funds required
to deposit for the Art Foundation’s portion by the completion of construction. The Art
Foundation will contribute up to a maximum of $2,000,000 toward the construction
portion of the improvement project.
Policy Implications
Approval of these contracts is consistent with Council’s direction to reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog on City facilities.
Timeline
Art Center staff has been relocated to new spaces at the Lucie Stern Center and
Cubberley Community Center and hazardous material removal at the Art Center has
been completed. Construction on the remaining Art Center renovations will begin
shortly after approval of the construction contract. Construction is expected to last for
one year and be completed in approximately August 2012.
A temporary Main Library is included in the Art Center construction package and while it
will be completed at the same time as the Art Center improvements, it will not be used
as a library until the Main Library is closed for renovation. The Main Library will not be
closed until the new Mitchell Park Library is opened in the summer of 2012.
Environmental Review
July 25, 2011 Page 9 of 9
(ID # 1663)
The Art Center Electrical and Mechanical Upgrades project was determined to be
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to
Section 15301, “existing facilities.”
Attachments:
·A -BAO -PF-070000 Palo Alto Art Center improvements (DOC)
·B -Big D Pacific Contract (PDF)
·C -Nova Amendment 1 (PDF)
·D -MCA Contract (PDF)
·E -Bid Summary sheet (PDF)
Prepared By:Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE
AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $3,545,904 TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT PF-07000, ART CENTER
ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL UPGRADES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds
and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011
did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and
B.In fiscal year 2007, the City Council appropriated an
initial amount of $290,000 for CIP Project PF-07000(Project) to
provide replacement of the mechanical and electrical equipment and
systems at the Palo Alto Art Center. In fiscal year 2009, Council
increased the appropriation by $1,450,000, and in fiscal year
2011, Council further increased the project funding by $2,600,000
bringing the total appropriation to $4,340,000; and
C. The 28,000 square foot Art Center facility and its
building infrastructure and systems have not been significantly
upgraded since the facility was constructed in 1951. In March
1999, the City Council approved a proposal from the Palo Alto Art
Center Foundation to explore the development of a public/private
partnership that would make possible a capital campaign to expand
and renovate the Art Center; and
D. In 2001, a Joint Site Planning Committee comprised of City
and Art Foundation representatives began developing a site design
that would allow the Main Library and the Art Center to expand
while addressing the limitations and opportunities offered by the
site, neighborhood considerations, and the desires of community
stakeholders. In September 2001, the Art Center Foundation
received a second $50,000 grant request from the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation that was matched by the City (CMR:226:02).
Using these funds, the Art Foundation contracted with the Mark
Cavagnero Associates in association with SWA Group to develop the
joint site plan. The resulting Site Planning Study for the Palo
Alto Main Library and Art Center was completed on February 8,
2002; and
E. In 2002, Mark Cavagnero Associates continued work on the
master plan and conceptual design for the Palo Alto Art Center and
site. The plan was completed on June 14, 2002 and approved by
Council. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was approved by
Council at its July 15, 2002 meeting describing the City’s
commitment to contribute $5M to finance a fund set up through a
public/private partnership over five years. This MOU was intended
to go into effect upon successful passage of a library bond
measure in November 2002. However, the bond measure was ultimately
unsuccessful; and
F. In 2003, supported by a $10,000 grant from the Non-Profit
Finance Fund, the Art Foundation worked with fundraising and
organizational development consultants to prepare for the
possibility of a future capital campaign. The Art Foundation has
committed $2 million to the project, of which the City has
received $1.25 million to date, which will be transferred into the
Infrastructure Reserve; and
G. In 2005, the Art Foundation contracted with Mark Cavagnero
Associates to develop the improvements to the building,including
a children’s area. Since then, the City and Art Foundation have
continued in a partnership for the building improvements, with the
Art Foundation maintaining the design contract with Mark Cavagnero
Associates. Now that the project is about to begin construction,
the contract with Mark Cavagnero Associates will shift to the
City, per a Construction Agreement between the City and the Art
Foundation for the management of the bid and construction,
represented in a Construction Funding Agreement approved by
Council on February 7, 2011 (Staff Report 1301); and
H.The City’s scope of work includes mechanical, electrical
and accessibility upgrades to the facility, while the Art
Foundation’s scope of work includes the creation of a Children’s
Wing and an upgrade of the exhibition galleries. While the scope
of City-sponsored work differs from the Art Foundation-sponsored
work, both parties agree that it will be more efficient, cost-
effective, and less disruptive to the community to have the work
completed concurrently.
I. In addition to the above-mentioned electrical, mechanical
and Children’s Wing improvements, the City will also now add
deferred-maintenance items to the project such as a new roof, new
gutters, new downspouts, seismic upgrade to roofing envelope,
exterior painting, new carpets, additional interior painting,
termite treatment and dry rot repairs, new window safety glazing,
exterior lighting improvements and parking lot maintenance. While
these items will increase the construction cost, they will result
in an overall cost-savings by including them as part of a larger
project and by making these repairs now when the construction
climate is favorable. It will also eliminate future construction
disruption to the Art Center’s occupants and patrons; and
J. The Art Center auditorium will become a temporary library,
under a separate Capital Improvement Project (PE-11012), during
the renovation of the adjacent Main Library. The auditorium was
not part of the Art Center improvement project, but will have
improved lighting, carpeting and other amenities added as part of
the temporary library work. Combining the library’s auditorium
upgrade with the rest of the Art Center project will result in a
better price for the auditorium work and will not involve the
disruption of shutting off the auditorium for temporary library
conversion work shortly after opening the new Art Center. Having
the same electricians, painters and other trades for both the
auditorium and the Art Center work will result in a better work
product and require less staff oversight than managing two
separate contractors; and
K. A notice inviting formal bids for the Palo Alto Art Center
improvements was sent to six pre-qualified contractors. Staff
recommends that Big-D Pacific Builders,Inc. be declared the
lowest responsible bidder with a bid of $5,123,800, and that a
contingency of 20 percent be included; and
L. With the library and Community Center Measure N bond
projects now under construction, the project administration
workload for this project is beyond what Public Works staff can
administer without assistance. Nova Partners will supplement
Public Works staff during the construction of the Art Center and
will oversee the contractor’s work, provide liaison for and
resolve issues common to the City, architect and contractor, and
track contractor design queries and progress payments. Mark
Cavagnero Associates will respond to design questions and issues
raised by the contractor, attend meetings at the job site, oversee
green building submissions and assist in the preparation of the
record documents. The Art Center Project will pay a portion of
these contracts for construction administration; and
M. Additional funding of $1,330,000 will be transferred from
various completed or reduced Capital Improvement Projects with the
appropriations returned to the Infrastructure Reserve as
summarized in the table below; and
Description Amount
Transfer appropriation from
project PE-05010 (College Terrace
Library Project)
$450,000
Transfer appropriation from
project PF-01002 (Civic Center
Improvements project)
$300,000
Transfer appropriation from
project PE-09002 (Greer Park
Improvements Project)
$200,000
Transfer appropriation from
project PE-07005 (California
Avenue Improvements Project Phase
I)
$ 80,000
Transfer appropriation from
project PE-98020 (Public Safety
Building Project)
$300,000
Total returned to IR $1,330,000
N. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012
budget to make available the funds needed for CIP Project PF-
07000, Art Center Electrical & Mechanical Upgrades.
SECTION 2. The appropriation for CIP Project PF-07000, Art
Center Electrical & Mechanical Upgrades is hereby increased by
Three Million Five Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Four
Dollars ($3,545,904).
SECTION 3.The appropriation for CIP Project PE-05010 College
Terrace Library Project is hereby decreased by Four Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($450,000) and the funds are returned to the
Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve.
SECTION 4.The appropriation for CIP Project PF-01002 Civic
Center Improvements project is hereby decreased by Three Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($300,000) and the funds are returned to the
Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve.
SECTION 5.The appropriation for CIP Project PE-09002 Greer
Park Improvements Project is hereby decreased by Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000) and the funds are returned to the
Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve.
SECTION 6.The appropriation for CIP Project PE-07005
California Avenue Improvements Project Phase I is hereby decreased
by Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000) and the funds are returned to
the Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve.
SECTION 7.The appropriation for CIP Project PE-98020 Public
Safety Building Project is hereby decreased by Three Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($300,000) and the funds are returned to the
Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve.
SECTION 8.One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($1,250,000) is hereby transferred from the Public Works
Department Capital Budget to CIP Project PF-07000, Art Center
Electrical & Mechanical Upgrades,as part of the donation from the
Art Foundation.
SECTION 9.Two Million Two Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Nine
Hundred Four Dollars ($2,295,904)is hereby transferred from the
Capital Project Fund Infrastructure Reserve to CIP Project PF-
07000, Art Center Electrical & Mechanical Upgrades.
SECTION 10.The transactions above will reduce the balance of
the Infrastructure Reserve to Three Million Four Hundred Eleven
Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Three Dollars ($3,411,763).
SECTION 11.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 12. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 13. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section
15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor
alteration of existing facilities and no further environmental
review is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C12141803
City of Palo Alto
and
Big-D Pacific Builders, LP
PROJECT
PALO ALTO ART CENTER RENOVATION
PROJECT
Rev. August 3, 2010
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. 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. August 3, 2010 141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC i
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................5
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.............................................................6
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................7
13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................7
13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................7
13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................8
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................8
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................8
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................8
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................8
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................9
14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................9
14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................9
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................9
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................9
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.....................................................................................10
14.4.3 Mediation....................................................................................................................10
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration......................................................................................................10
14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................11
SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................12
15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................12
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................12
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................12
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................12
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................12
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................12
Rev. August 3, 2010 141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC ii
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................12
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................12
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................12
16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................13
16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................13
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................13
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................13
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................13
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................13
16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................14
16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................14
16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................14
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................14
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................15
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................15
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................15
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................15
17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................15
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................15
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................15
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................15
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................15
SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................16
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................16
SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................16
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................16
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................16
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................16
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................16
Rev. August 3, 2010 141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC iii
Rev. August 3, 2010 141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC iv
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................16
SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................16
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................16
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 2
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 3
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
not later than .
within three hundred and sixty-five calendar days (365) 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.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of five million, one hundred tenty-three, eight
hundred dollars ($5,123,800.00).
[This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates $5,040,000.00 and
$83,800.00.]
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 2
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.
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 5
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
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 6
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: City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Karen Bengard
Or
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 7
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
BIG-D PACIFIC BUILDERS
6210 Stoneridge Mall Road #460
Pleasanton, CA 94566
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 8
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 4.2.10
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 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
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 9
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.
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 10
.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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 11
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.
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 12
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 13
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 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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 14
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 15
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 16
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.
Or
The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor
Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City
Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday
and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the
contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these
rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide
a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing
wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
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.
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.
Rev. August 3, 2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC 16
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
Purchasing Manager
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
___________________________
Public Works Director
CONTRACTOR
BIG-D PACIFIC BUILDERS, LP
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
1 Rev. August 3,
2010
141803 Construction Contract Big-D.DOC
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto Art Center Renovation Project
IFB Numer 141803
Bid Date -June 28th,20 11 @ 3PM
...........
BID SUMMARY SHEET
Bid Item Description WATbomas BigD
1 Lump sum bid $5,285,000 $4..•780,000
2 Allowance for unseen MlEIP 60,000 60,000
3 Casework Allowance 20,000 20,000
4 Termite Repair Allowance 30,000 30,000
5 HardscapelPaving repair Allowance 50,000 50,000
6 Site Lighting Allowance 10,000 10,000
7 Potholing Allowance 10,000 10,000
8 Exterior Signage Allowance 15,000 15,000
9 Floor Prep at Exposed concrete allowance 15,000 15,000
10 Replace roof insulation,felt,replace with new 50,000 50,000
BASE BID TOTAL $5,545,000 $5,040,000
Bid Alternates B
1 Replace Sewer line 15,000 9,800
2 Replace Window Glazing at lower windows to safety glass 45,000 '36,000.3 Abate and replace flooring at studio 134 33,000 38,000
SUBTOTAL $93,000 $83,800
Bid Alterantes C
1 Conductor to Panel A 12 4,045
2 Conductor to Panel C 18 5,579
3 Conductor to Panel E 19 6,224
4 Conductor to Panel F 10 4,570
5 Conductor to Panel G 18 8,291
6 Conductor to Panel H 9 5,516
7 Conductor to Panel 0 10 4,500
8 Conductor to Panel A 24 2,614
SUBTOTAL $120 $41,339
Base Bid Total .5,545,000 5,040,000
Add Alternates B 93,000 83,800
Add Alternate C 120 41,339
GRAND TOTAL $5,638,120 $5,165,139
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1826)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1826)
Summary Title: Parks & Facilities Tree Maintenance Services
Title: Approval of a Contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for a Period of One
Year for Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services with Funding in the Not-
to-Exceed Amount of $172,000
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee
to execute the attached contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (Attachment A) for a
period of one year for Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services, with funding not
to exceed amount of $172,000.
Background
Tree maintenance work in parks, park maintained areas (medians) and at City facilities
is the responsibility of the Public Works Department. In the past, the work has been
performed by City crews or by contractors working either on dedicated park/facilities
contracts or on area maintenance contracts. Since late 2005 there has been increased
emphasis on inspection and maintenance of trees near play or picnic areas and other
areas of concentrated use. In order to accomplish the increased level of maintenance
this additional contract is required, because City crews and existing tree service
contracts are already fully utilized
Discussion
Description of Services
The work to be performed under the contract includes pruning, tree and stump
removal, turf removal, mulching and related tasks. The work locations will include
parks, facilities, medians and open space. One tree maintenance crew with trucks and
equipment will be required on a continuing basis during the life of the contract; and one
stump removal crew with truck and equipment will be scheduled on an as-needed basis.
The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standards for tree pruning are used as the pruning specifications for
this contract. The contract specifies that the tree maintenance crew leader shall be an
ISA-certified Arborist or Tree Worker.
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1826)
A request for quotation for the services was posted at City Hall, and sent to or
downloaded by 13 contractors. The bidding period was 22 days. Bids were received
from 5 qualified contractors on June 7, 2011, as listed on the attached bid summary
(Attachment B). Bids ranged from a low of $163,200 to a high bid of $245,000.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number Parks & Facilities Tree Maintenance Services / RFQ
141494
Proposed Length of Project 12 months
Number of Bids Mailed to or
downloaded by Contractors
13
Number of Bids Mailed to
Builder’s Exchanges
0
Total Days to Respond to Bid 22
Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes
Number of Company Attendees
at Pre-Bid Meeting
10
Number of Bids Received:5
Bid Price Range *From a low of $163,200 to a high of $245,000.
*Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $163,200
submitted by West Coast Arborists, Inc. be accepted and that West Coast Arborist, Inc.
be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 5 percent below the staff
estimate of $172,000.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has a
current and active license on file. The contractor has successfully completed numerous
projects for the City, and is currently working on the multi-year Tree Maintenance
Services contract.
Resource Impact
Funds for this project are available in the FY 2012 Public Works Department Public
Services Division operating budget.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
This recommended action is exempt from review under the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(h) [maintenance of existing
landscape].
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1826)
Attachments:
·A: Contract S11141494 TruGreen LandCare (PDF)
·B: Treebidsummary (PDF)
·C: TruGreen Letter (PDF)
·D: West Coast Arborist (PDF)
Prepared By:Eugene Segna, Project Manager
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
1 Rev. January 11, 2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract S11141494 TruGreen
LandCare.doc
GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the _________ day of June, 2011, by and between the CITY OF
PALO ALTO, a California Chartered Municipal Corporation (“CITY”), and TRUGREEN LANDCARE, a
partnership, with offices located at 2000 Oakland Road, San Jose, CA 95131, Telephone Number: 408-321-8733
(“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (“Services”) described in the Scope of
Services, attached as Exhibit A.
2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement:
“A” - Scope of Services
“B” - Schedule of Performance
“C” - Compensation
“D” - Insurance Requirements
“E” - Performance and/or Payment Bond (not applicable to this project)
“F” - Liquidated Damages (not applicable to this project)
CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED.
3. TERM.
The term of the pricing agreement shall be effective on the date of award and shall expire June 30, 2012 or
upon exhaustion of funds allocated for tree maintenance services, subject to the provisions of Section Q
and V of the General Terms and Conditions.
4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction
communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the
Schedule of Performance, attached as Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as
not to exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:
The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR
The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation
amount of dollars ($ ); OR
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total
maximum compensation amount of one hundred seventy-two thousand dollars ($172,000.00).
CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum
compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which
payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for
performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY.
The City has set aside the sum of dollars ($ ) for Additional Services.
CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from
the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed
written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and
CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such
services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
Rev. January 11, 2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract S11141494 TruGreen LandCare.doc
2
(whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall
not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment
would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional
Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS.
CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original
term; OR
CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each
Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is
applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in
the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-
Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI)
which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional
Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the
commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall
CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the
rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s
compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement.
7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to the CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is:
Eugene Segna, Public Works Department, Operations Division, 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto,
CA 94303, Telephone: 650-496-6946. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed.
Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement
of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay
the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This
Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 6 above, these
general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits.
B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications
to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every
individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and
experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law,
to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills,
knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally
accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local
operation and safety regulations.
C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this
Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered
an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be
responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this
Agreement.
D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this
Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely
responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to
subcontractors.
E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees,
contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
Rev. January 11, 2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract S11141494 TruGreen LandCare.doc
3
F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with
all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders.
G. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair
in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that
occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services.
CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be
necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY
occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written
documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds
described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them.
H. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall
be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business
practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR
under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall
conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any
material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective
material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for
a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or
termination of this Agreement.
I. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to
determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the
provisions of this Agreement.
J. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests)
developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the
property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any
individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written
approval of the City Manager.
K. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any
reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment,
CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to
maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at
least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement.
L. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
M. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term
of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by
companies with a Best’s Key rating of A-:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to the City’s
Risk Manager. The City’s Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition,
all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to
form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced
in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to
the City’s Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of
coverage satisfactory to CITY’s Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of
payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the
term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and
endorsements to the CITY’s Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured
under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each
subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
Rev. January 11, 2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract S11141494 TruGreen LandCare.doc
4
insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this
Agreement.
N. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of
section M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its
Council members, officers, employees and agents 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 all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation
and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees,
courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in
connection with the performance of this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section
apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active)
act or omission of CITY, except that the CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability
arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. The acceptance of the Services by
CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive
the completion of the Services or termination of this Contract.
O. NON-DISCRIMINATION. 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
agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
P. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware
of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured
against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions
of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and
during the performance of the Services.
Q. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10)
days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its
material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City
Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of
such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY, CITY
shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If
the termination if for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any,
sustained by CITY due to Contractor’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement.
Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of
studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed,
prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such
materials shall become the property of CITY.
CONTRACTOR may terminate this agreement with or without cause, by providing CITY with a forty-five
(45) day written notice.
R. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all
covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written
consent of the CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written
consent of the CITY.
S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently
has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants
that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest.
CONTRACTOR certifies that no City Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial
interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with contractor has any interest,
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
Rev. January 11, 2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract S11141494 TruGreen LandCare.doc
5
direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR
agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises.
T. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of
California.
U. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement
between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in
the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any
conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations,
statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written.
V. 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 funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any
time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and
funds for this 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 Contract.
W. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS.
CONTRACTOR shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are
available at the City’s Purchasing Department which are incorporated by reference and may be amended
from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal
requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and
reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Contractor
shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:
All printed materials provided by Contractor to City generated from a personal computer and
printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education
materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer
content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials
printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer
material and printed with vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the
City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer
Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the
Purchasing Office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Contractor, at no additional cost to the City,
for reuse or recycling. Contractor shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the
pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
X. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal
capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
Y. CONTRACT TERMS: All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Contract.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
Rev. January 11, 2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract S11141494 TruGreen LandCare.doc
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement
on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACTOR: TRUGREEN LANDCARE
______________________________________ By________________________________________
City Manager or Designee
(Required on contracts $85,000 and over) Name _____________________________________
Title_______________________________________
____________________________________ Telephone: _______________________________
Purchasing Manager or Designee
Approved as to form:
_____________________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. Sll141494
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
(See attached -copy of scope with cover sheet)
7 Rev. January 11,2010
E:\FiJes from H DRNE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract SII141494 TruGreen
LandCare.doc
EXHIBIT A
PARKS AND FACILITIES TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
CONTRACT S11141494
Contractor shall perform on-going tree maintenance services as
required by City. The work of this Contract includes, but is not limited
to, pruning, tree removal, stump removal, sod removal, watering berm
construction, mulching and site number tagging as identified by the
Project Manager. The work will be located in City owned parks,
facilities, medians and open space as needed. All work shall be in
accordance with the specifications set forth in Exhibit A.
Rev. 01115/04
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01010
PART 1
1.01
A.
1.02
A.
B.
c.
PART 2
PART 3
SUMMARY OF WORK
GENERAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions for this Request For Quotations (RFQ) shall be in
accordance with the General Provisions of the City of Palo Alto Standard
Drawings and Specifications. In case of conflict, the Project Specifications
shall take precedence over the City of Palo Alto Standard Drawings and
Specifications.
WORK COVERED BY CONTRACT
The work of this Contract comprises the City of Palo Alto Parks and Facilities
Tree Maintenance Services, Project Number RFQ141494, located in Palo
Alto, California.
The work of this Contract includes, but is not limited to, pruning, tree
removal, stump removal, sod removal, watering berm construction, mulching
and site number tagging as identified by the Project Manager. The work will
be located in City owned parks, facilities, medians and open space as
needed.
The work of this Contract includes, but is not limited to, the work of the
following sections:
1. Section 01025 -Measurement and Payment.
2. Section 01040 -Coordination.
3. Section 01200 -Project Meetings.
4. Section 01400 -Quality Control.
5. Section 01540 -Security.
6. Section 01570 -Traffic Control.
7. Section 02117 -Stump Removal.
8. Section 02975 -Tree Maintenance Work.
PRODUCTS (NOT USED)
EXECUTION (NOT USED)
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 1 of 1
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01025
PART 1
1.01
A.
1.02
A.
B.
1.03
MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
GENERAL
SUMMARY
Payment for the various items in the bid schedule, as further specified
herein, shall include full compensation to the Contractor for furnishing all
labor, materials, tools, equipment and incidentals, and for doing all the work
involved in completing the various items of Work as shown on the Plans and
in the Specifications.
Work not specifically set forth as a pay item in the Bidder's Bid proposal, but
called for in the Contract Specifications or necessary to meet the
requirements of this Contract, shall be considered a subsidiary obligation of
the Contractor, and all costs in connection therewith shall be included in the
bid.
No separate payment will be made for any item that is not specifically set
forth in the bid schedule except by change order and all costs the~efore shall
be included in the prices named in the bid schedule for the various
appurtenant items of work.
All work not meeting the Contract Specifications, unless otherwise approved
by the City, shall be reworked at the Contractor's expense.
INVOICING
The Contractor shall submit.an invoice at the end of each calendar month for
all work fully completed during that month. The invoice shall detail the dates
and hours worked by each crew during that month. Other reporting may be
requested as needed.
The City will promptly review all invoices submitted by the Contractor. Any
invoice that the City determines is not proper will be returned to the
Contractor with a written explanation of the reasons for the City's
determination. Any invoice that is properly submitted and undisputed by the
City will be processed for payment and will be paid in full; retention will not be
withheld.
CHANGE ORDERS
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 1 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01025
MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
A. The City may require changes in, additions to, or deductions from the Work
to be performed or the materials to be furnished under the Contract pursuant
to the provisions of the Contract documents.
No change to the Work shall be made or extra work performed or deduction
from the Work made unless in pursuance of a written Change Order from the
City, and signed by the Project Manager stating that the change, addition, or
deletion, or any combination thereof, is aut~orized. No claim for additional
payment shall be considered unless so ordered.
Adjustment to the Contract Price by reason of a duly authorized Change
Order will be determined on the basis of one or more of the following
methods, at the option of the Project Manager:
1. On the basis of applicable and appropriate unit and/or hourly prices
stipulated in the Contract.
2. On the basis of an acceptable lump sum proposal from the Contractor
in response to a quotation request.
3. On the basis of actual necessary cost plus fifteen (15) percent to
cover superintendence, general expense and profit.
PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)
PART 3
3.01
A.
EXECUTION
TREE MAINTENANCE WORK (BID ITEM 1)
Measurement: This item will be measured on a per hour basis (to the
nearest quarter hour) for each three (3) person tree maintenance crew. Time
at the Municipal Service Center, landfill, job site(s) and travel time between
job sites will be measured. Travel time to and from Palo Alto will not be
measured. Lunchtime will not be measured.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 2 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01025
B.
3.01
A.
B.
MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
Payment: This item will be paid on a per hour basis (to the nearest quarter
hour) for each three (3) person tree maintenance crew. Payment will
include full compensation forfurnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment
and incidentals, and for doing all the work involved in completing this item of
work as shown on the Plans and in the Specifications. The City will not pay
for non-productive time due to vehicle or equipment breakdowns, or lack of
proper equipment to do the job. Overtime work shall only be authorized by
the Project Manager. Contractor shall charge the City no more than the
min!mum overtime rate required by federal and state law
STUMP REMOVAL WORK (BID ITEM 2)
This item will be measured on, a per hour basis (to the nearest quarter hour)
for each two (2) person stump removal crew. Time at the Municipal Service
Genter, landfill, job site(s) and travel time between job sites will be measured.
Travel time to and from Palo Alto will not be measured. Lunchtime will not
be measured.
Payment: This item will be paid on a per hour basis (to the nearest quarter
hour) for each two (2) person stump removal crew. Payment will include full
compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment and
incidentals, and for doing all the work involved in completing this item of work
as shown on the Plans and in the Specifications. The City will not pay for
non-productive time due to vehicle or equipment breakdowns, or lack of
proper equipment to do the job. Overtime work shall only be authorized by
the Project Manager. Contractor shall charge the City no more than the
minimum overtime rate required by federal and state law
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 3 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01040
PART 1
1.01
A.
B.
C.
PART 2
PART 3
3.01
A.
B.
COORDINATION
GENERAL
SECTION INCLUDES
Hours of work.
Daily schedule.
City representa~ion.
PRODUCTS (NOT USED)
EXECUTION
HOURS OF WORK,
The Contractor shall limit its operations to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. and to the days of Monday through Friday. Crews shall be at the
work site and ready to start work by 8:00 a.m.
The Contractor shall not work on City holidays. City holidays are:
January 1
, Third Monday in January
Third Monday in February
Last Monday in May
July4
First Monday in September
Second Monday in October
November 11
Thanksgiving Day
Day after Thanksgiving
December 20-24
In the event that any of the forementioned holidays falls on a Sunday, the
following Monday shall be considered a holiday. In the event that any of the
forementioned holidays falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be
considered a holiday.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 1 of 2
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01040
3.02
A.
B.
C.
D.
3.03
A.
COORDINATION
DAILY SCHEDULE
The Contractor shall provide one (1) tree maintenance crew each day. The
Contractor shall provide one (1) stump removal crew on an as needed basis;
scheduled by mutual agreement with the City.
The Contractor's project superintendent and the Contractor's crews shall
report to the Project Manager at 8:00 a.m. each day at the Municipal Service
Center, 3201 East Bayshor~ Road, Palo Alto or at field locations designated
by the Project Manager.
The Project Manager will provide a verbal orwritlen work schedule each day.
The Project Manager will determine when weather or other conditions
prevent safe or efficient work operations. If work operations are canceled
after the work day has started (8:00 a.m.) the Contractor will be credited with
two (2) hours per crew or the actual hours worked, whichever is greater.
CITY REPRESENTATION
The Project Manager will appoint an agent or an employee to represent him
on the job site as needed. Such representative, acting within the scope of
duties assigned, will provide the following services and assistance:
1. Coordination between Project Manager and Contractor.
2. Review of the Contractor's performance of the Work.
3. Interpretation of the Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents.
4. Review of Contractor's progress payment estimates.
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 2 of2
"
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01200
PART 1
1.01
A.
B.
1.02
A.
1.03
A.
1.04
A.
B.
PART 3
3.01
A.
PROJECT MEETINGS
GENERAL
SECTION INCLUDES
Pre-construction conference.
Monthly project meetings.
MINUTES
The Project Managerwill compile minutes of the pre-construction conference
and each monthly meeting and will distribute copies to the City and the
Contractor.
REPRESENTATION
Contractor representative(s) attending meetings shall be qualified and
authorized to act on behalf of the Contractor.
SUBMITTALS
The Contractor shall submit a list of personnel, their qualifications and
equipment to be used on this project to the Project Manager for review and
approval seventy-two (72) hours before the pre-construction conference.
The equipment list shall include make, model and year of vehicles; aerial lift
height, chipper box capacity; large and small stump grinder; 4 cubic yard
dump truck; tools and safety equipment for each crew.
Contractor should also include on the list above any specialized equipment
and operators that would be available for non-routine work.
EXECUTION
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE
The Contractor and the Contractor's project superintendent shall attend a
pre-construction conference within twenty-one (21) calendar days after
Award of Contract to discuss the scope of work and sequence of operations.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 1 of 2
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01200
B.
3.02
A.
B.
PROJECT MEETINGS
The pre-construction conference will be held atthe Public works Operations
office, Building C of the Municipal Service Center, 3201 East Bayshore
Road, Palo Alto.
MONTHLY PROJECT MEETINGS
The Contractor and the Contractor's project superintendent shall attend
monthly project meetings and specially called meetings throughout progress
of the Work.
The monthly project meetings will be held at the Public Works Operations
office, Building C of the Municipal Service Center, 3201 East Bayshore
Road, Palo Alto or at field locations designated by the Project Manager.
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 2 of 2
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01400
PART 1
1.01
A.
B.
C.
PART 2
PART 3
1.01
A.
B
C.
1.02
A.
B.
C.
QUALITY CONTROL
GENER~L
SECTION INCLUDES
Company requirements.
Project Superintendent.
,Personnel and equipment requirements.
PRODUCTS (NOT USED)
EXECUTION
COMPANY REQUIREMENTS
Contractor shall have sufficient labor and equipment resources to perform
the work of this project in a safe and efficient manner.
Contractor's local office shall be located within 100 miles and Contractor's
yard shall be located within 25 miles of the Palo Alto city limits.
Contractor shall possess a valid State of California contractor's license in C-
61/0-49 (Tree Service).
PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT
All work shall be performed under the supervision of the Contractor's
thoroughly experienced and qualified Project Superintendent who shall be on
the Project site at all times. The Project Superintendent will be subject to the
approval of the Project Manager.
The person designated as Project Superintendent shall have direct charge of
the Work and shall be authorized to accept and execute all orders and
directives issued by the Project Manager. The Project Superintendent shall
be readily available for consultation with the Project Manager.
The Project Superintendent shall have a functioning cellular telephone
immediately available during work hours and the telephone number shall be
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 1 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01400
1.03
D.
E.
A.
QUALITY CONTROL
furnished to the Project Manager.
The Contractor shall not change its designated Project Superintendent
without written notification to the City seventy-two (72) hours in advance.
The new Project Superintendent will be subject to the approval of the Project
Manager.
Breach of these provisions may constitute just cause for suspension of the
W~rk until a qualified and acceptable superintende,nt is assigned to the
Project.
PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Each tree maintenance crew shall include:
• Lead climber with ISA Arborist (CA) or Treeworker (CTW) certification
and a minimum of three (3) years current ornamental pruning
experience.
• The lead climber shall be fluent in English and capable of preparing
clear and concise daily work summary reports on City furnished
forms.
• A second climber, with a minimum of three (3) years current
ornamental pruning experience.
• A ground person with a minimum of one (1) year general ground work
experience.
Each stump removal crew shall include:
• Two employees with a minimum of two (2) years stump removal
experience.
All personnel are subject to the approval of the Project Manager.
B. Personnel and equipment shall be qualified in accordance with all CalOSHA
rules and regulations that apply to tree work.
Personnel and equipment shall meet all requirements of CalOSHA that apply
to tree work near overhead electrical conductors.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 2 of 3
'.
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01400
QUALITY CONTROL
C. The tree maintenance crew shall be equipped with:
• An aerial lift truck (55 feet working height).
• A dump truck with chipper body (8 cubic yard capacity)
• A disc chipper (minimum 12" capacity)
• Chain saws, hand saws, pole pruners, pole saws, loppers and hand
pruners
• Climbing and personal safety gear
• Traffic control signs and other equipment necessary to perform the
work ..
The stump removal crew shall be equipped with:
• Stump grinders: Vermeer 672 or approved equal, and Vermeer 252 or
approved equal.
• Dump truck with a minimum of four (4) cubic yard capacity.
• Power sod cutter (on a as needed basis)
• Shielding: 4' x 8' plywood sheeting or approved equal.
• Wrenches: Shut-off wrenches specifically for water meters and gas
meters.
• Barricades: Type II and III conforming to Section 6F.63 of the
California MUTeD. Each barricade shall be equipped with a Type A
low intensity flashing warning light conforming to Section 6F. 78 of the
California MUTeD.
• Tape: 3 inches wide, yellow vinyl barrier tape with black lettering
stating "Caution".
• Traffic control signs and other equipment necessary to perform the
work.
D. The Contractor shall provide one (1) tree maintenance crew each day. The
Contractor shall provide one (1) stump removal crew on an as needed basis;
scheduled by mutual agreement with the City.
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 3 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01540
PART 1
1.01
A.
B.
C.
D.
PART 2
PART 3
3.01
. A.
3.02
A.
SECURITY
GENERAL
SECTION INCLUDES
Job site safety.
Protection of property.
Protection of utilities.
Site use and maintenance.
PRODUCTS (NOT USED)
EXECUTION
JOB SITE SAFETY
The Contractor shall be solely and completely responsible for job site
conditions and safety during the term of the Contract. This obligation shall
include the safety of all persons within or affected by the line of construction
and all public and private property affected by the Work.
The Contractor's responsibility shall be continuous and not be limited to
working hours or days, and shall not cease until formal acceptance of the
Work by the City except that if the City should make partial acceptance ofthe
Work, the Contractor's responsibility for the portion of the Work so accepted
shall thereupon cease, except for latent errors in the Work or faulty
construction. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City, its officers, consultants, agents and employees, and the Engineerfrom
any and all liability, real or alleged, resulting from the Contractor's operations,
except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the City, et al.
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
The Contractor shall be responsible for the protection of all improvements on
both public and private property within and adjacent to the work area and
shall take all precautions necessary to prevent damage to such
improvements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 1 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01540
3.03
SECURITY
The Contractor shall provide plywood and supports as needed to provide
adequate protection at designated sites.
Contract crews shall take care in removing branches from private property to
prevent damage to house siding, fences and gates.
Limbs and trunk sections that cannot be easily controlled by hand shall be
lowered by rope or cut in~o smaller pieces to prevent damage to
improvements.
B. The Contractor shall report all damage to public and private improvements to
the Project Manager on the day upon which the damage occurs. The
Contractor shall notify the owner of damaged private improvements in writing
the same day.
C. The Contractor .shall repair or replace all damaged improvements in a
manner satisfactory to the Project Manager and any private property owner
involved. The Contractor shall complete the repair or replacement, at
Contractor's expense, within seventy-two (72) hours from the time damage
occurs.
D.
A.
B.
C.
Improvements shall include, but not be limited to, turf, trees, vegetation,
pavements, irrigation systems, fences, and structures. .
PROTECTION OF UTILITIES
The Contractor shall be responsible for the protection of all utilities on both
public and private property within and adjacent to the work area and shall
take all precautions necessary to prevent damage to such utilities.
The Contractor shall report all damage to public and private utilities to the
Project Manager and the respective utility company within one (1) hour of the
time damage occurs. The Contractor shall notify the resident and owner of
any property affected by a damaged utility within one (1) hour of the time
damage occurs.
The City will repair City utilities damaged by Contractor's operations. The
cost of repairs performed by the City will not be deducted from the Contract
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 2 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01540
D.
E.
3.04
A.
B.
C.
SECURITY
price, but shall be paid independently by the Contractor to the City.
The Contractor shall repair or replace all non-City utilities damaged by its
operations, at Contractor's expense. The Contractor shall complete repair or
replacement of all essential utilities (including telephone, electrical, water and
gas) the same day damage occurs. All other repair or replacement shall be
completed within seventy-two (72) hours of the time damage occurs.
Utilities shall include, but not be limited.to, water, gas, sanitary sewer, storm
drain system, electrical power, street lighting, traffic signals, signal detector
loops, telephone, cable television and fiber optic.
SITE USE AND MAINTENANCE
The Contractor shall dean the work area, at the end of each working day, to
a condition at least equal to that which existed before the start of work.
The Contractor shall remove all equipment and materials from City property
at the end of each working day, and at other times when the work is
suspended for any reason. The Contractor shall not use City property for the
overnight storage of equipment and materials.
The Contractor shall not use private property within the City limits of Palo
Alto for the storage and staging of equipment and materials without written
agreement of the property owner. The Contractor shall submit a copy of the
agreement to the Project Manager.
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 3 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01570
PART 1
1.01
A.
B.
1.02
A.
B.
PART 2
2.01
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
TRAFFIC CONTROL
GENERAL
SECTION INCLUDES
Provide traffic control.
Post "No Parking" signs.
REFERENCES
The current edition of the Standard Specifications of the Department of
Transportation, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the Caltrans
Standard Specifications.
The current edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices PART 6 -Temporary Traffic Control of the Department of
Transportation, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the California
MUTCD.
PRODUCTS
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
Cones: 28" high· and conforming to Section 12-3.10 of the Caltrans Standard
Specifications.
Barricades: Type II and III conforming to Section 6F.63 of the California
MUTCD. Each barricade shall be equipped with a Type A low intensity
flashing warning light conforming to Section 6F.78 of the California MUTCD.
Signs: Portable signs and bases conforming to Section 12-3.06 of the
Caltrans Standard Specifications and Chapters 6F and 6H of the California
MUTCD. Signs shall not be mounted on barricades or vehicles.
Flashing Arrow Signs: Solar and/or battery powered and conforming to
Section 6F.56 of the California MUTCD.
Flagger Equipment: Conforming to Chapter 6E and Section 6F.29 of the
California MUTCD.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 1 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01570
F.
G.
PART 3
3.01
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Tape: 3 inches wide, yellow vinyl barrier tape with black letters stating
"Caution".
"No Parking" signs: Furnished by the City.
EXECUTION
PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL
The Contractor shall provide traffic control for all operations and shall
conduct all operations so as to cause the least possible obstruction and
inconvenience to the general public and vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian
traffic.
The Contractor shall furnish, place and maintain all necessary traffic control
devices during its operations in conformance with the applicable
requirements of this section and the California MUTCD.
The Contractor shall notify the City of Palo Alto Police Department -
Communication Division at (650) 329-2413 on a daily basis of significant
traffic control measures.
The Contractor shall use a flashing arrow sign for lane closures on multilane
streets and shall restrict lane closures on multilane streets to the hours of
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Specific traffic control procedures shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. Partial street closure, maintain two-way traffic, provide flaggers and
one traffic lane: This type of traffic control shall be used for partial
closures extending either the full length or a portion of the length of a
street. Part of the street shall be coned off, leaving a minimum width
of twelve (12) feet open for traffic. The Contractor shall maintain two-
way traffic on this street by utilizing at least two flaggers. The flaggers
shall allow one direction of traffic at a time to travel in the one
remaining twelve (12) foot lane. Traffic control signs shall be placed
in appropriate locations at, in advance of, and after the closure.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 2 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01570
3.02
A.
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Cones shall be used to separate the traffic from the work zone.
2. Partial street closure, maintain two-way traffic, provide two traffic
lanes: This type of traffic control shall be used for partial closures
extending either the full length or a portion of the length of a street.
Part of the street shall be coned off, and two-way traffic shall be
maintained at all times by dividing the remainder of the street into two
twelve (12) foot wide traffic lanes. Traffic control signs shall be placed
in appropriate locations at, in advance of, and after the closure.
Cones shall be used to separate the traffic from the work zone.
3. Full lane closure on multilane street, maintain two-way traffic, provide
two traffic lanes minimum: This type of traffic control shall be used for
lane closure on a multilane street extending either the full length or a
portion of the length of a street. The lane shall be coned off, and a
flashing arrow sign and cone taper used to shift traffic into the
adjacent lane. Traffic control signs shall be placed in appropriate
locations at, in advance of, and after the closure. Cones shall be
used to separate the traffic from the work zone.
POST "NO PARKING' SIGNS
The City or Contractor's crews will post "No Parking" signs as needed.
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 Page 3 of 3
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02117
STUMP REMOVAL
PART 1 GENERAL
1.01 SECTION INCLUDES
A. Stump removal.
B. Sod removal.
C. Debris disposal.
1.02 REFERENCES
A. The current edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control . .
Devices PART 6 -Temporary Traffic Control of the Department of
Transportation, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the California
MUTCD.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.01 MATERIALS
A. Topsoil: Furnished by the City and available at the City's Municipal Service
Center, Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill, or Ciradella's Garden Supply.
B. Site Number Tags and Attachment Hardware: Furnished by the City.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01 STUMP REMOVAL
A. The Contractor shall notify Underground Service Alert (USA) five (5) working
days prior to stump removal. The Contractor shall delineate the limits of
work in white paint in conformance with the requirements of USA and shall
notify USA at (800) 227-2600. Notification shall include the specific address
or a location description of the work.
B. The Contractor shall remove all USA markings, which remain after
completion of the work. USA markings shall be removed by high-pressure
water washing, wet sandblasting or by other methods approved by the
Project Manager.
C. The Contractor shall temporarily remove (and replace following completion of
the work) any public or private improvements located within the stump
CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 141494 Page 1 of 2
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02117
D.
E.
F.
3.02
3.03
A.
STUMP REMOVAL
removal site. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to, loose bricks
and pavers, landscape rocks and stones, small shrubs and plants, filter
fabrics, and mulch.
The Contractor shall provide adequate shielding to prevent flying debris
during all stump removal operations.
The Contractor shall remove stumps in conformance with specifications
provided by and as directed by the Project Manager. When required the
Contractor shall excavate the stump grindings (wood chips mixed with dirt)
from the stump removal site and shall spread the grindings on site or deliver
the grindings to the refuse area of the Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill. The
Contractor shall endeavor to save and reuse as much clean native soil within .
the work site as is possible.
The Contractor shall secure open stump removal sites with barricades and
tape until inspected by the Project Manager and backfilled as directed with
grindings and/or topsoil.
SOD REMOVAL
The Contractor shall remove sod from around the base of trees, construct
watering berms, spread mulch and install site number tags as directed by the
Project Manager.
DEBRIS DISPOSAL
The City of Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill located at 2380 Embarcadero Road in
Palo Alto will be made available t9 the Contractor at no charge for the
disposal of all debris generated on the Work site. The Contractor will be
supplied with free Landfill passes for this purpose by the Project Manager.
All Landfill regulations will apply to all debris deposited by the Contractor.
The date for permanent closure of the City of Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill is
uncertain at this time. If closure should occur during the life of the contract
alternate disposal options within Palo Alto will be identified and will be made
available to the Contractor at no charge.
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 141494 Page 2 of 2
'.
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02975
PART 1
1.01
A.
B.
C.
1.02
A.
B.
C.
D.
PART 2
2.01
A.
B.
PART 3
3.01
A.
TREE MAINTENANCE WORK
GENERAL
SECTION INCLUDES
Pruning standards.
General pruning specifications.
Debris disposal.
REFERENCES
International Society of Arb6riculture (lSA)
P.O. Box 3129
Champaign, IL 61826
American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI)
11 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Government Order 95 (2007)
California Public Utilities Commission
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
PRODUCTS
DISINFECTANT
Contact spray: Lysol or equivalent approved by the Project Manager.
Site Number Tags and Attachment Hardware: Furnished by the City.
EXECUTION
PRUNING STANDARDS
Pruning shall conform to the techniques and standards specified in the
current edition of ANSI A300 (Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant
CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 141494 Page 1 of 5
'.
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02975
B.
C.
D.
3.02
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
TREE MAINTENANCE WORK
Maintenance -Standard Practices).
Climbing spurs shall not be used on any tree to be pruned except in an
emergency situation (such as aerial rescue) or upon written authorization of
the Project Manager.
Pruning tools shall be sterilized with disinfectant before and after pruning
any elm tree.
Contractor shall adhere to all restrictions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
1918 as they apply to the work of this contract.
GENERAL PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS
General pruning specifications shall apply to all pruning work.
Limbs that are too heavy to safely support their own weight, whether due to
their length, diameter, a weak crotch or structural defect, shall be lightened
by thinning the end weight or heading back the ends. Where possible,
thinning is preferred over heading back. Conserve inner foliage as much as
possible by thinning and shortening.
Crossing or crowded limbs or branches shall be thinned to improve the
structure and symmetry of the canopy.
Deadwood over 3/4 inch in diameter shall be removed.
Final cuts six (6) inches or greater in diameter must be approved by the
Project Manager.
Structural defects, including weak crotches, splits, cracks, broken cables and
decayed cavities, observed in a tree shall be reported to the Project
Manager.
Clearance of foliage shall be as follows:
1. Clearance over traffic lanes and bike lanes shall be a minimum of
fourteen (14) feet above pavement level.
CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 141494 Page 2 of 5
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02975
TREE MAINTENANCE WORK
2. Clearance over private property shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet
above ground level. Clearance from structures shall be a minimum of
ten (10) feet, vertical and horizontal.
3. Clearance from street lights shall conform to Drawing A6. Clearance
from traffic signals, traffic signs and stop signs shall provide adequate
sight line distances to the signals or signs.
4. Clearance from electric service drops is. necessary only when
vegetation is putting a noticeable strain or abrasion on the line, or as
required by the Project Manager.
H. Pruning specifications for selected species (General Specifications A-G shall
apply as well):
1. Liquidambar -Reduce end weight of side limbs by shortening them
back to significant laterals. These pruning cuts shall not exceed three
(3) inches i'n diameter. Superfluous leaders (codominate) shall be
removed or suppressed by heading back.
2. Sycamore -Heavy, long horizontal branches shall be headed back to
a suitable lateral to prevent excessive end weights from growing.
Crossing branches or areas of tangled foliage shall be thinned using
small pruning cuts.
3. Broadleaf Evergreen (Magnolia, Live Oak, Holly Oak, Camphor) -The
canopy shall remain closed to shade the interior of the tree.
Excessive vertical suckers shall be removed. Some heading or
thinning may be necessary where end weights are too heavy.
4. Chinese Elm -Lighten heavy end weights and raise canopy by
shortening ends back to significant laterals. Conserve innerfoliage as
much as possible.
5. Eucalyptus -Reduce heavy end weights by shortening ends back to
significant laterals. Remove weakly attached sucker growth.
I. Structural pruning of young trees shall conform to the section on training
young trees in the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management
CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 141494 Page 3 of 5
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02975
3.04
J.
K.
A.
B.
C.
D.
TREE MAINTENANCE WORK
Practices -Tree Pruning (2002).
Ivy growing on tree limbs and trunks shall be removed to ground level and
one (1) foot laterally from the trunk at ground level. Cutting shall be done
with hand tools and shall not damage the tree trunk.
The Contractor shall install site number tags as directed by the Project
Manager.
DEBRIS DISPOSAL
Contractor shall comply with all Federal, State and County regulations for
pests, including, but not limited to, Sudden Oak Death (SOD) and Light
Brown Apple Moth. Contractor shall follow the Sudden Oak Death
Guidelines for Arborists (California Oak Mortality Task Force, 2008) when
working in SOD areas in order to limit the spread of this disease.
Chippers shall only be run at 15-20 minute intervals. To minimize offensive
noise, chippers shall not be run continuously.
Debris resulting from tree maintenance work shall be sorted as chips and
wood, and shall be removed from the work site daily.
The City of Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill located at 2380 ~mbarcadero Road in
Palo Alto will be made available to the Contractor at no charge for the
disposal of all debris generated on the Work site. The Contractor will be
supplied with free Landfill passes for this purpose by the Project Manager.
All Landfill regulations will apply to all debris deposited by the Contractor.
The date for permanent closure of the City of Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill is
uncertain at this time. If closure should occur during the life of the contract
alternate disposal options within Palo Alto will be identified and will be made
available to the Contractor at no charge.
E. Clean chips shall be spread on site or delivered to the compost area of the
Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill or to other City facilities as directed by the Project
Manager.
F. Unchipped wood shall be cut into sections not to exceed eighteen (18)
CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 141494 Page4 of 5
SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02975
TREE MAINTENANCE WORK
inches in any dimension and shall be disposed of as follows:
1. Wood requested by the resident shall be neatly stacked on the
resident's property.
2. Wood not requested by the resident shall be delivered to a specified
area of the Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill.
3. All elm wood shall be delivered to a specified area of the f'alo Alto
Sanitary Landfill.
4. Unchipped palm fronds and/or trunk pieces shall be taken to the
garbage area of the Palo Alto Sanitary Landfill.
END OF SECTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 141494 Page 5 of 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. Sll141494
EXHIBITB
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services so as specified in the Scope of Services, Exhibit A. The time
to complete the task may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers
for CONTRACTOR and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Upon
request CONTRACTOR shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below.
Task Complete by:
1. On-going tree maintenance services June 30, 2012
8 Rev. January 11,2010
E:\Files from H DRlVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract SII141494 TruGreen
LandCare.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. Sll141494
EXHIBITC
SCHEDULE OF FEES
(See attached rates -copies of Bidder's Bid Pages -RFQ141494)
9 Rev. January 11,2010
E:\Files from H DRlVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract SII141494 TruGreen
LandCare.doc
'.
BIDDER (COMPANY): _Ti...L...!..."-",vt~G=~!..--'r--u=",,-n-L---,"I-a=-~Vl=d=' -=&1"", .. ",,-.. re.....--~ _____ DATE: _&"---'-.1_0_'1-<1-,-',,-1 __
SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDDER BID PAGES SECTION 1/1
Bidder's Response and Acceptance
In response to this Request for Quotations (RFQ), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only
persons or parties interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made
without collusion with any other person, firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined
the specifications herein referred to; and the Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, that
the Bidder will contract with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all necessary materials and/or
services, and furnish the specified requirements in this RFQ, in the manner herein prescribed and at
the prices stated.
Project Title: Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services
Request for Quotations (RFQ) number141494
Quotation Due Date: 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 7, 2011.
BID DESCRIPTION AND SCHEDULE
The City of Palo Alto is inviting bids for Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services. The work of this
Contract includes, but is not limited to, pruning, tree removal, stump removal, sod removal, watering berm
construction, mulching and site number tagging. The work will be located in City owned parks, facilities,
medians and open space as needed.
The Contractor shall complete every unit price in the Base Bid Schedule and agrees to perform all work
identified by the City for the term of the contract for the prices in the Base Bid Schedule.
The quantities given in the bid schedule are given only as a basis for the comparison of bids, and the City
does not guarantee that the actual'amount of work will correspond therewith.
Base Bid Schedule:
BID APPROX CREW TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION HOURLY ITEM QTY. RATE EXT. PRICE
01 1,000 Hours Tree Maintenance Work by a three (3) $ $
person crew. I J../L/ ,tiO (44, {)OO
02 200 Hours Stump Removal Work by a two (2) $ $
person crew. qtolOO 1'1, :;...00
Base Bid Schedule Total (items 01 and 02, with all applicable taxes and fees included) $
(Total Price in words: On e_ -H u. ndrt.d cS ~t-v.-r_'-+-h t~ tL-l(p~ Z-tJD
Th 0 i.-/{.."JltVlIJi 'Thu '. HUr'loLr'Y.J.-fn HtJl.·'''"S )
j
Price Increases
Prices quoted above shall remain firm for the contract period and shall include all applicable taxes, regulatory
fees, and all transportation and delivery charges as necessary to perform the requirements of this RFQ. Pricing
shall also include an allowance for fuel price increase during the contract period. Requests for price
adjustments during the contract period will not be allowed.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 PAGE 1 OF 2
BIDDER (COMPANY): --tl_t7.,-,-""*"",,G;;:;t.-CUI.-£g,O:;....41'-:q+--"-La..:::....-.Vl_c!L_Ctt __ ~=-. __ "-DATE: _"':"'(P-l-/...::.O....:.;.1-1-i ...... IJ,---,-_
SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDDER BID PAGES SECTION III
Lowest Responsible Bidder I
The lowest bid shall be the lowest Total of the Base Bid Schedule. This rate is being used for the purpose of determining
the lowest responsible bidder .. The not-ta-exceed amount of this agreement as specified is approximate and may be
increased or decreased during the contract period, and no guarantee Is implied that the exact amount will be available far
the term oHhe agreem.ent.
Insurance
The Bidder shall bear all costs and provIde insurance as requIred by Section II, Insurance Requirements, herein.
PAYMENT TERMS 1) () e... U (J0Yl RtLt.Cp-r
Signature must be the same as Signature In Section 1-Request for Quotation and Bidder Required Information.
Signature: r
PLEASE NOTE:
. .
Your signature above and bid submittal shall indicate that you have carefully examined all Bid
Documents,. including the sample contract to be used to make the award, and that you fully·
understand the scope of work ·and the requirements by the City of Palo Alto. Any exceptions to the
specifications and general requirements shall be submitted with the bid as an attachment. The city
will determine If such exceptions are satisfactorY in meeting mandatory requlremerits or
specification, and if th~ proposed alternate meets the intent of this Request for .Quotations (RFQ).
CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ 141494 PAGE 2 OF 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
EXHIBITD
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM
OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE
SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR
HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE.BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
A WARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED,
BELOW-
MINIMUM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
LIABILITY DAMAGE COMBINED.
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000;000
INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE, COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
INCLUDING, ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN
APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT
ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE
INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND
ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS
ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE
IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE
FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED
COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO
"ADDITIONAL INSUREDS"
10 Rev. January 11,2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract SII141494 TruGreen
LandCare.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S11141494
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED,
INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR
CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE
POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED
AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS,
SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY
REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING
COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN
NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT
LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
11 Rev. January 11,2010
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFQ Files\RFQ141494 Parks and Facilities Tree Maintenance Services\Contract SII141494 TruGreen
LandCare.doc
PARKS and FACILITIES TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES Attachment B
PROJECT NO. 141494
BID SUMMARY
Staff PROFESSIONAL VALLEY CREST ARBORWELL INC.
LANDSCAPE, INC. TREE CARE CO. TREE CARE SERVICE
BID DESCRIPTION BID QTY UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
ITEM (HRS) PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
1
Tree Maintenance Work
(3 person crew)1,000 $150 $150,000 $144.00 $144,000.00 $161.30 $161,300.00 $189.00 $189,000.00 $204.00 $204,000.00 $195.00 $195,000.00
2
Stump Removal Work
(2 person crew)200 $110 $22,000 $96.00 $19,200.00 $109.40 $21,880.00 $126.00 $25,200.00 $129.00 $25,800.00 $250.00 $50,000.00
BASE BID TOTAL:$172,000 $163,200 $183,180 $214,200 $229,800 $245,000
CLEARY BROTHERS
Estimate
WEST COAST
ARBORISTS, INC.
1
TRuGREEN LandCare"
July 14, 2011 .
City of Palo Alto
A TIN: Eugene Segna, :project Manager .
3201 R Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: City of Palo Alto Tree Maintenance Contract
Dear Eugene Segna:
'IiuGreen LandCare L.L.C.
Fairfield Branch #6164, 393 Watt Dr.
8teB
Fairfield, CA, 94534
Phone: 707-864-5594
Fax: 707-864-5999
Effective July 1, 2011, TruQ];een LandCare has assigned the above-referenced contract to West
Coast Arborists, Inc., subject to consent to assigninent by the City of Palo Alto. TruGreen has
also sold to WCA all of the vehicles and equipment used on the project, and all 'of its project
employees have transferred to WCA, in order to ensure a seamless transition. TruGreen hereby'
requests that the City of Palo Alto consents to the assignment of the contract to' WCA. All
contract payments for work performed from and after July 1, 2011, should be sent directly to
WCA. .
Very truly yours,
TruGreen LandCare
BY' __ ~~~~~ __ -1~ __ __
Phil Lundy, Region Mana
r
Tree Car~Pr9fo$$ionals. :&'POingCommunitles
C!fYQ{P('j I.oAltQ~ purchasing Dep~rttnent
Attn: Mr.JQhn Montene.ro
32QlE.Baysh(5reRtJaif
P\Q.~oX19~~Q
Palo AftOiCA94303
DearMI\ Monteneroj.
lam veryplease~ PQ~ proud tQarmQun~ettle recent :acquisition of TruGreen, Landcare':s Northern
California. Tree Divisiorl by WestCoasfAtboristst Inc; (WCA)effec'tive.as 6f:.JQn~ 3q,.2011.
WCAh?$ Men, P['OVrditlg protesskmal 1l1~anfQ~estry maintenance '()nd management: services for'
muniCipalities:since)1972.. WCA has a strong track recotd·of:.satlsfied'Cu'sJdmer's WhiGhlndOdWM~rlY
200.Califorl1iamUniCipalities. . .
Weassur~ you thatthe::services you 'have come to ass.oqiate:truGh~en latn:J¢are'sTtee DivisiOn With Will
h~otQnlycontlnoe but Will :ex})a'nd Witnttils heW acq(llsitiQf:\; tt is' WCNfJ inten.t tQ hQhor ~JW Clirrent
Clgr~ement:inpJ1:l,C~ wltb YOl.JtGiJv, ,8rtb[~'ttm~i we reqYe$t thptthe 'City 'of P'alo.Altoasslgn the tr.ee
maintenance'contradto WCA. As, a remihderiitis Important' tb knoW thatthe exiS\ihgcbnditi6fis,and
tetms ofy~:m( C.QoVt,lctwilfremClib II) effectCir'ldqijallty ~,enH~ewilJ ~~en~sur.ed~
We truly are enthusiastic about this newvent'ure a.ndarecOhfldentb6th the,City'al'ld:itsresidebts will
be: pleased with WCAi'SabiliW topetfo.rm qU,al'itV Workmanship gQOd Gl.!stQmer s,ervl¢e Md tree . el(p.ertis~. .... . .
Oh,behcllf'OfWCA, weappre¢iateYOt,ltsupPo!1:'andpatronage'ctndlookforward ;l:o\o\lorking.with you,for
matlYV¢!:ltsW,·cQme~:
cc: EugeneSegna
West Coast Arborists, Inc.
2200 E. Via Burton Street· Anaheim, CA 92806 • 714.991.1900 • 800.52l.3714 • Fax 714.956.3745
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
July 25, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the
Implementation Plan for the Proposed Employee Hotline
Recommendation
The Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council approve the
implementation plan for establishing an employee hotline on an 18-month pilot basis, with an
implementation date of January 1, 2012.
Executive Summary
In July 2010, the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) recommended that the City
establish an employee-only fraud, waste, and abuse hotline organized under the City Auditor’s
Office on a 12-18 month pilot basis. In accordance with the Committee’s recommendation, the
Interim City Auditor has developed an implementation plan to establish an employee-only
hotline on an 18-month pilot basis beginning January 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2013.
Attachment A identifies operational aspects of the proposed hotline and required actions to
implement the hotline by January 1, 2012. These actions include: selecting and contracting
with a vendor to receive complaints, developing policies and procedures for administering the
hotline, developing appropriate whistleblower protections for City Council consideration,
informing employees of the hotline, and obtaining formal authorization from the City Council to
implement the hotline. The Interim City Auditor also proposes to establish a complaint review
committee to review complaints and determine appropriate follow-up in response to
complaints. The proposed complaint review committee would include the following staff or
their designees: City Manager, City Attorney, and City Auditor.
Committee Review and Recommendations
At the July 14, 2011 meeting of the Policy and Services Committee, the Interim City Auditor
presented an implementation plan for establishing an employee hotline on 18-month trial
basis, with an implementation date of January 1, 2012. After discussing the proposed hotline,
the Policy and Services Committee unanimously recommended approval of the implementation
plan with the clarification that the City Auditor would provide the Policy and Services
Committee a quarterly status report on operational issues regarding the hotline.
Updated: 7/19/2011 12:16 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Edmonds
Interim City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Report to the Policy and Services Committee Meeting dated
July 14, 2011, including Policy and Services Committee Minutes Excerpts for
November 30, 2009, and July 29, 2010 (PDF)
·Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Draft Excerpt Minutes (July 14,
2011)(PDF)
Department Head:Mike Edmonds, Acting City Auditor
Updated: 7/19/2011 12:16 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
July 12, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Policy & Services Committee
Palo Alto, California
Discussion and Recommendation on the Proposed Implementation
Plan for the Employee Hotline
Recommendation
The Policy and Services Committee should discuss and recommend the City Council approve the
Interim City Auditor’s Proposed Implementation Plan for an employee-only Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse Hotline.
Background
In 2008, the City Auditor’s Office (Auditor’s Office) issued an Audit of Employee Ethics Policies.
The audit recommended the City adopt an employee code of ethics, formalize an employee
ethics program, and also form a working group to implement a hotline to review complaints
involving fraud, waste, or abuse of City resources.
In November 2009, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed the recommendation to
establish a hotline and requested the Auditor’s Office to return to the Policy and Services
Committee with a follow-up discussion on the formation of a hotline and how best to
implement a hotline program (See Attachment A for Policy and Services Committee minutes).
In July 2010, the Auditor’s Office reported on various options to implement a Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse Hotline Program. The Policy and Services Committee recommended the following:
· The City Council establish an employee-only hotline organized under the Auditor’s Office
on a 12-18 month pilot basis
· The Auditor’s Office should hire a contractor to receive and forward complaints
· The Auditor’s Office should establish policies and procedures prior to implementing the
hotline (See Attachment B for Policy and Services Committee minutes)
In accordance with the Policy and Services Committee’s direction, the Interim City Auditor
proposes to implement an employee-only hotline by January 1, 2012. The proposed hotline will
be implemented on a pilot basis through June 30, 2013. The City Manager has expressed the
importance of the hotline being deployed within a larger context of fostering an ethics and
Attachment A
Updated: 7/6/2011 1:26 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 2
public trust based organizational culture for the City. To this end, the City Manager’s Office has
retained Dr. Tom Shanks of The Ethics Company to assist the City in developing an ethics-based
code of conduct and an ethics training program.
Described below are the operational aspects of the proposed hotline, legislation regarding
hotlines, and the implementation plan for the hotline.
Operational Aspects of the Hotline
Types of complaints
Complaints from employees involving the misuse of public resources will be investigated to
assess whether or not the complaint can be substantiated. Examples of the type of complaints
that the hotline program could investigate include:
· Theft of City resources
· Accounting irregularities
· Intentional misuse of City property or equipment
· Contractor fraud
· Falsifying records
· Payroll or timekeeping fraud
· Kickbacks or bribes
· Gross disregard of policy and procedural controls
Labor-related complaints or complaints related to sexual harassment or discrimination that are
the responsibility of the Human Resources Department or the City Manager’s Office will not be
investigated. Customer service complaints or other complaints that are not related to fraud,
waste, or abuse will also not be investigated. Rather, these complaints will be referred to the
appropriate department or agency.
Receiving and Processing Complaints
The Auditor’s Office will contract with an outside vendor that will provide employees with the
ability to file anonymous reports 24 hours a day, 7 days a week using a secure website or a toll-
free telephone number. The Auditor’s Office will conduct a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select
an outside vendor to receive complaints.
The Auditor’s Office proposes that a complaint review committee be established, comprised of
the following staff or their designees: City Manager, City Attorney, and City Auditor. The
committee will meet regularly to review and discuss complaints made through the hotline or
through other means.
Attachment A
Updated: 7/6/2011 1:26 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 3
Reporting on complaints
On a quarterly basis, the Auditor’s Office will provide a summary in its Quarterly Report to the
City Council and the Finance Committee regarding the number of complaints received,
reviewed, status, and call disposition. In addition, the Auditor’s Office will prepare a report at
the end of the 18-month pilot project assessing the costs and benefits of the hotline during the
pilot period.
Resources and costs
Hotlines have two cost components: the cost to operate the hotline and the cost to review and
investigate complaints. The cost of contracting with an outside vendor will be approximately
$3,000 to $6,000 annually. Additional start-up costs of about $2,000 to $3,000 may also be
incurred. Since we anticipate implementing the hotline at the beginning of 2012, the Fiscal
Year 2012 costs should be approximately half of the normal annual costs. The Auditor’s Office
will absorb these costs out of its Fiscal Year 2012 budget.
Implementing the hotline will also have an impact on staff resources within the City Manager’s
Office, the City Attorney’s Office, City Auditor’s Office, and other City departments.
Legislation Regarding Hotlines
Section 53087.6 of the Government Code authorizes city auditors in California to establish and
manage hotlines and to maintain the confidentiality of the reporting parties. Section 53087.6
of the Government Code also requires that an appointed city auditor obtain approval from the
legislative body of that agency, prior to establishing the whistleblower hotline. Thus, the City
Council must formally authorize the City Auditor prior to the implementation of the hotline.
The Auditor’s Office will return to the City Council prior to the implementation date to obtain
formal authorization to proceed with the hotline.
The California Whistleblower Protection Act in Government Code Section 8547.1-8547.12
established whistleblower protections for State employees. For example, Section 8547.1
established the expectation that “State employees should be free to report waste, fraud, abuse
of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health without fear of retribution…and
declares that public servants best serve the citizenry when they can be candid and honest
without reservation in conducting the people’s business.
Local governments that have established hotlines have also passed their own whistleblower
protection legislation. For example, the cities of San Diego, Oakland, and Los Angeles, and the
City and County of San Francisco adopted whistleblower legislation to protect whistleblowers
from retaliation.
Attachment A
Updated: 7/6/2011 1:26 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 4
Proposed Implementation Plan for the hotline
The Interim City Auditor proposes that the hotline be operational no later than January 1, 2012.
The following actions, requiring the involvement of the City Auditor, City Manager, and City
Attorney, must be completed prior to implementing the hotline:
· Select and contract with a vendor to receive complaints
· Develop policies and procedures for administering the hotline
· Develop a whistleblower policy
· Inform employees of the hotline and make them aware of their responsibilities for
reporting fraud, waste, and abuse
· Obtain authorization from the City Council to implement the hotline
Select and contract with an outside vendor
The Auditor’s Office will conduct a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select an outside vendor to
receive complaints. This process will be initiated as soon as the City Council has approved the
implementation plan. This process should be completed by mid-September.
Develop policies and procedures for administering the hotline
The Auditor’s Office, in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s
Office, will develop policies and procedures for administering the hotline. These policies and
procedures will be completed before the implementation of the hotline.
Whistleblower policy
The City of Palo Alto currently does not have a formal whistleblower ordinance. The Auditor’s
Office will work with the City Attorney’s Office and City Manager’s Office to develop such an
ordinance. The proposed ordinance will be sent to the City Council for approval prior to the
implementation of the hotline.
Inform employees of the hotline
The Auditor’s Office and City Manager’s Office will meet with employees and employee groups,
prior to the implementation of the hotline. The purpose of these meetings will be to inform
employees of the hotline and how it is to be used. These meetings will also address employee
responsibilities for reporting instances of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Obtain authorization from the City Council
After the above tasks are completed, the Auditor’s Office will update the City Council on the
actions to implement the hotline and seek authorization to implement the hotline.
Attachment A
Updated: 7/6/2011 1:26 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 5
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Edmonds
Interim City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Policy and Services Committee Minutes Excerpt (November 30,
2009)(PDF)
·Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Minutes Exceprt (July 29, 2010)
(PDF)
Department Head:Mike Edmonds, Acting City Auditor
Attachment A
Updated: 7/6/2011 1:26 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 6
Attachment A
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE - EXCERPT
Special Meeting
November 30, 2009
Chairperson Espinosa called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Espinosa (Chair), Barton, Kishimoto, Yeh
2. Status of Audit Recommendations
City Auditor Lynda Brouchoud presented the status report for all of the audit
recommendations. She said Staff wanted to bring this to the Committee
because two of the audit reports were originally heard by the Committee. One
of those audits was the 2003 Audit of Code Enforcement, which had two
outstanding audit recommendations at the time of the review. She reported
that both had been resolved or implemented. The second audit was the 2008
Audit of Employee Ethics Policies. At the time of the review three out of the
original seven audit recommendations had been implemented and one was in
process. One of these recommendations was the Form 700 training which had
been implemented by the City Attorneys Office and Human Resources. The
supervisory review of Form 700s with reportable interests was still in process at
the time of the report. Three of the recommendations had not been started,
including the development of a City wide code of ethics, development of an
ethics policy and training, and the implementation of a fraud waste and abuse
hotline. Staff recommended a dialogue with the Policy and Services Committee
regarding the hotline and how to implement it as it entails resources and
specific State laws.
Council Member Yeh noted the savings that had been identified in the report.
He asked what characteristics the Council should consider for the hotline or a 3-
1-1 system.
Ms. Brouchoud said a 3-1-1 system would be primarily designed to handle non-
emergency calls and take some of the burden from the emergency system. The
audit recommendation was for a fraud waste and abuse hotline, which would be
different. The hotline would need to maintain confidentiality and independence.
A State law was enacted in 2008 which allows City Auditors to establish
hotlines.
Attachment AAttachment A
Council Member Yeh asked if Staff had researched other jurisdictions integrate
the two, or if they were typically separate.
Ms. Brouchoud said they were typically separate. The only city she was aware
of that combined the two was San Francisco, where they had a 3-1-1 system
and the City Services Auditor handled all the fraud waste and abuse.
Council Member Yeh asked for specific information about the risks of fraud
waste and abuse.
Ms. Brouchoud said a follow-up report could be created to detail the risks. The
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) publishes a report called The
Report to the Nation which covers among other things, statistics regarding
hotlines. They estimated up to 7% of an organizations revenues were lost to
fraud and reported that hotlines were an effective way to reduce that loss.
Senior Auditor Edwin Young said the ACFE study determined that fraud was
often detected through hotline calls.
Ms. Brouchoud recalled that over half of the frauds were detected through
hotline calls.
Council Member Yeh asked what type of impact this would have on resources.
Ms. Brouchoud said there would be two categories of costs. A contractor to run
the hotline would cost between $4,500 and $6,500 a year. Staff time
investigating complaints would be the biggest cost, and a difficult one to
estimate without knowing how many complaints will come in.
City Manager James Keene added that the cost could be spread across the
organization.
Chair Espinosa asked about the relationship between audits and the
recommendations. The three recommendations that had not been done are
listed as “to be determined” having been delayed due to other priorities. The
Policy & Services Committee has asked repeatedly about them, and there was
still no delivery date. He asked if Staff had an idea of when these items would
come back to the Committee and what the relationship between the Auditors
Office and the completion of the audit recommendations was.
Mr. Keene said it was primarily the organizational capacity that dictated the
ability to respond. Normally Kelly Morariu would support this program, but the
City Managers office has been short staffed and there hasn’t been time to
Attachment AAttachment A
manage these issues. The alternative would be to look at spending more
money by outsourcing the work.
Chair Espinosa agreed with Mr. Keene’s comments. He added there has been a
long list of outstanding audit recommendations and it had been shrinking.
There had been, for example, some ethics issues within the City and Council
requested a response. The holdup has been the City Managers Office.
Council Member Barton agreed with Mr. Keene regarding the larger issue of
institutional capacity to get work done. The economy has been a major factor
as well. He also discussed the finite time that Staff has to accomplish many
goals. He suggested with the new Council coming board, Staff should propose
their goals and be upfront about the ability of the institution to get things done.
Council Member Kishimoto said she would prioritize the hotline since 7% of
fraud being detected through hotlines was a compelling statistic.
Mr. Keene said that it would be unethical for him to make up a deadline if it
can’t be met. He said Staff was moving into a reality where priorities will need
to be rethought. Every meeting a new project is added, but they are never
taken off. Staff will need to work with new Council to make sure the priorities
that are the most important to Council are what Staff will be working on. The
ethics policy can be outsourced. The hotline should be discussed and defined.
Council Member Kishimoto said the public becomes frustrated when they call
with questions and get bumped around.
Mr. Keene agreed, saying it was not a good use of customer or Staff time.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if there had been discussion about a central
number for the public to call.
Mr. Keene said that there has been discussion about opening communications
with public in a responsive manner.
Planning Director Curtis Williams said each department must understand who
does what. Code Enforcement gets most calls, whether or not they have the
authority to deal with the problem. The Code Enforcement Staff was very
knowledgeable, he said, and distributed the calls around the organization or
external resources as needed.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if they were available on weekends.
Mr. Williams said they are on-call on weekends.
Attachment AAttachment A
Council Member Kishimoto asked what would happen if a member of the public
called the Police instead of Code Enforcement.
Mr. Williams said the Police will go out and talk with the public and can issue
citations.
Council Member Kishimoto asked how the complaints are tracked.
Mr. Williams said he was not sure whether or not a specific case number was
assigned and given to the public, but the complaints were tracked.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if there was enough cross training between
departments.
Mr. Williams said it could probably be better, but the Code Enforcement Officers
were knowledgeable.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if there could be a website that instructs the
public where to call.
Mr. Williams said that would be possible, if it doesn’t already exist.
Chair Espinosa asked who would look at that.
Mr. Williams said the Committee would be a good avenue to instruct Staff.
Chair Espinosa said that using search engines to help the public would be
useful.
Mr. Keene added that a small number of Staff is testing some pilots on a
customer based call system.
A member of the public, Emily Rensel said that her experience with the City
was to be bounced around. She said Planning doesn’t enforce their own site
and design reviews.
Chair Espinosa suggested the Committee look into this.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that the audit contains recommended processes including
for ethics and a hotline.
Mr. Young added that Phoenix, AZ was a model city for code of ethics and
hotline issues.
Attachment AAttachment A
Chair Espinosa said he understood the lack of resources. He said that if
resources dictate that a project must be delayed, the Council needs to know
that so they can adjust priorities if needed. He said he still doesn’t know when
these projects might be delivered.
Mr. Keene said Staff would send the Committee revised comments.
Assistant to the City Manager Kelly Morariu said the follow up report could come
at the same time as the hotline report.
Council Member Yeh said he preferred an independent hotline. The employees
and members of the public must be able to be anonymous. It falls on an
auditor to audit the calls. Creating a culture that fraud waste and abuse will
not be tolerated is important with the public.
Mr. Keene said that was helpful feedback.
Chair Espinosa confirmed that Staff would report back to the Committee.
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh
that the Policy and Services Committee accept the Report of the Status of Audit
Recommendations.
Motion Passed: 4-0
Attachment AAttachment A
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE - EXCERPT
Special Meeting
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Chairperson Yeh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Yeh (Chair), Holman, Price, Shepherd
Absent: None
2. Follow-Up Discussion of Options to Implement a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
Hotline Program
City Auditor, Lynda Brouchoud said that in 2008 the City Auditor’s Office issued
an Audit of Employee Ethics Policies which included the recommendation to
implement a hotline. She said there was currently no development of a hotline
to accept or review complaints involving fraud, waste, or abuse. Whistleblower
legislation took effect in 2009 allowing City Auditors to establish and manage
hotlines. In November of 2009, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed
the recommendations and requested a follow up meeting with Staff. She
recommended the following considerations for determining next steps: 1)
should a hotline be established, 2) if so, what type of hotline should be
implemented, 3) who would manage the hotline, and 4) what costs would be
associated with the program. She said research indicated a reduction of fraud
when a program such as this was in place. Further research indicated that
organizations with hotlines tend to detect fraud activity seven months earlier,
and lessen the financial impact by as much as 60%. She said the law that was
passed in 2008 allows City Auditors to take the calls from a hotline, distribute
them to appropriate Staff and provide documentation for disciplinary purposes.
She said it was important to maintain confidentiality. She said that the bill has
been amended to include a definition of fraud, waste, or abuse. She said the
City Auditor’s Staff had surveyed comparable organizations regarding hotlines.
The results showed that some organizations have them, some don’t, and some
were considering implementing them. She said the City of San Francisco had a
public hotline and she demonstrated what that looked like. She said they
produce reports based off of the hotline data that included information on
Attachment BAttachment A
claims that were investigated. She said that the City of Stockton had an
employee hotline. They reported results via a newsletter. She discussed
options. Staff recommended that it would be best to incorporate a hotline into
an organization-wide ethics program. She recommended piloting a limited,
employees only hotline. Staff also recommended that contract options for the
investigation component of the program should be researched as there was
concern over Staff’s ability to manage the workload.
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil said that the legislation allows the City
Auditor to create and maintain a hotline, but it does not require one. She said
the City Manager’s Office supports the idea of an outside contractor to vet the
calls. The City Manager’s Office also recommended the establishment of a
committee consisting of the four Council Appointed Officers (CAO’s) and the
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) vet the calls. She said she can’t recommend hiring
additional Staff. She said the 3-1-1 system might be a good approach.
Council Member Holman asked what prompted the first audit that sparked this
finding.
Ms. Brouchoud said it was based off of some past issues and recommended
practices. She said that the City Auditor and Staff are charged with reviewing
fraud, waste, and abuse at all times, regardless of a hotline.
Council Member Holman asked if having a Staff Member that was certified to
handle fraud, waste, and abuse was required.
Ms. Brouchoud said the only requirement was for the City Auditor to be a
Certified Internal Auditor.
Council Member Holman said there were a variety of perspectives on the next
step recommendations. She said that any program will have problems, but the
Policy and Services Committee (P&S) should work toward making it as easy as
possible.
Ms. Antil said that Staff complaints should always be handled by a third party.
The City Manager’s Office wasn’t recommending that the CAO’s perform the
audits, but rather they determine how the audits would be conducted. Some
might be appropriate to go through the City Auditor Staff because of their
training. She added that the process should have some transparency.
Ms. Brouchoud agreed that a committee approach was appropriate. The
complaints that were in the fraud, waste, and abuse category would need to be
reviewed by an appropriate party.
Attachment BAttachment A
Council Member Price asked for clarification regarding the committee model.
She wanted to know who would actually conduct the investigations.
Ms. Brouchoud said there was a concern regarding Staff’s workload. It was
difficult to answer whether or not an outside source would be required because
it was impossible to predict the number of significant complaints.
Council Member Price said that the complaints would need to be sorted and
prioritized. She said that she supported the hotline concept. She wanted to
know who, out of the CAO’s would take the lead on the committee.
Ms. Brouchoud said that there were two different elements to contractors; one
would be contractor management of the actual hotline. The contractor would
place the calls into categories as an initial cut. The task of the CAO Committee
would be to review either the cut list or the whole body of complaints. She said
that in the City of Stockton the City Auditor filters the messages through to the
appropriate parties.
Council Member Price asked if they could discuss implementation.
Ms. Antil said that there were opinions, including that of the Ethics Manager at
ICMA, that this type of complaint should be routed through the City Manager’s
Office. She said that the CAO’s were capable of vetting the complaints
appropriately. She said that budget was an important component to the
project. She could not recommend bringing another City Auditor Staff Member
to the organization. As a result, some tasks on the City Auditor’s Workplan
would have to be diverted to manage the complaints.
Assistant to the City Manager Kelly Morariu said they should discuss whether or
not they were going to implement a hotline. If a hotline was approved, there
were options such as either a dedicated line or the incorporation of a hotline
into a more general 3-1-1 system.
Ms. Antil said Staff would like to link it all together.
Council Member Price said it would be advisable to implement the hotline as
part of a broader ethics policy.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the CAO Committee model was used, what
would happen if a whistleblower was on a CAO’s team.
Ms. Antil said it was a good question. There would be a notification.
Attachment BAttachment A
Ms. Brouchoud said there would be a process in place to manage that, to
explain how issues go to the user. It would be a little more difficult to keep the
anonymity with the CAO Committee.
Ms. Antil said the Palo Alto Staff did not tend to be shy about bringing issues
forward, even without a system. She voiced concern about complaints being
more frequent as a result of the shrinking employee base. An ethics policy
could either be rules based or values based, the City Manager’s vision was to
have a values based policy. With or without a hotline, a values based policy
would be what Staff would prefer to focus on. She expressed concern about a
hotline being set up ahead of Staff training and the mixed message it might
send.
Council Member Price asked what the difference was between a CAO Committee
and the roles of the CAO’s involvement in the process.
Ms. Antil said that in the first round of vetting all complaints would go through
the City Auditor.
Council Member Shepherd asked where the budget for the program would come
from.
Ms. Brouchoud said that was one of the trade-offs. The hotline itself could cost
around $6,500 and would have to come out of the City Auditor’s contract
budget. She expressed concern about the impact on other audit work. The
non-fraud, waste, and abuse calls would still have to be forwarded somewhere,
likely to the City Manager’s Office. She said Staff wasn’t able to compile much
data regarding actual workload, but the City of Stockton had 33 calls annually.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Stockton had identified any savings from
that.
Ms. Brouchoud said it was difficult to quantify what is prevented and any actual
findings are kept confidential.
Council Member Holman asked for clarification regarding complaints that go
straight to a CAO.
Ms. Antil said that often cities the size of Palo Alto do not have City Auditors
and may or may not have hotlines. She said that calls come in to the City
Manager and then are filtered down to the appropriate Staff. She said that Palo
Alto Staff has struggled with the process since calls are infrequent. A process
Attachment BAttachment A
needed to be developed. She said some organizations have an elected Auditor
that handles the calls, or they may be routed through a Controller’s office. She
said that the last city she worked in was about the same size as Palo Alto and
functioned without a hotline and complaints were still managed effectively. She
said that some Staff Members may not trust the confidentiality of the hotline.
Council Member Holman said the State’s recommendation was that the hotline
should be run through the City Auditor’s Office.
Ms. Antil said the State law was that a hotline may run through the City
Auditor’s Office.
Council Member Holman said that she read it as “should be.” She said the
estimate of 7% of annual revenue lost to fraudulent activity was an interesting
number. She discussed a recent case involving a former City Staff Member who
filed a complaint after they left, yet they were still labeled as a disgruntled
employee. She said this situation with what happened to someone after they
left the organization, made her think about the process for Staff that are still on
the payroll. She said that 63% of the cases reported to a hotline were based
on fraud committed by a manager or executive. She said that someone
certified in fraud, waste, and abuse cases should handle the calls. She asked
for a follow up on the progress being made in the development of an ethics
program.
Ms. Antil said a consultant will work on it.
Ms Morariu said it was the same consultant that had worked with the City of
Santa Clara. Staff was reviewing his proposal.
Council Member Holman asked for a timeline.
Ms. Morariu said Staff hoped to start rolling out a phased approach to an ethics
program in the fall with values development and training in the spring.
Council Member Holman asked about the City Manager’s interest in the 3-1-1
line.
Ms. Antil suggested the claims should be vetted.
Council Member Holman asked for clarification on the CAO’s role in the vetting.
Attachment BAttachment A
Ms. Antil said a contractor would decide what level the complaints would fall to,
and the CAO’s would decide if the organization had the resources to handle the
complaint internally or not.
Ms. Brouchoud reiterated that the calls would be placed into predefined
categories and then would need to be vetted into the appropriate dispositions.
Ms. Morariu said the initial vetting also would determine the validity of the
complaint.
Ms. Brouchoud said they would transcribe and categorize the complaints. A
determination on whether to investigate or not would have to be made on the
calls.
Ms. Morariu said there were several ways to process the calls. The contractor,
for example, would be able to vet the complaints.
Ms. Brouchoud said the contractor could categorize the complaints, but may not
be qualified to determine if the complaint qualified for investigation.
Ms. Antil said the City Manager’s Office may have additional information that
could help determine whether a complaint should be investigated, information
that the City Auditor may not have. She said action had to be taken on
complaints in a timely manner and voiced concerns about the City Auditor Staff
having the ability to do so.
Council Member Holman said the City Auditor should be able to determine the
City Auditor’s Department workload. Priorities would have to be shuffled
around as issues come up.
Ms. Brouchoud said it was part of the broader workplan discussed with the
Council.
Ms. Morariu said, regarding the 3-1-1 number, that type of system has a
mechanism to automatically route calls eliminating the need for the CAO vetting
scenario. It may be awhile out, but implementing the system would help
alleviate some of the concerns over Staff resources.
Council Member Yeh said that in Oakland, they had a fraud, waste, and abuse
hotline contracted out. There was no budget for investigators. The number of
calls increased considerably when the hotline became available to the public. It
is a separate function from the 3-1-1 line. If it is appropriately tailored for
employees, the inappropriate calls would be limited. He said that he would
Attachment BAttachment A
support moving forward with a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline, separating it
from a 3-1-1 hotline, and housing it in the City Auditor’s Office. Clear policies
would need to be developed for the use of the hotline to ensure fairness and
equity across the board. An external contractor also helps to keep anonymity.
A resource combined with a culture is the most powerful and an ethics policy
should be implemented.
Council Member Shepherd said that she supported the trial period. She said
ethics issues tended to occur during difficult financial times such as these and
having that policy in place would help.
Ms. Brouchoud said that the policies should be in place prior to establishing a
hotline. Previous discussions suggested six months to develop policies and find
a contractor as well as 12-18 months to test a program.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the contractor would assist in the policy
creation process.
Ms. Brouchoud said there were some pre-planned policies that some
contractors had.
Council Member Price asked about the anonymity option.
Ms. Brouchoud said they could opt out of filing anonymously. She asked if they
would like a draft policy to be presented.
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Price,
that the Policy and Services Committee recommends the City Council: 1)
establish a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline that is organized under the City
Auditor’s Office; 2) that clear policies and procedures should be established
prior to the hotline implementation; 3) the hotline will be for employees only;
4) Auditor’s office has six months to develop policies and find a contractor; and
4) there be a 12-18 month time period to test a program.
Council Member Shepherd said it could go straight to Council.
Council Member Holman said she was trying to integrate the timing with the
policies that were not in place yet. She also would like to see how it would be
implemented prior to approval.
Council Member Yeh suggested an informational report could be brought back
to P&S.
Attachment BAttachment A
Council Member Holman said it was a complicated issue and she would like
more clarity about how it would be implemented.
Council Member Shepherd said there wasn’t really any more detailed they could
be at the policy level prior to the pilot.
Council Member Yeh said there should be continued dialogue regarding
opportunities. He suggested an informational report to Council would be useful.
He said that issues such as potential expenditures prior to implementing a
policy would be an important topic.
Ms. Brouchoud agreed that expenditures were important to discuss. She said
that information regarding expenditures was not available yet because
discussions had not progressed that far with a contractor. She said that Staff
would prepare a follow-up list of recommendations and return to P&S on the
ethics audit recommendations.
Ms. Antil suggested the City Auditor may have a little bit of training prepared at
that time for both City Staff and the City Auditor’s team that will be handling
the complaints.
Council Member Holman asked what levels of certification they had.
Ms. Brouchoud said she was a Certified Internal Auditor, but there were other
levels of certification as well.
Council Member Holman wanted to know how that increased certification fit the
timeline of the ethics policies implementation. She suggested Staff work
toward a smooth transition to the policy. She also stated that she didn’t expect
many complaints once the program was implemented.
Council Member Price liked having an informational report tying all of this
together. She said it might be more efficient if it went straight to Council.
Council Member Holman said she was struggling with not having more
information. She wanted to see across the board what steps were being taken.
Council Member Shepherd said Staff would integrate that vision into the
process.
Ms. Morariu said that by the time the item went to the Council there would be
more information available and incorporated into the report.
Attachment BAttachment A
Ms. Antil said that the City Manager’s Office and the City Auditor’s Office were
in agreement on the type of ethics program that should be created.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Attachment BAttachment A
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE – DRAFT
EXCERPT
Regular Meeting
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Price (Chair), Holman, Klein
Absent: Burt
Council Member Burt arrived at 7:07 p.m.
4. Discussion and Recommendation on the Proposed
Implementation Plan for the Employee Hotline
Michael Edmonds, Interim City Auditor, recommended the Policy and
Services Committee discuss this item and recommend to the City
Council to approve the proposed implementation of an employee
hotline. In 2008, the City Auditor’s Office issued an audit of employee
ethics policies. The audit recommended the City adopt an employee
code of ethics, formalize a formal ethics program and form a working
group to establish a hotline to review complaints involving fraud,
waste and abuse of City resources. In 2009, the Committee requested
the Office return at a later date with a follow up discussion on the
proposal to implement a hotline. In 2010, the Office proposed various
options and the Policy and Services Committee recommended a 12-18
month pilot program for the employee hotline. He said that in
accordance with that direction, the City Auditor’s Office is proposing a
hotline run as a pilot program from January 1, 2012 through June 30,
2013. He stated that complaints would deal with fraud, waste and
abuse. The hotline would not investigate labor, harassment or
discrimination complaints. Human Resources or the City Manager’s
Staff would be responsible for these types of complaints. The plan
would be to contract with an outside vendor where complaints would
Attachment B
be fielded either through a toll free number or a web site. He said if
the proposal is passed by Council, the next step would be to send out
a Request for Proposal (RFP). The City Manager’s Office, City
Attorney’s Office, and City Auditor’s Office would then form a
complaint-review committee to oversee the process. He stated that
the City Auditor’s Office would provide an update regarding complaints
fielded through the employee hotline on the quarterly reports to
Council. At the end of the pilot program, the City Auditor’s Office will
generate a report summarizing the program to the Policy and Services
Committee. He outlined two primary costs of the program: 1) cost of
the vendor, which would range from approximately $3,000 to $6,000
for the pilot program, and 2) the cost of reviewing complaints in the
form of Staff resources.
Council Member Holman asked Mr. Edmonds to explain the last bullet
point under “types of complaints” on page 2 of the report (“Gross
disregard of policy and procedural controls”).
Mr. Edmonds responded with a hypothetical example of a situation:
Purchasing is required to get bids for a purchase, but instead selects a
vendor without following normal protocol.
Council Member Holman asked if this type of complaint includes a
situation where a Staff Member didn’t follow the procedures of a
process for a specific project.
Mr. Edmonds answered yes. He said some criteria would need to be
developed as far as what types of complaints should be investigated. If
a complaint involved fraud, waste or abuse it would be investigated.
James Keene, City Manager, stated this hotline would not change any
procedures the City already followed. The examples in this report
were designed to be illustrative and not meant to be inclusive. Even
now without the hotline Staff receives complaints and grievances all
the time and we have to assess their merits and agree on what action
needs to be taken.
Council Member Holman asked if the hotline would include customer
service complaints since this would be an employee-only hotline.
Mr. Edmonds responded by saying most customer service complaints
would come externally, but the point was to clarify things we would
not take into consideration.
Attachment B
Mr. Keene said the only difference between is the process with a
hotline and the current process is the hotline is an anonymous phone
call.
Council Member Burt asked if the complaint review committee (page 2
of the report) was different from current practice.
Mr. Keene answered that it would be different in that the current
process was informal.
Council Member Burt clarified the difference would be a defined group
rather than an ad hoc committee.
Council Member Holman said the quarterly report of the hotline should
be presented to the Policy and Services Committee, rather than the
Finance Committee.
Mr. Edmonds said the City Auditor’s Office was seeking policy direction
from the Policy and Services Committee. Once the hotline becomes
operational, the quarterly report would go to the Finance Committee
as all other audit reports.
Council Member Holman established that the check-ins would concern
this committee and not the Finance Committee. This was not a
financial issue – it was a policy issue.
Council Member Burt questioned if 1) these types of complaints would
go to the Finance Committee for any specific reason, and 2) audit
reports were both financial and non-financial based. He questioned
whether each audit report should be reviewed individually to
determine if they should go to the Finance Committee or the Policy
and Services Committee.
Mr. Edmonds said audit reports have gone to both Committees in the
past.
Council Member Burt clarified that maybe the Policy and Services
Committee should decide whether each audit report should go to one
committee or the other.
Mr. Keene agreed that they should not be presented to both
committees.
Attachment B
Council Member Klein questioned if there was a real need for this
hotline. He asked if the City really had a problem.
Mr. Edmonds said that he could not answer that, but stated fraud and
abuse occur and hotlines have proven to be effective in preventing and
deterring fraud. He said organizations establish hotlines because
employees find comfort in the anonymity. Despite this, there was no
known hesitation amongst current employees to report complaints.
Mr. Keene said the City Manager’s Office currently fields anonymous
complaints. This hotline would formalize this process.
Council Member Klein asked if the City Manager’s Office had data
regarding the number of complaints currently received. That data
could be used as a baseline.
Mr. Keene said he did not have the specific quantity, but it was a small
number.
Mr. Edmonds stated the City of San Jose’s hotline helped improve
reporting on the number of complaints received.
Chair Price said she likes the idea of a baseline. She asked if it could
be identifiable.
Mr. Keene said he hopes the hotline would generate only a minority
percentage of the complaints the City fields Anonymous complaints
have side-effects in an organization.
Council Member Klein asked if the City Auditor’s Office ran a surplus in
their budget since the cost of the program would be absorbed by the
City Auditor’s Office.
Mr. Edmonds responded that there was a slim surplus. In year one of
the program, would be half of the $3,000 to $6,000. He indicated that
the real cost was not with the vendor chosen, but the time spent from
the Council Appointed Officers and Staff.
Council Member Klein indicated his hope that the City will track time
spent on this project.
Council Member Klein said that when the possibility of this hotline first
arose, City Manager Keene was opposed to the idea. He asked if the
City Manager was comfortable with the proposition currently.
Attachment B
Mr. Keene said his main concern previously was that the hotline would
be managed completely by the City Auditor’s Office, whereas now it
was collaborative effort. He voiced his concern with the vagueness
that applies to the reporting of “waste”.
Chair Price said there would be an issue of trust and distrust. She
questioned whether employees would use this frivolously or take it
seriously. She stated that the hotline should provide a visible
structure (another vehicle) for transparency. She also asked if Staff
could determine how effective this hotline would be from other cities.
Mr. Edmonds said the overall sentiment from organizations that have
implemented hotlines was that it was a worthwhile investment.
Hotlines provide a means for employees to report on issues and this
model lent itself to cooperation.
Chair Price asked if there was an issue of maintaining confidentiality.
Mr. Edmonds asserted that state law mandates the City Auditor’s
Office maintain confidentiality.
Council Member Holman questioned whether there was a requirement
that the City needed to maintain a hotline to receive federal funding.
Mr. Edmonds said he has heard that as well and did some review of
the Recovery Act, but he had not found any evidence of there being a
specific requirement.
Council Member Holman said currently, when a grievance is filed, Staff
time is spent. She asked if the time taken would be different once we
implement a hotline.
Mr. Keene responded not necessarily, but there would be an issue if
we receive a grievance and a hotline complaint on the same issue
simultaneously.
Council Member Holman voiced concern about maintaining anonymity
through the entire process. More details would be needed.
Mr. Edmonds said if any complaint yields a criminal investigation,
anonymity could be lost.
Attachment B
Council Member Burt stated that if there was a complaint about a
procedure and Staff was able to independently verify it, then there was
no need to release the identity of the complainant. He realized that
there was no means of identifying the person because the system was
intended to be anonymous.
Mr. Keene said policies and procedures should be in place for all types
of situations.
Mr. Edmonds stated the complaints would come through a third party
and they had processes to protect the complainant and maintain
anonymity.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Chair Price to
recommend the City Council implement the employee-only waste,
fraud, and abuse hotline with quarterly reports being provided to the
Policy and Services Committee.
Council Member Holman stated the Interim City Auditor’s comment
that other organizations maintained hotlines was evidence that they
were effective. She hoped this hotline would provide an avenue for
healthier access to dialogue.
Mr. Keene questioned how this hotline would change the culture of the
organization. A downside was people can be inaccurate or mistaken
leading to someone being falsely accused.
Council Member Holman said people can have different perspectives.
This would be why the oversight committee and quarterly reports will
be established.
Chair Price said there as an issue with the fact that the City had no
control over an individual’s behavior. There was always a possibility of
a misunderstanding.
Council Member Klein stated that if a grudge case ever arises, he
hoped the accused person wouldn’t have anything in their employee
file.
Mr. Keene confirmed that such a situation would not occur. These
were the kinds of policies that needed to be in place.
Council Member Holman asked what the Committee should anticipate
in the quarterly reports.
Attachment B
Mr. Edmonds said he envisioned the reports would provide a status
report on complaints received and processed, as well as any issues
that arise.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1912)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1912)
Summary Title: Finance Committee Recommendation on Refuse Rates
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation for Rate Increases for the FY 2012
Refuse Fund Budget
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
The Finance Committee and staff recommend that Council direct staff to:
1.Proceed with plans to retain the FY 2011 rate increases of 6% for residential
customers and 9% for commercial customers, and to implement an additional
fixed monthly fee of $4.62 for all residential customers to be effective on
October 1, 2011;
2.Establish a loan of $1.25 million from the General Fund Budget Stabilization
Reserve to the Refuse Fund that will be disbursed in FY 2012 and repaid in FY
2013, with interest on the loan to be based on the average yield on the City’s
investment portfolio for the loan period; and
3.Proceed with the Proposition 218 public notification process for the rate
increases and return to City Council in September 2011 for the public hearing
and adoption of the new refuse rates.
Executive Summary
This report provides City Council with staff’s recommendation for rate increases to close
the $3.7 million Refuse Fund operating deficit for FY 2012. The recommended rate
increases consist of retaining the 6% and 9% rate increases from FY 2011 for
residential and commercial customers, respectively, and establishing an additional fixed
monthly fee of $4.62 for residential customers to be effective on October 1, 2011. To
minimize immediate impact to ratepayers, the Committee also recommended a short
term $1.25 million loan from the General Fund BSR that will be repaid in FY 2013 from
projected savings resulting from scheduled closure of the landfill. The FY 2011 rate
increases are scheduled to expire on September 30, 2011. The Finance Committee
unanimously recommended this approach at its July 19, 2011 meeting.
Background
In September 2010, City Council adopted refuse rate increases for FY 2011 that became
effective on October 1, 2010 and would expire on September 30, 2011. At the April 5,
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1912)
2011 Finance Committee meeting, staff was directed to propose an initial FY 2012
Refuse Fund budget for adoption by City Council that assumed expiration of the FY
2011 rate increases, and to return to the Finance Committee in July 2011 with
recommendations for rate increases and additional expense reductions for FY 2012.
The FY 2012 budget, adopted by City Council on June 20, 2011, contains an operating
deficit of $3.7 million for the Refuse Fund. Approximately $1.2 million of that deficit is
due to the expiration of the FY 2011 rate increases that is scheduled to occur on
September 30, 2011.
Staff is proceeding with a detailed Cost of Service Study that will likely result in a new
rate structure beyond the interim adjustment recommendations being made in this
Action Item. The preliminary results of the study show that residential rates are not
covering their proportional expenses. Conversely, while the commercial sector is much
more volatile than residential, the preliminary results indicate commercial rates appear
to be exceeding expenses. While the Cost of Service Study is not yet complete, the
recommendations in this report are based on the need to bring the residential rates up
to a fuller cost recovery level while attempting to correct the existing inequities between
residential and commercial sectors. The goal of this interim adjustment is to begin
implementing fuller cost recovery for residential immediately, in order to avoid a larger
deficit problem going forward.
At the July 5, 2011 Finance Committee meeting, staff was directed to prepare options
for refuse rate increases which would express a portion (or all) of the residential rate
increase as a fixed cost, applicable to all residential users. The Finance Committee also
directed staff to prepare a plan for eliminating the Recycling Center and retaining the
Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Area at the Wastewater Quality Treatment Plant.
That detailed plan will take several months to produce. Therefore, staff used its cost
saving estimate for the elimination of the Recycling Center during FY 2012 (six-month
savings) in the refuse rate calculations. The current Recycling Center must be removed
following the closure of the landfill, resulting in the six-month savings regardless of
whether the Recycling Center is fully eliminated. Staff then developed two options for
refuse rate increases expressing some (or all) of the increase as a fixed amount for
each residential customer. Those options, as well as an option that does not include a
fixed amount, are summarized in the “Discussion” section below.
Discussion
At the July 5, 2011 Finance Committee meeting, staff recommended that a residential
rate increase be adopted for FY 2012, 100% of which would vary by the size of the
garbage can. This recommendation was in addition to retaining the FY 2011 6% rate
increase that is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2011. Staff recommended that
commercial rates have no increase for FY 2012 beyond retaining the FY 2011 9% rate
increase. This approach would begin to address the apparent inequities of the current
rate structure between residential and commercial sectors initially identified by the
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1912)
ongoing Cost of Service Study without subjecting residential customers to a rate
increase that is significantly higher than other rate increases in the past.
On July 19, 2011, staff returned to the Finance Committee with additional options
involving the use of fixed amounts for some (or all) of the increase for residential
customers. Under these options, residential customers would continue to pay the
current rate (which varies by can size), and an amount would be added to the current
rate with an element of fixed cost. Two new options were calculated (50% and 100%
fixed costs) and the fixed rate portion and percent increase to the existing variable rate
are shown in Table 1 for each of these options. Table 1 also provides the new total fee
for each can size. Table 2 expresses the increases as percentages. Although Table 1
provides the combined variable and fixed rates, the variable and fixed rates would be
shown separately on customer bills. The rate increases presented in Table 1 are in
addition to retaining the 6% residential and 9% commercial rate increases that were
adopted in FY 2011.
Table 1:Options for fixed and variable residential rate increases and resulting
residential rates.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
FY11
Rates
100%
variable
50% fixed,
50% variable
100%
fixed
Fixed Rate --$0.00 $2.31 $4.62
Variable
Increase --13.4%6.7%0.0%
Mini $15.90 $18.03 $19.27 $20.52
32 gallon $32.86 $37.26 $37.37 $37.48
64 gallon $67.84 $76.92 $74.69 $72.46
96 gallon $101.76 $115.38 $110.88 $106.38
Table 2: Percent increases over existing FY11 residential rates for fixed and variable
residential rate increase options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
100% variable
50% fixed,
50% variable 100% fixed
Mini 13.4%21.2%29.0%
32 gallon 13.4%13.7%14.0%
64 gallon 13.4%10.1%6.8%
96 gallon 13.4%9.0%4.5%
July 25, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1912)
Staff and Finance Committee recommend Option 3 (100% fixed cost), to address rate
inequities at this time. The Finance Committee expressed a strong preference for a
100% fixed cost increase in order to better assure the revenue pending completion of
the cost of service study. Reduced expenses in FY 2013 because of the closure of the
landfill allow the Refuse Fund to receive a $1.25 million loan from the Budget
Stabilization Reserve in FY 2012 that will be repaid in FY 2013. The loan from the
Budget Stabilization Reserve minimizes the rate increases for FY 2012. The Finance
Committee unanimously recommended that City Council direct staff to proceed with
Option 3, including provision of a $1.25 million loan from the Budget Stabilization
Reserve to the Refuse Fund.
Once the Cost of Service Study is completed this fall, future rate increases (as needed)
will be based on Cost of Service data. Regardless of which option Council directs staff
to proceed with at this time, staff will return to the Finance Committee in approximately
six months with fixed costs data based on the Study upon which to base future changes
to the rate structure, as planned.
Resource Impact
The proposed rate increases (all 3 options) are estimated to erase the $3.7 million
deficit and result in a balanced Budget for FY 2012 and FY 2013. The proposed rate
increases include a loan of $1.25 million in FY 2012 from the General Fund Budget
Stabilization Reserve (BSR) to be repaid in FY 2013. Interest on the loan would be paid
based on the average yield on the City’s investment portfolio for the loan period.The
BSR balance would be reduced to $25.8 million or 17.6% of expenditures, which is
above the 15% minimum balance approved by Council.
Timeline
Following direction by City Council, staff will send Proposition 218 notifications to refuse
customers. At the conclusion of the 45 day notification period, staff will return to City
Council for the public hearing and adoption of the new refuse rates in September 2011.
Following City Council adoption, the new rates will become effective on October 1,
2011.
Policy Implications
The proposed Refuse Rate increase is consistent with current City Policies.
Environmental Review
The proposed actions do not constitute a project pursuant to CEQA.
Attachments:
·A -Refuse Fund Slides (PPT)
July 25, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1912)
·B -7/19/11 Finance Committee Draft Excerpt Minutes (DOC)
Prepared By:Brad Eggleston, Manager, Environmental Control Programs
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Finance Committee Recommendation
for FY 2012 Refuse Rates
City of Palo Alto
City Council
July 25, 2011
ATTACHMENT A
2
Long Term Strategy
¡Establish rates that fully cover
expenses and establish necessary
expense reductions for FY12
¡Complete forecasting model and
current cost of service analysis
¡Prepare options for new
structural changes to rates
¡Implement first of new structural
rate changes for FY13
Oct 2011
Nov 2011
Jan 2012
July 2012
3
Long Term Strategy (cont.)
¡Achieve +$3 million operating reserve
¡Achieve:
l All rate payer categories pay their
actual costs
l Full implementation of structural
rate changes
~ 3 Years
~ 3 –5
Years
4
Short Term Strategy
¡Council adoption of FY12 budget (including refuse fund deficit without rate increase)
¡Finalize FY12 plans (Finance Committee)
l Expense reductions
l October 2011 rate recommendations
¡Council consideration of FY12 plans
¡Notice rate increase
¡Council adoption of October 2011 rates
¡Implementation of October 2011 rates
¡Continue to develop forecasting model and ongoing Cost of Service analysis
June 2011
early July 2011
early July 2011
mid July 2011
September 2011
October 1, 2011
Ongoing
5
Finance Committee Discussions of FY
2012 Refuse Fund Budget and Rates
¡4/5/11:
l Finance Committee directed staff to prepare FY 2012 budget assuming expiration of FY 2011 rate increases and return in July with rate increase recommendation
¡5/24/11:
l Finance Committee recommended Council approval of FY 2012 RefuseFund budget with $3.7 million deficit
¡7/5/11:
l Staff recommended obtaining $1.25 million loan from Budget Stabilization Reserve, keep 6% residential and 9% commercial rate increases from FY 2011, and raise residential rates by additional 13% to close budget deficit
l Finance Committee directed staff to prepare options for a fixed residential rate in lieu of the 13% residential increase recommended by staff
¡7/19/11:
l Finance Committee recommended Council approval of $1.25 million loan, retaining 6% and 9% rate increases from FY 2011, and fixed rate of $4.62 per month for residential customers
6
Refuse Fund FY 2010 Expense Actuals
(thousands of dollars)
$12,478,39.7%
$2,364,7.5%
$1,944,6.2%
$175,0.6%
$2,633,8.4%
$4,289,13.6%
$741,2.4%
$187,0.6%
$1,853,5.9%
$1,061,3.4%
$345,1.1%
$834,2.7%
$511,1.6%
$2,019,6.4%
GreenWaste Contract - 39.7%
SMaRT Station -7.5%
Kirby Canyon Disposal Fee -6.2%
Kirby Canyon Put-or-Pay - 0.6%
Landfill Operations - 8.4%
Landfill Rent - 13.6%
Interest on Landfill Rent - 2.4%
CIP -0.6%
Allocated G&A,Transfers - 5.9%
Admin -3.4%
Permitting/Enforcement - 1.1%
Zero Waste - 2.7%
HHW - 1.6%
Street Sweeping - 6.4%
7
Landfill Closure Results in Reduced
Expenses in FY 2013 Compared to FY 2012
¡FY12 expenses are higher than FY13 expenses
due to landfill rent and operations costs
l FY12 landfill rent = $4.29 million
l FY13 landfill rent = $2.09 million
l FY12 landfill operations = $2.24 million
l FY13 landfill operations = $1.13 million
¡Loan of $1.25 million in FY12 can be repaid in
FY13 to minimize FY12 rate increase (with no
rate increase in FY13)
8
Options for Residential Rate Increase
(additional to retaining 6% increase from FY 2011)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
FY11
Rates
100%
variable
50% fixed,
50% variable
100%
fixed
Fixed Rate --$0.00 $2.31 $4.62
Variable
Increase --13.4%6.7%0.0%
Mini $15.90 $18.03 $19.27 $20.52
32 gallon $32.86 $37.26 $37.37 $37.48
64 gallon $67.84 $76.92 $74.69 $72.46
96 gallon $101.76 $115.38 $110.88 $106.38
Staff and Finance Committee
Recommendation: Option 3
9
Percent Increases Over FY 2011 Rates
of Residential Rate Increase Options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
100%
variable
50% fixed,
50%
variable 100% fixed
Mini 13.4%21.2%29.0%
32 gallon 13.4%13.7%14.0%
64 gallon 13.4%10.1%6.8%
96 gallon 13.4%9.0%4.5%
10
Staff and Finance Committee
Recommendations
¡Retain 6% residential and 9%
commercial rate increases from FY 2011
¡Implement fixed residential rate of $4.62
per month to be effective 10/1/2011
¡Obtain $1.25 million loan from the
General Fund Budget Stabilization
Reserve to be disbursed in FY 2012 and
repaid in FY 2013
11
Next Steps on Refuse Rates
¡Council direction on Finance Committee
recommendation for FY 2012 rates
¡Mail Proposition 218 notifications
¡Council adoption of FY 2012 rates
¡Complete current Cost of Service
analysis and continue public outreach
¡Prepare options for new structural
changes to rates
¡Implement first of new structural
changes for FY 2013
7/25/11
7/29/11
9/19/11
November 2011
January 2012
July 2012
12
Next Steps on Recycling Center and
Household Hazardous Waste Facility
¡Develop Plan and Options for Recycling Center and HHW Facility considering:
l Community outreach
l Costs for additional Cleanup Day and community’s use of current Cleanup Day program
l Costs for HHW facility improvements
l Options for disposing of universal wastes and other items with limited alternatives
l Role of Extended Producer Responsibility in the HHW program
¡Staff is scheduled to return to Finance Committee with the Plan and Options in September
ATTACHMENT B
FILENAME 1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DRAFT EXCERPT
Special Meeting
July 19, 2011
1.Recommendation for Rate Increases for the FY12 Refuse Fund Budget
Interim Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor gave a brief presentation on the history
of the rate increase discussions.Staff had initiated the rate increase request to the
Finance Committee in April of 2011. Staff was requested to proceed with a budget
including the 6 to 9 percent rate increases and return to the Committee in July with a
proposal. Staff presented a proposal on July 5, 2011 to take a $1.25 million loan from
the Budget Stabilization Reserve and add 13 percent to the top for residential
customers keeping the 6 and 9 percent which had previously been approved in 2010.
The Committee had requested Staff consider a flat rate which was what had been
brought forward for discussion.
Solid Waste Manager, Brad Eggleston presented the 3 options Staff had brought
forward for discussion: Option 1 was 100 percent variable, essentially the proposal
presented on July 5th; Option 2 had a fixed rate incorporated into the option where 50
percent of the revenue was generated through the fixed and 50 percent was generated
through the variable;and Option 3 was a 100 percent fixed rate which ended up being
$4.62 per month per residential customer. The Staff recommended the Committee
select Option 3. Staff was on the City Council agenda for July 25, 2011, if Council
decided to move forward the Proposition 218 notices would be mailed out to the public
by the end of the week. The goal would be to return to the Council in September for
approval and set the rate changes in effect for October 1, 2011. He stated the Cost of
Service Analysis was scheduled to be completed by November.
Mr. Sartor stated Staff had been requested to review options for eliminating the
Recycling Center.He noted Staff had engaged the community in a discussion at an
environmental partners meeting last week, there had been feedback received by a
number of the users of the recycling center. He noted Staff was looking into the cost
for an additional clean-up day and the use for the community of said day.
ATTACHMENT B
FILENAME 2
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on hazardous items being included in the Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) recycling center, items such as anti-freeze.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, anti-freeze was an items that would be accepted at the HHW
center.He stated used appliances and electronics were not accepted at the HHW
center; although, those items would typically be collected at an annual household
clean-up day.
Council Member Shepherd asked if a customer had a large box or an oversized piece
which did not fit into the household bin, what happened.
Mr. Sartor stated there were two options for the customer if the recycling center were
to be eliminated;1)the customer could store the item and wait for the clean-up day or
2)the customer could haul the item themselves to the sMaRt Station in Sunnyvale.
Council Member Shepherd confirmed it was not within the Green Waste contract to pick
up items which were not in the bin.
Mr. Eggleston asked for clarification on the type of box.
Council Member Shepherd stated a large cardboard box filled with recycled materials.
Mr. Eggleston stated that would be considered a curbside item and could be placed on
the curb next to the bin.
Council Member Shepherd stated they would pick it up with the regular recycle bin.
Mr. Eggleston stated yes, as long as the items were contained within a biodegradable
container such as a cardboard box or a paper bag.
Council Member Schmid asked if the advantage of a fixed rate was secured revenue.
Mr. Sartor stated there were two answers for your question; 1) the fixed rate may
reduce the impact of switching from a larger can size to a smaller one, and 2) it had a
greater impact on reducing the inequities between the can sizes.
Council Member Schmid stated the gaps between the can sizes were considerable.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, there were inequities which would be addressed with the Cost of
Service Study. He noted Staff had previously mentioned there were still uncertainties
with the model.
ATTACHMENT B
FILENAME 3
Council Member Schmid stated Palo Alto retained conservation pricing and added an
element where we know the amount of money being generated. He asked how much
would be generated by the increased figure.
Mr. Eggleston stated he did not have the exact figure; although he noted it was close
to $800,000.
Council Member Schmid asked if the amount being generated per household was $4.62
multiplied by 17,500 households.
Mr. Eggleston stated 17,500 households was the number used.
Council Member Schmid stated that amounted to approximately $100,000.
Mr. Eggleston stated the amount was $4.62 per month and there were considerations
in there was not a complete 12 months in the remainder of the year since the rates
would not be affective until October 1, 2011.
Council Member Schmid stated to refer back to the budget, taking into account the $6
million reserve there was a $3.6 million deficit and $1.25 million would come from the
loan and $1.2 million from the earlier rates, then through the upgraded savings there
was approximately $500,000.
Mr. Sartor stated the $500,000 was the savings from the landfill.
Council Member Schmid stated the rate increase was designed to cover the gap.
Mr. Eggleston stated $500,000 for the landfill seemed high, but that was the process
followed.
Mr. Sartor stated a valid point to mention was the $3.7 million assumed the 6 and
percent would not be retained.
Council Member Schmid stated Staff would be returning in September.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, with the Recycling Center and then in January of 2012 with the
next round of the 2013 budget and the Cost of Service Study results.
Council Member Schmid stated the rate changes currently being discussed; the 9
percent and the 6 percent would complete the rates for 2012.
ATTACHMENT B
FILENAME 4
Mr. Sartor stated that was correct.
Council Member Schmid stated a concerned he had was with the use of the term fixed
cost.
Mr. Sartor stated another term used in the Staff Report was flat rate which was a flat
rate of $4.62 for a residential customer plus the 6 percent from residential and the 9
percent from commercial.
Chair Scharff stated it was critical to have community outreach and have them agree to
the decisions made in the Committee and Council. He stated he was satisfied with the
direction of the rates and he felt it managed to move the City into the direction it
needed to go, while it maintained a differential while completing the Study and
encouraged people financially switch to the mini-can.
Council Member Shepherd stated her concerned for using the term flat rate. She felt it
sounded as if were a steady rate for everyone. She agreed to the terminology of 100
percent fixed costs which made more of a clear message.
Mr. Eggleston stated another term Staff considered was a base rate.
Council Member Shepherd stated the purpose of the increase was to recover or begin
to differentiate the fact that there were four vehicles moving throughout the streets
weekly. She stated the end result was to have a rate for the movement and possibly
separate out the refuse collection.
Mr. Sartor stated there were four vehicles plus a street sweeper; Staff was reviewing
options for the street sweeper as well.
Council Member Shepherd stated the cost was a service cost not necessarily a fixed
rate.
Mr. Eggleston clarified at this stage;it was difficult to identify the process with
precision since it was not calculated based on fixed costs or service costs.He stated
there was revenue needed and rather than doing a percentage increase Staff went in
the fixed rate direction.He noted when Staff returned with the Cost of Service Study
there would be a clearer rate structure.
Council Member Shepherd stated since this structure would be a first she suggested
researched other communities to see what their structures and rates were.
ATTACHMENT B
FILENAME 5
Mr. Sartor stated there were steps in the Proposition 218 process.
Council Member Shepherd stated she understood the Proposition 218 process but
wanted to ensure Staff included incentives and what needed to be analyzed beyond the
218.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to
recommend that the 6 percent residential and 9 percent commercial rate increases
from FY 2011 be retained, that a fixed residential rate of $4.62 per month be
implemented, and that a $1.25 million loan from the Budget Stabilization Reserve to
the Refuse Fund be provided in FY 2012 and repaid in FY 2013.
Council Member Shepherd stated her appreciation to Staff for their attempts to
stabilize the refuse by reviewing the fact that the landfill would be closing. She stated
there was flexibility by easing into the process.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated from the revenue perspective the fixed rate made clear sense
and it was a mid-term step prior to the completion of the Cost of Service Study.
Chair Scharff stated it was important for people to realize the goal was still to achieve
zero waste and encourage people to use mini-cans but there was a cost to recycling.
MOTION PASSED:4-0
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1959)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 1
(ID # 1959)
Summary Title: Habitation of Vehicles
Title: Approval of Ordinance Adding Section 9.06.010 to the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to Prohibit Human Habitation of Vehicles
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
We have removed this item from the Council agenda for July 25, 2011, to enable more outreach
on the draft ordinance with community groups. As staff was drafting the ordinance, modeled
on similar ordinances in other cities in Santa Clara County, we conducted several community
meetings, inviting both neighborhoods and social service stakeholders.Despite this outreach,
the emails and public comment received at your last Council meeting clearly suggest we should
delay Council consideration of this issue and again reach out to the community.
Staff plans to do this during the recess and tentatively suggests that we will return to Council in
September.It may be preferable to also send this to Policy and Services Committee prior to full
Council consideration. As we engage in these community conversations, we will be in a better
position to let you know specifically when this subject will be brought back to Council.At this
point, September is just a tentative target date.
Prepared By:Katie Whitley, Administrative Assistant
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1756)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1756)
Summary Title: Master License Agreement
Title: Adoption of Two Resolutions (1) Adopting Utility Rate Schedule E-16
(Unmetered Electric Service), as Amended, Adding a Wireless Facilities
Attachment Fee; and (2) Approving the Master License Agreement and Exhibits
for the Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in
Conduits by Wireless Communications Facilities and Related Equipment
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
(1) Adopt a resolution, approving an amended Utility Rate Schedule E-16.
(2) Adopt a resolution, approving a standard form Master License Agreement (the “MLA”) and
Exhibits for third party access to and use of City–controlled spaces on utility poles and
streetlight poles and in conduits for the purpose of providing wireless communications facilities
services in Palo Alto, and delegating to the City Manager the authority to sign the standard
form MLA.
Background
Over the past nine months, the City has been contacted by a handful of personal wireless
communications service providers and distributed antenna system (“DAS”) network operators,
which have expressed strong interest in accessing and using City of Palo Alto-controlled spaces
on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits for the purpose of installing wireless
antennas and related infrastructure. Wireless communications companies are experiencing
increasing demand for fourth generation (“4G”) wireless communications services and are
expanding their wireless antenna networks to improve both broadband facilities’ capacity and
coverage in Palo Alto.
Generally, under federal and California law, and subject to certain conditions protecting the
City’s public rights-of-way management and compensation authority and land use authority,
the City cannot prohibit wireline and wireless communications facilities from gaining access to
the public rights-of-way and utilities infrastructure located therein. Although the law is less
clear, federal and California law also generally, and subject to certain conditions, encourage, if
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1756)
not require, the City to allow wireline and wireless communications facilities to access and use
the utilities infrastructure located in the public rights-of-way. The City can, however, establish
reasonable rates, terms and conditions of access to utilities infrastructure in the public rights-
of-way, including adopting rules and regulations relating to the time, place and manner of
attachment to that infrastructure.
The City has been supportive of the placement of advanced broadband communications
facilities in Palo Alto since Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996
Act”). In 1997, the Council approved four Telecommunications Policy Statements (CMR:
369:97), which laid the foundation for bringing advanced broadband services to Palo Alto.
Policy statement number 1 declared the City’s policy to facilitate the competitive delivery of
conventional and advanced telecommunications services in Palo Alto in light of the 1996 Act.
Policy statement number 2 declared the City’s policy to regulate these facilities in accordance
with reasonable and non-discriminatory regulations. Policy statement number 3 declared the
City’s policy to permit the use of the Utilities Department’s infrastructure for advance
broadband communications purposes, provided such use does not unduly interfere with the
City’s primary mission of providing electric utility service to its customers. Policy statement
number 4 declared the City’s policy to permit interested parties to use other City property and
facilities for the siting of telecommunications infrastructure, consistent with the City’s zoning,
environmental, legal and other requirements.
At the time, the City’s Telecommunications Policy was focused on encouraging the deployment
of dark fiber-related broadband services to expand advance broadband services in Palo Alto.
Staff noted that as of August 1997, 48 of the 96 competitive local exchange carriers were
authorized to provide “facilities-based services” that would require the construction of new
wireline and wireless facilities. Today, the telecommunications industry has changed and there
has been a shift in emphasis to wireless communications as the fastest growing form of
telecommunications and broadband services. The City’s Telecommunications Policy Statements
are sufficiently broad that they can be interpreted to encourage the deployment of wireless
communications facilities services today for the same reasons that the policy statements were
drafted in support of wireline communications services a dozen years ago.
In 1997, staff reported that the Telecommunications Policy extended certain goals of the draft
1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan, including the development of technologically-advanced
communications infrastructure (Policy B-13), working with electronic information network
providers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and
other potential users (Policy B-14), and allowing the creative use of City Utilities Department
infrastructure and public rights-of-way to ensure competition among networks in providing
information systems infrastructure (Policy B-15).
Discussion
Utility Rate Schedule E-16, as amended.
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1756)
Amended Utility Rate Schedule E-16 incorporates a new license fee that will be charged on an
annual basis for permitting communications service providers to attach wireless antenna
facilities and communications network equipment on utility poles and streetlight poles and in
conduits.The license fee is intended to recover the City’s actual or reasonable estimated costs,
including, without limitation, the annual pole operation and maintenance costs, engineering
and legal costs incurred to date that are associated with developing a standard form agreement
and engineering specifications relating to providing pole and conduit access to wireless
communications service providers, and general administration and operational expenses
incurred due to the presence of such equipment on City-owned utility poles.
The annual license fees to be charged are contingent on the number of antennas that are
attached by wireless communications service providers. The various service and facilities-based
providers have applied for, or are anticipated to apply for, attachment to approximately 200
out of approximately 6,000 poles in Palo Alto. Assuming all antenna attachments are
processed, the approximate annual revenues will be $300,000 ($1,500 x 200 poles). The annual
pole attachment fee ensures that the City will recover its projected and actual costs now and
over time.
The City’s rates, fees and charges for pole attachments and conduit occupancy to be charged in
accordance with Utility Rate Schedule E-16, as amended, and the MLA are consistent with all of
the Telecommunications Policy statements and the Comprehensive Plan goals. In addition,
these rates, fees and charges are not considered “charges” or “fees” subject to voter approval
under Proposition 218, which does not extend to electric utility charges and fees in any event,
and they are not considered “taxes,” “levies,” “charges” or “exactions” subject to voter
approval under Proposition 26, as they are charges for the rental of local government property.
Master License Agreement and Exhibits.
The terms and conditions of the MLA also further the Telecommunication Policy Statements.
The contract spells out the essential terms and conditions governing the deployment of
wireless antennas that will enable current and new service providers to address coverage and
capacity issues relating to 4G broadband service in Palo Alto. The deployment will be managed
in a manner that allows the Utilities Department’s infrastructure to be used for advanced
broadband communications purposes, without materially affecting the City’s provision of
electric utility service to the community, and in a manner consistent with applicable City
ordinances, rules and regulations.
Among the key terms and conditions are:
Term -The initial term of the MLA is ten (10) years, and there is a right to extend the term for
another ten years. This period of time has been requested by interested parties who desire a
sufficiently long period of time in which to amortize their capital investments.
July 25, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1756)
Changes in law -As the resolution pertaining to the approval of the MLA notes,
telecommunications law relating to pole attachments is in a state of flux, and further changes
are highly likely. For example, at the federal level, the Federal Communications Commission
recently adopted its Order 11-50 (April 7, 2011), which implements Section 224 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (the “Pole Attachment Act”) in a very different way compared to
past practices. The Order notes the substantial delays allegedly caused by utilities in the
processing of pole attachment applications. The FCC Order 11-50, which does not apply to local
agencies, sets forth detailed requirements that utilities must comply with in regard to pole
attachment requests. At the California state level, there is pending before the California
Legislature a bill, Assembly Bill 1027 (“AB 1027”). This legislation, which contains several
requirements that are similar in some ways to those of FCC Order 11-50, would apply to
California municipal utilities and charter cities. AB 1027 would place limitations on the City in
dealing with parties wishing to attach antennas to poles in regard to fees and roll-out
schedules; the MLA does not contain any of the limitations set forth in the most recent version
of AB 1027. To the extent AB 1027, if enacted, requires the modification of the terms and
conditions of the MLA, a process for the parties to deal with these changes is established in the
MLA.
Application process -The MLA sets forth a detailed time schedule for the processing of pole
attachment and conduit occupancy applications. The attachment of wireless antennas to the
City’s utility poles could occur within six months of the filing of a completed application. To the
extent there are multiple applications for the same set of poles, the licensees are required to
coordinate their activities with their competitors.
Next Steps in Processing DAS Applications
In addition to the master license agreement, wireless communication facilities are subject to
the requirements of Municipal Code section 18.42.110, which specifies that such facilities shall
be permitted subject to architectural review and/or a conditional use permit requirements
governing placement and design of the antennas and related equipment to provide for facilities
that blend with the existing surroundings.
Planning Staff has reviewed section 18.42.110 with the City Attorney’s Office and determined
that DAS applications qualify as co-location facilities because DAS attachments would be added
to utility poles that already support utility and communications uses.Section 18.42.110(b)
provides that collocation facilities are subject only to architectural review and do not require a
conditional use permit. Therefore, DAS applications will be processed as minor architectural
review projects subject to staff-level review pursuant to PAMC 18.76.020(b)(3).To facilitate
implementation of this process, staff will initially request that the ARB provide feedback on
potential design criteria for DAS facilities, which staff would use in processing DAS applications.
Timeline Resource Impact
The MLA represents an increased workload for Utilities, but staff will make the time to review
and administer the installation, inspection and billing associated with these wireless
communication facilities. Assuming all antenna attachments are processed, the estimated
July 25, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1756)
annual revenues will be $300,000 ($1,500 x 200 poles). Staff expects that the revenue will be
deposited in the Electric Fund and the General Fund based on the type of installation. If
approved,staff will monitor the revenue and propose a mid-year 2012 budget adjustment to
reflect the revenue change in the appropriate funds.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with the Telecommunications Policy adopted by the Council
in 1997, to facilitate the competitive delivery of advanced telecommunications services in Palo
Alto in an environmentally sound manner.
Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the Council’s approval of
legal documents such as the MLA and Exhibits, because approval of these documents does not
constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA review.In the case of a third party applying to
undertake certain action under the MLA, whether or not CEQA applies will be determined by
Staff on a case-by-case basis with respect to each application, based on location, supporting
structure, and other factors.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedule E-16 (PDF)
·Attachment B: E-16 effective Rev July 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment C: Resolution Approving Master License Agreement (PDF)
·Attachment D: MLA Final Draft (PDF)
·Attachment E: MLA Exhibits Final Draft (PDF)
Prepared By:James Fleming, Management Specialist
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-0126-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No.E-16-3 dated 7-01-2008 2009 Sheet No. E-16- 1
UNMETERED ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-16
A. APPLICABILITY:
This rate schedule is applicable under the regular terms and conditions of the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Department to Customers who contract with the City for unmetered electric
service for billboards, unmetered telephone services, telephone booths, railroad signals,
cathodic protection units, traffic cameras, WiFi equipment, community antenna systems
wireless antenna and related equipment, community antenna television and video
systems, cable TV power supplies, and automatic irrigation systems and also applies to
other miscellaneous Electric Utility fees to various public agencies and private entities.
B. TERRITORY:
Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the City.
C. NET MONTHLY BILL:
1. Customer Charge: $9.00 per month
2. Energy Charge:
(for all kWh supplied) using Electric Rate Schedule E2 plus all applicable riders
3. Minimum Charge:
Minimum monthly charge will be the Customer Charge.
D. DETERMINATION OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:
a. Initial Inventory
Customer shall enter into a contract for service under this Schedule and provide a written
inventory of all equipment at each of service requested, including the type and nameplate
rating for each piece of equipment. The billing energy for each point of service will be
determined by the Utilities Electric Engineering Division estimation of the kWh usage based
on the type, rating and quantity of the equipment provided by the Customer.
Monthly bill will be based on the following calculations:
1. Total Wattage.
2. Total Wattage times estimated annual operating hours as set in the contract equals
annual watt hours.
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-0126-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No.E-16-3 dated 7-01-2008 2009 Sheet No. E-16- 2
UNMETERED ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-16
3. Annual watt hours divided by 1000 hours equals annual kilowatt hours (kWh)
4. Annual kWh divided by twelve (12) months equal monthly kWh.
5. Monthly kWh times current rate per kWh = monthly bill for each unmetered service
location or equipment.
b. Updating Inventory
Customer will update its inventory by informing the Utilities Electric Engineering Division
in writing of changes in type, rating and/or quantity of equipment as such changes occur, and
billings will be adjusted accordingly. Upon Utilities Electric Engineering Division request,
but no later than the one year anniversary of the date on which Customer first takes service,
Customer shall provide an updated inventory of all equipment at each point of service.
c. Test Metering
The Utilities Electric Engineering Division may, at its discretion, test meter the load at
various types and ratings of the Customer’s equipment to the extent necessary to verify the
estimated kWh usage used for billing purpose and, where dictated by such test metering,
Utilities Electric Engineering Division will make prospective adjustments in estimated usage
for subsequent billing purposes; however, Utilities shall be under no obligation to test meter-
the load of Customer’s equipment. Utilities’ decision not to test meter the load of Customer’s
equipment shall not release Customer from the obligation to provide to Utilities Electric
Engineering Division, and to update, annually as provided in section b, an accurate inventory
of the types, rating and quantities of equipment upon which billing is based.
d. Inspection
The Utilities Electric Engineering Division shall endeavor to inspect the equipment at each
point of service annually as close to the anniversary date of the contract as is practical, and
make prospective adjustments in billing as indicated by such inspections; however, Utilities
shall be under no obligation to conduct such inspections for the purpose of determining
accuracy of billing or otherwise. Utilities decisions not to conduct such inspections shall not
release Customer from the obligation to provide to Utilities Electric Engineering Division,
and to update, an accurate inventory of the types, rating and quantities of equipment upon
which billing is based.
UNMETERED ELECTRIC SERVICE
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-0126-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No.E-16-3 dated 7-01-2008 2009 Sheet No. E-16- 3
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-16
e. Billing for Service
As the service described in this schedule is unmetered, Customer agrees to pay amounts
billed in accordance with the current inventory, regardless of whether any of the installations
of the Customer’s equipment were electrically operable during the period in question and
regardless of the cause of such equipment failure to operate.
E. MISCELLANEOUS RATES:
Service Description Rate *
1. Traffic Signal maintenance and energy costs
(A) Controller $522.26 ea
(B) 8" Lamp (LED) $1.85 ea
(C) 12" & PVH Lamp (LED) $2.16 ea
(D) Pedestrian Head (LED) $5.58 ea
(E) Vehicle, System and
Bike Sensor Loop $43.22 ea
2. Permit License Fee for Electric Conduit Usage
(A) Exclusive use $1.40/ft/yr
(B) Non-Exclusive use $0.70/ft/yr
3. Processing Fee for Electric Conduit Usage Actual Cost
4. Permit License Fee for Utility Pole Attachments
(A) 1 ft. of usable space $24.41/pole/yr
(B) 2 ft. of usable space $26.86/pole/yr
(C) 3 ft. of usable space $29.32/pole/yr
(D) 4 ft. of usable space $31.77/pole/yr
5. Processing Fee for Utility Pole Attachments $54.00/pole
6. License Fee for mounting communication equipment
including distributed antenna systems on utility poles $1,500.00/pole/yr
* Rates are monthly unless otherwise indicated.
F. NOTES:
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-0126-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No.E-16-3 dated 7-01-2008 2009 Sheet No. E-16- 4
The fees set forth in Section E.1 through E.6, inclusive, are subject to adjustment annually in
accordance with fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), if any. The base for computing
the adjustment is the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San
Francisco-Oakland-San Jose MSA, which is published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics for the month of December of a base year, which falls within the year in
which a master license agreement is signed by the City and the licensee. The adjustment shall be
calculated, if there is an increase or decrease between December of a base year (when the rate(s)
is/are first applicable) and December of any subsequent base year.
{End}
Contract No. ______________
110520 MLA template
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF
CITY-CONTROLLED SPACE ON UTILITY POLES
AND STREETLIGHT POLES AND IN CONDUITS
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND
______________________________________________
Contract No. ______________
110520 MLA template
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Description Page
1 Definitions 2
2 Terms and Termination 6
3 Grant and Scope of License 8
4 Other Rights and Obligations of Licensee 11
5 Application for Access 13
6 Costs and Fees 17
7 Construction and Installation of the Licensee Facilities 18
8 Moving the Licensee Facilities 20
9 Inspection of the Licensee Facilities 20
10 Unauthorized Attachment or Occupancy 21
11 Installation and Replacement of the Licensee Facilities 21
12 Indemnity; Waiver; Risk of Loss 23
13 Insurance 24
14 Performance Bond; Letter of Credit 26
15 Representations and Warranties 26
16 Default; Remedies for Default 27
17 Dispute Resolution 29
18 Notices 30
19 Miscellaneous Provisions 30
Contract No. ____________
1
110520 MLA template
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF CITY-CONTROLLED
SPACE ON UTILITY POLES AND STREETLIGHT POLES AND
IN CONDUITS BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND
______________________________________
THIS MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated as of
_________________, ____ (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between the CITY OF
PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the “City”), and
__________________________, a _______________ (the “Licensee”) (individually, a “Party” and,
collectively, the “Parties”), in reference to the following facts and circumstances:
RECITALS
1. The City represents that it owns (or co-owns with Pacific Bell Telephone
Company dba AT&T California or Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or both) or controls, operates
and maintains certain utility poles and streetlight poles located within its jurisdictional boundary.
The City also represents that it owns, controls, operates and maintains certain ducts and conduits
located within its jurisdictional boundary.
2. The Licensee represents that it is either (a) a personal wireless service
provider authorized, certificated or licensed by the FCC or other agency, (b) an operator of a
distributed antenna system network authorized, certificated or licensed by the FCC, the CPUC or
other agency, (c) a wireline provider of Telecommunications Service authorized, certificated or
licensed by the CPUC, or (d) a provider of Multichannel Video Services which is franchised by the
CPUC or other agency.
3. The Licensee represents that it is authorized to provide Communications
Service, is otherwise qualified to do business in California, and has obtained all necessary
authorizations, certifications or licenses from the FCC, the CPUC or other agency. A copy of the
Licensee’s CPCN or WIRN, if applicable, is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
4. The Licensee desires access to and use of the City-controlled spaces on
certain Poles and/or in certain Conduits in order to attach and/or install its wireline and/or wireless
communications facilities and equipment for the purpose of providing Communications Service in
Palo Alto. As of the Effective Date, the identity of certain Poles and/or Conduits, which the Licensee
seeks access to and use thereof, and their locations are described in Exhibits “B” (Poles) and “C”
(Conduits). This information may be updated periodically as provided in this Agreement or an
amendment hereto and as the Licensee’s requirements may change during the term of this
Agreement. The Licensee Facilities, which will be attached to certain Poles and/or installed in
certain Conduits, are identified in Exhibit “D.” This information may be updated periodically as
provided in this Agreement or an amendment hereto and as the Licensee’s requirements may change
during the term of this Agreement.
Contract No. ____________
2
110520 MLA template
5. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and further subject to
the City’s good faith determination that the Licensee Facilities will not unreasonably interfere with
the City’s duty to serve its municipal utility customers (including, without limitation, its electric,
natural gas, dark fiber optics and water utility customers) or will not adversely affect the City’s
obligation to otherwise provide for and protect the public health, safety and general welfare, the City
is willing to grant to the Licensee a non-exclusive license to attach and/or install the Licensee
Facilities on certain Poles and/or in certain Conduits.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals and the following agreements,
covenants, and obligations, the value and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Parties
mutually agree:
AGREEMENT
1.0 DEFINITIONS
Except as the context otherwise requires, the capitalized terms used in this Agreement
shall have the meanings noted in this Article 1.0.
“Applicant” means any Person who requests the approval and authorization of the
City to access, use and occupy any City-controlled space on Poles and/or in Conduits.
“Application” means the application to access and use Poles and/or Conduits, as set
forth in the Processing Request Form, Exhibit “I,” referred to in Section 5.1. The term does not
extend to an application for a permit that is required by Title 12 or Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, with which the Licensee shall comply.
“Available” means, when used in the context of Conduit Occupancy or Pole
Attachment, any usable space on a Pole or in a Conduit that is not otherwise occupied by the City, a
joint owner of a Pole and/or an existing licensee at the time an Application is submitted and is
available for use by the Licensee.
“Business Day” means any Day, except a Saturday, Sunday, and any Day observed
as a legal holiday by the City.
“City Facilities” mean the Poles, Conduits and any other City and/or CPAU facilities
that are exclusively controlled by the City.
“City Manager” means the individual designated as the City Manager of the City by
Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.08.140, and any individual who is designated the representative
of the City Manager.
“Communications Service” means a Telecommunications Service, Multichannel
Video Service, Information Service, or any other service involving the transport or transmission of
information electronically by wire or radio.
Contract No. ____________
3
110520 MLA template
“Conduit” means any metal, plastic or like-material duct or pipe that is wholly-
owned and/or exclusively controlled by the City.
“Conduit Occupancy” means any attachment and/or installation in Conduit.
“Costs” means the utility rates, fees and charges estimated or incurred by the City to
perform the Preparatory Work and the Make-Ready Work at the Licensee’s request, including,
without limitation, (a) the estimated or actual rates, fees and charges or other expenditures to be
incurred or incurred by the City and/or any general contractor or subcontractor acting on behalf of
the City to perform the Make-Ready Work, and (b) if the City’s employees perform the Make-Ready
Work, the work performed at their labor rates.
“CPAU” means the City’s Department of Utilities, including, without limitation, the
City’s electric utility, fiber optics utility, gas utility and water utility.
“CPCN” means the certificate of public convenience and necessity, issued by the
CPUC to the Licensee.
“CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission or successor agency.
“Day” means a calendar day, unless a Business Day is specified.
“Director” means the Public Works Director, the Utilities Director, the Planning
Director or any other Person who exercises the responsibilities of the director of any City
department, identified in Chapter 2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
“FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency.
“Fee” means any fee, assessment, charge (other than Costs), imposition, or other levy
(but excluding a franchise fee and any tax, including the telephone utility users tax, now or hereafter
in effect), lawfully imposed by the City; provided, however, that “Fee” shall not include “Costs” as
defined herein.
“Force Majeure” means an incident, event or cause, whether or not foreseeable, that
is beyond the reasonable control of a Party, including, without limitation, an act of God, act of a
superior governmental authority, earthquake, fire, flood, labor strike or sabotage, which has an
adverse effect on the design, construction, installation, management, operation, testing, use or
enjoyment of the Facilities.
“Information Service” means “information service,” as defined in 47 U.S.C. §
153(25).
“Law” means any applicable administrative or judicial act, decision, certificate,
charter, code, constitution, opinion, order, ordinance, policy, procedure, rate, regulation, resolution,
rule, schedule, specification, statute, tariff, or other requirement of the City, of any county, state or
federal agency, or of any other agency having joint or separate jurisdiction over the Licensee or the
Contract No. ____________
4
110520 MLA template
City, or both, and their separate facilities, now or hereafter in effect during the term of this
Agreement, including, without limitation, any regulation or order of an official entity or body.
“Letter of Credit” means an irrevocable standby letter of credit issued by a U.S.
bank or other financial institution, which has an issuer or other creditworthiness rating of at least
“A” by Standard & Poors and an “A2” by Moody’s Investor Services.
“Licensee Facilities” means, without limitation, aerial, surface or underground
wires, amplifiers, antennas, boxes, cabinets, cables (including fiber optic and coaxial cables),
circuits, conduits, conductors, converters, copper wires, decoders, demodulators, drop wires, ducts,
electronics, encoders, equipment, generators, hubs, inner-ducts, lasers, manholes, microwave,
modulators, multiplexers, networks, nodes, optical fibers, optical repeaters, patch panels, processors,
receivers, splice boxes, switches, tap-offs, terminals, traps, vaults, wires, wire and wireless
transmitters and receivers, and other similar equipment owned, leased, or controlled by the Licensee
that is used for or is useful in the provision of Communications Service, in existence either as of the
Effective Date or at any time during the term of this Agreement and located in or on the City
Facilities.
“Make-Ready Work” means changes to be made to City-owned or –controlled Poles,
its own Pole Attachments, the existing Pole attachments of any joint owner(s) and any existing licensee,
or the existing additional equipment associated with those attachments, that may be needed to
accommodate a proposed additional pole attachment. It also includes Make-Ready Work relating to
access to Conduits by the Licensee Facilities.
“Multichannel Video Services” means “cable service” as defined in Chapter 2.10 of
Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and in 47 U.S.C. § 522(6), “video service” as defined in
Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5820(s), services provided over an open video system certificated by the FCC
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 573 or a cable communications system, as defined in Chapter 2.10 of Title 2
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and any other form of delivery of multichannel video services to
subscribers in Palo Alto over the Licensee Facilities located in the Public Rights-of-Way or Public
Utilities Easements.
“Person” means any individual, for-profit corporation, nonprofit corporation, general
partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, joint
venture, business trust, sole proprietorship, or other form of business association, but it does not
include the City.
“Pole” means (a) any utility pole, excluding towers, used to support mainly overhead
distribution wires and cables, jointly or separately owned by the City, (b) any Streetlight Pole,
wholly owned by the City, and (c) the anchors and guy strands/guy wires, which are located in the
Public Rights-of-Way and the Public Utility Easements. The term does not include any utility pole
that is wholly owned by a Person other than the City.
“Pole Attachment” means any attachment to a Pole by the Licensee.
Contract No. ____________
5
110520 MLA template
“Preparatory Work” means, except as otherwise provided herein, work of a
preliminary nature undertaken by City staff, including, without limitation, survey and field
inspection work, review of engineering plans and specifications and other related work, that precede,
and are required to establish, the Make-Ready Work in order to facilitate the attachment and/or
installation of the Licensee Facilities in, on or about Poles and/or Conduits.
“Provision” means any agreement, circumstance, clause, condition, covenant, fact,
objective, qualification, restriction, recital, reservation, representation, term, warranty, or other
stipulation in this Agreement or an Exhibit or by Law that defines or otherwise controls, establishes,
or limits the performance required or agreed by any Party hereto. All Provisions, whether covenants
or conditions, shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
“Public Rights-of-Way” means the areas in, upon, above, along, across, under, and
over the public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, places, roads, streets, and ways, including, without
limitation, all Public Utility Easements, within the jurisdiction of the City. This term shall not
include any real property, in whole or in part, owned by any Person or agency other than the City
except as provided by Law or pursuant to an agreement between the City and any such Person or
agency, nor shall it include any real property owned and/or controlled by the City that is not
dedicated to utility or public transit use.
“Public Utility Easement” means any privately owned land, in which the City holds
an easement for public utility uses and purposes, without regard to whether any “public utility,” as
defined in California Public Utilities Code section 216(a), has an easement for similar public utility
uses and purposes.
“Schedule” means a site-specific license for the attachment and/or installation of
Licensee Facilities, as identified in Exhibit “E,” commencing with Schedule “E-1.”
“Standard Drawings and Specifications” means the general terms and conditions,
specifications, and requirements of the City which govern the design, construction, installation, and
maintenance of any improvement to be located within the Public Rights-of-Way and Public Utility
Easements. This document is authored by the City’s Department of Public Works, Engineering
Division, and any reference to such document shall include additions, amendments, deletions,
revisions, modifications, and updates to this document. This term shall include documents entitled
“General Conditions” or words of similar import, now or hereafter existing, which directly pertain to
all aspects of general construction work.
“Streetlight Pole” means any standard design concrete, steel or aluminum (or other
metal) or wooden pole, including any decorative streetlight pole, that is used for street lighting
purposes.
“Telecommunications Service” means to the extent not inconsistent with federal
law, the transmission of voice, video or data information in rendering audio, video or data service,
which may be offered by the Licensee pursuant to its FCC, CPUC or other agency approval,
authorization, certification or license. Multichannel Video Service shall not be considered a
Contract No. ____________
6
110520 MLA template
Telecommunications Service or an Information Service hereunder, except to the extent required by
Law.
“Utilities Rules and Regulations” means the City’s utilities rules and regulations,
authorized by Chapter 12.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
“WIRN” means the wireless identification registration number that the Licensee is
required to obtain from the CPUC in order to offer intrastate wireless telecommunications services
in California.
“Work” means and includes both Preparatory Work and Make-Ready Work.
2.0 TERMS AND TERMINATION
2.1 Initial and Extension Terms. The initial term of this Agreement is ten (10)
years (the “Initial Term”), commencing on the Effective Date, unless and until it is earlier terminated
in accordance with this Agreement. The extension term of this Agreement is ten (10) years (the
“Extension Term”), commencing on the expiration of the Initial Term, provided that: (a) the
Licensee shall give the City Manager written notice of its intention to extend this Agreement no less
than sixty (60) Days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term; (b) the Licensee is in substantial
compliance with the Provisions; (c) there has not been any change in Law that may materially affect
the Provisions or their enforceability; and (d) the City has not otherwise terminated this Agreement
in accordance with the Provisions.
2.2 Renewal of Agreement. The Parties may in good faith negotiate the terms and
conditions of a new master license agreement, which negotiations the Parties shall use reasonable
effort to commence by no later than six (6) months before the expiration of the Extension Term;
provided, however, the negotiations shall be based on the terms and conditions of the City’s standard
master license agreement then in effect or in accordance with such other contract rates, terms and
conditions or Law as may be adopted by the City. If the Parties fail to negotiate the renewal of a new
master license agreement, then the Licensee shall be deemed to hold over and shall be otherwise
liable to perform its obligations hereunder, including the payment of all Costs and Fees, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the standard master license agreement then in effect,
unless there is no such standard master license agreement then in effect, in which event the terms
and conditions of this Agreement shall continue to apply.
2.2.1 If a new master license agreement has not been executed by the Parties by the
expiration of the Extension Term and the Parties do not otherwise agree, in writing, to renew, then
the Licensee at its option shall either: (a) sell the Licensee Facilities to the City at fair market value,
if the Licensee desires to sell and the City desires to purchase the Licensee Facilities or any part
thereof; (b) at the Licensee’s sole cost and expense, remove the Licensee Facilities from the City
Facilities if the City does not intend to purchase the Licensee Facilities; (c) without cost or charge to
the City, abandon the Licensee Facilities on Poles and/or in Conduits, provided the City first
approves, in writing, the proposed abandonment of the Licensee Facilities and the terms and
conditions applicable to that abandonment, whereupon in the absence of any agreement by the
Parties to the contrary, such facilities shall become the property of the City; or (d) sell or transfer the
Contract No. ____________
7
110520 MLA template
Licensee Facilities to a third party subject to the City’s prior written approval, which will not be
unreasonably withheld. Upon the occurrence of subsection 2.2.1(d), this Agreement shall be deemed
terminated, and the Licensee shall not be deemed to have made an assignment pursuant to Section
19.2.
2.3 Termination. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City may terminate
this Agreement for cause (as defined in subsection 2.3.1) upon ten (10) Days’ prior written notice
sent by the City to the Licensee; in that event, the City may exercise its legal rights and/or equitable
remedies hereby reserved under this Agreement or by Law at any time, including, without limitation,
the right to recover any uncollected Annual Fees that would be due and payable by the Licensee to
the City if this Agreement had not been terminated during the Initial Term or the Extension Term, if
any.
2.3.1 A termination for cause means: (a) the Licensee has failed to cure a material
default of this Agreement within thirty (30) Days after it receives the City’s notice of default, or, if
the default can be cured and such cure reasonably requires more than thirty (30) Days to achieve,
fails to commence such cure within the specified period but, thereafter, diligently continues such
cure until completion thereof; (b) the CPUC, the FCC or other agency exercising jurisdiction over
the Licensee has, by final order or action that is no longer subject to appeal, terminated or otherwise
revoked the Licensee’s approval, authorization, certification or license to operate the Licensee
Facilities, to provide Communications Service, or to transact business referred to in Recital numbers
2 and 3; or (c) the Licensee’s authority to do business in California has expired or is rescinded or
terminated by final order or action that is no longer subject to appeal.
2.3.2 Upon the establishment of termination for cause, the right to attach to any
Pole and/or occupy any Conduit will immediately terminate after the City delivers thirty (30) Days’
prior written notice to the Licensee. In that event, the Licensee shall, within six (6) months of the
effective date of termination of this Agreement, remove or cause the removal of the Licensee
Facilities from the Poles and/or Conduits, or, if the Licensee fails to remove or cause such removal
within such six-month period, the City may remove the same for the account of and at the sole cost
and expense of the Licensee. The preceding sentence notwithstanding, the Parties by mutual
agreement may exercise any option made available under subsection 2.2.1.
2.4 Changes in Law. The Parties acknowledge that the subject of wireline and
wireless communications facilities in the context of utility pole attachments has been addressed and
continues to be addressed by federal and California authorities. If, during the Initial Term or the
Extension Term, a Law is adopted, amended or repealed and is made binding upon the City and is
applicable to this Agreement, then the Parties shall agree to negotiate in good faith an amendment to
this Agreement (or a new agreement, as the case may be) to the extent necessary to comply with
such Law. If the Parties cannot mutually agree to an amendment to this Agreement (or a new
agreement)
within three (3) months after a Party receives the other Party’s request to negotiate an amendment to
this Agreement (or a new agreement, as the case may be) pursuant to this section 2.4, then the
Parties will agree to submit the dispute to mediation and non-binding arbitration under mutually
acceptable terms and conditions.
Contract No. ____________
8
110520 MLA template
3.0 GRANT AND SCOPE OF LICENSE
3.1 Grant of License. The City grants to the Licensee, and the Licensee accepts
from the City, subject to the Provisions, a non-exclusive license to access and use certain Poles
and/or Conduits and attach, install, operate, maintain, repair, remove, reattach, relocate and replace
the Licensee Facilities in, on or about those certain Poles and/or Conduits. The rights and obligations
of the Licensee under this Agreement will be exercised at the Licensee’s sole cost and expense,
unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties.
3.2 Scope of License. The grant of license to the Licensee is subject to (a) the
prior use and existing and continuing rights, consents and approvals of the City, including CPAU
and other City departments, the joint owner(s) and any existing licensee of certain Poles and/or
Conduits, and (b) existing and future recorded and unrecorded deeds, easements, dedications,
agreements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, encumbrances and claims of title which may affect
any right, title and interest in and to the Public Rights-of-Way, Public Utility Easements, and any
City-owned or -controlled facility located in the Public Rights-of-Way or Public Utility Easements.
3.2.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to grant, convey, create, or vest in
the Licensee a perpetual interest in land or the Public Rights-of-Way or Public Utility Easements,
including, without limitation, any fee, leasehold interest, easement, or franchise rights. Neither the
City, nor the joint owner(s) of certain Poles, nor any existing licensee shall be liable to the Licensee
for the failure of the City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles, and/or any existing licensee to secure
the proper legal authority from a grantor of an easement affecting any Pole or Conduit.
3.2.2 The Licensee, as a condition precedent to its right to access, use, and attach
and/or install the Licensee Facilities in, on or about any Pole or Conduit, shall obtain from the City
other necessary approvals, authorizations, and/or permits to access and use the Public Rights-of-Way
and the Public Utility Easements controlled by the City.
3.2.3 The Licensee’s right to access, use, and attach to and/or install in, on or about
any Poles and/or Conduits is subject to the City’s prior right to use or remove from use at a future
date any Pole or Conduit space occupied by the Licensee in the reasonable exercise of its
governmental or proprietary powers. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that its right to attach
and/or install is also subject to the prior rights of the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and/or any
existing licensee. If the Licensee’s right under this subsection 3.2.3 is affected by such City action,
then the City will use reasonable efforts to find one or more alternative locations for the Licensee to
attach the Licensee Facilities in accordance with the facilities relocation procedure set forth in
Section 7.2.
3.2.4 The City may for consideration of the public health, safety, or welfare,
including, without limitation, safety, reliability, security or engineering reasons, terminate or
otherwise modify the scope of the Licensee’s non-exclusive license granted by this Agreement, upon
sixty (60) Days’ prior written notice to the Licensee. If the City exercises its rights under this
subsection 3.2.4, then it will use reasonable efforts to find one or more alternative locations for the
Licensee to attach the Licensee Facilities.
Contract No. ____________
9
110520 MLA template
3.2.5 Except as authorized by Law or this Agreement, the Licensee in the
performance and exercise of its rights and obligations, shall not obstruct or interfere in any manner
with the Public Rights-of-Way, Public Utility Easements, private rights-of-way, sanitary sewers,
sewer laterals, water mains, storm drains, gas mains, poles, aerial and underground electric and
telephone wires, electroliers, Multichannel Video Service facilities, and other telecommunications,
utility, and municipal property or facilities without the express written approval of the City and/or
the other owner(s) of the affected property or properties.
3.2.6 The City reserves to itself the right to attach, install, maintain, replace and
enlarge the City Facilities and to operate the same from time to time in such manner as will best
enable it to meet the needs of CPAU’s utility customers and fulfill its service requirements. Except
as provided in subsection 12.1.1, the City shall not be liable to the Licensee or its customers for any
interruption of service of the Licensee or for interference with the Licensee Facilities arising in any
manner relating to the City’s, the joint owner(s)’or any existing licensee’s use of the City Facilities
under this Agreement, or arising in any manner out of the condition or character of the City
Facilities or their manner of operation.
3.3 Compliance with Laws. The Licensee shall comply with all Laws, including,
without limitation, the CPUC’s General Orders (“GO”) that are applicable to the Licensee, in the
exercise and performance of its rights and obligations under this Agreement. The preceding sentence
notwithstanding, the Licensee shall furnish a copy of the notification letter required by GO 159A,
Section IV.C.2 to the Planning Director, to the extent GO 159A applies to the Licensee.
3.3.1 The Licensee shall obtain the City’s review and approval of the proposed
siting and design and the construction methods to be used with respect to the Licensee Facilities, as
may be required by Law. The Licensee shall obtain architectural review of the Licensee Facilities by
the City’s Planning Department staff and by the City’s Architectural Review Board, which review
will be dependent on the characteristics of the Licensee’s proposed project, as may be required by
Law. The Licensee acknowledges that additional review by any other City board or commission or
the City Council may be required by Law. The reviews referred to in this subsection 3.3.1 shall be
conducted in conformance with the City’s land use approval process, to the extent applicable to the
Licensee Facilities.
3.3.2 The City may require the Licensee to file one or more written reports with any
of the Directors within the time(s) requested. The Licensee shall file with the Utilities Director a
copy of the radio frequency propagation study of any Licensee Facilities within thirty (30) Days of
the completion of the first authorized attachment and/or installation of the Licensee Facilities
occurring during the Initial Term and the Extension Term, if any.
3.3.3 The City may require the Licensee to obtain a conditional use permit, if the
City determines that the Licensee Facilities are subject to the requirements of Title 18 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code or other Law.
3.4 Authorized Services. The Licensee shall use the Licensee Facilities for the
sole purpose of providing Communications Service that is subject to any FCC, CPUC or other
agency approval, authorization, certification, or license. If the Licensee is authorized to offer new
Contract No. ____________
10
110520 MLA template
and/or additional Communications Service not now approved, authorized, certified, or licensed
under its current FCC, CPUC or other agency approval, authorization, certification, or license, then
the Licensee shall furnish the City Manager and the City Attorney with a copy of its application(s)
for any such additional approval, authorization, certification, or license and a copy of any additional
authorization, certification, grant, license within thirty (30) Days of its filing and its issuance.
3.4.1 The Licensee shall not allow any other Person to control the Licensee
Facilities, or any portion thereof, for compensation, whether in cash or cash equivalent, for any
purpose not directly related to the Licensee’s provision of Communications Service or other services
approved, authorized, certified or licensed by the FCC, CPUC or other agency, unless the Licensee
first gives thirty (30) Days’ prior written notice to the City Manager and the City Attorney of such
intended use.
3.4.2 The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that (a) this Agreement is not a
“franchise” within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 522(9), California Government Code § 53066, or
California Public Utilities Code § 5800 et seq., and (b) this Agreement does not authorize, certify,
grant or license the Licensee to use the Public Rights-of-Way and the Public Utility Easements to
provide Multichannel Video Services or any other comparable services to subscribers in Palo Alto.
3.5 Location of Licensee Facilities. The non-exclusive license granted hereby
shall not extend to any Pole and/or Conduit to which the attachment and/or installation of the
Licensee Facilities thereon or therein would result in a forfeiture of rights by the City or the
imposition of additional obligations or liabilities upon the City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles,
and/or any existing licensee to occupy the Public Rights-of-Way or Public Utility Easements.
3.5.1 If the existence of the Licensee Facilities in, on or about such Poles and/or
Conduits would result in a forfeiture of the rights of the City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles
and/or any existing licensee, then the Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall promptly remove
the Licensee Facilities within ninety (90) Days after receipt of written notice from the City. If the
Licensee Facilities are not timely removed, the City may at the Licensee’s sole cost and expense
remove them or cause their removal after the expiration of the notice period without liability on the
part of the City or any third party hired or directed by the City to remove the same or parts thereof.
In that event, the Licensee shall pay the City, upon demand, for the City’s actual costs of removal
and for all losses and damages that are incurred by the City by such undertaking. This obligation
shall survive the early termination or expiration of this Agreement.
3.5.2 The Licensee shall relocate the Licensee Facilities within ninety (90) Days or
other period of time established by Law after the Licensee's receipt of written notice by the City that
the Licensee must remove or relocate those facilities to another designated location within the City's
jurisdictional boundary pursuant to the City’s exercise of its police powers, including, without
limitation, in accordance with the establishment of an underground utility district.
3.5.3 During the Initial Term and the Extension Term, if any, the Licensee may
voluntarily remove the Licensee Facilities or part thereof from the City Facilities or part thereof on a
permanent basis, provided that the Licensee first gives the City and any affected joint owner(s) of
certain Poles and/or any existing licensee at least sixty (60) Days' prior written notice of its intention
Contract No. ____________
11
110520 MLA template
to remove the Licensee Facilities. The voluntary removal of the Licensee Facilities prior to the
expiration of the Initial Term or Extension Term, if any, shall not relieve the Licensee of its
obligation to pay any Costs and Fees associated with the removal then due and payable to the City,
including the uncollected Annual Fees that would be due and payable by the Licensee to the City if
this Agreement had not been terminated. The Licensee shall obtain from the City any other
approvals, authorizations, and permits required by Law prior to the commencement of such removal
work. Upon removal, the Licensee may transfer the Licensee Facilities to the City, provided that the
City first agrees, in writing, to accept title thereto, consistent with subsections 2.2.1(a) and (c).
Within six (6) months after the Licensee voluntarily abandons its License Facilities, or parts thereof,
and fails to remove them upon the earlier of the date of voluntary abandonment or the date of early
termination or expiration of this Agreement, the City shall arrange for the removal of the Licensee
Facilities at the Licensee's sole cost and expense if the City does not approve or otherwise accept the
abandoned Licensee Facilities. Prior to the effective date of abandonment, the Licensee shall post
security with the City to assure the City will recover the reasonable costs of removal of the Licensee
Facilities; at the City’s election, the security may take the form of a Performance Bond, described in
Article 14.0, or a Letter of Credit in the amount specified therein, as may be established by the City.
3.6 Disclaimer; Waiver. In no event shall either Party or its successors and
assigns, elected officials, officers, employees, agents or representatives be liable for any lost profits,
consequential, special, exemplary, indirect, punitive or incidental losses or damages, including loss
of use, loss of goodwill, lost revenues, loss of profits or loss of contracts even if such Party has been
advised of the possibility of such damages, and the Parties each waive such claims and releases
each other and each of such Persons from any such liability. This Section 3.6 shall not apply to any
Costs or Fees or any other cost or fee referred to herein that the Licensee owes to the City.
3.6.1 The Parties acknowledge that California Civil Code Section 1542 provides
that: “A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to
exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have
materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.” The Parties waive the provisions of
Section 1542, or other similar provisions of Law, and intend that the waiver and release provided by
this subsection shall be fully enforceable despite its reference to future or unknown claims.
4.0 OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSEE
4.1 General. During the Initial Term and the Extension Term, if any, the Licensee
shall request, in writing, the City's approvals and authorizations to add, attach, install, move,
remove, repair, replace, or otherwise alter or change the Licensee Facilities, except as may be
otherwise provided in this Agreement. The Licensee shall file the applicable requests for approvals
and authorizations with the appropriate Director(s).
4.1.1 Each Party will use due care, and shall ensure that no damage, beyond
reasonable wear and tear, is caused to the other Party’s facilities or the facilities of the joint owner(s)
of certain Poles and Conduits and/or any other licensees, including, without limitation, the joint
owner(s)’ fibers, wires, cables, poles and/or conduits lawfully located in, on or about the Poles or
Conduits to which the License intends to attach and/or install the Licensee Facilities. Any damage
or destruction which is caused by any Party or its agent or representative shall be reported within
Contract No. ____________
12
110520 MLA template
forty-eight (48) hours to the other Party, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and Conduits, and/or
other licensees who could be directly affected by such damage. The Party causing such damage shall
reimburse the other Party and/or any other affected Person, upon demand, for any damage caused the
Party or its employees, contractors, subcontractors, agents, and representatives.
4.2 Identification of Facilities. The Licensee shall identify its Licensee Facilities,
including, without limitation, its fibers, wires and cables, and wireless facilities with appropriate
durable, visible identification tags that describe the Licensee’s name, number, color, identification
code, size, and manufacture of the Licensee Facilities, including the fibers, wires and cables and
wireless facilities, the type of service, and any other criteria as may be established or agreed to by
the Utilities Director. Such information may be provided to the Utilities Director in accordance with
the requirements set forth in Exhibits “F,” “G,” and “I.”
4.3 Notices to City, Joint Owners and Licensees. Excepting emergencies which
may require the restoration of functionality of the Licensee Facilities within twenty-four (24) hours
of loss of functionality, the Licensee shall give not less than ten (10) Business Days' prior written
notice to the Utilities Director, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles, and/or any existing licensee,
whenever the Licensee will perform any approved or authorized Make-Ready Work in regard to the
Licensee Facilities that will concurrently occupy any portion of the Poles and/or Conduits with the
City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles, and/or any existing licensee. Any Make-Ready Work
required of the Licensee by the City shall be performed with due care by the Licensee or any Person
acting on behalf of the Licensee, including its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and
representatives. With respect to maintenance and repairs of the Licensee Facilities, the Licensee
shall provide the City with reasonable prior notice in order that the City may determine whether to
assign appropriate staff to be present during any such work.
4.4 Compliance with Technical Specifications. Subsection 3.3 notwithstanding,
the Licensee Facilities shall be attached, installed, maintained, removed and repaired in accordance
with the applicable requirements and specifications, including, without limitation, the Standard
Drawings and Specifications, the specifications of the National Electrical Safety Code and National
Electric Code and amendments thereto, and the applicable rules and regulations of the CPUC, the
FCC and any other agency exercising jurisdiction over the Licensee. The Licensee may use the
pathways inside the Streetlight Poles only if the attachment and installation work is conducted in
accordance with the Standard Drawings and Specifications and the Utilities Rules and Regulations.
Use of the Poles and Conduits shall be subject to any security plan now or hereafter approved by the
City.
4.5 Repair of City Facilities, Public Rights-of-Way and Public Utility Easements.
The Licensee, at no liability, cost or expense to the City, shall repair, replace, or restore, or shall
cause the repair, replacement, or restoration, reasonable wear and tear excepted, of any damage to
the City's streets, sidewalks, underground facilities, Poles, Conduits, curbs, gutters and other City
property caused by or resulting from the performance of any Make-Ready Work by the Licensee, its
employees, agents, contractor, subcontractors or representatives, or by the Licensee and others, if the
Work is performed jointly by such parties.
Contract No. ____________
13
110520 MLA template
4.6 Removal of Markings. The Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall
remove all Underground Service Alert markings from the streets and sidewalks as may be required
by Law or by the City.
5.0 APPLICATION FOR ACCESS
5.1 Processing Request Form. The Licensee shall complete and file a Processing
Request Form to request access to and use of Poles and/or Conduits (the “Application”) with CPAU
and apply for and receive from the Public Works Director, Planning Director and/or the Utilities
Director any other necessary authorizations and approvals. Upon receipt of approval of the
Application and other authorizations and approvals and the payment of all required Costs and Fees,
the Licensee shall coordinate with CPAU in making attachment to Poles and/or occupancy of
Conduits within the time period specified in Section 5.2. To the extent not inconsistent with Law, the
City reserves the right to reject any completed Application in accordance with Section 3.2 and
subsections 3.2.1 through 3.2.6 or any incomplete Application. The City, in acting upon an
Application, will use reasonable efforts to process and accept or reject the Application, within the
parameters and time periods set forth below:
A. The City will complete its Preparatory Work to determine whether and where
the Pole Attachments and/or Conduit Occupancy are feasible and what Make-Ready Work will be
required, within twenty (20) Days of receipt of the processing fee that shall be due and payable
following CPAU’s review and acceptance of the Processing Request Form and all attachments
thereto, which the Licensee acknowledges shall be complete in all respects in order for the City to
deem the Application validly submitted;
B. The City will notify the Licensee within seven (7) Days of completion of the
Preparatory Work (1) whether the Poles and/or Conduits identified in the Processing Request Form
can be subject to a detailed engineering analysis to be conducted during the Make-Ready Work
phase of the Application and (2) whether the Make-Ready Work, including the required replacement
of any deteriorated Pole, will be performed by the City or the Licensee or its City-approved,
qualified and licensed contractor;
C. Within seven (7) Days of the Licensee’s receipt of the City’s notice to the
Licensee referred to in (B) above, the Licensee will give written notice to the City to proceed to the
Make-Ready Work phase and the Licensee will proceed to hire qualified and licensed contractor(s)
if the City authorizes the Licensee to perform the Make-Ready Work;
D. The City will provide the Licensee with the City’s estimate of Costs of Pole
Attachments and/or Conduit Occupancy, including the Costs of any Make-Ready Work to be
performed by CPAU, within thirty (30) Days of the Licensee’s notice to the City to proceed with the
Make-Ready Work phase referred to in (C) above;
E. The Licensee shall accept or reject the City’s estimate of Costs and make
payment of the estimated Costs within seven (7) Days of receipt of the City’s estimate of Costs
referred to in (D) above; and
Contract No. ____________
14
110520 MLA template
F. The City will complete the Make-Ready Work for the Licensee Facilities, as
needed, within one hundred five (105) Days of the receipt of the Licensee’s written acceptance of
the City’s estimate of the Costs and the payment of such Costs.
Notwithstanding Sections 5.1(A) through (F), the City may toll or stop the clock on any of the
timelines mentioned in Sections 5.1(A), (B), (D) or (F) in the event of an emergency as determined
by the City or for other good and sufficient cause. The City will provide written notice to the
Licensee of the City’s determination regarding the emergency or other good and sufficient cause. If
the City is unable to complete any of the Work contemplated in Sections 5.1(A), (D) and/or (F)
within the specified time periods, then the Licensee may request the City’s approval to undertake
and complete such Work, provided that (i) the Licensee gives to the City not less than 72 hours’
prior notice of its desire to complete such Work, (ii) the Licensee certifies, in writing, to the City
that the Person(s) who will complete such Work on behalf of the Licensee is/are duly qualified and
licensed to perform the Work in the electric utility space of the Pole and/or or Conduits, and (iii) the
Person(s) is /are pre-authorized by the Utilities Director to complete such Work on behalf of the
Licensee. As a condition precedent to the City’s obligation to approve any Person(s) who will
perform such Work on behalf of the Licensee, the Licensee shall provide the name(s), copy of their
license(s), and a statement of qualifications of the Person(s) designated to perform the Work on the
Licensee’s behalf in the electric space on the Poles or in the Conduits at the time the Application is
submitted.
5.1.1 Except as otherwise approved by the City, the Licensee shall limit the filing of
an Application for Pole Attachment to not more than the number of Poles per Applications
established by the City by Utility Rule and Regulation or, if no such requirement or specification
exists, fifteen (15) poles per Application.
5.1.2 The Utilities Director may approve the modification of the limitations set
forth in subsection 5.1.1, if the Licensee requests, in writing. The Licensee shall specify a desired
priority of completion of the Work for each Application in the event that the Licensee submits
multiple Applications to the City within a rolling thirty-Day period.
5.1.3 If the Utilities Director rejects or otherwise disapproves of the Application,
then the City will provide the Licensee with a written detailed explanation of the basis of
disapproval.
5.2 Lapse of Application. Authorization or approval to the Licensee to attach to
Poles and/or install in Conduits shall terminate without further notice to the Licensee as to any Poles
or Conduits covered thereby, to which the Licensee has not attached or occupied within one hundred
eighty (180) Days from the date of the City’s notice to the Licensee that such Pole(s) and/or
Conduits are Available. The preceding sentence notwithstanding, the Licensee may re-submit the
Application and, subject to subsection 7.5.2 hereof, the City will use reasonable efforts to expedite
the City’s review and approval in accordance with the process set forth in Sections 5.1(A) through
(D), inclusive.
5.3 Multiple Applications for Same City Facilities. Applications received by the
City regarding the same Pole or Conduit will be processed by the City on a first-come, first-served
Contract No. ____________
15
110520 MLA template
basis. First-come, first-served priority shall be determined according to the Applicant who is
determined to have first submitted a complete Application. Whenever two or more Applications are
filed with the City pertaining to the same Poles and/or Conduits, the City, within thirty (30) Days of
receipt of the later filed Application, will notify all affected Applicants of the following: (a) one or
more Applications have been received for some or all of the same Poles and/or Conduits; and (b) the
name, email address and telephone number of each Applicant who has submitted such Application.
5.4 Cost Sharing Arrangements. In the event that one or more other Applicants
may wish to share the costs of attachment and/or installation with the Licensee, unless otherwise
agreed to by the Applicants, the Licensee, if it is the “first-in-time” Applicant, will endeavor in good
faith to coordinate efforts relating to the sharing of all Make-Ready Work. Unless the Applicants
otherwise agree, the Licensee, if it is the “first-in-time” Applicant, will endeavor to transmit to the
City any mutually agreed to Make-Ready Work costs on behalf of the Applicants affected by such
arrangement. The City shall bill the Licensee, if it is the “first-in-time” Applicant, for the entire cost
of all Make-Ready Work necessary to accommodate the Applicants, including the Licensee. The
City shall not be responsible, and it expressly disclaims any obligation or responsibility, for assisting
the Licensee, if it is the “first-in-time” Applicant, in collecting the prorated costs of Make-Ready
Work from any additional Applicant.
5.5 Performance of Work.
5.5.1 Prior to the commencement of the Make-Ready Work relating to CPAU
facilities which the City may authorize the Licensee to perform, the Licensee shall post or shall
cause the posting of notices of its proposed Make-Ready Work in accordance with the Public Works
and the Utilities Departments’ rules and regulations. Absent such rules and regulations, the Licensee
shall at least ten (10) Days before the commencement of its Make-Ready Work deliver or shall cause
to be delivered a written schedule for each portion of Work to: (a) those residents and businesses
whose properties abut and are within 300 feet of the proposed Work sites or such other distance as
set forth in any City-issued approval or authorization; and (b) other Persons whose facilities will be
directly impacted by such Work. In addition, the Licensee shall be required to post “No Parking”
notices at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the commencement of each portion of the Work in
the absence of any time period as set forth in the approvals or authorizations.
5.5.2 The Licensee upon the completion of its Make-Ready Work shall promptly
furnish to the City accurate plans and record drawings or as-built drawings depicting, in detail, the
locations and dimensions of the Licensee Facilities, including, without limitation, the Pole and/or
Conduit numbers, if available, notwithstanding that such information may have been initially
provided with the Application(s). These plans and drawings shall be incorporated in any form as
may be reasonably specified by the City Manager. The Licensee shall furnish its plans and drawings
to the City in an electronic storage medium (which utilize AutoCAD or Geographic Data Systems
software or equivalent), containing the full set of plans and record drawings or as-built drawings,
whenever such information may be required by the City Manager or any Director. Unless the City
requires the Licensee to submit the final load calculations prior to the issuance of any authorization,
approvals or permits, such information shall include, without limitation, the load calculations for
each proposed Pole Attachment, including any Streetlight Pole attachment, as may be required by
CPAU, as set forth in Exhibit “I.”
Contract No. ____________
16
110520 MLA template
5.5.3 In the event that the City determines any Pole to which the Licensee seeks
access for attachment purposes is inadequate to support the Licensee Facilities in accordance with
Law, following the receipt of the Licensee’s load calculations as requested by the City, the City will
inform the Licensee of any required changes and the estimated costs thereof in order for the City to
consider making provision for adequate load-bearing Poles in accordance with the timelines set forth
in Sections 5.1(A) through (F). If, after the receipt of the City’s information, the Licensee desires to
proceed with the Pole Attachments by submitting to the City the Licensee’s acceptance of the City’s
estimate of Work and payment, in advance, in accordance with the timelines set forth in Sections
5.1(A) through (F) to reimburse the City for the total estimated Pole modification or replacement
costs and expenses, including, without limitation, the costs of installing new Poles, plus the expenses
of replacing or transferring the City’s electric and/or fiber optics utility facilities from the old Poles
to the new Poles, the City may, at its option, replace the Poles with suitable Poles. The Licensee will
reimburse the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and/or any existing licensee for any expense incurred
by each of them in relocating their facilities from the existing Poles to the new Poles. Upon the
completion of Make-Ready Work, the City will prepare and submit a final billing for reimbursement
by the Licensee to the City for the final Pole replacement costs, including, without limitation, the
costs of the new Pole, the labor associated with the transfer or rearrangement of the facilities of the
joint owner(s) of Poles and/or other license holders, the cost of removing the old Poles, and other
matters itemized on the bill. In the alternative, the City may permit the Licensee to replace any Pole
in accordance with terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the City, the joint owner(s) of certain
Poles and any existing licensee thereof.
5.5.4 The City shall determine or otherwise specify the point of attachment on each
Pole and/or the point of entry in each Conduit to be occupied by the Licensee Facilities after
consultation with the Licensee. Information regarding the Licensee’s preferred point(s) of
attachment or entry will be included on each Application.
5.5.5 The Licensee shall notify the City in the Application at least thirty (30) Days
before the Licensee will add to, relocate, replace or otherwise modify the Licensee Facilities
attached to a Pole or occupying a Conduit, where additional space or holding capacity shall be
required on either a temporary or permanent basis.
6.0 COSTS AND FEES
6.1 Payment of Costs and Fees. In consideration of the City’s grant of a non-
exclusive license to the Licensee under this Agreement, during the Initial Term and the Extension
Term, if any, the Licensee shall pay to the City the initial/one-time Costs and Fees (the “Initial/One-
Time Costs and Fees”) and the annual Costs and Fees (the “Annual Costs and Fees”) referred to in
the Schedules, as set forth in Exhibit “E.” Payments shall be due and payable upon the specified
date(s) for the Work relating to any Pole Attachment and/or Conduit Occupancy through the end of
the calendar year of the attachments and/or occupancies, unless otherwise provided by Exhibit “E”
or by Law. All other payments set forth in the Schedules will be payable on a calendar year basis.
All payments shall be made payable by check, draft or other negotiable instrument to the “City of
Palo Alto” and delivered to the address set forth in Article 18.0.
Contract No. ____________
17
110520 MLA template
6.1.1 Unless otherwise provided by Exhibit “E” or by Law or mutually agreed to by
the Parties, the Annual Costs and Fees shall be payable thereafter annually, in advance, by the
January 1st of each year during the Initial Term and the Extension Term, if any. Except as expressly
provided in the Schedules, the Annual Costs and Fees shall not be adjusted in the event that the
Licensee removes or reduce the fibers, wires, cables or wireless facilities, or removes the wireless
facilities attachments during any calendar year, whenever the adjustment or removal is effected and
the Annual Costs and Fees have been paid. The City shall increase the sum total of all Annual Costs
and Fees payable to the City, whenever the Licensee installs additional fibers, wires, cables or
wireless facilities, in accordance with the adjustment formula specified in the Schedules or by Law.
6.1.2 In addition to the Initial/One Time Costs and Fees and the Annual Costs and
Fees payable hereunder, the Licensee shall pay as additional consideration other Fees and Costs for
services rendered by the City (the “Additional Costs and Fees”). The Additional Annual Costs and
Fees shall be due and payable in accordance with the Schedules, the Provisions and Law.
6.1.3 In addition to the Costs and Fees referred to in subsections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2
above, the Licensee shall be obligated to pay the City for any uncollected Annual Fees which may
be otherwise due and payable by the Licensee on account of its early termination without cause of
this Agreement.
6.1.4 The City will prepare and deliver to the Licensee an invoice for Costs and
Fees and Additional Costs and Fees estimated or incurred by the City or due and payable by the
Licensee for the privilege of accessing and using the City-controlled spaces on the Poles and/or in
the Conduits. The amounts shall be due and payable within forty-five (45) Days of the invoice date.
Any invoice that is not paid in a timely manner shall be assessed a late fee with respect to the
overdue sum, which shall be due and payable with the invoice. The Licensee shall pay amounts not
then in dispute. As to any amount subsequently determined to be due and payable, the Licensee shall
promptly pay such amount and the applicable late fee with the invoice.
6.2 Failure to Pay. The Licensee’s failure to pay the Initial/One-Time and Annual
Costs and Fees any Additional Costs and Fees, and any early termination Fee as and when they shall
become due, shall constitute a default by the Licensee under this Agreement; provided, however, the
Licensee shall have the right to cure a monetary default in accordance with Article 16.0 and the right
to dispute the amount of any Cost or Fee in accordance with Article 17.0. The Licensee’s obligation
to pay the Costs and Fees and Additional Costs and Fees existing as of the effective date of early
termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF THE LICENSEE
FACILITIES
7.1 Make-Ready Work by City. The City shall perform its Make-Ready Work in
regard to the City Facilities before the City or the Licensee can perform the Make-Ready Work in
regard to the Licensee Facilities, unless the Parties otherwise agree. Nothing herein shall prohibit
the City from authorizing the Licensee to perform the City’s Make-Ready Work in accordance with
Contract No. ____________
18
110520 MLA template
City requirements. The Licensee will pay the City’s Costs for the services rendered by the City
and/or CPAU to the Licensee in accordance with this Article 7.0.
7.1.1 The City may install or add electrical switches in order to accommodate the
Licensee Facilities within or above the electric utility space on the Poles at the License’s sole cost
and expense.
7.1.2 The City will trim and cut trees, shrubbery and other vegetation necessary for
the proper operation of its utility infrastructure.
7.1.3 Whenever the City deems it necessary to remove or relocate the Licensee
Facilities, or any part thereof, pursuant to the lawful exercise of its governmental or proprietary
rights and powers, the City will issue timely notice to the Licensee to permit the Licensee to secure
the necessary approvals or authorizations, before the removal or relocation may commence.
7.1.4 Within the periods of time reasonably established by the City, the Licensee, at
its sole cost and expense, shall construct, install, maintain, remove and relocate the Licensee
Facilities in the manner authorized by this Agreement or by Law and in a safe manner, as not to
physically or electrically interfere with the City Facilities or the facilities of the joint owner(s) of
certain Poles and/or any existing licensee.
7.2 Facilities Relocation. At the request of the City, acting in accordance with
Law, including the provisions of Chapter 12.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Licensee shall
relocate the Licensee Facilities in aerial locations to underground locations in accordance with Law,
including, without limitation, any Law which applies to any dominant or non-dominant telephone
corporation, as such term is defined in Section 234 of the California Public Utilities Code. In such
event and to the extent permitted by the City, the Licensee may elect to relocate the Licensee
Facilities, which are wireless facilities, affected thereby to any other available Pole, including a
Streetlight Pole, as practicable, subject to the Provisions. If there is not available any other utility
pole or a Streetlight Pole, then the City will endeavor to accommodate the Licensee’s request to
either relocate, at the Licensee’s sole cost and expense, the Licensee Facilities, which are wireless
facilities, or part thereof, to the nearest available utility pole or a Streetlight Pole or to a new utility
pole or a Streetlight Pole to the extent the City can accommodate the Licensee’s requirements, which
will be located in the Public Rights-of-Way or Public Utility Easements outside of the underground
utility district in question.
7.3 Work in Electric Utility Space. Notwithstanding any other Provision in this
Agreement to the contrary, no approval or authorization issued to the Licensee, that would allow the
attachment of the Licensee Facilities to any Pole, shall allow the Licensee to encroach upon, perform
any work, or attach and/or install the Licensee Facilities to the electric utility space on any Pole or in
any Conduit, unless it is expressly permitted, in writing, by the Utilities Director. Any attachment
and/or installation within the City’s electric utility space on a Pole or in a Conduit shall be
performed by the City, at the Licensee’s cost and expense, unless the Licensee is otherwise
permitted, in writing, by the Utilities Director to perform such work in accordance with the timelines
set forth in this Agreement and Sections 5.1(A) through (F). The terms and conditions under which
the Licensee or the Person representing the Licensee may be permitted, in writing, to work within
Contract No. ____________
19
110520 MLA template
the electric utility space of a Pole and a Conduit are set forth in Exhibits “F” and “G,” respectively.
The Licensee will be permitted to place one or more additional Licensee Facilities onto an existing
cable or strand that constitutes a part of the City Facilities subject only to availability as determined
by the City and in compliance with prevailing industry safety standards.
7.3.1 In the event that a Pole must be replaced to accommodate the Licensee
Facilities, to the extent that the Licensee is authorized to perform such work, the Licensee shall
conform to the Pole replacement requirements of the City, as set forth in Exhibit “H.”
7.4 Coordination of Work. In the event of a service outage affecting both the City
Facilities and the Licensee Facilities, subject to the City’s reasonable exercise of discretion, the
Licensee shall be entitled to maintain and repair the Licensee Facilities concurrently with the City’s
maintenance and repair of the City Facilities. The Parties agree to work cooperatively with each
other while effecting the maintenance and repairs of their respective facilities.
7.5 Facilities Removal. The Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, will
permanently remove the Licensee Facilities from any Pole and/or Conduit within ninety (90) Days
of the expiration or termination of the respective Schedule or this Agreement, as applicable, unless
the Parties otherwise agree, in writing. The Licensee shall be liable to the City for the payment of
all Costs and Fees and any Additional Costs and Fees until all of the Licensee Facilities are
permanently removed. This Provision shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
7.5.1 No proration or refund of any Annual Cost or Fee will be due and payable by
the City to the Licensee on account of such removal on a permanent basis; provided, however, the
City will not charge any Annual Cost or Fee attributable to the Licensee Facilities for the first
calendar year commencing after their proper removal. Should the Licensee thereafter wish to make
attachments or placements to such Poles and/or occupancy of such Conduits, it shall apply for and
obtain the required authorizations and approvals.
7.5.2 Whenever the Licensee Facilities are removed from the City Facilities, no
reattachment to the same Pole or insertion in the same Conduit may be made until: (a) the Licensee
has first complied with the Provisions as though no such Pole Attachment and/or Conduit
Occupancy had previously been made; and (b) all undisputed Costs and Fees and Additional Costs
and Fees due and payable to the City for such previous Pole Attachment and/or Conduit Occupancy
have been paid in full.
7.6 Notice to City. The Licensee shall inform the City, in writing, of the dates on
which the removal of the Licensee Facilities has been completed. The City reserves the right to
inspect each new attachment and/or installation, as conditions may warrant, and the Licensee shall
reimburse the City for the Costs of such inspections at the rate per worker-hour then in effect. The
surveys and inspections, whether or not made, shall not operate to relieve the Licensee of any
responsibility, obligation or liability assumed under this Agreement or imposed by Law. Nothing in
this Agreement shall be construed to obligate the Licensee to pay for inspections by the City of the
City Facilities, made in the ordinary course of business.
Contract No. ____________
20
110520 MLA template
8.0 MOVING THE LICENSEE FACILITIES
8.1 Temporary Removal of Facilities. The Licensee will move or transfer or cause
the removal or transfer of the Licensee Facilities on a temporary, non-permanent basis, whenever the
City will move or replace the City Facilities. Except as otherwise required by the City, within the
time required by Law or, if no such Law exists, thirty (30) Days of receipt of written notification by
the City, the Licensee shall move or transfer or cause the removal or transfer of the Licensee
Facilities in a workmanlike manner in accordance with the Licensee’s specifications, if those
specifications are timely furnished to and subsequently approved by the City, in advance, and, if not,
then in accordance with Law and the Provisions. Such movement or transfer by or for the Licensee
will be performed only in the common operating areas served by the Parties. If the Licensee
Facilities are not moved or transferred within the required period of time, the City may remove or
transfer or cause the removal or transfer of the Licensee Facilities on behalf of the Licensee at the
Licensee’s sole cost and expense. The Licensee shall pay the City, upon demand, the City’s actual
Costs of removal or transfer, and this obligation shall survive the termination or revocation hereof.
9.0 INSPECTION OF THE LICENSEE FACILITIES
9.1 Inspection by City. The City reserves the right to inspect the Licensee
Facilities at the time of Pole Attachment and/or Conduit Occupancy and to thereafter make
reasonable periodic inspections of any part of the Licensee Facilities that are attached to Poles or
installed in Conduits. The frequency and extent of such inspections by the City shall be reasonably
established by the City. The Licensee shall reimburse the City for the Costs of any inspections
performed by the City that may be made necessary by the Licensee’s actions or as reasonably
determined by the City. The obligation to pay shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of
this Agreement.
9.1.1 The City shall provide the Licensee with not less than ten (10) Business Days’
prior written notice before conducting the periodic inspections. The preceding sentence
notwithstanding, where, in the sole judgment of the City Manager, the public health, safety and
welfare considerations warrant an immediate or prompt inspection, the City may conduct such
inspection without furnishing any prior written notice to the Licensee.
9.1.2 The City’s conduct of periodic inspections, or the failure to so conduct, shall
not operate to impose upon the City any liability of any kind whatsoever, nor relieve the Licensee of
any responsibility, obligations or liability assigned to the Licensee by this Agreement or by Law.
10.0 UNAUTHORIZED ATTACHMENT OR OCCUPANCY
10.1 Unauthorized Access. If, during the Initial Term or the Extension Term, if
any, the City determines that the Licensee Facilities have been attached to or occupy the City
Facilities, for which no Application was submitted to the City and no authorization or approval by
the City was issued to the Licensee, the City may audit the Licensee’s records regarding such
attachments and occupancies. Without prejudice to its legal rights or equitable remedies made
available by this Agreement or by Law, the City may impose Costs and other financial requirements
not otherwise prohibited by Law, which Costs for each unauthorized Pole Attachment or Conduit
Contract No. ____________
21
110520 MLA template
Occupancy will not exceed the lesser of an amount equal to five (5) times the Annual Costs and Fees
referred to in Section 6.1, for the type of Licensee Facilities that are attached without authorization,
or the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or such other sum established by Law. The failure to
pay any such Costs shall be subject to the same Provisions set forth in Article 6.0 pertaining to
unpaid amounts then due and payable to the City.
10.1.1 The Licensee shall submit, in writing, to the City within ten (10) Days after
receipt of the City’s written notice of the unauthorized attachment or occupancy, a statement
concerning the unauthorized action purportedly taken by the Licensee and shall promptly submit an
Application pertaining to the unauthorized Pole Attachment or Conduit Occupancy. If the
completed Application is not received by the City within the time period specified in the notice of
unauthorized attachment or occupancy, the City may require the Licensee to remove its unauthorized
attachment or occupancy within ten (10) Days of the date on which such Application shall be due, or
the City may remove the Licensee Facilities or portion thereof without liability, and the cost and
expense of such removal shall be borne by the Licensee. The obligation to pay shall survive the
expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
10.2 No Implied Ratification. No action or inaction by the City with respect to the
unauthorized use of any Pole or Conduit by the Licensee shall be deemed to be a ratification of the
unauthorized use.
11.0 INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE LICENSEE
FACILITIES
11.1 Lack of Access. Except as otherwise provided by Law, the City reserves the
right to refuse to approve or authorize an Application, whenever the City determines that the
available City-controlled spaces on Poles or in Conduits are required for the reasons set forth in
Section 3.2. The City Facilities, at the City’s discretion, may be rearranged or replaced to
accommodate the Licensee Facilities, as practicable. If the City denies the Licensee access to and
use of the City Facilities in question pursuant to this Section 11.1, the City will use reasonable
efforts to identify one or more alternative locations at which the Licensee may attach and/or occupy
the Licensee Facilities, including, without limitation, at the Licensee’s sole cost and expense the
placement of a new Pole or Conduit.
11.2 Preparatory Work. The Licensee acknowledges that Preparatory Work,
consisting of an engineering survey and other related review and analysis, by the City will be
required to determine the load adequacy of the existing Poles and/or the capacity of the Conduits to
accommodate the Licensee Facilities, unless the City authorizes, in writing, the Licensee to perform
the engineering survey and related work. The City may require the Licensee to provide its
preliminary load calculations. The City also will take into account all engineering and other safety-
related considerations in determining the utilization of the existing available capacity of an anchor or
ability to accommodate an extension, when such utilization does not result in a reduction of the
holding capacity below the level normally required by the City for safety or other purposes.
11.2.1 Except as otherwise determined by the City, the field inspection portion of the
Preparatory Work will be performed by the Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, as may be
Contract No. ____________
22
110520 MLA template
reasonably required by the City. The City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles, or any existing
licensee may participate in the field inspection at its own cost and expense. The administrative
processing portion of the Preparatory Work’s work order, the coordination of the Work
requirements, and the schedule with the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and/or any existing licensee
will be performed by the Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, as may be reasonably required by the
City.
11.2.2 Before the Licensee may perform any portion of the Preparatory Work and
before the City will be required to review any Application, the Licensee shall submit the required
Costs and Fees with the Application or at such other time as may be established by the City. If a
nonrefundable deposit is required by the City in order for the Licensee to conduct the Preparatory
Work, this deposit will be applied to the cost of the Preparatory Work and/or the total cost of the job
to the extent of the City’s participation or to future payments that the Licensee shall owe to the City.
Upon receipt of the Application and the deposit, the City will notify the Licensee, in writing, of the
estimated charges that will apply, should the City’s participation be required. The Licensee’s failure
to respond within the specified period will be a ground for canceling the applicable Application and
forfeiting the non-refundable deposit.
11.3 Make-Ready Work. The City, acting by the Utilities Director, will perform the
Make-Ready Work for the Licensee Facilities, unless the City authorizes the Licensee to perform
such Work under terms and conditions established by the City. If the City performs the Make-Ready
Work, the Licensee shall pay the City for the Costs of such Make-Ready Work, and shall also
reimburse the City for any other Cost that the City may incur for transferring or rearranging the
facilities of the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and/or any existing licensee that are attached to the
City Facilities, or part thereof, and for any such Costs incurred by the City, the joint owner(s) of
certain Poles, and/or any existing licensee, in transferring or rearranging their facilities to
accommodate the Licensee’s requests. The Licensee shall not be entitled to any monies paid to the
City for Pole Attachments and/or Conduit Occupancies by reason of the use by the City, the joint
owner(s) of certain Poles and/or other licensee, of any additional capacity on such Pole or in such
Conduit resulting from such replacement or rearrangement. The City may require the Licensee to
obtain the services of a City-pre-approved, pre-authorized and pre-qualified contractor to perform
the transfers, rearrangements and/or replacements of facilities. If the City authorizes the Licensee to
do the Work, the City reserves the right to inspect such performance of Work. The performance of
such Work shall not commence in the absence of the City’s inspectors, who will be made available
on a timely basis. All materials, equipment and/or work methods and practices shall be approved by
the City prior to the commencement of the Work. Notwithstanding Section 3.6, the Licensee shall be
responsible for liability, losses and damages suffered by the City that may result from the Licensee’s
failure to comply with the Provisions or otherwise resulting from the Licensee’s attachment,
installation, operation, repair or maintenance of the Licensee Facilities.
11.4 Project Collaboration. Should the City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles,
and/or any existing licensee have Pole or Conduit accommodation rights for its own service
requirements, or needs to attach additional facilities to any Pole or Conduit to which Licensee is
attached or has occupied, and wishes to avail itself of the holding capacity of an anchor being
utilized by the Licensee, or needs to use the Conduits occupied by the Licensee, the Licensee will
either rearrange the Licensee Facilities in, on or about the designated Pole(s) and/or Conduit(s), or
Contract No. ____________
23
110520 MLA template
transfer them to replacement Pole(s) and/or Conduit(s), as determined by the City, so that the
additional facilities of the City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and/or any existing licensee may
be accommodated. The costs and expenses of such rearrangement and/or transfer will be at the sole
expense of the Person seeking an additional attachment and/or the modification of an existing Pole
Attachment, or additional Conduit capacity.
11.5 City Obligations. Subject to Section 7.1, in performing Make-Ready Work to
accommodate the Licensee Facilities, the City will use reasonable efforts to include such work in its
normal work load schedule to the extent that its actions exercised in its governmental and propriety
capacities are not adversely affected.
11.6 Cost Sharing. Except as otherwise provided herein, all Costs and capital
investments subject to reimbursement shall be determined in accordance with the regular and
customary methods of determining costs, expenses, and capital investments on the books and records
of the City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and/or any existing licensees in their respective
businesses.
11.6.1 The invoices for replacement, rearrangement, engineering, inspections,
expenses and other charges levied or collected under this Agreement, other than rentals for Pole
Attachment or Conduit Occupancy, shall be payable within forty-five (45) Days after the date of
receipt of such invoices by the Licensee.
12.0 INDEMNITY; WAIVER; RISK OF LOSS
12.1 Indemnity. The Licensee shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless
the City, its council members, officers, employees, and agents, from and against claims, demands,
losses, damages, liabilities, fines, charges, penalties, administrative and judicial proceedings and
orders, judgments, remedial actions of any kind, including the costs of any “hazardous material” (as
such term is defined in Section 17.04.040(e) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended),
remedial actions of any kind and all other related costs and expenses incurred in connection
therewith, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of defense, to the extent
caused directly, in whole or in part, by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Licensee, its
directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and representatives, or arising, in
whole or in part, from the Licensee’s construction, installation, operation, maintenance or repair of
the Licensee Facilities, but not to the extent arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of
the City.
12.1.1 The City shall be liable only for the costs of repair to the damaged Licensee
Facilities arising from the City's sole negligence or willful misconduct, and the City shall not be
otherwise responsible for any damage, loss, or liability of any kind occurring by reason of anything
done or omitted to be done by the City or by any third party, including, without limitation, damages,
losses, or liability arising from the City’s approval of an Application.
12.2 Waiver. The waiver by a Party of any breach or default or violation of any
Provision by the other Party shall not be deemed to be a waiver or a continuing waiver by that Party
of any subsequent breach or default or violation of the same or any other Provision.
Contract No. ____________
24
110520 MLA template
12.3 Risk of Loss. The Licensee shall assume all responsibility for, and shall
promptly reimburse, in full, the City, the joint owner(s) of certain Poles and/or any existing licensee,
for any of their losses and expenses associated with damages caused, directly or indirectly, by the
Licensee, its employees, agents and/or contractors to the City Facilities, including, without
limitation, any Poles and Conduits or damage caused by the presence of the Licensee Facilities. The
Licensee shall provide immediate notification to the other Party upon the occurrence of any such
damage.
12.4 Notice to City. The Licensee shall promptly advise the City of all known
claims relating to damage of property or injury to or death of persons, arising or alleged to have
arisen in any manner, directly or indirectly, from the erection, maintenance, repair, replacement,
operation, presence, use or removal of the Licensee Facilities. The Licensee shall promptly notify
the City, in writing, of any known suits or causes of action which involve the City and, upon request
of the City, provide to the City’s insurer copies of all relevant accident reports and statements made
to the Licensee or others.
13.0 INSURANCE
13.1 General. Unless the City’s insurance risk manager agrees, in writing, to accept
the Licensee’s self-insurance in fulfillment of these insurance requirements, the Licensee shall
obtain and maintain at all times during the Initial Term and the Extension Term, if any, commercial
general liability insurance and commercial automotive liability insurance protecting the Licensee in
an amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence (combined single limit), including
death, bodily injury and property damage, and not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000)
aggregate, for each personal injury or death liability, products-completed operations, and each
accident. Such insurance, pursuant to ISO Form No. GC2010 or equivalent or other commercially
reasonable form acceptable to the City’s insurance risk manager, shall include the City, its council
members, officers, employees, and agents as an additional insured as respects liability arising out of
the Licensee's negligent performance of any Work that it performs or may be authorized to perform
under this Agreement. Coverage shall be provided in accordance with the limits specified and the
Provisions indicated herein. Claims-made policies are not acceptable. Such limits may be satisfied
by a combination of primary and umbrella policies. Such insurance shall not be canceled or non-
renewed until the City has received at least thirty (30) Days’ prior written notice of such cancellation
or non-renewal. The Licensee shall be responsible for notifying the City of such change or
cancellation.
13.2 Certificates. The Licensee shall file the required original certificate(s) of
insurance with endorsements with the City's insurance risk manager, with a copy to the Utilities
Director, subject to the City's prior approval. The certificate(s) shall clearly state or provide:
13.2.1 Policy number; name of insurance company; name, address and telephone
number of the agent or authorized representative; name, address and telephone number of insured;
project name and address; policy expiration date; and specific required coverage amounts;
Contract No. ____________
25
110520 MLA template
13.2.2 With the certificate(s), the Licensee shall provide prior written notice of
cancellation to the City that is unqualified as to the acceptance of liability for failure to notify the
City; and
13.2.3 That the Licensee's required insurance is primary as respects any other valid
or collectible insurance that the City may possess, including any self-insured retentions the City may
have, and any other insurance the City does possess shall be considered excess insurance only and
shall not be required to contribute with this insurance.
13.3 Notice. The certificate(s) of insurance with all endorsements and notices shall
be mailed to: (a) City of Palo Alto, Utilities Department, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303,
Attn.: Electrical Engineering Manager; and (b) City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department, P.O.
Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Attn.: Supervising Project Engineer.
13.4 Other Coverage. Unless the City permits the Licensee to self-insure, the
Licensee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the Initial Term and the Extension Term, if
any, statutory workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance or qualify as a self-insurer in
an amount not less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or such other amounts as required
by Law, and furnish the City with a certificate showing proof of such coverage.
13.5 Insurance Rating. Any insurance provider of the Licensee shall be admitted
and authorized to do business in California and shall be rated at least A-:VII in Best's Key Rating
Guide. Insurance certificates issued by non-admitted insurance companies will not be acceptable to
the City.
13.6 Deductibles. Prior to the execution of this Agreement, any self-insured
retentions must be stated on the certificate(s) of insurance, which shall be sent to the City, and any
deductibles shall be reported, in writing, to the City’s insurance risk manager. "Cross liability",
"severability of interest" or "separation of insureds" clauses shall be made a part of the commercial
general liability and commercial automobile liability policies.
14.0 PERFORMANCE BOND; LETTER OF CREDIT
14.1 Posting Security. The City may require the Licensee to procure and provide
the City with a surety bond (the “Bond”), naming the City as the obligee in the amount of not less
than one hundred percent of the estimated cost of the Work or one hundred fifty thousand dollars
($150,000), whichever sum is greater (or such other amount as may be required by Law), to
guarantee and assure the faithful performance of the Licensee's obligations under this Agreement.
The City will notify the Licensee of the date by which such Bond shall be posted. The City shall
have the right to draw against the Bond in the event of a default by the Licensee or in the event that
the Licensee fails to meet and fully perform any of its obligations hereunder or in accordance with
the City’s exercise of its rights upon the Licensee’s abandonment of the Licensee Facilities and
failure to remove them as required by this Agreement.
14.2 Replenishing Bond. Within fifteen (15) Days of receipt of written notice
from the City, the Licensee shall renew or replace such sums of money as shall bring the Bond
Contract No. ____________
26
110520 MLA template
current. A failure by the Licensee to bring current the Bond within the specified time and give the
City notice thereof shall constitute a default under this Agreement. Any Bond may be canceled by
the Licensee at the end of the applicable construction or installation project. The Licensee shall
provide thirty (30) Days’ prior written notice of cancellation to the City.
14.3 Letter of Credit. The Licensee may provide the City with a Letter of Credit in
the amount set forth in Section 14.1 and in accordance with other terms and conditions as may be
agreed to by the City, if the City Manager agrees to accept the Letter of Credit in lieu of the Bond to
secure the Licensee’s performance under this Agreement.
15.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
15.1 Representations and Warranties of the Parties. As of the Effective Date, each
Party represents and warrants to the other Party that:
A. It is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of
the jurisdiction of its formation;
B. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the Exhibits
are within its powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary action and do not violate any of its
governing documents, any contracts with any joint owners to which it is a party or any Law;
C. The Agreement and the Exhibits and any other document executed and/or
delivered in accordance with this Agreement constitute its legally valid and binding obligation,
enforceable against it in accordance with its covenants, terms, conditions and provisions;
D. It has not filed and it is not now contemplating the filing for bankruptcy
protection or, to its knowledge, any action is threatened against it which would result in it being or
becoming bankrupt;
E. There is not pending or, to its knowledge, threatened against it or any of its
affiliates any legal or administrative proceedings that could materially adversely affect its ability to
perform its obligations under this Agreement and the Exhibits; and
F. No “event of default” or potential “event of default” with respect to it has
occurred and is continuing and no such event or circumstance would occur as a result of its entering
into or performing its obligations under this Agreement and the Exhibits.
15.2 Representations and Warranties of the Licensee. The Licensee represents and
warrants to the City that:
A. The Licensee has all approvals, authorizations, certifications, licenses and
franchises required by the CPUC, the FCC and/or any other agency to provide the Communications
Service;
Contract No. ____________
27
110520 MLA template
B. The Licensee is not aware of any facts or circumstances that would call into
doubt the continuing validity of any such approvals, authorizations, certifications, licenses or
franchises;
C. There is not pending or, to the Licensee’s knowledge, threatened against the
Licensee or its parent corporation or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, any legal or administrative
proceedings that could materially adversely affect the validity of such licenses, authorizations or
franchises; and
D. All Work to be performed by the Licensee pursuant to this Agreement will be
(i) performed in a good and workmanlike manner, consistent with any specifications and with any
prevailing industry standards, applicable Laws, and the Provisions hereof, and (ii) will be free from
defects.
16.0 DEFAULT; REMEDIES FOR DEFAULT
16.1 Event of Default. This Agreement may be terminated upon the occurrence of
an “event of default” by a Party (the “Defaulting Party”).
16.1.1 An “event of default,” which will constitute a material breach of this
Agreement if it is not cured in a timely manner as described below, means the occurrence of any of
the following:
A. A representation or warranty made by a Party is false or misleading in any
material respect when made;
B. The failure to perform any material covenant, or obligation set forth in this
Agreement, if such failure is not remedied within thirty (30) Days after written notice of default is
given or, if such cure reasonably requires more than thirty (30) Days, fails to commence such cure
within the specified period or, thereafter, fails to continue diligently such cure until completion
thereof;
C. A Party files a petition or otherwise commences or acquiesces in the
commencement of a proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or similar Law,
makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, has an administrator, receiver, trustee,
conservator or similar official appointed with respect to it or any substantial portion of its property
or assets, or is generally unable to pay its debts as they fall due;
D. The failure to make, when due, any undisputed payment required by this
Agreement if such failure is not remedied within ten (10) Business Days after written notice of
default is given; and
E. The revocation, expiration or denial of renewal, by final order or action that
is no longer subject to appeal, of any license, authorization or franchise that is required by the FCC,
the CPUC, and/or any other agency for the Licensee to provide Communications Service by means
of the Licensee Facilities or to install or maintain or operate the Licensee Facilities in Palo Alto, if
Contract No. ____________
28
110520 MLA template
such expiration or denial prohibits the Licensee from operating the Licensee Facilities or providing
Communications Service.
16.2 Remedies for Default. If an event of default occurs and is continuing with
respect to the Defaulting Party, the other Party (the “Non-Defaulting Party”) will have an election of
rights and remedies, in addition to all other legal rights and equitable remedies or as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, to which the Non-Defaulting Party may resort cumulatively, or in the
alternative:
A. The right to terminate this Agreement by giving to the Defaulting Party thirty
(30) Days’ prior written notice of termination, in which event this Agreement will terminate on the
date set forth in the notice of termination; and
B. Any other right that is made available under applicable Laws.
16.3 Excusing Performance. A Party will be temporarily excused from the
performance or further performance of any of its covenants or agreements hereunder, excepting only
the obligation to pay Costs and Fees, and such Party’s nonperformance shall not be deemed an event
of default under this Agreement for any period, to the extent, but only to the extent, that such Party
is prevented, hindered or delayed for any period of time not in excess of thirty (30) Days from
performing any of its covenants or agreements, in whole or in part, as a result of a Force Majeure
event, including, without limitation, any denial of access to the City Facilities in order to engage in
the Work. The Parties hereby agree to use reasonable efforts to remedy the effects caused by the
occurrence of the Force Majeure event giving rise to a Party’s temporary nonperformance of its
obligations, covenants or agreements under this Agreement. A Party will provide notice promptly to
the other Party to the extent that Party relies on the provisions of this Section to temporarily excuse
its failure to perform any of its covenants or agreements hereunder.
17.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
17.1 Informal Process. If a dispute between the Parties arises in regard to this
Agreement or any Exhibit (the “Dispute”), the following procedure will govern the resolution of the
Dispute: (a) the Parties will nominate their respective representatives to be responsible for and
exercise the appropriate authority to resolve all Disputes hereunder for the fourteen-day resolution
period of time set forth below; and (b) if the Dispute remains unresolved within such fourteen-day
period, before either Party may resort to the process described in Sections 17.3 and 17.4, either Party
may refer the Dispute, in writing, for final settlement to a senior principal, vice-president or other
officer of the Licensee and the City Manager, who will jointly convene within ten (10) Days of
receipt of a referral request and use reasonable efforts to consider and resolve the Dispute. The
Parties will ensure that their respective representatives confer for a period of fourteen (14) days from
the date of referral by either Party. If final resolution cannot be achieved, the Parties may resort to
the procedures described in Sections 17.3 and 17.4 hereunder.
17.2 No Bar to Other Relief. Nothing contained in this Agreement will prevent or
otherwise restrict either Party from pursuing its rights at law or in equity, including injunctive relief
and specific performance, in the event of a default and a material breach by the other Party.
Contract No. ____________
29
110520 MLA template
17.3 Mediation. In the event of a Dispute, either Party may, by notice to the other
Party (the “Mediation Notice”), request that such Dispute be submitted to non-binding mediation in
Palo Alto, California, with a mediator acceptable to the Parties. If such mediation does not result in
a settlement of the Dispute within one hundred eighty (180) Days from the date of the Mediation
Notice, either Party may request that such matter be submitted to non-binding arbitration in Palo
Alto, California, under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Action of any kind by
either Party arising out of this Agreement must be commenced within one (1) year from the date the
right, claim, demand or cause of action first arises.
17.4 Continuation of Rights. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth
herein, in no event will the City interrupt or suspend or terminate the Licensee’s rights granted
under this Agreement or perform any action that prevents, impedes, or reduces in any way the
Licensee’s rights to conduct its authorized, certificated or licensed services, unless: (a) the authority
to do so is granted to the City by this Agreement or by Law or conferred by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (b) this Agreement has been validly terminated in accordance with this Agreement; or
(c) the Licensee has failed to pay the City any undisputed invoice that is past due in excess of thirty
(30) Days after receiving a delinquency notice from the City.
17.5 Immediate Relief. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to
prohibit a Party from obtaining judicial, regulatory or other relief necessary in order to preserve the
status quo or prevent the loss or violation of that Party’s rights.
18.0 NOTICES
All notices which shall or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given, in
writing, and shall be deemed validly given if delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt
request or by commercial courier, provided the commercial courier’s regular business is delivery
service, and addressed, as follows:
CITY: City of Palo Alto
Department of Utilities
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn.: Director of Utilities
CITY: City of Palo Alto
Department of Public Works
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn.: Director of Public Works
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Contract No. ____________
30
110520 MLA template
Attn.: City Clerk
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn.: City Attorney
Any notice to be sent to the City Manager or City Attorney shall be sent to the same post office box
referred to above.
LICENSEE: Name
Address
Phone:
Fax:
Attn.:
19.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
19.1 Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended except pursuant to a
written instrument signed by the Parties.
19.2 Assignment. This Agreement is personal to only the Licensee and no other
Person. The Licensee may not directly or indirectly assign, transfer or convey to another Person this
license or any of the rights and obligations of the Licensee established by this Agreement. Any
assignment or transfer of this Agreement shall be void, and the City may terminate this Agreement if
the Licensee attempts to assign or transfer this Agreement without compliance hereof. The preceding
sentences of this Section 19.2 notwithstanding, the Licensee may assign or transfer this Agreement
to its parent corporation or any subsidiary corporation or affiliate or successor in interest, provided
that such parent corporation, subsidiary corporation or affiliate or successor in interest first agrees, in
writing, to be fully bound by this Agreement and the Exhibits and to assume all of the Licensee’s
obligations and liabilities hereunder, whether arising before or after the date of such assignment or
transfer.
19.3 Attorneys’ Fees. Each Party in any litigation, including mediation, regarding
this Agreement will bear its own costs and expenses of suit, including, without limitation, reasonable
attorneys’ fees.
19.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
19.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between
the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no representations, warranties,
agreements or understandings (whether oral or written) between the Parties relating to the subject
matter hereof which are not fully expressed herein.
Contract No. ____________
31
110520 MLA template
19.6 Exhibits. As of the Effective Date, all exhibits referred to in this Agreement
and any addenda, attachments, and schedules which may, from time to time, be referred to in any
duly executed amendment to this Agreement are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement
and shall be deemed a part hereof.
19.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the Laws of the State of California without regard to its conflicts of laws rules or
principles.
19.8 Headings. The headings hereof are inserted for convenience of reference
only, are not a part hereof and shall have no effect on the construction or interpretation hereof.
19.9 Independent Contractor. Each Party acts as an independent contractor and not
as an employee of the other Party. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to establish a
partnership, joint venture, group, pool, syndicate or agency relationship between the City and the
Licensee.
19.10 Resolving Conflicting Provisions. To the extent the Provisions and any other
authorizations and approvals required to be obtained by the Licensee from the City are in conflict,
the Provisions of the Agreement, authorizations and approvals which impose(s) the higher or greater
legal duty or obligation upon the Licensee shall take precedence.
19.11 Rules of Construction. Each Party and its counsel have reviewed this
Agreement. Accordingly, the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the construction and interpretation
hereof.
19.12 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that a
Provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected
Provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
19.13 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the lawful successors and permitted assignees of the Parties.
19.14 Time of Action. For the purposes hereof, the time in which an act is to be
performed shall be computed by excluding the first Day and including the last. If the time in which
an act is to be performed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or any Day observed as an official holiday by
the City, the time for performance shall be extended to the following Business Day.
19.15 Venue. In the event that suit is brought by a Party, the Parties agree that trial
of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California, County of Santa Clara, or,
assuming jurisdiction is otherwise proper, in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, in the County of Santa Clara.
19.16 Waiver of Lien Rights. The City waives any lien rights that it may have in the
Licensee Facilities, which shall be deemed personal property for purposes of this Agreement
regardless of whether or not the same is deemed real property, fixtures or attachments thereto, or
Contract No. ____________
32
110520 MLA template
personal property by Law. Subject to and as limited by the Provisions, the City grants the Licensee
and the Licensee’s mortgagee the right to remove or cause the removal of the Licensee Facilities
from time to time, whether before or after a default by the Licensee under this Agreement, in the
discretion of the Licensee or the Licensee’s mortgagee.
//
//
//
//
//
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement shall be deemed duly executed by the
Parties in Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as of the Effective Date.
APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________________ ______________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
ATTEST: LICENSEE
_____________________________ ______________________________
Director of Utilities Title: _________________________
_____________________________ ______________________________
Director of Public Works General Counsel
Contract No. ____________
EXHIBITS
In accordance with Section 19.6 of the Master License Agreement between the City and
the Licensee (the “Agreement”), Exhibits A through I, inclusive, any new exhibits
hereinafter existing and any amendments thereto, are hereby incorporated in and made a
part of the Agreement.
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
A-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Exhibit “A”
The Licensee shall submit one of the following documents (or documents), as
applicable, which shall be attached hereto:
[a] Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or [b] Wireless Identification
Registration Number.
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “B”
List of Poles Rented by Licensee
No. of Poles: ______________________
City of Palo Alto Pole Number Nearest Street Address
B-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “C”
List and Location of Conduit Footage Rented by Licensee
Total Conduit footage: _____________________
Location
Number
From Street
Address
To Street
Address
Footage (Ft) Number and size of
cables to be installed
1
2
3
Etc
C-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “D”
Description of Licensee Facilities
[to be Attached To City-spaces on Poles and/or Streetlight Poles
And/or Installed in City Conduits]
The Licensee shall provide the City with a detailed description of the Licensee Facilities
that the Licensee proposes to attach to and/or install in the City Facilities.
The following information shall be included: [1] Typical Installation drawing; and [2]
Power requirements for the Licensee Facilities to be attached and/or installed.
D-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “E”
Schedule E-1, dated as of ____________
Description of Licensee Facilities to be Attached and/or Installed, Duration of
Attachment and/or Installation, and Fees and Costs
A. Licensee Facilities:
1. Number of Pole Attachments: ______________________
2. Total Conduit footage : ______________________
B. Duration of Pole Attachment/Conduit Occupancy:
1. For Poles: ___________________________
2. For Conduits: __________________________
C. Initial/One-Time Costs and Fees
1. The Licensee shall reimburse the City for its actual or estimated Costs and
Fees of preparing the City Facilities (the City’s overhead and underground facilities) for
each new or modified Pole Attachment or Conduit Occupancy. This reimbursement is a
one-time charge for each attachment to Poles and/or installation in Conduits. The charges
shall be due upon the City’s receipt of the Licensee’s written approval to attach, install or
modify any Pole contact or Conduit usage, and they shall be paid before the City’s
construction shall commence.
Charge: Processing Charge
Description: The actual or estimated cost for performing preliminary
field investigation to review pole attachment or conduit
usage submittal.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Engineering Charge
Description: The costs estimated by the City for reviewing contact
design, designing City modifications and updating
operation records.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Cable Attachment Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for making space available
and other modifications necessary to accommodate each
line attachment.
E-1-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Anchor Attachment Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for making provisions for
guying the structure at the communications level.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Equipment Mounting Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for making space available
and other modifications necessary to accommodate
equipment (amplifiers, nodes, battery backup) mounting.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Electric Services Connection Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for providing electric
service connection to provide power to equipment attached
to the pole.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Inspection Charge
Description: The costs estimated by the City for providing inspection
services upon completion of make-ready work and
Licensee’s equipment – typically 3 hours per pole.
Price: Total Cost
Total Initial/One-Time Costs and Fees for Schedule E-1: $ _______________________.
D. Annual Costs and Fees:
1. Wire facilities attachment fees. The Fees for wire communications facilities
attachments to Poles shall be as set forth in the City’s Utility Rate Schedule E-16 or, if
such rate schedule is not applicable, any other applicable CPAU utility rate schedules.
2. Wireless facilities attachment fees. The Fees for wireless communications
facilities attachments to Poles shall be as set forth in the City’s Utility Rate Schedule E-
16 or, if such rate schedule is not applicable, equal to the rental rate of one thousand five
hundred dollars ($1,500.00) per Pole per year.
3. Conduit occupancy fees. The Fees for occupancy of Conduits shall be as set
forth in the City’s Utility Rate Schedule E-16 or, if such rate schedule is not applicable,
other applicable CPAU utility rate schedule(s). The City reserves the right to impose and
collect different fees for the exclusive and nonexclusive occupation of the Conduits.
4. Other City service fees. The Fees for the City’s rendering of services in regard
to the attachment or installation of the Licensee’s wire and/or wireless facilities on Poles
E-1-2
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
E-1-3
110520 MLA Exhibits template
or in Conduits shall be established in accordance with applicable CPAU utility rate
schedules.
5. Electric Service charges. The Fees, rates and charges for electric utility service
consumed or used annually by the Licensee shall be as set forth in the City’s Utility Rate
Schedule E-16 or, if such rate schedule is not applicable, other applicable CPAU utility
rate schedules.
6. Late Payment fee. If the Licensee fails to pay the amounts of Costs and Fees
due and payable within the time period required by this Agreement, then the License
shall pay a late fee established by Law or the lesser of an amount equal to five percent
(5%) of those amounts then due and payable as set forth in the invoices or five hundred
dollars ($500).
7. Utility Rate Schedules. The utility rate schedules referred to in this Exhibit
“E” and any amendments thereto now or hereafter in effect shall be deemed incorporated
herein by reference. The rates may be amended and adopted by the City in the ordinary
course and scope of business. The Fees shall be subject to annual cost-of-living increases.
The Fees upon commencement of the Extension Term shall be calculated in accordance
with the utility rate, fees and charges applicable to Pole Attachments and Conduit
Occupancy then in effect.
Total Annual Costs and Fees for Schedule E-1: $ _______________________.
E. Other Terms and Conditions:
F. Attachments:
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “E”
Schedule E-2, dated as of ____________
Description of Licensee Facilities to be Attached and/or Installed, Duration of
Attachment and/or Installation, and Fees and Costs
A. Licensee Facilities:
1. Number of Pole Attachments: ______________________
2. Total Conduit footage : ______________________
B. Duration of Pole Attachment/Conduit Occupancy:
1. For Poles: ___________________________
2. For Conduits: __________________________
C. Initial/One-Time Costs and Fees
1. The Licensee shall reimburse the City for its actual or estimated Costs and
Fees of preparing the City Facilities (the City’s overhead and underground facilities) for
each new or modified Pole Attachment or Conduit Occupancy. This reimbursement is a
one-time charge for each attachment to Poles or installation in Conduit usage. The
charges shall be due upon the City’s receipt of the Licensee’s written approval to attach,
install or modify any Pole contact or Conduit usage, and they shall be paid before the
City’s construction shall commence.
Charge: Processing Charge
Description: The actual or estimated cost for performing preliminary
field investigation to review pole attachment or conduit
usage submittal.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Engineering Charge
Description: The costs estimated by the City for reviewing contact
design, designing City modifications and updating
operation records.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Cable Attachment Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for making space available
and other modifications necessary to accommodate each
line attachment.
E-2-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Anchor Attachment Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for making provisions for
guying the structure at the communications level.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Equipment Mounting Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for making space available
and other modifications necessary to accommodate
equipment (amplifiers, nodes, battery backup) mounting.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Electric Services Connection Charges
Description: The costs estimated by the City for providing electric
service connection to provide power to equipment attached
to the pole.
Price: Total Cost
Charge: Inspection Charge
Description: The costs estimated by the City for providing inspection
services upon completion of make-ready work and
Licensee’s equipment – typically 3 hours per pole.
Price: Total Cost
Total Initial/One-Time Costs and Fees for Schedule E-2: $ _______________________.
D. Annual Costs and Fees:
1. Wire facilities attachment fees. The Fees for wire communications facilities
attachments to Poles shall be as set forth in the City’s Utility Rate Schedule E-16 or, if
such rate schedule is not applicable, any other applicable CPAU utility rate schedules.
2. Wireless facilities attachment fees. The Fees for wireless communications
facilities attachments to Poles shall be as set forth in the City’s Utility Rate Schedule E-
16 or, if such rate schedule is not applicable, equal to the rental rate of one thousand five
hundred dollars ($1,500.00) per Pole per year.
3. Conduit occupancy fees. The Fees for occupancy of Conduits shall be as set
forth in the City’s Utility Rate Schedule E-16 or, if such rate schedule is not applicable,
other applicable CPAU utility rate schedules. The City reserves the right to impose and
collect different fees for the exclusive and nonexclusive occupation of the Conduits.
4. Other City service fees. The Fees for the City’s rendering of services in regard
to the attachment or installation of the Licensee’s wire and/or wireless facilities on Poles
E-2-2
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
E-2-3
110520 MLA Exhibits template
or in Conduits shall be established in accordance with applicable CPAU utility rate
schedule(s).
5. Electric Service charges. The Fees, rates and charges for electric utility service
consumed or used annually by the Licensee shall be as set forth in the City’s Utility Rate
Schedule E-16 or, if such rate schedule is not applicable, other applicable CPAU utility
rate schedules.
6. Late Payment fee. If the Licensee fails to pay the amounts of Costs and Fees
due and payable within the time period required by this Agreement, then the License
shall pay a late fee established by Law or the lesser of an amount equal to five percent
(5%) of those amounts then due and payable as set forth in the invoices or five hundred
dollars ($500).
7. Utility Rate Schedules. The utility rate schedules referred to in this Exhibit
“E” and any amendments thereto now or hereafter in effect shall be deemed incorporated
herein by reference. The rates may be amended and adopted by the City in the ordinary
course and scope of business. The Fees shall be subject to annual cost-of-living increases.
The Fees upon commencement of the Extension Term shall be calculated in accordance
with the utility rate, fees and charges applicable to Pole Attachments and Conduit
Occupancy then in effect.
Total Annual Costs and Fees for Schedule E-2: $ _______________________.
E. Other Terms and Conditions:
F. Attachments:
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “F”
Terms and Conditions Regarding Use of Pole Spaces
1. The Licensee shall be responsible to performing its own engineering analysis,
which shall be submitted with the Processing Request Form – Exhibit “I”, in order
to enable the City to determine where on the Pole the Licensee Facilities will be
attached in compliance with CPUC GO 95 Rule 94 clearance and construction
requirements. CPAU in its Make-Ready Work inspection will evaluate the Pole
for its ability to accommodate all of the existing and new attachments from a
clearance- and pole-loading perspective.
2. Subject to the City’s express written consent, the Licensee shall perform all
attachments and installations; only qualified contractors reasonably approved by
the City will be allowed to work in the Electric Utility space subject to any
monitoring by City staff.
3. As there may be Make-Ready Work that needs to be performed by other parties
attached to the Pole, the Licensee shall make arrangements with those other
parties to move/transfer their facilities.
4. The Licensee shall remove existing “out of service” communications
cable/devices to facilitate the new attachments and installations.
5. The City will approve the Licensee’s Pole Attachment and Conduit Occupancy
requests over two phases. The first phase will entail ensuring the Make-Ready
Work is completed in accordance with CPAU specifications. The second phase
will entail permitting the Licensee to attach the Licensee Facilities to the Poles
and/or installation in the Conduits. The City’s personnel will perform a final
inspection after all Work is completed.
6. The Licensee shall identify the Licensee Facilities newly installed or serviced at
each contact point by means of a marking method mutually agreed to by the
Parties. Such identification shall be visible from ground level. The Licensee shall
provide the City with a 24/7 contact phone number to enable the City to promptly
report any concerns regarding the Licensee Facilities. In the event that the City
should report any such concerns to the Licensee, the Licensee shall promptly
respond to such call(s) and perform the required repair or correct any adverse
impact to the City’s electric utility operations caused by such Licensee Facilities
at no cost to the City unless the same shall be caused by the City or a party under
the City’s control.
7. The City reserves the right to operate and maintain its electric utility City
Facilities in order to fulfill its utility service requirements to its electric utility
ratepayers or dark fiber/communications customers. The City shall not be liable to
the Licensee for any interruption to the Licensee’s service or for any interference
F-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
with the operation of the Licensee Facilities arising in any manner from the use of
the City Facilities, including the electric utility overhead facilities, by the City in
accordance with this Agreement, provided that the City shall give the Licensee
fifteen (15) Days’ advance notice of any non-emergency work which affects the
Licensee Facilities.
8. The Licensee Facilities shall not be installed, placed, or maintained on any of the
City Facilities which carries voltage of 60,000 volts or greater between the
conductors.
9. If, at any time, the City deems it necessary to intentionally increase its voltage to
60,000 volts between conductors, on the Poles jointly occupied under this
Agreement, the City shall give the Licensee ninety (90) Days’ prior written
notice, as provided herein, of its intention to increase said voltages.
10. In the event any City Facilities occupied by the Licensee under this Agreement
are to be replaced, repaired or altered, the Licensee shall, at its own sole risk and
expense (except in the case of rearrangements required by third parties or City-
owned commercial communications facilities), upon reasonable notice from the
City, relocate or replace its Licensee Facilities or transfer them to the replacement
City Facilities, as available, or perform any other work in connection with those
facilities that may be required by City.
11. In the event of an emergency or other event or condition that the City determines
presents an imminent danger or threat to the public health, safety or welfare, the
City may remove a Pole and shall in such case immediately notify the Licensee of
the action taken. The City shall make commercially reasonable efforts to notify
the Licensee of the removal of its Licensee Facilities, prior to the emergency
removal of those facilities.
12. The Licensee shall use due care to avoid causing damage to the City Facilities,
including its electric utility overhead facilities, and the Licensee shall assume
responsibility for any loss arising from such damage caused by the Licensee. The
Licensee shall make an immediate report of the occurrence of any such damage to
the City and shall, on demand, reimburse the City for its total cost that are
incurred in making any repairs.
13. The City shall have the right to inspect each new installation of the Licensee
Facilities attached to or installed in the City Facilities and to make periodic
inspections at the City’s discretion as conditions may warrant. Such inspections
shall not relieve the Licensee of any responsibility, obligation or liability assumed
under this Agreement.
14. The Licensee, at its sole risk and expense, shall install and maintain guys and
anchors as required where the Licensee’s anchorage requirements are not
coincident with the City’s or the City Facilities’ existing anchorage requirements.
F-2
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
F-3
110520 MLA Exhibits template
15. Where the anchorage requirements of the City Facilities used by the Licensee and
the City are coincident, the existing guys and anchors shall be used.
16. If the City, in accordance with accepted electric utility standards, determines that
separate guys and/or anchors are necessary, the Licensee, at its sole risk and
expense, shall install the new guys and/or anchors.
17. If the City, in accordance with accepted electric utility standards, determines at
the time of installation of the Licensee Facilities that the existing guys and/or
anchors need to be replaced on account of and due to the weight of the License
Facilities to be installed, the City, at the Licensee’s sole cost and expense, shall
install the new guys and/or anchors.
18. If the Licensee Facilities cause to displace or pull any reasonably serviceable
Poles or anchors out of line, or damage any City Facilities or such other facilities,
equipment or installations owned by the City or any other third party in any
manner, the Licensee shall pay the cost of any replacements, repairs or restoration
of such Poles, anchors, facilities, equipment or installations.
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “G”
Terms and Conditions Regarding Use of City Conduit
1. The Licensee shall submit a Processing Request Form – Exhibit “I” to the City,
which will perform a preliminary site investigation jointly with the Licensee to
determine the feasibility of the Licensee’s occupancy or use of any available
Conduits.
2. No Licensee Facilities, including any cables, shall be permitted to be installed in
electric pull boxes, electric vaults or Conduit that contains the City’s electric or
dark fiber cables.
3. The Licensee Facilities or other cables shall be identified with durable and clearly
visible tag when they are installed in Conduits.
4. For all installations, inner-duct shall be used prior to installing the Licensee
Facilities or other cables. When, in the opinion of the Utilities Director, it is
necessary to facilitate maintenance or the additional use of the Conduit, the City
will require the Licensee to also install a divide-a-duct prior to installing the
inner-duct.
5. Any pull box replacement or enlargement will be made at the Licensee’s sole cost
and expense.
G-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “H”
Pole Replacement Requirements
1. All Poles identified by the City’s records as being deteriorated and scheduled or
planned for replacement within the next twelve (12) months will be addressed as
follows:
The City will advise the Applicant or the Licensee to seek another
good Pole.
The Pole will be replaced by the City, but the City will not make
any guarantee to complete the replacement to meet the Applicant’s
or the Licensee’s desired schedule.
2. Whenever a Pole top extension will be used to mount the Licensee Facilities and
whenever the Pole top is deteriorated, then the Pole shall be replaced at the
Applicant’s sole cost and expense in order to accommodate the Licensee
Facilities’ attachment or installation.
H-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
Exhibit “I”
Processing Request Form
(for Pole Attachment/Conduit Usage)
REQUEST SUBMITTED BY: FIELD INVESTIGATION CONTACT:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Company: Company:
Street Address: Street Address:
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:
Telephone Number: Cell Phone:
Email Address: Email Address:
Today’s Date: ____/____/____
Project Description: Attach the following:
1. A list of Poles with City of Palo Alto Pole number and nearest street address;
2. Size and Conduit Occupancy details;
3. Size and number of pull boxes;
4. A map showing the Pole/Conduit locations;
5. Pole loading calculations;
6. Typical Installation details of equipment to be attached on the Pole;
7. Completed Electric Service Request Application (one per wireless pole
attachment location; application shall include all power and attachment requests);
and
8. Other:
Desired completion date: __/____/__
NOTE: Please budget 8-12 weeks from make ready and service connection payment
(not this processing payment) to completion.
POLE ATTACHEMNT/CONDUIT USAGE PROCESSING CONDITIONS:
I am submitting this processing request with the full understanding of the following
conditions:
I-1
110520 MLA Exhibits template
Contract No. ______________
I-2
110520 MLA Exhibits template
1. The Licensee shall pay the fee to be submitted with this Processing Request
Form within seven (7) Days of receipt of the City’s invoice for the processing
fee.
2. The processing fee is a non-refundable fee required to cover the cost of
completing the Preparatory Work, that is, work of a preliminary nature to be
undertaken by CPAU staff, including, without limitation, survey and field
inspection work, review of engineering plans and specifications and other
related work, that precede or are required to establish the Make-Ready Work
in order to facilitate the attachment and/or installation of the Licensee
Facilities in, on or about Poles and/or Conduits.
3. Upon the City’s completion of the Preparatory Work, the City will notify the
Licensee whether the proposed Pole Attachments and/or Conduit Occupancies
will be approved for the preparation of detailed engineering drawings and
other specifications.
4. If the Parties mutually agree to proceed to the Make-Ready Work phase, then
the City will prepare detailed construction plans and a cost estimate that will
include (a) the Costs for any Make-Ready Work that may be performed by
CPAU staff and (b) an electric service connection fee, both of which must be
paid in full prior to the start of construction.
5. The processing fee will be credited against any Make-Ready Work and the
electric service connection fee.
Please Note: You will be invoiced for established standard processing fees or by
estimate for special conditions, per Utilities Rate Schedule E-16. Please do not remit
any fee until you receive an invoice.
Signature: ____________________________________ Date:___/______/____
Please submit the completed form with authorized signature and direct questions to:
Utilities Electric Engineering
City of Palo Alto Utilities
1007 Elwell Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 566-4500
Fax: (650) 566-4536
Electric.Engineering@CityofPaloAlto.org
Note that all inquires of a legal nature must be directed to the Office of the City Attorney, 7th Floor
City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Attention of Senior
Assistant City Attorney, Utilities.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1954)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1954)
Summary Title: Stanford Community Benefits Discussion
Title: Stanford University Medical Center Community Benefits Discussion and
Appointment of City Representatives to Joint Committee for Community Health
and Safety Programs
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to appoint two Councilmembers to
the Joint Stanford/City Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs and
provide staff direction regarding the recommended process for expending Community
Benefit funds.
Executive Summary
The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement (DA) provides
the City with approximately $40 million in direct payments to the City. The funds are
grouped into broad categories such as Community Health and Safety, Sustainability and
Infrastructure. The Community Health and Safety payment is made up front and the
remaining community benefit dollars are paid in three equal installments:
1st Payment at initial permit—Estimated Summer 2011
2nd Payment at hospital foundation permit—Estimated January 2012
3rd Payment at hospital occupancy—Estimated January 2018
The Development Agreement provides the Council with broad discretion in allocating
these funds. While the agreement provides for a joint City/Stanford committee to
review proposed uses for the Community Health fund, the committee’s role is strictly
advisory to the City Council who retains sole decision making authority. Other than the
City providing an annual report to Stanford on the status of the various funds, no other
University involvement is stipulated in the agreement. Staff recommends that Council
authorize the Mayor appoint two City council members to serve on the joint committee.
Staff recommends that the Council refer recommendations on the allocation of benefit
funds to the Finance Committee who should review and recommend to Council projects
and programs ultimately financed through the community benefits accrued in the
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1954)
agreement.
Background
Attachment A provides a detailed accounting of the various Stanford contributions
required in the agreement including the broad fund categories where the City Council
has maximum discretion. Other specific purpose funds and contributions to other
agencies are also provided. Examples of specific purpose funds are the pedestrian
linkages, healthcare services and revenue neutrality payments. The community
benefits contributions, exclusive of the specific purpose funds are as follows:
Community Benefits Payments Schdule
Fund Name 1st Payment
Summer 2011
2nd Payment
January 2012
3rd Payment
January 2018
Total
Community
Health and
Safety
Programs
(including $2M
for Project
Safety Net)
$4,000,000 $4,000,000
Infrastructure,
Sustainable
Neighborhoods
and Affordable
Housing
$7,733,333 $7,733,333 $7,733,333 $23,200,000
Sustainability
Programs
$4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $12,000,000
TOTAL $39,200,000
Prior to Council’s approval of the DA, the Finance Committee recommended the
designation of $2M from the Community Health and Safety fund toward Project Safety
Net. The Council acted on the Finance Committee’s recommendation to include
language in the DA authorizing that a portion or all of Community Health and Safety
funds be designatec for Project Safety Net. City staff plans to come forward shortly
with a BAO to formalize this action and additional action by Council is not needed at this
juncture.
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1954)
Discussion
The SUMC contributions through the community benefits funds provide the City with an
exceptional opportunity to begin to address its overall infrastructure and sustainability
goals. While the timing of the funding gives the City Council immediate opportunity to
initiate projects, staff believes that a strategic approach incorporating the Council’s
annual goal setting and the prioritization that occurs during the budget process would
assist in applying the community benefit dollars in the most effective manner.
Additionally, Council’s 2012 priority setting and budget process will be informed by the
work of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission’s report which is scheduled to be
delivered to Council by the end of this year. The report will be an important data set
for discussing the fund allocation.
Initial receipt of community benefit dollars will occur during this fiscal year and should
be included in Council’s deliberations on the 2012 budget. Concurrent consideration of
the allocation of community benefit resources with the budget achieves many of the
following goals:
1.Ensures community benefits are aligned with Council fiscal priorities.
2.Enables Council to leverage the budget by combining the Capital Improvement
Projects resources with community benefits to consider projects not currently funded in
the CIP.
3.Allows Council to consider Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations
due in December 2011 with the additional resources the community benefit dollars
provide.
4.Budget process, including numerous hearings at the Finance Committee and City
Council, provides the optimal context for public participation.
Policy Implications
Staff is preparing a set of guidelines to account for and manage the various community
benefit funds due to the City later this summer. Guidelines will be developed to ensure
transparency and accountability for the use of community benefits. Guidelines will also
address investment earnings from the designated funds. Staff expects to return to
Council with draft guidelines prior to the start of the budget process in early 2012.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Summary of SUMC Development Agreement Payments(DOC)
July 25, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1954)
Prepared By:Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Stanford University Medical Center Attachment A
Summary of Development Agreement Payments
Updated May 24, 2011
110524 jb 2994.doc
Payment
Description
Development
Agreement
Paragraph
Summer
2011 (Initial
Payment
Date)
January
2012
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Foundation
Permit)
September
2015
January
2018
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Occupancy
Permit)
Spring
2026
Cumulative
Total
Payments to Palo Alto
Healthcare Services 5(a)(ii)$560,000/year
for 10 years
$5,600,000 (final
amount depends
upon
construction use
taxes received by
City)
Community Health &
Safety Programs
5(a)(iii)$4,000,000 $4,000,000
Fiscal Neutrality
Payment
5 (b)(iii)$2,417,000 $2,417,000
Linkage from
Downtown through
PAITS to Quarry/ECR
Intersection
5(d)(i)$2,250,000 $2,250,000
Linkage along Quarry
Road for Pedestrian/
Bicycles/Transit
5(d)(ii)$400,000 $400,000
Infrastructure,
Sustainable
Neighborhoods &
Affordable Housing
5(e)(i)$7,733,333 $7,733,333 $7,733,333 $23,200,000
Sustainability Programs 5(f)(i)$4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $12,000,000
Opticom Payment to
Palo Alto
5(c)(iv)$11,200 $11,200
Payment Development Summer January September January Spring Cumulative
Summary of Stanford Hospital
Development Agreement Payments
May 24, 2011
110524 jb 2994.doc
Description Agreement
Paragraph
2011 (Initial
Payment
Date)
2012
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Foundation
Permit)
2015 2018
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Occupancy
Permit)
2026 Total
Linkage from Shopping
Center through Barn to
SUMC (Stanford
Builds)
5(d)(iii)$700,000 $700,000
Payments to Menlo
Park
Traffic Mitigation
Payment to Menlo Park
5(c)(ii) $1,233,000 $1,233,000 $1,233,000 $3,699,000
Payments to AC
Transit
Payment to AC
Transit for additional
buses
5(c)(iii)$250,000 $250,000
Payment to AC
Transit for additional
operating costs
5(c)(iii)$50,000/year $50,000/year
(Life of
Project
Payment for long term
lease for Ardenwood
Lot (AC Transit)
5(c)(iii)$45,000/year $45,000/year
(Life of
Project)
Payments to Caltrain
Begin Purchasing Go
Passes
5(c)(v)$1, 800,000
+ CPI
$91,000,000 +
CPI
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1942)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1942)
Summary Title: Adoption of MOA for Classified Employees -SEIU
Title: Adoption of Resolution Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations to Incorporate a Side Letter with SEIU Local 521 to
Extend the Term of the Memorandum of Agreement for One Additional Year,
Through June 30, 2012, and Add a Provision for a Flexible Spending
Arrangement
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution amending Section 1401 of
the Merit System Rules and Regulations to incorporate a side letter to the Memorandum
of Agreement (“MOA”) between the City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 to extend the
term for one additional year, through June 30, 2012, and add a provision for a Flexible
Spending Arrangement (“FSA”) for SEIU employees.
Background
In August 2, 2010, the City and SEIU Local 521 entered into a MOA expiring on June
30, 2011 in which the parties agreed to structural changes to employee compensation that
the City had unilaterally implemented in October 2009. These changes included
increased employee contributions toward pension costs, employee contributions toward
medical costs, elimination of two floating holidays and tuition benefits, and
implementation of a second tier pension formula.
This unit currently has 582 budgeted full-time positions in FY 2012 and includes workers
in all departments such as Building Inspectors, Librarians, Heavy Equipment Operators,
Parks Maintenance workers, 9-1-1 Dispatchers, and Administrative Associates.
Discussion
In the spring of 2011 the City and SEIU discussed adding another year to the contract
consistent with existing terms. In early May 2011 the SEIU membership ratified the one-
year rollover which would extend the term of the existing MOA from June 30, 2011 to
June 30, 2012. The result of this rollover is that it will freeze pay at the 2009-10 level
(no adjustments to base wages based on cost of living or market adjustments) and
maintain the structural changes to benefits.
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1942)
Based on input from their members, SEIU also requested that the City establish a
Flexible Spending Arrangement (FSA) in accordance with IRS Section 125 for
employees in that unit. The City already offers participation in an FSA to the
Management and Professional employees. The City agreed on the condition that such a
program be implemented only if there was no cost to the City. SEIU is in agreement with
that condition and staff is working with the City’s current benefits vendor to define the
plan terms in accordance with Council direction and will provide terms of participation to
SEIU within 120 days of adoption of this side letter.
Resource Impact
The structural changes agreed to in the MOA that will continue to provide savings in this
fiscal year are as follows:
FY 2012
Employee Contribution of 5.75%
to pension (or 5% for those in 2@60 formula):$2,475,000
Elimination of Tuition and Training Benefit:$582,000
Elimination of two (2) floating holidays:$326,000
Total Savings $3,383,000
Medical Cost Share effective 4/1/2011 $520,000
Second Tier Pension Formula of 2%@60 effective 7/17/10 $231,000*
*Savings from the second tier pension formula of 2%@60, which took effect July 17,
2010, will not be realized until FY 2013 as a result of a two year lag in the PERS
allocation of costs. Based on a number of assumptions, staff estimates an eventual credit
to Palo Alto of $231,000 for FY 2012.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with City Council direction to achieve structural
changes in employee compensation for short-term and long-term savings.
Approval of this side letter also presents the first opportunity for staff to implement a
process change that was identified as part of the City Manager’s analysis of measures to
promote staffing flexibility and efficiencies. Historically, when the City has approved a
MOA it has adopted a resolution incorporating the MOA into the Merit System Rules and
July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1942)
Regulations and a separate resolution with a “Compensation Plan” that restates all of the
terms related to compensation and benefits from the MOA. Because the separate
compensation plan is effectively redundant (terms related to compensation are copied and
pasted into a new document to serve as the compensation plan) and creates room for
clerical errors because a new document is created from the terms of a MOA, staff
reviewed this process to determine possible efficiencies.
Two authorities have provided the basis for “Compensation Plans:” (1) Article III of the
Charter, in which sections 12, 18 and 21 require the Council to approve employee salary
and wage scales, establish a system for personnel management, and approve salaries and
compensation for officers, deputies and assistants; and (2) PAMC section 2.28.080(f),
which requires the budget to reflect changes to employee compensation. However, there
is no explicit requirement in the Charter, the Code, or the Merit System Rules that
requires approval of a separate “Compensation Plan” where a MOA already states all of
the terms of compensation. Further, as a practical matter, because the MOA contains a
fully comprehensive description of all of the compensation, benefits, and rules that apply
to a represented group, most users look to the MOA rather than the compensation plan to
determine such matters.
Therefore, beginning with this agreement, staff plans to simplify and streamline the
approval process into a single document by moving away from adopting separate
compensation plans where a MOA establishes terms and conditions of employment.
Thus, there will be a single document for each group; MOAs will serve as the agreement
and compensation plan for represented groups and compensation plans will still be
approved for unrepresented groups.
Environmental Review
Approval of a side letter to this MOA is not a project subject to review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
·Resolution Implementing Side Letter Dated 6-30-11 (PDF)
·Side Letter Date 6-30-11 (PDF)
Prepared By:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources
Department
Department Head:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources
Department
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
** NOT YET APPROVED **
Resolution No. ----Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and
Regulations Regarding the 2010-2011 Memorandum of
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 521 to Extend the Term of
the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement for One Additional
Year and Add a Provision for a Flexible
Spending Arrangement
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1.
amended to read as follows:
Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations is hereby
111401. Memorandum of agreement incorporated by reference. That certain
memorandum of agreement by and between the City of Palo Alto and Loca1521,
SEIU, consisting of a Preamble and Articles I through XXVII and Appendices A
through I, attached thereto and incorporated therein, for a term commencing July
I, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2011, as amended to extend the term for one year
through June 30, 2012 and add a provision for a Flexible Spending
Arrangement, is hereby incorporated into these Merit System Rules and
Regulations by reference as though fully set forth herein. Said memorandum, as
amended, shall apply to all employees in classifications represented by said
Local 521, SElU, except where specifically provided otherwise herein.
In the case of conflict with this chapter and any other provisions of the Merit
System Rules and Regulations, this chapter will prevail over such other
. provisions as to employees represented by said Local 521."
SECTION 2. The Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") incorporated into the Merit
System Rules and Regulations by Section 1 of this Resolution amends the MOA incorporated into
the Merit Rules by Resolution No. 9087 by incorporating the side letter set forth in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The changes provided for in this resolution shall not affect any right
established or accrued, or any offense or act committed, or any penalty of forfeiture incurred, or any
prosecution, suit, or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this
resolution.
II
II
II
110718 sh 8261650 1
** NOT YET APPROVED **
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Human Resources
110718 sh 8261650 2
** NOT YET APPROVED **
EXHIBIT" A"
Side Letter to the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement
110718 sh 8261650
SIDE LETTER TO EXTEND THE 2010-2011
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU)
LOCAL 521 BY ONE YEAR
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2010 the City Council approved a Memorandum of Agreement
("MOA") between the City of Palo Alto ("City") and the Service Employees International Union
Local 521 (SEIU) (collectively referred to as the "Parties") for the period of July 1, 2010
through June 30, 2011; and
WHEREAS, in Spring 2011 the City and SEIU discussed adding another year to the
contract;
WHEREAS, SEIU members voted to ratify a one-year rollover with the existing terms
and provisions below.
NOW, THEREFORE, SEIU and the City agree as follows:
Section 1. The term of the existing MOA between the City and SEIU shall be extended for a
period of one year and Artiqle XXVI of the MOA("Term") is hereby modified to read as
follows:
The Term of this Memorandum of Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2010, and shall expire
on June 30, 2012. Either party may serve written notice upon the other party during the period
between ninety (90) and sixty (60) days prior to June 30,2012, of its desire to amend this
Memorandum of Agreement. If, at the time this Memorandum of Agreement would otherwise
terminate, the parties are negotiating a new Memorandum of Agreement, upon mutual agreement
the terms and conditions of this Memorandum shall continue in effect.
Section 2. SEIU employee participation in Medical Flexible Spending Account.
Within 120 days of Council adoption of this Side Letter Agreement, the City will develop and
present a program to SEIU to .provide employees in this unit to voluntarily fund their own
Medical Flexible Spending Account (the "FSA"). SEIU agrees that implementation,
administration, and all other costs associated with implementing and providing the FSA on an
ongoing basis shall be paid by employees with no cost to the City. SEIU further understands and
agrees that FSA plans are subject to federal law and Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") rules and
regulations and that all matters related to the FSA shall be excluded from the grievance
requirements of this MOA.
1
SEIU Local 521
Date:_lo----l-1 b------\-;-O [ W_l_t
2
City of Palo Alto
SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL
BY:~PitW.~
Date: 1o{210(11
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1913)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/25/2011
July 25, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 1913)
Summary Title: Adoption of an Ordinance to Dissolve the RDA
Title: Adoption of an Ordinance Dissolving the Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the ordinance to dissolve the Redevelopment Agency by
declaring that there is no further need for the RDA (Attachment 1).
Executive Summary
On June 20, 2011, the City Council discussed the budget for the Palo Alto Redevelopment
Agency (RDA) for Fiscal Year 2012. Staff report #1859 provides information that addresses
Council questions that were raised at the meeting (Attachment 2). The follow-up discussion
was rescheduled from June 27 to July 18. In the interim, the budget for the State of California
was approved and the Governor signed two trailer bills (ABX1 26 and ABX1 27) that impact
redevelopment agencies. The trailer bills would automatically eliminate redevelopment
agencies by October 1, unless the agency makes a voluntary payment to other taxing agencies.
Staff had originally recommended that Council adopt the resolution to adopt the RDA budget
for Fiscal Year 2012 pending the uncertainty of State legislation in this area. Now that the
uncertainty regarding the scope of the state legislation has been eliminated, staff has changed
its original recommendation to Council. The revised recommendation is to adopt an ordinance
to dissolve the RDA.
Background
On July 9, 2001, the Palo Alto City Council adopted an ordinance declaring the need for a
redevelopment agency. City Council also declared that it would act as the Agency Board and
made the finding that the formation of a redevelopment agency “will serve the public interest
and promote the public safety and welfare in an effective manner” in accordance with the
Health and Safety Code Section 33200.
On September 19, 2001, the Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area was designated as a
Survey Area and the process for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan was initiated. The
Redevelopment Plan for Edgewood Plaza was not ultimately adopted by the City Council. The
City has not designated any Redevelopment Project Areas for revitalization.
July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 1913)
Discussion
The 2011-12 California State Budget was signed into law on June 30, 2011. Two trailer bills
were signed to deal with the elimination of redevelopment agencies. The first bill, ABX1 26,
eliminates redevelopment agencies as of October 1, 2011. The bill further provides that the
city authorizing the RDA in the first place are charged with wrapping up operations under an
“oversight board” consisting largely of appointed education and county interests together with
a representative of the affected city.The second bill, ABX1 27, establishes a voluntary
alternative redevelopment program which would allow the RDA to continue provided that the
City make specified annual payments into a special district fund and an educational fund
created for each county. The amount of the payment would be based on the RDA’s share of
the redevelopment property tax increment. The legality of this state legislation is in dispute and
the League of California Cities intends to take an active role in challenging the bills.
Currently, it appears that the only way to avoid automatic RDA dissolution is to make the
voluntary payments specified in the second bill. As the City no longer has a need for the RDA
and because the current state of the law provides no incentives for retaining an RDA, staff
recommends that the Council take action to dissolve the RDA on its own without the
intervention of the “oversight board”. In order to dissolve the RDA, the Council must make
specific findings that there is no longer a need for the RDA to exist. This voluntary dissolution
would be effective 31 days after the second reading of the ordinance.
Environmental Review
This is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
·Attachment 1: Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Dissolving The Palo Alto Redevelopment
Agency (PDF)
·Attachment 2: Follow-up to Redevelopment Agency Discussion (PDF)
Prepared By:Dale Wong, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Not Yet Approved
110712 jb 0130808 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Dissolving
The Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. The City Council herein finds
and declares as follows:
A. In July 2001, pursuant to Section 33101 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, the City Council established the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Palo Alto (“Redevelopment Agency”). The Redevelopment Agency was authorized to transact
business and exercise its powers under the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law.
B. The City Council declared itself to be the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Palo Alto.
C. As part of the 2011-12 State budget bill, the California Legislature has
recently enacted and the Governor has signed, companion bills AB 1X 26 and AB 1X 27,
requiring that each redevelopment agency be dissolved unless the community that created it
enacts an ordinance committing it to making certain payments to the State.
D. In the approximate ten years since the City Council formed the
Redevelopment Agency, the Redevelopment Agency has not identified a qualifying
redevelopment area.
E. The Redevelopment Agency has not conducted any redevelopment
activities, including redeveloping or acquiring land, entering into a contract, issuing bonds or
incurring housing obligations, since its formation.
F. There is no further need for the Redevelopment Agency.
SECTION 2. DISSOLUTION. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 33140, the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto is hereby dissolved.
SECTION 3. FUTURE ACTIONS. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take
any further actions necessary to effectuate this dissolution.
SECTION 4. SECRETARY OF STATE. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause
a certified copy of this ordinance to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State pursuant to
Health & Safety Code Section 33142.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
Not Yet Approved
110712 jb 0130808 2
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity
of any particular portion thereof.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of July, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ________________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1859)
Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 6/27/2011
June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1859)
Summary Title: Follow-up to Redevelopment Agency Discussion
Title: Adoption of the Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency Adopting the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 and Response to Council’s Request for Additional
Information
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Adoption of the Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency Adopting the Budget for Fiscal
Year 2012 and Response to Council's Request for Additional Information
.
Executive Summary
On June 20, 2011, the City Council discussed the budget for the Palo Alto
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for Fiscal Year 2012 (Attachment 1). This report
provides information that addresses Council questions that were raised at the meeting.
Background
On July 9, 2001, the Palo Alto City Council adopted an ordinance declaring the need for
a redevelopment agency. City Council also declared that it would act as the Agency
Board and made the finding that the formation of a redevelopment agency “will serve
the public interest and promote the public safety and welfare in an effective manner” in
accordance with the Health and Safety Code Section 33200.
On September 19, 2001, the Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area was designated as
a Survey Area and the process for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan was
initiated. The Redevelopment Plan for Edgewood Plaza was not ultimately adopted by
the City Council. The City has not designated any Redevelopment Project Areas for
revitalization.
Discussion
Information to Council questions about the RDA is presented below:
1) What steps are involved to dissolve the RDA?
Answer: The City Council may adopt an ordinance to dissolve the RDA by declaring
June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1859)
that there is no further need for the RDA. This ordinance would require a first and
second reading. A certified copy of the ordinance shall then be filed with the Secretary
of State. The capacity of the RDA to exercise any powers is then suspended until the
City Council adopts an ordinance declaring the need for the RDA to function.
2) How much would it cost to reestablish the RDA in the future if it were to be
eliminated this year?
Answer: As a threshold matter, the Governor has launched a major initiative to
eliminate or significantly reform redevelopment legislation. As of the writing of this
memo, the two major budget rider bills dealing with redevelopment have not yet been
submitted to the Governor. At this point, it is not certain whether and to what extent
legislative reforms will be adopted. The League of Cities is actively monitoring this
situation and has been actively opposing the Governor’s plan. It is possible that new
legislation could make it more difficult to re-activate a redevelopment agency once it
has been dissolved and for this reason before dissolving the agency altogether, staff
recommends waiting a few months in order to further assess the ramifications of
immediate dissolution.
Assuming no change in law, the cost would include estimated filing fees of $2,000 as
well as staff time required to prepare an ordinance to reestablish the RDA. Additional
costs would be incurred should the RDA Board opt to hire a consultant to prepare an
analysis of a proposed redevelopment area. This is not a required step. In 2001/2002
consultants worked to evaluated a proposed redevelopment area at a cost of
approximately $151,000.
Short of eliminating the RDA the Council could decide to not approve the RDA budget
by taking no action. This would be in violation of RDA state reporting guidelines, which
require annual RDA financial reports to be filed with the state. It is possible that the
City would be subject to fines for not filing a annual RDA financial report.
3) What is a “blighted area”?
Answer: In order for a Redevelopment Agency to designate a “redevelopment area”
the area must meet the statutory definition of “blight.” Since 1993, there have been a
series of legislative reforms which have progressively narrowed and tightened the
definition of “blight.” Currently, in order to qualify as “blighted” the area must satisfy
four criteria.
First, the area must be “predominantly urbanized.”
Second, the area must be characterized by one or more conditions of physical blight.
These conditions are statutorily defined as:
June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1859)
(1) Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These
conditions may be caused by serious building code violations, serious dilapidation and
deterioration caused by long-term neglect, construction that is vulnerable to serious
damage from seismic or geologic hazards, and faulty or inadequate water or sewer
utilities.
(2) Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of
buildings or lots. These conditions may be caused by buildings of substandard,
defective, or obsolete design or construction given the present general plan, zoning, or
other development standards.
(3) Adjacent or nearby incompatible land uses that prevent the development of
those parcels or other portions of the project area.
(4) The existence of subdivided lots that are in multiple ownership and whose
physical development has been impaired by their irregular shapes and inadequate sizes,
given present general plan and zoning standards and present market conditions.
Third, the area must be characterized by one or more conditions of economic blight.
These conditions are statutorily defined as:
(1) Depreciated or stagnant property values.
(2) Impaired property values, due in significant part, to hazardous wastes on
property;
(3) Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, or an
abnormally high number of abandoned buildings.
(4) A serious lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in
neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending
institutions.
(5) Serious residential overcrowding that has resulted in significant public health
or safety problems.
(6) An excess of bars, liquor stores, or adult-oriented businesses that has
resulted in significant public health, safety, or welfare problems.
(7) A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and
welfare.
June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1859)
Fourth, these blighting conditions must predominate in such a way as to affect the
utilization of the area, causing a physical and economic burden on the community.
4) What are the arguments for maintaining the RDA as a benefit in the case of a
disaster?
Answer: The RDA may form a project area specifically to aid recovery from a natural
disaster. Section 34001 of the California Community Redevelopment Disaster Project
Law states:
A community may establish a redevelopment agency, and adopt and implement
a redevelopment plan pursuant to this part, within a disaster area if the
community has commenced the adoption of the redevelopment plan within six
months after the President of the United States has determined the disaster to
be a major disaster.
Designation of a project area may allow focused attention on recovery. Redevelopment
activities associated with a disaster recovery project area are subject to a ten-year time
limit. In San Bernardino County, the Cedar Glen Disaster Recovery Project Area was
established to help rebuild the community of Cedar Glen after firestorms devastated the
area in 2003.
Further, given the uncertainty surrounding the Governor’s proposal to dissolve all
redevelopment agencies, there may be additional benefits in compromise legislation
that staff cannot predict at this time.
Another aspect to consider is the use of RDA funding for public infrastructure facilities.
Staff is looking into this further, but the possibility exists that the RDA could support the
City’s infrastructure objectives.
Attachments:
·Attachment 1: Adoption of the Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency Adopting the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 (Staff Report #1765)(PDF)
·Attachment 2: Redevelopment Agency Minutes (PDF)
Prepared By:Dale Wong, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
June 27, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1859)
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1765)
Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 6/20/2011
June 20, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 1765)
Summary Title: FY 2012 Redevelopment Agency Budget
Title: Adoption of the Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency Adopting the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2012
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council, acting in its capacity as the City of Palo Alto Redevelopment
Agency Board, adopt the resolution adopting the budget for the Palo Alto Redevelopment
Agency for Fiscal Year 2012 (Attachment 1).
Executive Summary
The Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is legally required to produce an annual budget.
Although there are no activities to be reported, the RDA is required to complete an annual
audit. The estimated cost for the audit is $8,500 and is the only item in the FY 2012 budget.
Background
On July 9, 2001, the Palo Alto City Council adopted an ordinance declaring the need for a
redevelopment agency. City Council also declared that it would act as the Agency Board and
made the finding that the formation of a redevelopment agency “will serve the public interest
and promote the public safety and welfare in an effective manner” in accordance with the
Health and Safety Code Section 33200.
On September 19, 2001, the Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area was designated as a
Survey Area and the process for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan was initiated. The
Redevelopment Plan for Edgewood Plaza was not ultimately adopted by the City Council. The
City has not designated any Redevelopment Project Areas for revitalization.
Discussion
Redevelopment law requires that each agency adopt an annual budget that contains the
activities to be financed by the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, proposed
expenditures and indebtedness, anticipated revenues, a work program and a comparison
between the previous year’s achievements and goals. Since Palo Alto does not have a
Redevelopment Project Area, there are no activities to be reported. However, the RDA is
required by law to complete an annual audit. The estimated cost for the audit is $8,500 and
1
Packet Pg. 2
June 20, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 1765)
remains the only item in the FY 2012 budget.
The expenditures and indebtedness of the Agency must be in conformance with the proposed
budget, and the City Council, acting as the Agency Board, must approve the annual budget.
Resource Impact
Funding in the amount of $8,500 for the Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency is advanced by the
City of Palo Alto and is considered a loan from the City to the Agency to cover expenses related
to annual audit activities. The loans are to be re-paid from tax-increment revenues that will be
collected in future years if the City were to adopt a Project Area. In accordance with City
procedures, a corporate agreement has been established between the City and the Agency.
Expenses incurred on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency will be incorporated into the loan
agreement for prior years.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore
environmental review is not required.
Attachments:
·a:Attachment 1 -Resolution Adopting Agency Budget for 2012 (PDF)
·b:Exhibit A -Proposed Redevelopment Agency Budget for 2012 (PDF)
Prepared By:Dale Wong, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
Packet Pg. 3
Not Yet Approved
110523 jb 0130747
Resolution No. RDA_____
Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo
Alto Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012
WHEREAS, Section 33606 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that a
redevelopment agency shall adopt an annual budget, which may be amended from time to time
as determined by the agency; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto (Agency) desires to
adopt the annual budget for fiscal year 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agency does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Agency does hereby adopt the annual budget for fiscal year
2012 in the form set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. The annual budget hereby adopted, and future adopted budgets,
may be amended from time to time by resolution.
SECTION 3. The Agency finds that this Resolution is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), therefore, no environmental assessment is
required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ _____________________________
Secretary Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
General Counsel
1.a
Packet Pg. 4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
A
g
e
n
c
y
B
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
2
0
1
2
(
1
7
6
5
:
F
Y
2
0
1
2
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
B
u
d
g
e
t
)
Not Yet Approved
110523 jb 0130747
1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
A
g
e
n
c
y
B
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
2
0
1
2
(
1
7
6
5
:
F
Y
2
0
1
2
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
B
u
d
g
e
t
)
EXHIBIT A
Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency
Fund Summary
2012 Proposed Budget
Revenues
Interest Income -$
Loan Interest -
Other Income -
Subtotal -
Operating Transfers 8,500
Total Source of Funds 8,500$
Expenses
Adminstrative Cost -$
Professional Services Cost (1)8,500
Interest Expense -
Total Use of Funds 8,500$
Net To/(From) Reserves -$
(1) Cost of Annual Audit and State Controllers Report
1.b
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
B
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
2
0
1
2
(
1
7
6
5
:
F
Y
2
0
1
2
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
B
u
d
g
e
t
)
1 06/28/10
PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Special Meeting
June 20, 2011
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 11:09 P.M.
Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Yeh
Absent: Shepherd
Oral Communications
None
1. Adoption of the Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA)
Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
Mayor Espinosa asked if Staff had a presentation.
Mr. Keene stated no, that the Resolution is perfunctory.
Herb Borock stated his belief was that the Redevelopment Agency should be
dissolved, and gave the history behind the City’s Redevelopment Agency.
The money the RDA is being asked to approve is for the same staff.
Agency Member Klein stated that if there is a Resolution to vote on, he
would vote no. He stated that there was no need for the RDA and tried 5
years ago to dissolve it, but was unsuccessful.
Agency Member Scharff asked how long the RDA has been in affect.
Mr. Keene stated approximately a decade.
Mayor Espinosa stated since 2001.
Agency Member Scharff asked if it has ever been used.
Mr. Keene stated no.
MM/DD/YY 2
Agency Member Scharff asked what the current definition of blight was and if
the City had an blighted areas.
City Attorney, Molly Stump stated she did not have the current technical
definition of blight however, there is a wide desparity of the use.
Agency Member Price asked if there are any difficulties in moving along the
lines to dissolve the RDA. She stated she realizes there has been no use of
it, and asked if any other Charter Cities with similar socioecononmic status
as Palo Alto had used it.
Mr. Keene stated it was unknown as to the last part of Council Member
Price’s question, but there is no impediment to dissolve it. There is also no
compelling argument to keep it. In has been in existence for 10 years and
has never been used. Although RDA’s have been good for other cities around
the state, in our situation it doesn’t make sense.
Agency Member Price asked if we eliminated it, how easy would it be to
recreate it in the future.
Ms. Stump stated there is great uncertainty at the State level. If Council
chooses to not approve the Resolution and decides to dissolve it tonight,
Staff will bring back to Council the steps necessary to dissolve it.
Agency Member Yeh stated that knowing we haven’t used it is helpful, and if
we are not in a time crunch, it would be helpful for Staff to bring back the
information on how to dissolve it.
Agency Member Schmid stated he remembered that one of the reasons for
the RDA was for use during an emergency. It was a legal framework to get
assistance to rebuild a part of the community that may have been adversely
affected by a disaster.
Ms. Stump stated that her understanding was that there was one jurisdiction
in the State that did use it to respond to emergency situation, and it was an
unusual use of the RDA.
Agency Member Schmid stated that when the new Emergency Services
Manager is appointed that they could check into this topic.
Agency Member Burt stated that the RDA was created around the Edgewood
Plaza, and the only other area of town that was talked about was
Charleston/San Antonio section. Additionally, there was a discussion around
using the RDA in response to an emergency disaster. He stated that if that
is the only value, he would not be inclined to keep it. Based on current
MM/DD/YY 3
status for setting up an RDA, he asked if Staff had any sense of costs to
resurrect the RDA and how long it would take in the event of emergency.
Mr. Keene stated no, not at this time.
Agency Member Burt asked if Agency Member Klein would be agreeable to
hold this discussion over for further discussion.
Agency Member Klein stated that there was not a Motion, he was in favor of
bringing this back and asked if the City would be incurring additional costs
by delaying the decision.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services, David Ramberg stated no.
Agency Member Holman stated she would like to know how much ait would
cost and how long it would take to reinstitute the RDA if they chose to
dissolve it now.
MOTION: Agency Member Holman moved, seconded by Agency Member
Schmid to continue this item to the next feasible Council Meeting to allow for
Staff to return with answers.
Mr. Keene stated that Staff could probably come back as early as next week
with responses to the questions.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Shepherd absent
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:27 P.M.