Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-12 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting CITY COUNCIL Council Conference Room September 12, 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 September 12, 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.Potential Topics for Discussion During the City Council Study Session with Assembly Member Rich Gordon 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Study Session 2.Study Session: Parking Strategies for Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts Special Orders of the Day 3.Proclamation Recognizing September as Library Card Sign-Up Month 2011 4.Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning and Transportation Commission for One Term Ending on July 31, 2015. 5.Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Architectural Review Board for Two Terms Ending on September 30, 2014. 6.Inn Vision -Opportunity Center Community Presentation City Manager Comments Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 2 September 12, 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. 7.Recommendation from Finance Committee to Preliminarily Approve Fiscal Year 2011 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2012 8.Approval of Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $28,013 to Contract No. C11138402 with TMAD, Taylor & Gaines for a total contract amount of $159,600 for adding design of two permanent load banks to the power monitoring and standby generator replacement project at the Water Quality Control Plant –Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021 9.Approval of Response to Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report “Can You Hear Me Now? Emergency Dispatch in Santa Clara County” 10.Approval of Response to Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report on “Fighting Fire or Fighting Change? Rethinking Fire Department Response Protocol and Consolidation Opportunities” 11.Approval of Response to the 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “Rehiring of Pensioners: Bad Policy, Good Business or Both?” 12.Approval of a Contract with Riezebos Holzbaur Group (RHDG) in the Amount of $93,350 for Graphic Design, Printing and Photography for the Quarterly Production of the Enjoy! Catalog Classes and Activities Guide 13.Adoption of a Resolution Waiving the Community Services Department’s Recreational Municipal Fees for Nickelodeon’s 8th Annual Worldwide “Day of Play” on September 24, 2011 14.Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Geodesy in the amount of $164,720 for Development Support of New Computer Applications Linked to the Geographic Information System (GIS) 3 September 12, 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. 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. 15.Council Direction in Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375) Alternative Scenarios and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessement (RHNA) Process 16.Approval of Increase in Construction Contingency from 10% to 25% on Contract C11136473 with Flintco Pacific Construction, Inc. for Construction of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, PE-09006; and Approval of Two Contract Amendments for Additional Construction Management and Design Services: Amendment No. Three with Turner Construction, Inc., to Add $205,287 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $3,783,745 and Amendment No. Five with Group 4 Architecture, Inc. To Add $220,670 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $7,902,421 17.Recommendation for Vision on Cafe Operations at the New Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Cafe Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 4 September 12, 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 Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk 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 Update to the City Council on the Progress Made to Date in the Implementation of the City’s Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy, Resolution No. 9035 Closure of the Palo Alto Recycling Center at its Current Location on February 1, 2012 Public Letters to Council Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk Supplemental Information CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK  September 12, 2011  The Honorable City Council  Palo Alto, California  Potential Topics  for Discussion During the City Council Study Session  with Assembly Member Rich Gordon  1. Discussion of Sustainable communities Strategy (SB 375) Alternative  Scenarios, Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and  Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Housing(Schmid)  2. State laws governing pension and health benefits (Schmid)  3. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (Joe Teresi)      Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk   Updated: 9/7/2011 1:37 PM by Beth Minor Page 2    City of Palo Alto (ID # 1745) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 8 (ID # 1745) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Downtown and Cal Av Parking Title: Study Session: Parking Strategies for Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council provide feedback regarding recommended parking management program strategies, particularly relative to: ·Permit Parking Distribution ·Access Controls to Garages ·Residential Permit Parking Program Criteria Executive Summary The City has two parking districts, in the Downtown and California Avenue areas. Each district has been developed with unique strategies to help manage parking supply and demand, including a combination of designated permit and visitor parking areas and hourly parking enforcement. The City is responsible for the oversight and development of parking management strategies. The parking analysis currently underway and discussed intends to preserve the current parking management program but introduces programmatic and technological enhancements to help the City better manage its on-street and off-street supply, as well as to identify new policy opportunities to enhance parking within the residential districts. Background The Transportation Division began to develop an analysis of the City's parking management strategies in April as part of the Transportation Work Plan for 2011. The analysis includes a focused review of parking strategies in the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. Several citywide parking policies are also being explored for future consideration to address areas of community interest, including bicycle parking, on-street disabled parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and residential permit parking. September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 8 (ID # 1745) Table 1 outlines milestone dates for recent and planned parking program activities: Table 1 Palo Alto Parking Management Program Milestone No.Action Status 1 Hire Contract Parking Manager Completed, April 2011 2 Complete Greater Downtown Parking Study Completed, May 2011 3 On-and Off-Street Downtown Parking Modifications Ongoing 4 California Avenue Parking Study Completed, June 2011 5 Palo Alto Bicycle Corral –First Install at Coupa Café July 2011 6 Permit Management Software RFP Fall 2011 September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 8 (ID # 1745) The following is a summary of Community Outreach efforts conducted to date by staff: April 26, 2011:An evening community meeting was held with residents in and around the Professorville Neighborhood with a focused discussion regarding the pros and cons of creating a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program. April 26, 2011:A presentation was made to the Downtown Business and Professional group focused on sharing preliminary results of the space inventory and vehicle occupancy study. Staff also shared some broad conceptual ideas for highlighting downtown parking facilities and improving the permit parking program. July 27, 2011:A presentation to the California Avenue Business District was made to present preliminary results of the space inventory and the vehicle occupancy study for that district. Staff also presented some recommendations for improving parking permit distribution and on and off-street parking strategies. July 28, 2011:An evening community meeting was held with downtown businesses and interested community members. Flyers to every business were hand- delivered and outreach coordination through the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Group was done to encourage merchant participation. In addition to the community meetings, staff also met regularly with ad-hoc resident community members to solicit input on residential parking strategies. Staff presented parking information to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on August 24th and the staff report from that meeting is attached and provides additional background data and discussion to supplement this report. A summary of the PTC discussion is included below. Parking Management in Downtown Core The City of Palo Alto addresses parking in somewhat different ways in the Downtown Core as compared to the California Avenue area. The current Parking Management Program within the Downtown Core was set up in 1994 as a pilot project and was adopted in 1996. The program includes the use of a Color Zone system to create parking districts in which vehicles may park for up to 2 hours on the street and 3 hours in garages in each color zone. Drivers may move their vehicles but may not repark within the same zone in the same day. Figure 1 below provides a visual designation of the Color Zone system within the Downtown Core and also includes the location of off-street public parking facilities. Table 2 notes the number of parking spaces available within each facility. Employees working within the Downtown Core between Lytton Avenue, Forest Avenue, Alma Street, and Waverly Street are allowed to purchase parking permits that allow them to park in designated permit parking spaces in specified garages and surface lots. The permits cost $135 per quarter or may be purchased on a yearly basis at a discounted rate of $420 per year. September 12, 2011 Page 4 of 8 (ID # 1745) Figure 1 Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Parking Management System Table 2 Number of Parking Spaces in Downtown Palo Alto Off-Street Parking Facilities Garages Surface Lots Letter Name Hourly Permit Total Letter Name Hourly Permit Total Q Alma/High (North)-134 134 O Emerson/High 78 -78 R Alma/High (South)77 134 211 A Emerson/Lytton 68 -68 S/L Bryant St 296 392 688 C Ramona/Lytton 18 32 50 WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 F Florence/Lytton 46 -46 CC City Hall 187 519 706 T Lytton/Kipling 25 25 50 B Ramona/University 63 -63 H Cowper/Hamilton 90 -90 Totals:824 1,567 2,391 D Hamilton/Waverly 86 -86 E Gilman/Bryant -34 34 G Gilman/Waverly -53 53 P High/Hamilton 51 -51 K Lytton/Waverly 15 42 57 N Emerson/Ramona 48 -48 525 186 711 September 12, 2011 Page 5 of 8 (ID # 1745) Parking Management in California Avenue Area Within the California Avenue Business District, the Permit Management program does not include restrictions on where vehicles are permitted to park. Vehicles with designated placards may park in any off-street garage or surface lot facility. The permit cost in the California Avenue Business District is $43 per quarter or may be purchased on a yearly basis at a discounted rate of $123 per year. Over the summer the City implemented a one permit per applicant restriction for the California Avenue district, previously there was no restriction on the number of permits a person was allowed to receive impacting the permit distribution process. The California Avenue Business District does not have a color zone parking system. Table 3 notes the number of parking spaces available within each facility. Table 3 Number of Parking Spaces in California Avenue Business District Off-Street Parking Facilities Garages Surface Lots Lot #Name Hourly Permit Total Letter Name Hourly Permit Total 3 Cambridge West 183 -183 1 Cambridge/Park 27 -27 5 Cambridge East 157 -157 2 Cambridge/Birch 27 -27 340 -340 4 Cambridge/Birch 89 -89 6 Sherman/Park 154 -154 7 Sherman/Birch 161 -161 8 Sherman/Ash 89 30 119 9 Birch/Cambridge 28 -28 605 -605 Discussion The City has invested a significant amount of time and funds in the current Parking Management Program and facilities for both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. To protect the current investments, the following program modifications are being evaluated to make the programs more efficient, to allow for improved enforcement, to be more accessible to employees who rely on parking availability, to preserve valuable on-street parking for patrons of each district, and to preserve the quality of life of adjacent residential neighborhoods. ·Permit Parking Distribution: The new permit management system currently under procurement by the City will allow for better tracking and distribution of permits. September 12, 2011 Page 6 of 8 (ID # 1745) The following Tier-Pricing Permit Structure for the Downtown Business District is proposed with new elements shown in italics: -$135 per Quarter (Regular Permit) -$420 per Year (Regular Permit Paid in Full), Eliminate Discount in Future Years -$45/Month (Regular Permit) -$30/Month (Roof Level Parking –Hardship) -$100/Month (Fleet Vehicle Parking) The City added 102 additional permit parking spaces in the Bryant Street garage this summer to help fill underutilized visitor parking spaces and is exploring similar improvements at other parking garages. Within the California Avenue Business District, permit program modifications are still being evaluated and discussed with merchants including permit fees, the development of designated permit parking spaces, and an increase in the ratio of permits over parking supply. ·Day Permit Parking Distribution: Day Permits are currently available for purchase at Revenue Collections on the lobby floor of City Hall. The permits cost $15 per day in Downtown and $6 per day for the California Avenue business district. Starting l in the fall, Day Permits will be sold as a “scratcher” type of permit that can only be modified once. In the California Avenue Business District, additional parking data will be collected in September to measure the number of vehicles parking per day in lots using day permits to determine whether day permit distribution machines should be made available to distribute a limited number of permits per day. ·Pilot Program –Access Controls to Downtown Business District Garages: Staff proposes the installation of Access Control Equipment in selected garages and lots. Access Control would provide the City with a means to control entry/exit into selected facilities, better regulating the length of time parkers spend in a facility and would allow visitors to stay longer at a fee. A constant complaint heard by staff during certain times of the year is that shoppers need more time to shop and dine. Access control would accommodate that request while still preserving the existing free parking time limits of the parking garages. Access Control would also reduce the need for parking enforcement and would provide an automated system for distributing and tracking Parking Permits on a daily, quarterly and annual basis. ·Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) Currently, Chapter 10.46 in the City Ordinance only addresses the College Terrace Residential Permit Parking Program. Several other neighborhoods have expressed interest in RPP, however. Most recently the residents of the Professorville area have submitted a petition for a RPP program due to intrusion from downtown employees parking in the neighborhood. Staff believes, however, that it is important for the City to establish some basic policies for all RPP requests before expanding beyond the current College Terrace program. September 12, 2011 Page 7 of 8 (ID # 1745) Staff suggests presenting an outline of criteria to the Professorville and other neighborhoods, and returning to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council before the end of the calendar year with recommended program criteria. Some key criteria to be considered will include: a)Process for a neighborhood request b)Thresholds for neighborhood participation c)Process to establish permit parking boundaries d)How to treat multi-family and non-residential properties e)How to determine costs of permits f)Other relevant factors ·Other Parking Program Efforts Additional parking management program elements being explored by the City include: ·Enhanced Way-Finding Signage ·On-Street Bicycle Corral Parking Policy ·On-Street Disabled Parking Policy ·On-Street Parklet Policy ·On-Street Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on Residential Streets PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning and Transportation Commission held a study session on parking management strategies on August 24, 2011. A brief summary of the commission input is provided below, and the PTC Staff Report is provided in Attachment A. Excerpts of the draft PTC minutes are provided as Attachment B. Key comments included: Permit Distribution:-Survey employees to determine why people purchase permits but do not use them Garage Access Controls:-Use of technology to better manage and distribute parking availability information to the public is a positive improvement Way-Finding:-Better signage is good but graphic standards should be developed through the Architectural Review Board RPPP:-Development of a policy appropriate on a citywide basis will be helpful to ensure consistent deployment POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Input from this City Council study session and input that of the Planning & Transportation Commission held on August 24th will be taken into consideration for the development of new policy and programs/projects. September 12, 2011 Page 8 of 8 (ID # 1745) RESOURCE IMPACT: Capital Improvement Program project (CIP) PL-12000 for Parking & Transportation Improvements is available to fund future projects. The project has available funding of $640,500. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is necessary for a Study Session. Attachments: ·Attachment A: P&TC Staff Report of August 24, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes of the P&TC Meeting of August 24, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment C: Correspondence (PDF) Prepared By:Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager The study also included a survey to detennine the actual number of available on-street parking spaces, hourly vs. pennit parking spaces in public garages and surface lots, loading zones, passenger zones, and special time-limit parking areas. The boundaries for the Downtown parking occupancy study are: Alma Street to the west, Middlefield to the east, Palo Alto Avenue to the north and Embarcadero to the south. Parking occupancy maps for each time period of the study area are available online (www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking) but were not included in this staff report. • On-Street and Off-Street Downtown Parking Modifications Upon the completion ofthe parking survey, staff immediately began analyzing the data to identify locations where on-street parking supply could be improved to convert underutilized spaces (red curb or loading zones) to provide 2-hour or longer tenn parking. To date, 18 new on-street parking spaces have been or planned for installation. This represents the equi valent of $1.8M in parking improvements if new garage spaces were constructed. Within the off-street parking facilities, staff converted the 4Lh floor of the Bryant Street Parking Garage (Garage S/L) from hourly parking to pennit parking, providing 104 additional pennit parking spaces. This allowed the City to issue pennits to everyone on the wait list for a pennit at the garage. • California Avenue District Parking Study Surveys of parking in the California A venue business district parking have also been conducted, though the level of analysis is not yet as complete as for the Downtown area. The boundaries for the California survey were as follows: El Camino Real to the west, Park Avenue to the east, Stanford A venue to the north and Oregon Expressway to the south. • Pennit Management Software Staff is completing a Request for Proposals that will be released in August for procurement of a new Pennit Management Software and Server system to replace the City'S current spreadsheet and hand-managed system. A new pennit system will allow the City to introduce tier-pricing strategies for pennit distribution as well as online payment systems and to allow for monthly vs. quarterly pennit distribution. The Parking Pennit Program generates approximately $1.2SM per year to the General Fund. City of Palo A 110 Page 2 of9 July 27,2011: A presentation to the California Avenue Business District was made to present preliminary results of the space inventory and the vehicle occupancy study for that district. Staff also presented some recommendations for improving parking pennit distribution and on and off-street parking strategies. July 28,20 II: An evening community meeting was held with downtown businesses and interested community members. Flyers to every business were hand-delivered and outreach coordination through the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Group was done to encourage merchant participation. The meeting included a detailed presentation on program modifications being considered for forwarding to the Planning & Transportation Commission, including the results of the Parking Survey, Way-Finding Signage, Pennit Distribution Modifications, Suggested Pilot Projects at Garages for Gate-Control Facilities, and on-street improvements. In addition to the community meetings, staff also met regularly with ad-hoc resident community members to solicit input on residential parking strategies. Parking Management in Downtown Core The City of Palo Alto addresses parking in somewhat different ways in the Downtown Core as compared to the California Avenue area. The current Parking Management Program within the Downtown Core was set up in 1994 as a pilot project and was adopted in 1996. The program includes the use of a Color Zone system to create parking districts in which vehicles may park for up to 2 hours on the street and 3 hours in garages in each color zone. Drivers may move their vehicles but not repark within the same zone in the same day. Figure 1 below provides a visual designation of the Color Zone system within the Downtown Core and also includes the location of off-street public parking facilities. Table I notes the number of parking spaces' available within each facility. Attachment A provides a detailed occupancy report for each facility by time-of-day. The Color Zone system was last modified in July 2011 with the inclusion of the Main Library parking lot and its Bryant Street frontage into the Coral Zone. Employees working within the Downtown Core between Lytton Avenue, Forest Avenue, Alma Street, and Waverly Street are allowed to purchase parking pennits that allow them to park in designated pennit parking spaces in specified garages and surface lots. The pennits cost $135 per quarter or may be purchased on a yearly basis at a discount rate of$420 per year. City of Palo Allo Page 4 of9 Parking Management in California Avenue Area Within the California Avenue Business District, the Pennit Management program does not include restrictions on where vehicles are permitted to park. Vehicles with designated placards may park in any off-street garage or surface lot facility. The permit cost in the California Avenue Business District is $43 per quarter or may be purchased on a yearly basis at a discount rate of $123 per year. There is currently also no restriction on the number of penn its that a person may obtain once they are eligible to purchase a pennit. The California Avenue Business District does not have a color zone parking system. Table 2 notes the number of parking spaces available within each facility. Attachment B provides a detailed occupancy report for each facility by time-of-day. Table 2 Kumber of Parking Spaces in California Avenue Business District Off-Street Parking "'acillties Garages Surface Lots 1.01# Name Hourly Pennil Total Leller Name Hourly Pemlit Tol.al 3 Caulbridge West t83 183 CambridgcJPark 27 27 5 Cambridge EAst 157 157 2 Cambridge/Birch 27 27 4 CamhridgcJBirch 89 89 6 Sherman/Purk 154 154 '7 Shennan/Birch 161 161 8 ShcrmUli/A~h 89 30 119 9 Birch/Cambridge 28 28 DISCUSSION: The City has invested a significant amount of time and limds in the current Parking Management Program and facilities for both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. To protect the current investments, the following program modifications arc being evaluated to make the programs more efficient, to allow for improved enforcement, to be more accessible to employees who rely on parking availability, to preserve valuable on-street parking for patrons of each district and to preserve the quality of life of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Efforts currently under review include: • Pennit Parking Distribution; The new permit management system currently under procurement by the City will allow for better tracking and distribution of permits. 'llle system will also allow for qucrying of data that is currently not avaih,bJe through the current spreadsheet system and manual card program. The new system will also allow for more efficient distribution of parking permits. Currently if a pemlit is not renewed, it takes one quarter (three months) for permit holders to be notified to return their permits. This represents a significant loss in revenue and delay in distribution of penn its to employees who arc waiting Jor a permit. City of Palo Allo Page 6 01'9 The following Tier-Pricing Permit Structure for the Downtown Business District is proposed with new elements shown in italics: $135 per Quarter $420 per Year $45lMonth $30lMonth $100lMonth (Regular Permit) (Regular Permit Pain in Full) (Regular Permit) (Roof Level Parking -Hardship) (Fleet Vehicle Parking) Within the California Avenue Business District, permit program modifications are still being evaluated and discussed with merchants. An immediate change being implemented by staff, though, is a restriction on the number of permits that an individual is allowed to obtain once they are eligible for a distribution of a permit. Historically, once an individual became eligible for a permit and multiple permits obtained, those permits were distributed separately to persons who never waited for procurement of a permit, bypassing persons waiting to obtain a permit correctly. To help eliminate permits from p~ople who obtained them incorrectly, development of a new Business Lot of permits is being proposed as part of the distribution of the new permit system. Persons who did not obtain a permit correctly would not be allowed to renew their permit but may work through their employer to transfer the permit to the business directly with a maximum number of permits per business allowed. This helps ensure people who cannot renew their permit have an opportunity to still obtain one immediately and makes the businesses responsible for future distribution. • Day Permit Parking Distribution: Day Permits are currently available for purchase at Revenue Collections on the lobby floor of City Hall. The permits cost $16 per day and businesses regularly purchase as many day permits on a monthly or yearly basis to provide parking for visitors. Visitors may use the day permits to park on the street. In the Downtown Business District, visitors may also purchase a permit at convenient Day Permit distribution machines available at the Bryant Street Garage (Lots S/L) and the Alma Street/High Street Garage (Lot R). The Day Permits currently distributed in the Downtown Business District are paper permits that the City's Parking Enforcement Team has identified as being misused regularly through the modification of dates on the permits. The same process is used for permits sold for the California Avenue Business District but at a rate of $6 per day. Starting in September 20 II, Day Permits will be sold as a "scratcher" type of permit that can only be modified once. In the California Avenue Business District, additional parking data will be collected in September to measure the number of vehicles parking per day in lots using day permits to determine whether day permit distribution machines should be made available to distribute a limited number of permits per day. • Way-Finding Program (Downtown Business District): Staff proposes that new Way-Finding signage be installed throughout the Downtown Business District to promote the availability of free public parking, at strategic gateway locations and selected garages to help identify and encourage easy parking. Way-Finding signage would direct visitors to desired parking locations and provide information such as: City of Palo Alto Page 7 of9 pricing, location of facilities, and/or parking spaces available at each facility. Staff has also contracted with a graphic designer to help in the development of static and dynamic parking signs and banners to brand parking in Palo Alto. • Pilot Program -Access Controls to Downtown Business District Garages: Staff proposes the installation of Access Control Equipment in selected garages and lots. Access Control would provide the City with a means to control entry/exit into selected facilities, better regulating the length of time parkers spend in a facility and would allow visitors to stay longer at a fee. A constant complaint heard by staff during certain times of the year is that shoppers need more time to shop and dine. Access control would accommodate that request while still preserving the existing free parking time limits of the parking garages. Access Control would also reduce the need for parking enforcement and would provide an automated system for distributing and tracking Parking Permits on a daily, quarterly and annual basis. • On-Street Disabled Vehicle Parking Policy: Several unpermitted on-street disabled parking spaces were identified in the Downtown area as part of the parking survey. The availability of on-street disabled parking facilities is a typical encroachment permit function available through many local agencies and should be considered by the City of Palo Alto. Allowance of on-street disabled parking spaces should, though, be limited to certain circumstances. A policy will be proposed to provide consistent guidelines for considering, approving and installing requested on-street disabled parking spaces in neighborhoods. Unpermitted on- street disabled parking facilities should be removed through the City'S code enforcement program. • Pilot Program -On Street Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on Residential Streets Staff proposes the development of a policy that would allow for the installation of on-street electric charging stations in residential neighborhoods. The policy would provide a fee structure with guidelines for permit application, installation and maintenance standards, as well as the need to allow for public use. • Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) Staff is preparing a draft ordinance amendment to better facilitate the potential development of additional Residential Permit Parking (RPP) districts. CUiTently, Chapter 10.46 in the City Ordinance only addresses the College Terrace Residential Permit Parking Program. The amendment will allow for additional RPP districts to be implemented in conjunction with parking strategies to address parking intrusion. Several other neighborhoods have expressed interest in RPP, most recently residents of the Professorville area have submitted a petition for a RPP program due to intrusion from downtown employees parking in the neighborhood. Staff believes, however, that it is important for the City to establish some basic policies for all RPP requests before expanding beyond the current College Terrace program. City of Palo Alto Page 8 of9 In particular, the following criteria should be established: a) Process for a neighborhood request b) Thresholds for neighborhood participation c) Whether to establish block-by-block or neighborhood wide d) How to treat multi-Iamily and non-residential properties e) How to detennine costs of permits I) Other relevant factors StatTsuggests presenting an outline of criteria to the Professorville and olher neighborhoods, and retuming to the Planning and Transportation Commission within 90 days with recommended program criteria. Following the Planning and Transportation Commission review, the policy guidelines would be presented to COlUlcil for adoplion prior to processing neighborhood requests and implementation. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Input from this study session and input from future study sessions of the City Council will be taken into consideration for the development of new policy and programs/projects. Any suggested policy changes to the City's Parking Management Program will be presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission again before presentation to the City Council. RESOURCE IMPACT: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) PL-12000 for Parking & Transportation Improvements is available to fund future projects. TIMELINE: A Study Session with the City Council is scheduled for September 19,2011 to discuss Parking Management Program. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is necessary for a Study Session. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Downtown Occupancy Study, Off-Streel Facilities Attachment B: Califomia Avenue Occupancy Study, Off-Slreet Facilities Attachment C: Correspondence GJvr~ DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD API'ROVAL: _____________ _ Curtis Willillms, Director City of Palo Alto Page 9 of9 Ken Alsman 1057 Ramona Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 kenalsman@aol.com 650-533-8070 August 17, 2011 Memo to: Transportation and Planning Commission Members ATTACHMENT C Subject: Commercial District Parking and its Negative Impacts on the Historic Professorville, Single-Family Residential District Good Evening. I am traveling and will not be able to attend your upcoming meeting when jaime Rodriguez, the Traffic Engineer will present the progress he is making on parking issues in the Downtown Palo Alto commercial areas. I am vitally interested in the subject and sorry to miss your meeting. I heard jaime's report at an earlier meeting and assume yours will be very similar. First, let me applaud the work that jaime and Gil are engaged in and their efforts to get a handle on several problems with the policies and management of parking and the use of parking in the downtown commercial districts. jaime's present emphasis seems to be to enhance the shopper's parking experience, providing better signing to guide them to the parking structures and restriping to free up more short-term on-street parking for customers. He is also laying the groundwork for ways to better manage the downtown parking resources. As a long-term resident of the Professorville Historic District single-family neighborhood my interest is principally toward solutions to the ever-increasing problems caused by commercial district employees who use our neighborhood as their daylong parking lots. Our neighborhood is loosing its intrinsic character with residential streets now lined bumper-to-bumper with employee cars from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. We are directly being asked to subsidize the success of the nearby commercial districts with the quality and values of our homes and neighborhood. One of the clear tenants of zoning is to prevent the problems of one district from impacting another zone. You shouldn't bring your commercial traffic, your trash, your noise, your fumes, your pollution, your problems and your parking needs into a single-family residential district -or a National Register Historic Residential District. Yes, it is inconvenient for us to have to drive around looking for parking. But it is much more than inconvenient. We are now inundated with strangers everyday, we question our safety, we remove their litter, we don't recognize what was once, just a short time ago, an absolutely wonderful area that we have all worked to restore. We object to the fact that this neighborhood is being inundated with commercial parking-1 and we object to the failure of the City, businesses and property owners to provide for the uses allowed on their land. This is a National Register Historic District one where we are asked to maintain certain standards, but apparently that respect is not expected of or given by the City or the local businesses. I understand that jaime and Gil have added 100 new employee permit parking spaces in one of the lots. While this is a valid and much appreciated first step, I am still amazed that more space in the structures isn't provided for employees. I am also at a loss as to why 300 to 400 designated permit spaces are empty every day, spaces just sitting unused although apparently paid for but not occupied ---and the City will not issue new permits to those on the waiting list. (see attached August 16 survey). I understand jaime has long-term plans to improve the management of the lots and garages with new equipment that will potentially address a more efficient way to handle employee parking. My fear is that since there is a cost involved this may take years. (I still don't understand why the City doesn't just open more floors to employees and give out more permits until the spaces fill up, maybe discounting or eliminating the charges to encourage full use of these $50,000 per space public facilities.) There is also apparently a "principal" that the fees have to come to $15 a day - a daily cost far beyond what most employees will find acceptable. A year-long parking permit costs about $450 or about $1.75 a day for a five-day work week - a reasonable cost for most employees if they can apply it daily, not as a lump sum and not a program that requires the bureaucracy involved in gaining a permit. Managed properly, at current development levels the parking structures can accommodate more employees, make more money and still provide more than ample parking for customers. However, even the most successful efforts of jaime and Gil will eventually fall short given the pressure from the growth and use changes taking place under current City Land Use and Entitlement Policies -policies largely under the purview of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department. -1 We have been asked why we refer to this as an invasion of employees from commercial districts using this for parking. They exit their cares, swing on a backpack, lock their cars and head towards the commercial district. Obviously we did not survey everyone however, we have asked and some have told us where they work. We also think some may be City Hall employees since Friday, when the City flex-time is in effect the impact "feels" a little less intensive. Recently it was suggested that Stanford's commuter incentive program, where they pay people not to drive onto campus, leads some to park here and walk or take the Margarita to Campus. Any other such incentive programs could have the same unintended consequence with individuals scamming the program meant to reduce travel trips. In any event, we believe the core are individuals who work in the commercial districts. At the top of the list are the parking exceptions/incentives granted to downtown development for offices, retail and housing -most based on worthy but unproven and unworkable theory, assumptions and -well, wishful thinking. As an example: approvals give parking exceptions to uses near transit -the fact is that even someone living in a housing unit and taking transit will likely have a car parked on- site or in the neighborhood on a daily basis. Some of these exceptions approach 50% or more of the actual parking needed for the uses that will occupy the space. Even with parking provided owner and business policies are prohibiting or limiting the full use of on-site parking by some, if not all employees --spaces sit empty all day. By our estimate for every 12 to 15 employees without a designated parking space in the commercial district pushes the parking one block further into the low-density residential nei ghborhood. One of the questions you can ask staff is for a comprehensive report of the projects approved, occupied, built, under construction and in the pipeline, the exceptions & incentives granted, how they are handling employee parking and what parking is unaccounted for. It seems to be the only way to begin to get a handle on how much this parking problem is likely to grow. In addition, especially with the wave of start-ups coming into Palo Alto, traditional assumptions about parking standards are no longer valid. Where the typical office module of a few years ago gave employees each about 250 square feet of space leading to a requirement of 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of building area for parking. The current trend is to put many more employees in the same space -clusters of people working with their laptops around a table at 3 or 4 times the employee density once considered standard. Link this increased intensity of employees with the failure of the City to apply normal "nonconforming" rules to properties in downtown commercial districts and the problems magnify exponentially. Take a look at 818 Emerson, a small space next to Saint Michaels Alley, formally occupied by a furniture store with one or two employees and an occasional customer --and no parking. Now 818 Emerson is home to a start-up with 30, or more, young backpacking employees building the next lphone app -each person driving as a single in a car, parking in the neighborhood and walking blocks to their jobs. The nonconforming conversions, the well-intended parking reduction incentives, the need to update parking demand data and the ability to demand solutions that keep commercial parking in commercial districts are all within the purview of the Planning Commission. We recognize that it may take years for the City processes to fully understand, accept and address the problem. In the meantime we are confident that the only way to regain the integrity of our neighborhood is through establishment of a Residential Parking Permit program, an "RPP." A petition with 147 signatures was submitted to the City within the last month requesting that Jaime begin the "process" immediately. We are fully aware what the RPP can become another bureaucratic maze of rules and regulations. However, we are also confident that it can be applied to our area simply with the need for minimal enforcement and inconvenience to residents. As you consider the work program that Jaime will be discussing please keep in mind the needs of our neighborhood and immediately begin the process of finding solutions to the invasion and damage that employee parking is doing to our residential neighborhood. We understand that downtown commercial interests are primarily interested in customer parking, not their employees. At every juncture, ask yourself and the applicants seeking exceptions and approvals: "Where will your employees park?" Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, KenAlsman Attachment A PARKING GARAGE SURVEY -10:45 am to 11:25 am, Tuesday, Augllst 16, 2011 This is the reslllt of a drive-through survey of just fOllr public parking garages. It is consistent with previolls surveys taken at other times dllring the day. 10:45 HIGH STREET GARAGE EMPTY PERMIT SPACES 28 11:00 BRYANT STREET GARAGE EMPTY PERMIT SPACES 105 11:10 COWPER GARAGE EMPTY PERMIT SPACES 152 11:20 CITY HALL GARAGE EMPTY PERMIT SPACES 84 TOTAL EMPTY PERMIT SPACES 369 369 X $50,000 per space = $18,450,000 of unused permit parking. At least two to three times this number of 3-hour "customer" parking spaces were also vacant. Fully using these 369 permit spaces could reduce employee parking in the residential areas by 25 to 32 city blocks. Planning and Transportation Commission 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  August 24, 2011 Verbatim Minutes DRAFT EXCERPT   Parking Program Study Session: Presentation on proposed parking management strategies in the Downtown core including way-finding/parking guidance signage, parking permit distribution, tier-pricing for parking permits, control-access for parking structures, bicycle parking, and residential permit parking in adjacent neighborhoods. Parking management strategies for the California Avenue business district will also be discussed. 8  9  10  11  12  13  Chair Tuma: Thank you. We’ll go onto our second item which is a study session on the parking program. This will be a session that will start with 20 minutes for the presentation from staff. We will then go to the public. At this point, I have three cards from members of the public so if there is anyone else from the public that would like to participate in this, please turn these cars in within the next couple of minutes. After we go to the public we will come back to the commission and as I said in the pre-commission memo, obviously this entire plan is fair game as far as comments, ideas and input but staff has identified 5 very specific places that they would like us to comment on and those were also in my memo of yesterday and Zariah’s memo of today and I’m sure Mr. Rodriguez will remind us of what those are as we go through. Also, to remember, this is a Study Session. This is our initial input into where these guys are now. This will come back to us in the late fall timeframe for formalization and recommendation to the council so this certainly is not our only bite of this apple and we do have a rather full agenda for tonight so if we could keep that in mind as we come back to the commission for comments and questions. With that, we welcome Gil. 14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Commissioner Keller: As a suggestion, this is a lot of stuff. Just going through the slides is a lot. You are going to add even more to the presentation. Is it possible to do it in segments? Rather than doing the entire presentation, stop at the first stop. Just a suggestion because I think there is so much content and you talk really fast and we are going to really not be able to respond. You’ll get better feedback. 29  30  31  32  33  34  Chair Tuma: We were talking yesterday about how the presentation doesn’t really categorize the items the same as in the staff report. 35  36  37  Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: What we did in the presentation is we left it intact when we went over it in the week and left stars at the slides in the areas we were specifically looking for input from the commission on. Those are easy to identify and we can pause on those so the recommendation is noted. 38  39  40  41  42  Chair Tuma: So how do we work public comment into this? 43  44  Commissioner Keller: Public comment after our input. I was going to suggest an overview and then public comment. 45  46   Page 1  1  Mr. Rodriguez: Okay, so I will go ahead and get started. My name is Jaime Rodriguez, I am the Chief Transportation Official for the City of Palo Alto. I apologize I don’t think there is a microphone but I will do my best to speak loud for everyone. So what we are going to do today is go over both the downtown and the California Avenue business district parking strategies that the staff has been studying and formulating for the past 3 or 4 months now. We actually overtook a very large parking analysis study for both of these business districts. Downtown was done first and then we started the California Avenue parking study afterwards and we focused most of these formulations around things in downtown and are barely beginning our discussions with the merchants and occupiers of the California Avenue business districts and the downtown corridor. Some of the permit policies we are recommending apply to both so that’s why we are leaving it intact for the parking management of both districts. 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  So really quick I want to highlight for you what we have been doing in this parking analysis for both districts. We started working on this program for downtown back in April. This large parking analysis study looked at identifying how many parking spaces we have on the street, how many garages, the occupancy for those at varying times of the day and then we began formulating recommendations around the data we collected for programs and projects. You will see here we had a series of community meetings with the Palo Alto downtown business association, we’ve had at least two large community meetings to date with the downtown corridor, this is our first PTC session and we are going to the City Council next month as well. For the California Avenue business district we did that same parking analysis study at the end of the spring and are barely beginning to formulate recommendations for projects and policies to the California Avenue business district. We met with them about two weeks ago. When we are in a position to make recommendations we will start doing so. So really quick, let’s just talk about how parking is managed in downtown, and I’m referring specifically to the downtown core. This is Nitten to the north, Forest down to the south, Alma and then around the Biddenfield area. What happens today, in the downtown core, how we manage parking on the street and lots and garages are the colors on the system which you are very familiar with, 2 blocks wide east west and three blocks north south. A visitor to downtown is allowed to park in any one of those color zones up to two hours on the street, three hours in the garages and cannot park in that same color zone area within that same day. They have to move to another color zone. We haven’t made any modifications to the color zone system until just recently in July when we added the library’s parking lot and then two parking spaces that are along Bryant Street frontage. So that’s the most recent changes. The parking turnover study we did was really focusing on trying to figure out how many parking spaces we had and the occupancy of those spaces including looking at the greater downtown, Palo Alto Avenue to the north, Embarcadero to the south, Middlefield Street and we surveyed every street, driveway, every red zone curb and figured out how many spaces we had and validated the ones in the garages and lot and measured the occupancy rate at all facilities at all times of the day. Midnight was a baseline in the downtown corridor. Its probably just people were parking overnight or visiting people in the area. In the neighborhoods it was specifically  Page 2  residents and their guests in the midnight hour. We studied morning, midday, evening and weekends and we took that data and started making immediate tweaks. We immediately started getting rid of unused surface space to create new on street parking spaces for the community. So we’ve already implemented 17 new 2 hour parking spaces in the downtown corridor. That’s equivalent to almost $2 million worth of improvements if we were building a brand new lot. We also added a new freight loading zone and 30 minute parking spaces for specific uses and we started installing our bicycle parking program and added 10 new parking spaces in front of the café and we also added new permit parking spaces with the Bryant Street garage with conversion of the 4th floor from hourly to permit parking spaces. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Things that we’ve done that are still in the queue are 5 more on street parking spaces for a total of 22 new on street parking spaces for the downtown core that should be implemented within the next 30 to 45 days. We have a plan for 142 new bicycle parking locations throughout the core you’ll see that more with people with additional corrals and parking spaces. We also have recommendations to add more permit parking spaces to the Alma Street High South garage which is near the Joe Belomo’s Building which is the direction most understand. We have a recommendation to convert the 2nd floor of that garage to permit parking because that is the most congested garage. We have a waiting period of over a year to try to get a permit in that area. We are also recommending to the lot right across the street from that to change two hours to three hours so parking may be longer in that area to build velocity of parking in that area. We have very specific programs and policies that we are recommending and are discussed in the staff report and we will discuss today. The very first thing I want to talk about is actually way finding. This is actually one area that we do want to see some input on. One of the concerns we’ve heard from the local community as well as business owners is that visitors from downtown don’t really know where the garages and lots are. We have a lot of garages in the downtown core but it isn’t too clear as public parking facilities. A lot of people will drive by and don’t realize it’s actually a parking structure because it looks like a regular building. For surface lots people think they are private lots for the businesses in those areas so we are recommending a way finding program. Chair Tuma: Before we got to the first star, this is where we are going to take a break in the presentation and offer the public the opportunity to give their comment. Does that work for you? 33  34  35  Mr. Rodriguez: It does. I’m actually just going to stop right here. I just wanted to note that we are developing a way finding program that includes new signage to all of those lots and garages. This is an example of a static sign that would guide people and this is a sample of what banners are proposed in all garages and lots so we put these banners on the street lights to make sure people realize there is public parking open to the public. This would be a good opportunity to stop. 36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Chair Tuma: Okay. This is the point we are going to go to the public for their comment and then we will come back and pick up with the way finding. So I have 6 cards here. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. If we could assemble with the speaker and then the person behind them. So our first speaker will be Andrew Robell followed by Faith Bell. 43  44  45  46   Page 3  1  Andrew Robell: Thank you and good evening. My name is Andrew Robell. I live at 325 Channing Avenue, just two blocks from here. Channing Avenue between Bryant and Waverly. I wanted to add my two cents because I have the primary attention of the staff and possibly the commission as business areas and Professorville. Well, we are kind of in between the two and I wanted to just say we have similar problems to Professorville namely outside of my residence, never mind midnight, weekends, we’re talking working hours Monday through Friday, its full and the street outside my residence and my neighbor’s residence should not be a parking lot for businesses where people park all day long. It’s a residential area so I’m just making a plea to please include that area in consideration of some relief for residences. I see there is an attachment to Mr. Rodriguez’s report to you from Ken Alsman. I’ve never met him. I’ve had no contact but he is making some points for Professorville difficulties and many of these apply to us as well so I just wanted to say that and to say I’m sorry I can’t speak as fast as Mr. Rodirugez but I think his brain works quicker than mine and I wanted to express my appreciation to Gil Candelaria. He’s been very responsive. When I’ve had a few questions he’s answered me and I wanted to say to Mr. Williams please continue to see to it that hearings on the subject are posted on the city calendar online. That’s because it’s much more helpful than trying to paw through legal notices published in the paper. 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Chair Tuma: Mr. Robell, one of our commissioners has a question. 20  21  Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Could you state again which area or intersection you live at? I’m sorry but I didn’t remember that from the beginning. 22  23  24  Mr. Robell: Channing and Bryant. I’m a Channing between Bryant and Waverly but Channing and Bryant would be the closest intersections. The other side of Heritage Park really. It’s all booked up Monday through Friday during working hours. 25  26  27  28  Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our next speaker will be Faith Bell to be followed by Irvin Dawid. 29  30  Faith Bell: Hi I’m Faith Bell. I’m representing Bell’s Books, our 76th year here in Palo Alto. We have a pretty good handle on what happens downtown having been there in our family for multiple generations. I’m a little dismayed to hear that you’re considering the High Street South garage Level 2 turning to potentially permit parking. That is one that our customers use a lot and as having the dubious honor of being one of the fully paid up members of the Downtown Parking Assessment District to the tune of over $100,000 at this point I feel we have a right to customer parking in our area. We should not have to pay to subsidize office parking. If office parking is going to go in there they need to put it in under the buildings when they build new buildings. They need to pay at a rate that covers that and we need customer parking because this town won’t run without customer parking. 31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  On many occasions my neighbors and I have requested that permits be transferable within a business so that if you have several employees who work on alternate days, they could buy one permit and change that over into different cars. That would be reasonable and feasible and would stop what we call the purple zone or purple haze shuffle.  Page 4  I have lots of comments on the sidewalk area in front of us but I don’t know if this is the appropriate time to discuss that. We have a red zone in front of us. Mr. Candelaria and Mr. Rodriguez have talked about possibly putting in a bike corral there. We welcome bicycles and would be happy to see that but just so you know that area traditionally has been used for over 70 years by Max Smoke Shop, Bell’s Books, and California Luggage and Shoe Repair as a 5 minute stop to pick up magazines, smokes, etc. and next door to us deliver books to customers when they can’t carry them a long distance. When we sell a large set of books they need to go out somewhere nearby. The shoe repair usually takes about 5 minutes in and out. We don’t have a loading zone. We have one green spot on the other side of the street. I would propose another green spot there, possibly a yellow zone, something quick for loading and we have no cut curb on that side so the only handicap parking that’s accessible to us is across the street with no cut curb on the crosswalk. I’ve seen people picked up from the paramedics there after attempting to do that. We need to have access there. We have so much to cover. Please don’t take our 2nd floor. As it is, taking the 4th floor of the Bryant Street garage is reducing by about 100 spaces what the public has to call on and that is our lifeblood. I think I’ll address some of the other issues when you cover them if I may. Is that acceptable? 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Chair Tuma: Typically we have public comment and that is the 3 minutes. 18  19  Ms. Bell: Okay, I thought you were breaking it up into addressing the different aspects. 20  21  Chair Tuma: Only the commissioners are going to do that. If we gave each member of the public 3 minutes for each of these different topics we’d be here all night. 22  23  24  Ms. Bell: I’m sorry I misunderstood. Okay, the signage on parking garage P right now, though if it doesn’t have public parking it won’t matter. Right now, if you come south on High Street and you turn left which is into Lot P which is a ground level lot and you can’t find parking and you exit Lot P you will be facing High Street and the P Street garage. You cannot read any sign that says public parking on that garage from that location because the signage that says Park in big letters is completely on an angle to you and all you see is the side of the lettering and there is nothing on the side of the building. Anyway, lots to say but thank you. 25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our next speaker is Irvin Dawid to be followed by John Carpenter. 33  34  Irvin Dawid: Thank you Chair Tuma. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, Palo Alto. I think that probably the most important thing in looking at parking is to address parking from a demand perspective as opposed to a supply one. Historically the city has not done that. Whenever we’ve discussed parking it’s always been because of a parking deficit and that has resulted in the building of these parking garages that circle the town which we’re finding out now are not utilized well. 35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  The second thing is always to make the most efficient use of the existing supply. Clearly that’s not being done now. And then the last point is to try to use parking as a transportation demand management tool. Considering that, studies have shown that congestion in downtown, 30 to 40% is caused by motorists actually just looking for parking. That shows why trying to get a grasp on parking is really, really important. I got that figure by the way from the ITS magazine  Page 5  from February of this year. I can leave you a copy of it. There’s a whole bunch of stuff in there. I only copied the first article which is on performance pricing by Professor Don Shue and it goes into San Francisco Park which is a new program now in San Francisco that actually uses that. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  I would have to say from what I’ve seen in looking at the study, the staff report, all I can say is 2 words. Missed opportunity. We have a chance here to really change the way parking is done in this town and this just sort of tinkers with it, this tiered permit is just simply making it easier and cheaper for motorists and employees to get a hold of their parking. As stated before, we start off by dividing all parking into permit parking and then visitor parking. What happens if an employee goes out of town? That’s one spot that is always going to remain vacant. The most important thing that we need to do is to make all parking available, all parking convenient, and to use the most important tool available and that’s pricing. That’s not done here except for this permit. The permit is the exact opposite of a TVM. With a TVM you are trying to use parking to reduce the amount of driving, reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses. Once you’ve purchased your permit, you have absolutely no reason to take the train, to bike, because you’ve made that investment. It’s good for a month and a quarter. It works completely against TVM and against the purposes of AB32 and SB375. I truly urge you to take another look at this and weave a more environmental perspective than what is given to you tonight. Thank you. Chair Tuma: John Carpenter to be followed by Sven Thesen. 20  21  John Carpenter: Yes, I’m John Carpenter and I live in Mountain View but I frequent downtown Palo Alto most of the time by bicycle. I was very pleasantly surprised to see that bicycle corral in front of Coupa Cafe and so forth because I know there have been problems there putting bicycles around trees and things like that, all things that discourage bicycling. I was not only pleasantly surprised by that corral, but I was also pleasantly surprised by how well used it is. It’s getting a heck of a lot of use. There are more bicyclists on that block than there have ever been before because of that corral. So I encourage the city to start more of these throughout downtown particularly in front of businesses and side streets. The corral is like the corral that is in front of Books, Inc.. in downtown Mountain View. We have the same sort of set up to provide more for bicycles and then more bicycles come. Each bicycle is one less car that needs to be parked so you won’t need as many parking spaces for people who really need to drive cars. I encourage the city to continue in this direction and emphasize bicycle parking that way you can de-emphasize car parking, particularly in parking structures where car parking spaces are very expensive. This allows the city to proceed, Palo Alto, Mountain View, all cities to proceed toward greenhouse gas goals and decrease of global warming. Thank you. 22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Chair Tuma: Thank you very much. Sven Thesen to be followed by G. McMillan. 38  39  Sven Thesen: I’d just like to reiterate the other gentleman’s comments about bicycling. My name is Sven Thesen. I live at 314 Stanford Avenue. I also bicycled here and Palo Alto needs to continue the momentum we’ve got with bicycling. However, what I want to talk about is residential EV charging. If you turn to page 8 of 9 in your package there is a staff proposed pilot program and I’d like to make some comments. 40  41  42  43  44  45   Page 6  My Electric Vehicle experience is rather extensive having run Pacific Gas and Electric’s EV program for a number of years as well as spending 2 years with a start up here in Palo Alto called Better Place. What I’d like to do as part of this pilot study is to keep the process that the city’s going to design as simple and streamlined as possible and the fee as low because in my world and what’s being done around the world is that residents who want an on street charger they are paying for all the electricity and all the installation so they are the ones carrying the water as opposed to the city or the city that is just issuing the permit. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  In particular, I would say do not require steel mounting posts, that they can be a redwood 4 x 4, a couple feet tall, steel bollards, retractable cables. There are other solutions to these issues being brought up. They are not required by other EV capitals which Palo Alto is trying to be. We already have a process in place when we are trying to put something in city property between sidewalk and curb. It’s an easement for example for fences. We already have an existing forum to do that. So I see this pilot study and what comes out of this as just being an extension as part of an easement permitting process. Thank you and thank you for your continued support for electric vehicles in general. Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our final speaker on this matter is Gene McMillan. 18  19  Gene McMillan: I’m a merchant on California Avenue. I am here to speak to the parking in that particular zone. When I was a caseworker in the South Bronx years ago I discovered and was taught by a woman that the problem with poverty was that she did not have any money. The problem with parking in that area is that there are insufficient spaces. My suggestion is that lots on Birch in front of the courthouse be made into allowable parking from 11 until 2:30 which is when that’s the peak in that area. People come for lunch and if any of you have tried to park there after 11:00 you spend gas, time and money looking for a space. I also suggest that the parking garage that’s on Cambridge just east of El Camino be looked at in terms of traffic flow. 20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  I have a permit. A few days ago I was looking for a spot. Everything was taken in the surface lots and I said, alright, I’ll go in the building. I couldn’t find the entrance because if you do a certain time search, you make a left onto Cambridge and the entrance into the garage requires you to go to the end of the garage, make a left, come through the garage, make another left being careful not to be struck by bicyclists or another car and then make a hard left into the garage and you haven’t been told there is a second level. So enhanced signage there would go a long way and consideration of how the traffic flows but the real issue is, I think, more spaces. I’m not sure why there is no parking on Birch in that area which surely from 11 to 3 couldn’t be a bother, or 11 to 2. Thank you. Chair Tuma: Thank you. Okay, with that we will come back to the staff for continuation of their presentation and for Chair Martinez’s suggestion. I guess as we get to each of the starred items we will come to the commission for comments or questions about those. 39  40  41  42  Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you and I apologize for jumping the gun there on the presentation. I heard 20 minutes. So this is actually where we had gotten to in the presentation where we have our first star and we wanted to solicit your input on the way finding program and hear any suggestions you have to make it any better. 43  44  45  46   Page 7  1  Chair Tuma: Okay, commissioners. Chair Martinez. 2  3  Chair Martinez: I’m sure a couple of members of the public and I advocate for better signage. I see material in the slide presentation, if you go back, a proposal for more signage and to me it’s a little bit alarming in your solution to add more signage. I wanted to know, isn’t there an app for that? Shouldn’t we be looking for sort of more advanced technology rather than a sign on every block or a sign on every entrance? As part of your RFP that you are putting out later on, is that included in that or some kind of look at technology as a way for people with smart phones to find available parking rather than depending on signage? 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Mr. Rodriguez: The immediate answer is yes. All of the items you are recommending here today actually get us to that point. It’s hard to jump straight into that because it becomes very expensive. Some of the pilot projects we are recommending later on down the line such as gate controls for garages that would let us count cars, these signs provide dynamic information, the larger a gateway entry sign at the intersection of University and Alma. In order to tell people how many spaces we have we have to be counting as they go into garages. That is what we are proposing to move towards. The permit system we are proposing would integrate that type of technology and move us towards using that to share information more efficiently to folks. So the answer is yes. 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Commissioner Martinez; In regards to signage, its not just parking signage, its bicycle parking signage, other kinds of signage, residential parking signage, reserved parking signage, 3 hour parking signage. Are you looking at ways to sort of diminish that and go in the other direction with more effective signs, is that what you are trying for? Does that mean we are going to remove some of the signage as well? 22  23  24  25  26  27  Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. Part of our signage plan is that we would be removing all of the old signage which really is not well placed today. We have a lot of our parking guidance signs behind sidewalks and all the angled parking spaces and behind larger trees. So it’s harder to find the parking signs that are there today. Part of the way finding program would be identifying those old signs and actually thinking the other way when it comes to placing the signs which is what we want to do. We want to place the signs near the tree wells along University Avenue to place them in front of vehicles so we know they are there. The same banners that we are showing here we would love to deploy at intersections along University to point them towards specific garages like Calvin, Webster, Bryant, and garages half a block off of the main street. We are thinking differently when it comes to placement of sign but we want to get rid of all the sign clutter that exists today. 28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber. 40  41  Commissioner Garber: In response to the question, yeah, I think signage is absolutely needed. I have no idea if this is the right sign but looking at the size of that monument, the monument on the side of the street would close that segment. I guess what I need to have a sense of, perhaps all I can say is yes, we need it. What I’m not seeing here is any sort of coordinated understanding of what the issues are because I suspect they are very localized. So we have heard 42  43  44  45  46   Page 8  of some of the stations for the signage but it doesn’t faze anybody. And some other way of understanding what the true priorities are that are short time that we need to address immediately. 1  2  3  4  Commissioner Keller: Well, I go where you come off Embarcadero and you take a look at a sign telling you which garage has so many spaces, there are relatively few of those signs as they go, but they tend to work in places where there is a particular flow of cars from a particular location so I’m not sure where would be best to do them along University Avenue considering people are coming from different directions but I do think that it makes sense to indicate that there is parking, but also to indicate that it is public parking. No only public parking, but free public parking, at least it is for now, not withstanding the ponderance of the public. 5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  That’s what you want to get across, free public parking in a parking structure. I’m not sure how to say that in a clear way but in some sense that’s the message you want to give and so think about that as you go. The other thing is think about the signage of the parking. Right now we seem to have this thing that is BArk which is cute but not very informative. I think you’ve blocked it here but in some sense the garages could be labeled as public parking as mentioned by Faith Bell on Alma and High. I do think that that’s in some sense we divert down University Avenue which is where most people are going to look for parking but essentially I need street signage pointing to a particular direction. You come to a street corner saying which way do I need to turn to park? And you come to a street corner and say which way do I turn to park? And putting it on the street corner in some sense telling you left or right and from there telling you where to turn into the garage. That seems to be a good direction and although I happen to like apps, I don’t want people to use cell phones to look at their app while driving. They can’t find a place to park. Mr. Rodriguez: If I could just very quickly add, not to cut off the commissioner’s discussion but we also want to put the same signage and banners outside of the core specifically on High Street and we will guide to those vicinities as well. We have had a lot of merchants that they know there is parking but no one goes there because there is no sign and they won’t know how to get there unless we change. 28  29  30  31  32  33  Commissioner Tanaka: Let me just say that I like the direction we’re heading. It looks like a really smart way. I think adding signage makes a lot of sense because it makes the most use out of a very scarce resource. I have a couple comments here. First, I was going through the chart that you gave us on the different capacities and even during the busy time there are spots available it’s just that people don’t know where it is so definitely better signage so people know where parking is and they are able to find it is important. 34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  There are two parts, and what our newly elected chair was saying about apps, is there is a static availability of parking and a dynamic availability. I realize the dynamic availability looks like you are moving the direction of trying to get the technologies or things in place to measure the availability but for the staff availability there are a lot of public databases available to populate that for Palo Alto and let people know what’s available. People are building things on top of that  Page 9  and they can actually look at that on a cell phone and see the parking availability perhaps. So that is something to think about. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  The other thing about making the recognition of both static and dynamic parking available is to make it also publicly available so people are able to access it otherwise it looks very good. Thanks. Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg. 8  9  Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to thank you for the vast number of programs and variety of topics you are bringing forward for discussion. I am kind of feeling overwhelmed that it is more than I can wrap my arms around with any confidence tonight but you are starting the dialogues, you are getting the feedback for different programs you’re moving ahead, and that to me is awesome. But devil is in the detail and that is all going to happen later. 10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  As far as the signage, my first and biggest thought there is, I don’t know what a P on a sign hanging in random places means. My concern would be is there some kind of standard international nomenclature for what does parking mean? When I see a little guy in a wheelchair on a blue thing I know I’m not supposed to park there. I don’t know if I would be prompted by P to know what context is that about, am I supposed to think about that as where I find my place to park. We have an extra body that deals with signage, the Architectural Review Board. I know it’s on your agenda so I almost want to defer most of my comments and let them figure out how to design the sign and put it to great things. That said, I also don’t want the conversation to delve so deep into signage that we miss the simplicity of people have to find the parking spaces that exist, but how we utilize them and who gets to park in them I think is the substantive issue. Chair Tuma: I can just sum up my comments. Signage good, technology good, public awareness is really what this is about and so I don’t think there is one single answer here. Standards are a good thing, even more when people are aware of. Technology is a good thing. People share Commissioner Keller’s concern. I’ve never checked my phone while driving but somewhere in there there is a balance because I will get into a discussion later but there is plenty of unused parking in this town in certain locations where there is high demand. So figuring out from the city’s perspective as well as people’s perspective will maximize what is there and go a long way towards the moving and solving the parking issue. With that, let’s go to the next section. 27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Commissioner Garber: Just a suggestion. Can we ask you to respond to some of the public’s comments because we are going to start losing them. Some of this when we convert customer parking to reserved parking, how we balance that and how we make up for that, what is your opinion on that? 37  38  39  40  41  Mr. Rodriguez: Let me start with the comment about the loss of hourly parking in the parking garage. We didn’t make the decision only based on the numbers we had but we did spend a lot of time really looking at that garage. We actually laid 2 counters to figure out how many cars were going up the Bryant Street garage beyond the 2nd level on a daily basis. We monitored that for a couple of weeks and we found we were only seeing about 30 cars go up the second and 42  43  44  45  46   Page 10  third levels on a weekday or weekend. That was why we made that decision. We had a lot of supply. We had people waiting to get in that wanted to park in the garage but were just being held up because of a process. So knowing that there just wasn’t a use for the public made a lot of sense to do the conversion. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  For Alma High south we just have a lot of demand for permit parking in that area. We don’t want to see lots go away for those uses so we are still trying to formulate ideas. We can do a conversion of permit parking for the second floor but it is free parking for the public after noon so people get in there, they park if they are there working but then if they leave it becomes public parking. So those are some of the solutions we are looking at to try and address those concerns. Some of the other concerns I heard about Cal Ave. for the garage closest to El Camino Real, I agree 100%. It’s not a very well designed garage. It’s an older garage. I think that is something we are looking at in the California Avenue specific plan, specifically more parking at that site is something we are exploring as part of the development of that plan and the same kind of way finding we did propose to the Cal Ave. merchants was to look just like downtown. Our initial response from the merchants is that they didn’t want any sign changes at all so I’m glad to hear there is some interest specific to the Cal Avenue area for that usage because we were seeing the same concern, that it wasn’t obvious, the entrances to the garage. It wasn’t obvious where the parking structures were. So we are exploring all those different options including pedestrian safety which combined with bicycle parking specifically in front of the bookstore so we definitely want to have that continued conversation with you so we continue to do that improvement. We do agree with you there is unused space and we do want to make public use and pedestrian access number one issue for us as we explore downtown. Chair Tuma: Thank you. 28  29  Mr. Rodriguez: So we talked a lot about permits and what we do today is we don’t have a good management system for how we distribute permits. Today, we’ll survey a garage every quarter for a week’s time and get on average how many spaces are empty for that garage and then release permits every three months. That’s the process today. What we’re doing now is moving towards an electronic database system to allow people to apply online for permits, to be able to be notified electronically when there is a permit to purchase. We want to allow for distribution beyond the quarter system, a month process, an online renewal isn’t happening today and that’s a very simple change we will release in September to get a new process in place before the end of the calendar year. That’s step one in moving us toward better technology and more modern use of parking management in the downtown core. Its step one because it ties into garage controls and ties into dynamic information we could provide to the public. We don’t have the electronic part which this is part of but we will continue to move forward. 30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  So let’s talk a little about permits. What happens today is we are showing you for the past 3 years on average, how many permits are released over the current supply in every garage and lot within the downtown core. We are collecting the same information from the Cal Ave district and will share that information in about a month’s time. What we are seeing here is we have a lot  Page 11  more permits to distribute on a quarterly basis versus supply. Specifically if you look at the city hall garage, we sell 56% more permits than we have supply and at the peak hours, say the lunchtime, we only have 93% and so we’re seeing even if we have high distribution of more permits than supply, we’re still not seeing a max use of those permit spaces during the peak periods of the day. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  What we want to do, as a recommendation to you and to the City Council is, and this is a really good example here. For the Cowper-Webster garage, we sell 56% more permits than there are spaces but for the peak hour there is only 66% use. Industry standard is about 15 to 20 max permits over your supply and we are way above that but still not seeing max use. This ties back to a lot of comments we’re seeing by the public that we are not making efficient use. What we want to recommend right away is rather than wait every quarter, we want to identify thresholds and say let’s sell 65% or 70%, more permits than we have supply and get people to use the parking garage. There are lots of reasons people don’t park in the core. People pick up a permit because they want to have that one parking space for that one time they have to pick up their kids from school early and they can’t rely on Cal Train. People aren’t using their permits. We want to get the permits to people who will then take better use of the garages themselves. We have here examples that if we were to release more permits than we are doing today, it’s almost a TVN methodology where we are releasing more than we really need to make sure people get in there and use them. If they don’t get a permit space guarantee then they are going to find alternative modes of transportation to get downtown. Part of that, and this is the second part of what we want to get your thoughts on today. Within the downtown core specifically we do a quarter permit of $135 and you can buy per employee or you get a price break of $420 per quarter. We want to introduce this as part of our new permit system to be in place before the beginning of the year. We’ll have before the end of the year a monthly permit fee which is $45 per month which is a quarter divided by 3 but we also want to introduce a lower priced tier permit for parking dedicated on the higher floors of the garages. So let’s say a lower earning employee of the downtown core that is driving, say a dishwasher for example, they would go for a lower priced permit say $25 to $30 and I heard someone mention early on, I want to have my employees be able to transfer permits and we agree 100%. We recommend a bank of permits so if you have 5 employees you will be given 5 permits. You could pay for 2 or as many as you want to be activated at one time but with gate controls, 2 permits could enter the garage but if a 3rd would try to enter the gate wouldn’t work for them. Those types of systems would allow us to be smart and work with business owners to buy those banks and work with their own restrictions. Within the Cal Avenue, and I’ll pause for your comments, but a permit is $43 a quarter, $123 a year paid in full and we have a lot of day permit use. That was a comment we heard a lot from the merchants, I can’t get a permit. They’ll just buy a daily permit for $6 a day and park, with more spaces open for their employees. Unlike downtown, California Avenue doesn’t have a designated permit for lot use. You can park anywhere and that’s fine. That’s what we’re studying now. How much permit use is actually happening in that area? Chair Tuma: Okay, do you want to take a break? 15 minutes? 45  46   Page 12  Commissioner Martinez: I understand the purpose of the gate and gate parking but how do you overcome the image that there is some kind of control and it doesn’t mean you have to pay? How is that conveyed? 1  2  3  4  Mr. Rodriguez: It’s a good comment and actually the slides do actually recommend the introduction of an eParking program for downtown. We talked about the color systems. One thing that is nice with the gate control options is we want to encourage those 3 hours of free parking within the downtown core but there are people who need to move their car within the downtown core because they want to do more within the downtown core. We can continue to offer the 3 hour when you come in you will get a little tag, almost like going to an airport but it would be time stamped and you have 3 hours of free parking from the time you pulled that ticket. So long as you return and left within a fair time you wouldn’t pay, but if you want to stay longer it would turn into a fee based program with a cap so you would pay $16 per day which is the current fee for parking all day at a garage or surface lot. 5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Commissioner Martinez: It seems to me just in way finding that the real key is the public outreach and knowledge about how the system works but if you’re in a tight budget just look at the 3rd floor as an option but it is going to take pretty good achievement at this point for a good outreach to convey this. Any thought on where you begin? 16  17  18  19  20  Mr. Rodriguez: I think we need to begin with the merchants and make sure they know we have a pretty robust program, really today, but people aren’t taking advantage of. There are spaces where you can park and people don’t buy them. We are trying to stay within the existing fee structure, make it easier to buy more permits and we are developing a program that is targeted toward employees of downtown. Some of the other things I mentioned like the gate controls and the fee program comes a lot later but the technology foundation is being laid out now. The target audience is the downtown merchants and their employees. That is something we are trying to find ways to work like with the Palo Alto Business Association, we need to get a partnership with them, but we aren’t seeing a lot of interest from the merchants to participate in our meetings. We need to find ways to make sure they participate because this is important and revolves around their use. 21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber. 33  34  Commissioner Garber: Several comments. I like the banking concept. It seems to me that we can’t turn someone away and they get there and they don’t have a pass or they have someone who doesn’t know about it. There needs to be an option like the fast pass where I don’t know that the other people in my company have already gone through and I’m the 6th and it gets billed back to the company at some point. That sort of thing would help my business a great deal. For that matter, spreading that out across surface parking on an individual basis would be great too although I suspect the impact on trying to fund that kind of structure is not small. It’s probably beyond what the city, with the possible exception of Lytton do. 35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  The other thing this really relies on is that you are controlling access to parking beyond the perimeter so that you don’t do what we know lots of people do which is buy a permit and don’t  Page 13  use it except for 3 days out of the year and I look for surface parking which is allowed. You need to find a check and balance to all of that to make it happen otherwise, why bother? 1  2  3  Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 4  5  Commissioner Keller: So the first thing is, what would you consider the ideal yield? Sometimes you would do the yield management on permit sales by doing overselling. This is what the airlines do, its what hotels do, it’s a typical idea that you’ll only get some people, some cancellations and lack of use. So what would you consider the ideal utilization? 90%? In some sense, Professor Shue has some numbers there and is the city hall 93% too high? Is it about right? 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Mr. Rodriguez: Here’s the immediate answer. There is no yield for all of the lots. Just using an example here, we want to recommend to actually move to a system where we can adjust on a quarterly basis for usages and tie that back to the use over a year’s time but start off at a yield of 95% because it’s already high and here at Cowper-Webster we’re at 65%. At Alma High north we move to a 60% yield as a starting point and adjust the timeframe and identify over a year’s period what the ideal threshold is per garage. 13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Commissioner Keller: This mathematical study is saying what the ideal yield is to avoid excessive hunting and I think the number is about 90% so one might be too high and one too low but we are looking back on that. 20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  I’m wondering why we can’t give, instead of reallocating Alma High south 2nd floor for permit parking, why not give really cheap permit parking for 800 High where as a public benefit they gave the city a bunch of parking. Why not allocate that to, say, you can park there. Its cheap, you can be there all day. Give out really inexpensive parking because it’s farther away. Mr. Rodriguez: 800 High is not within the permit system of the downtown core. The downtown core lots are bound between Forest to the Lytton area so we definitely want to promote use of the 800 High garage but we don’t sell permits. 29  30  31  32  Commissioner Keller; I’m suggesting that if we sell them, people will park there all day and use them and avoid parking in the neighborhood so it sounds like the idea of not doing parking or permits is because of some rule that might not be necessary. 33  34  35  36  Mr. Rodriguez: We’ll definitely explore that. 37  38  Commissioner Tanaka: I have a question for you. First, I liked the direction you’re going in terms of having some sort of database and online purchasing for the permits. My question for you on this is, with the information that is available, is that automatically available to everyone so they can see what the availability is like and where they are at on the list and all that kind of stuff? Is that all public? 39  40  41  42  43  44  Mr. Rodriguez: It’s something we can do but wouldn’t recommend to do. Let’s say we’re selling 159 max permits but we have 2 open, we’ll automatically notify and put them on the wait 45  46   Page 14  list. It would be a seamless process. We can update people and let them know where they are. We can’t do that now but we will with a new data system. 1  2  3  Commissioner Tanaka: I just want to know if we could be more transparent because I know some businesses are looking for permit parking and they can’t get it so having more open and public available might be a good idea. 4  5  6  7  8  9  Some other comments, in terms of the pricing. Have you considered using dynamic pricing? Mr. Rodriguez: That is what we are trying to do with an introduction of the free parking after a certain point. The concept is to introduce that to street surface parking. The same systems all tie together. You can do that but it is not something we are recommending right away but long term we can introduce the concept of a parking system on the street where it can be free for a short period of time but if you want to stay longer there is a structure that rises the longer you stay. 10  11  12  13  14  15  Commissioner Tanaka: One thing I was thinking about was how eBay had dynamic pricing and people who pay more are going to be willing to pay that price. In the system like that were we have to float and give into demand, you’re sure they buy it and use it as opposed to now, people buying insurance and needing it. 16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  One other idea that I was thinking of as we are talking about this was in permit zones how about making it open to everyone so if someone wanted longer parking they could take that ticket and then validate it by the businesses to encourage them to park there and get free parking. Mr. Rodriguez: That can be introduced. The technology does allow for that where, let’s say, you get 3 hours to park but you stay a 4th but you get a validation tag with your ticket. 25  26  27  Commissioner Tanaka: I think one thing that is really important is that the customers actually have parking available and if there is anything, it looks like there’s a lot of lots where permit parking is not being used and if you allow customers to use it or have the ability to actually purchase parking on the spot then it makes a lot of sense. We should encourage this in Palo Alto. 28  29  30  31  32  33  Chair Tuma: Onto the next commissioner, Vice Chair Fineberg. 34  35  Commissioner Fineberg: I’d like to start with a couple of high level questions about numbers. There is lots of detail. I’m struggling with some scale questions. Can you tell me in the downtown parking district, how many total spaces, round within 100 or 200, for permit and for hourly. 36  37  38  39  40  Mr. Rodriguez: I’ll look to Gil. He has that number for me. 41  42  Commissioner Fineberg: 4,000? 43  44  Mr. Rodriguez: That sounds about right and hourly? Gil I’ll look to you. 45  46   Page 15  Gil Candelaria, Parking Consultant: We do have those numbers. We can get them to you. 1  2  Commissioner Fineberg; How can we talk about fine tuning this number for this and this percentage and that percentage if I’m sorry, but, we don’t even know the order of magnitude of how many we are talking about. 3  4  5  6  Mr. Candelaria: I don’t think we are talking about fine tuning. This is a study session to talk about direction and concepts and ideas. We’re not necessarily down to fine tuning each individual area at this point. 7  8  9  10  Commissioner Fineberg: Understood. But we’re talking about engineering incredibly complicated statistically controlled numeric analysis systems which would be ludicrous if we have 20 spaces and absolutely reasonable if we had $100,000 spaces. Maybe it’s feasible at 4,000 and what’s the trigger point? 11  12  13  14  15  Mr. Rodriguez: We have the data but we actually left a lot of that out on purpose because we are trying to be more high level at this particular stage but we can definitely provide that data to you and the commission. We have that tabled. 16  17  18  19  Commissioner Fineberg: So let’s say we have 4,000 as the number of permit spaces and I didn’t have the chance to scan the column for hourly so if another commissioner can, Mr. Keller, might do that while I continue, but let’s say we have 10,000 total just so I have a scope. How many total people are on the wait list? 500 or 1,000? Everywhere for all the facilities. 20  21  22  23  24  Mr. Rodriguez: Let’s say we have just under 600. 25  26  Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so let’s say we have 10,000 as a number and less than 1,000 are wait listed so 10% of people can’t get spaces they want. I’m doing huge rounding numbers. We’re talking about developing an incredibly complicated system that restricts who gets to use what when and where one is of one kind or another and the cost to implement it and manage it, I think we saw in here we get $1.4 million revenue plus. I’m sure there are people with fines that don’t know how to do this. 27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  We are expected people to get in their cars to drive and they have parking PhDs for getting permits and finding these. It just strikes me that we need to make it simpler. We need to regulate it less, make it less complicated. To me, this strikes me as the wrong direction. Is there some jump out of the box way, just put a gate you charge, they are all the same kind of spaces. Daily parking is $6 but if you are lucky enough to work with someone in the district, there are entitlements with people paying for these so it may not be as easy or legal to simplify. Could it be made simpler? Mr. Rodriguez: There is a very specific structure set up. One of the audience members mentioned that she is one of the only currently paid members of the program and we are not recommending major changes to the program. We want to do minor massages and tweaks to eliminate all the low hanging fruit type of solutions we can try to make things better. There may 42  43  44  45   Page 16  be reasons in the future to make a major change but we’re not there yet. That would be the wrong thing to do. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  I do thing that we are trying to change a very complex process to figure out how many permits to distribute will actually make it very simple. We can release 800 permits at this garage because we always release 750 and that’s what we are going to release from now on. We can release that every month and every month when someone doesn’t renew their permit the next person just comes on board and we release them faster. That’s just a simple change that we can do right away once we get our new permit system. We can tie that back to garage controls later by allowing customers to park longer. It’s a very simple already international use of system where people are used to going to airports and knowing that if they get a ticket they have to go back and leave before a certain time if they don’t want to pay. Commissioner Fineberg; I would agree that where there is underutilization increasing the sale of permits, something quick and easy that presents immediate solutions and immediate results, doesn’t complicate it, increases the number of usable spaces. I agree that it is a good short term solution but beyond that, the things that you are talking about with signage, changing one lot to another lot, those to me make things more complicated. They shift things in final measurements and I still fundamentally think this is the most complicated parking mechanism I’ve ever seen in any community and I don’t know that we’re benefiting from it and the costs to the city of managing it… If we’re getting $1.5 million revenue and we have a contract employee, we have 10 or 20% of your time, software to acquire, and billing systems. We are creating additional revenue so maybe it’s a wash but if it’s costing the city more to create it, administer it, plan it and implement it and its not working for the employees, there’s not enough hourly parking. We are trying to discourage parking. We do need to make it something simpler and something that goes in the direction of providing the retail parking, providing the surety for employees and not necessarily subsidize one over another as sort of a social engineering. So enough said on that. 14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  One more quick thing. 800 High you briefly mentioned that it was not part of the downtown zone but so that we don’t sell permits there and I’ve asked for a quick clarify of the question if there are permits sold to employees outside of the district and separate issue then this is for the downtown but I just want to go on record as saying that if we have parking in a building that is public benefit, when that parking is available only to the employees of a small group of select businesses, that parking is a private benefit to only those businesses and that to me doesn’t smell like a public benefit so I think you need to look at how to define when parking is supposed to be a public benefit. Enough said on that one. Mr. Candelaria: The data that Vice Chair Fineberg asked for is actually on the attached staff report. There are 1,286 hourly spaces and 1,753 permit spaces for a total of 3,039 spaces all totaled. Most of the permit spaces overwhelm the hourly spaces and structured parking. The hourly spaces are roughly equal between structured parking and surface spots. 38  39  40  41  42  Chair Tuma: So one of the things I noticed in statistics is the situations where we are over issuing by 50%, 30%, 40% and you said the national average is 35%. So we have an anomaly. My reaction to an anomaly is let’s find out why. Because it sounds like you are saying to do here, let’s just issue more because we can. Let’s find out why. We know who everybody is who 43  44  45  46   Page 17  has a permit, can we do a survey? Can we find out what’s going on? Anecdotally, yes, Commissioner Garber talks about the people he knows that uses it 3 days a month. We know that some of these places are underutilized but it is dramatic. If we could find out more about the behavior, maybe figure out how to incentivize that. I’m going to make a guess and probably get shot by many members of the public for this but our permits are way too cheap so people buy it and sit on it. Two days a month I’ll use it but it’s good for me and its not much money so I’ll just do it. I’m not saying let’s just dramatically raise them cause I don’t know. That’s anecdotally. But anecdotally there are some people who said, that’s only a few bucks. Let’s buy a permit and I’ll sit on it for 10 years and hardly ever use it. But it’s instructive that we don’t really know why. Why aren’t these permits being used? Why are we able to issue 3 or 4 times the national average and still not fill these lots up? So I think some information about why that’s happening will form our direction for what we can do and how we can incentivize behavior that matches that up. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  I think Mr. Dawid or someone said is one of the best things we can do is utilize what we have in a more efficient manner. That’s what this program is about. It really struck me and I’ll say I park in one of the garages on Cal Ave. and I will tell you, I hate to say this out loud, but is wildly underutilized most hours of the day most days of the week on the top floor. And I know people who have been on the permit list for many many months and receive multiple tickets and maybe that’s part of the plan that we get more revenue that way. But it’s not very efficient and finding out why those numbers are so high and so dramatically different from the norms will inform the process in a very good way. Mr. Rodriguez: It’s a great comment and I’ll try to move onto the next step by simply saying that we already are beginning the development of surveys to find out exactly what you said. Why aren’t you using your permit? Why aren’t you buying them? They are so cheap to begin with so why aren’t you picking them up? And working with businesses to figure out what we can do with business partnerships to make sure they can purchase them for their employees or help their employees encourage the purchase of more permits. 24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  With that, I’m going to move forward really quick. We already talked about gate control for garages. Again the locations we are recommending trials at are Bryant Street garage and Alma High south garage. This is a quick example of what the gate would look like at the entry of a garage. Again those ticket distribution machines allow you to maintain the 3 hour parking that already exists today that we want to try to preserve because it’s important for the business community and merchants. I’m going to move quickly into some of the new topics. Bicycle parking. That’s one of the areas for the downtown core that we in transportation see as a very, very significant tool to help encourage and reduce parking impacts both within and outside of the downtown core. This is a photo of a bicycle corral we recently installed at Coupa Cafe and early comments were positive feedback toward that corral and we have a proposal to develop a policy to allow merchants to apply for the installation of more corrals within the downtown core. What I want to show you here is that besides the bicycle rack option we want to deploy in the downtown core is to remove some of the older racks that are a little more tattered. We also want  Page 18  to look at using those similar types of systems, we’ve already seen the comments from the commission on what they like and don’t like. But those are the same types of corrals to begin with to give them a little bit more of a unique Palo Alto flavor. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  We also want to introduce the concept of park let. You may hear about a lot of these within San Francisco, Berkeley, and other communities. Park lets are a relatively new tool that allow basically for the expansion of the public space or sidewalk space into the equivalent of a parking space on the street. Basically a wooden plank that can be permitted for up to 10 to 12 years depending upon the types of uses and we want to propose two park let test sites within the downtown core. This is a rendering of what a park let could look like in front of University near the intersection of Waverly. This is in front of the Epi Cafe and would take 2 on street parking spaces and provide for outdoor seating and common use but also for another additional bicycle corral on that structured facility. This map right here shows what are 142 additional parking spaces within the downtown core with the deployment of multiple bicycle corrals throughout the downtown core. Those are the items that are shown in green up on top and we also are showing the locations of hoop and bike arc throughout the downtown core. We also are showing, this might be of specific interest to you, but we are already beginning development on potential sites for our bike share program. The VTA bike share program will be deployed by May of this coming year so relatively quick. We’ll be coming to you at least twice more for the ideal location for the bicycle facilities for that program. The other thing we want to show you are mini corrals that show green textured material and will be more of a public art element type of bicycle facility. We want to also recommend ball bales or permanent park let equivalents, extensions of the sidewalk coming into the public right of way and we have those proposed at Kipling and in front of the Varsity Plaza and on Florence Street. Those would provide opportunities for large scale and more grand public art type features for bicycle parking. We do of course want to make sure people would support their installation. We’ve already outreached to potential locations where are we proposing the corral at the Joya Restaurant on Kipling and they don’t want it so it is showing in red. We also want to make sure we develop policies for installation of different types of on street parking uses. We have a lot of illegal on street parking disabled spaces, people reserving parking for themselves. We want to make sure people need that type of use. We want to propose a policy we will bring back this fall to limit when and where disabled parking spaces can be allowed within residential uses. We also want to propose to you and solicit your input on the development of a pilot program and installation of an on street electrical vehicle charging stations within residential neighborhoods. We don’t have any current installations that are long term use permitted but we want to make sure we allow for the community to help us develop standards for when and where they can be deployed, how they are designed, and we would love to hear thoughts on that type of a use. Chair Tuma: Okay, Commissioners. We’ve been doing this and going down the line for commenting. I don’t want to dissuade people from doing that entirely but however we are an 45  46   Page 19  hour and 45 minutes into this item. We do have two more, one of which is going to be a very long item so as we go through if people could comment if you need to but try to be as succinct and specific as possible. 1  2  3  4  Mr. Rodriguez: If it’s okay, we can actually defer the electrical vehicle charging item to a later date. It was put in more for the audience and what we want to hear more your opinion on is the next item which is on the slide now. That’s the concept of a development of a policy for residential parking. The city has one existing what I call an RPP zone. That’s around the college terrace community. We have that policy that is specific to that community but we don’t have a policy that allows us to expand beyond college terrace. There is a lot of interest from the community especially around the Professorville neighborhood for the development of an RPP zone and we just recently received a petition and we are working with the community to develop initial boundaries for what an RPP might look like. This is the initial concept but until we develop a policy we can’t really advance the concept further. We want to make sure if it were to deploy that it would be deployed in conjunction with other projects. We are trying other things without jumping the gun straight into RPP. What we are recommending now is that you direct us or encourage us to develop that policy and hold more community meetings at the citywide level to make sure we come back to you with an RPP concept with the issue of most concern of percentages for opting into a program within a community. That is the bigger issue of concern. We want to identify those and try to build a consensus with the community before coming back to you. 5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Really quickly I want to lay out what the process might be and then we can hand it over to you for input. To outline that, we received a petition from the community and then we investigate to try to find out what are some of those reasons that would cause intrusion into a community and then try to identify neighborhood solutions before moving into the RPP process. Assuming we have success we pursue a community outreach process and identify potential boundaries for RPP and we then go ahead and make sure we survey the community to make sure they are a strong support for RPP and that’s the issue we need to work out with the community and get percentages of the survey. We want to make sure we develop a cost neutral program. I’ll give you an example. The college terrace program is not cost neutral. The program itself has to pay into the program to keep the permit costs low for the community. The permits themselves, the cost for the [RPP] zone was deferred or offset by contributions from Stanford to get the program implemented. All these other communities don’t have these funds so all the costs need to be identified before we come back into the process so we need to know what permits might cost. They might be anywhere from $400 for residents, 2 regular and 2 visitor permits per year, as an initial concept and that is in line with what we’re hearing from our police department on what it might cost for additional enforcement, the cost of capital and we still need to track those costs. We do want to make sure we have a very stringent program because you don’t want it to fail. What we’re starting to see in college terrace is that they want to get out. They see the public doesn’t have RPP and when you start seeing other uses then we don’t really need it anymore. But it still is a significant cost and capital and we want to make sure that it is sustained for a period of time so if we do opt into RPP we would recommend keep it for two years minimum but  Page 20  if you opt out, you’re out for 2 years. We don’t want the program fluctuating and the price of the permits up and down and that’s something that we’ve learned as a lesson from the college terrace community that people opt out and then want to opt right in because of other uses. Again we did receive a petition from in and around the Professorville area. 1  2  3  4  5  Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller followed by Garber. 6  7  Commissioner Keller: First of all, I think this is a great way to go about this. A couple of thoughts. One thought is, it might be interesting to survey the cars by putting leaflets on them to say, why are you parking here? Are you a resident? Are you a worker downtown? Why aren’t you parking downtown? Maybe you’ll get some results, or litter, and get some data that might be useful for that. I’m not sure if that will work but it’s worth a try. 8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  The second thing is, there are certain businesses, especially these days and the days of the dot com are now sort of beyond dot com and facebook sort of pioneered this and that is cramming as many people as you can have into a small space and I think we should have measures that if you are an occupancy that exceeds the standard occupancy, so 4 people per 1,000 square feet, if your occupancy exceeds 4 people per 1,000 square feet then you have to pay into a program that would subsidize the RPP or provide TVM measures. But it seems to me that the building paid for parking based on the 4 per 1,000 and not based on 10 per 1,000. Finally, an earlier thought, have we thought about a priority wait list and ideas you can indicate a preference, garage A and if garage A is not available I’ll take garage B and if not then garage C. Is there a rank preference so you can get a permit somewhere? And perhaps dynamic pricing on permitting so that the most popular garages charge more and the least popular are less expensive. That will allow for equalizing and better utilization. Mr. Rodriguez: I can answer very quickly that we do have a process where people get on multiple wait lists to get in a certain garage. To get a permit right away in a facility that has capacity to be able to get long term in a lot for a specific location. What we can’t do today is query those lists because they are manual lists. We won’t know if you’re on a list or three other ones but we will know that after this year because we are going to be consistent. We do that now and continue to allow that and will improve this process in the future. 27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Commissioner Garber: A couple of thoughts. First of all, I think it needs to be pursued. I think the city is not policing the existing code as it is now. I understand their reasons for that. You want to be customer friendly and not chase people away, etc. But I think the sort of larger lesson there is I don’t think you can pursue the residential permit without understanding and having a strategy in place for businesses. Therefore the current distribution discussion we just had is the same conversation we are having about the residential one and you can’t have one without the other. Whatever that solution is, both of those things involve supply and demand and you can’t deal with them separately. 34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  One of the issues that complicate the issue is the dominant user that is in the residential neighborhoods that is local but not on University Avenue that soak up all of the spaces when they have employees there. That’s sort of the gray area that you need to be able to create some kind of concession in some way. Not a concession but you need to put into this equation  Page 21  between demand that is created by University Avenue and supply that is created by residential areas. You need to get business owners that are not on University Avenue and get them and their customers and employees parking in the same way University Avenue employers are as opposed to migrating into the residential neighborhoods. 1  2  3  4  5  Commissioner Tanaka: So I think I share a lot of Commissioner Garber’s comments about the residential permit parking program so I’m not going to add anything there but I have a few other comments in other areas. I think your option A about the access seems to make sense because we are trying to better utilize a scarce resource but I think the other thing is, and maybe you can talk a little bit about what you are doing right now, but is to have better measurements in terms of, so you know the parking availability at all times versus just once in a while. Are you working on systems where you would know the availability of all the different parking in these areas? 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Mr. Rodriguez: We are working on procuring that and that is why we are recommending specifically the gate control. We think that’s the best option to go long term because it introduces more flexibility for parking programs later. There is technology we could buy that let’s us count cars but that won’t feed into a system that lets us combine garage control and the dynamic information on the street so if we are going to deploy a resource we need to make sure it all ties back to a similar technologies so people talk together. Plus we have to pay more money to integrate that which is another tool that can break more easily within the system itself. 15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Commissioner Tanaka: My basic feedback is that at no time is every single parking space used, its just that people don’t know where they are so if we could have a better idea of where those parking spaces are available then it would be helpful to people. 23  24  25  26  Mr. Rodriguez: On the street, they’re full all the time. That’s the data we didn’t bring to you today. Off street it’s ACT. It’s within the garages where there is more capacity. The lots are actually pretty full. We didn’t give you the full data because we didn’t give you the lots availability but if you look at the usage for hourly parking it’s actually pretty full specifically during peak hour periods. During the weekends they’re full everywhere because people that on the weekdays are employees will just park on the surface lots so we see that availability and shift on the weekend compared to weekday use. 27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Mr. Tanaka: If it is $50,000 for a little bit of technology, knowing if that spot is used or not can go a long way. If it’s a few dollars per spot… 35  36  37  38  39  40  In terms of park lets, I think that’s a nice idea. Have you thought about what the scheme is going to be? It’s a $2,000 spot. How is that going to be priced and used? Mr. Rodriguez: We had some initial discussions and I can tell you that people like it, especially the café type uses, they really like the idea. They want to see them go in. We want to develop an application process that we take to you because we went to Epi and the café next door said why them and why not me? We don’t want to take up too many spaces because it might cause an impact. 41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 22  Commissioner Tanaka: That makes sense. It looks like this will be very successful so thank you. 1  2  3  Mr. Rodriguez: If I may, that is something we can look at for Cal Ave. where we do want to widen the sidewalks on a seasonal basis. It’s a very good solution. 4  5  6  Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. In a perfect world, we would have public transit that gets people where they want to go so they’re not driving cars and they can get where they need to go conveniently, quickly and economically. We don’t have that so most of us choose to drive cars. If we have too many people with too many cars and too little land to put those cars or the land in the wrong places, we are developing all these coping mechanisms and I’ll absolutely echo Commissioner Garber’s comments about we need to look at the systems together both utilization and location on the commercial structure side and the residential side because there inseparable. 7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Part of the reason we have residents not just in the downtown area asking for residential parking permits is because we have the same kinds of intrusions into city family areas in College Terrace, in South Park and as we have more and more commercial and office and retail growth in Palo Alto, we will see it in more and more neighborhoods. So I favor us developing policies that will define how we implement, how we govern RPPs because it would be a mistake to do each one piece mail. So having these policies defined ahead of time where it is not a divisive issue within a neighborhood is a good thing. We also need to understand more about, I think it’s great that College Terrace has been kind of a pilot, but we need to understand more about why they’re opting out. I absolutely agree with what you said about it can’t be in six months, then out and flip flop. What you talked about with the capital cost start up and that the program would be $400 a permit, made me think back to my earlier comments that in San Francisco they have the residential parking permit program spread over maybe 500,000 residents so these capital costs are smaller per person and its an incremental small cost for each individual permit that’s issued. We don’t have that kind of bulk in Palo Alto but if the city’s policies are creating these problems in residential neighborhoods we either need to consider what city policies are creating those problems and whether we need to subsidize those policies for a greater good and not compromise the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. We need to choose which one we want. Right now there haven’t been a lot of discussions about that and I’ll get an elephant in the room. If Stanford is growing the way its growing and they have a no net new trip policy requirement by the county, their employees are incented to park off campus. They will find ways to do that and the parking pressure in the neighborhoods will grow and grow. We will have this in more neighborhoods. If we have more wonderful employers in the city they will have more employees. Those are good things. Furthermore, the consequences of that and let the residents, they have to balance. If you are going to encourage and allow that growth then let’s fix the problem in the residential neighborhoods. I don’t know what the solutions are. Maybe it’s more parking structures, higher fees, protections in R1, multifamily residential streets but not with a tax that the residents pay of $400 a year to subsidize that the commercial establishments didn’t provide parking. Also, I don’t know what state have building codes that have caught up with the kind of 10 people around the table, high density office space so I don’t know what we can do within the city but do  Page 23  we need to update our ordinances on allowable occupancy rates and how do we prepare that so that you have the tools so if you are implementing what Commissioner Keller suggested, if someone is going to pack in this many employees in a room during a work day and needs to provide parking, what mechanisms do we have to have in place so they can pay for those costs and consider the social impacts to this community. Thank you. 1  2  3  4  5  6  Mr. Rodriguez: If I could just clarify Commissioner. What I said was $400 a residence per year so that would be for 2 permits and 2 guest permits, not $400 per permit. 7  8  9  Chair Tuma: We’ve heard several references tonight to the city basically not enforcing ordinances when it comes to these parking issues. I think that is part of what Commissioner Fineberg indirectly is talking about, where there are a multitude of issue here that are causing spillover into neighborhoods. I guess one of the questions is, why don’t we enforce those ordinances? Is it because we decided we don’t want to be unfriendly to business and so we need to let people slide on that sort of stuff and if that’s so, then perhaps what Commissioner Fineberg is talking about is right. If we’re going to make that conscious decision, let’s make it very openly and publicly and find out how we are going to deal with it instead of letting things slide and then when we have a problem fixing it on the back end. 10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Mr. Rodriguez: Sure and let me start by saying we actually do regularly enforce our parking ordinances. We have a very active parking enforcement unit for downtown, California Avenue district and College Terrace. Although RPP for College Terrace we don’t do everyday, we have parking enforcement two to three times a week but when we do do that for all the vicinities, it is the way its set up and we do it by car. We enforce the program today, it’s just that the technologies we are using for enforcement make it difficult to enforcement. Enforcement requires writing down the license plate for every vehicle, then has to come back and check if they’ve moved from a certain spot. We don’t have the technology today. The enforcement program brings in about $1.5 million per year. It is very active. 20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Chair Tuma: I’m not talking about enforcement of parking over a certain amount of time, I’m talking about having adequate parking for an office building. 30  31  32  Commissioner Garber: I guess my question would be how are we enforcing that? A statement would be our regulations are not stringent enough but they are implemented and enforced and we apply them as a project comes through with whatever the cases may be, reductions, that’s part of the problem too. So there are allowances. It’s not that we aren’t using the code and applying that on each project. 33  34  35  36  37  38  Curtis Williams, Planning Director: I’m just wondering whether it’s worthwhile us visiting our parking requirements and the amount of reductions and whether the reductions are actually being achieved or are they simply offsetting parking. For example, we know from reports that the parking for a multifamily residential at the corner of Charleston and El Camino was way under par and is causing a great deal of spillover into that neighborhood. 39  40  41  42  43  44  Commissioner Keller: The data we’ve seen has not supported that. 45  46   Page 24   Page 25  Mr. Rodriguez: There is a lot of reporting from the surrounding neighborhoods. I would have to agree with Curtis. I spent a lot of time out there and I have seen significant data. 1  2  3  Chair Tuma: We don’t want to get into individual projects at this point but the point of perhaps looking at this is there is a lot of tactics involved here. A lot of things we can do and I do think that maybe some looking at some of the more high level strategic things that we could be doing, for example, we’ve all talked for years and never gotten to a discussion about whether our code is right and if we’re requiring adequate parking in today’s world where we have 10 people in a space that used to be 5. That might be the bigger issue but it seems difficult to pursue this in the absence of talking about policies and strategies that may help. 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Commissioner Martinez: I have to disagree. I don’t think enforcement is the emphasis we want to take. If you look at residents, they want to park near where they live and the people downtown want to be able to find a place inexpensively to park and no one is really wrong with what they’re trying to achieve but I think the enforcement part of it is the wrong emphasis. I think that when we have an area like Professorville that is struggling with the parking issue that isn’t of their making and it’s the city, the Planning Commission, the City Council, approving projects that forces parking into our neighborhoods perhaps for just the lack of parking. 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  I think we need to look at sort of an experiment that just provides residential permit parking without a cost. To see if that is what is the obstacle towards sort of a universal interest in this because we are saying to residents $400 per year per household and we are telling people parking in expensive parking structures $400 for a whole year for parking there. It seems like we are subsidizing one over the other and I think we need to look at these as pilot perhaps. Whether the incentive to go for residential parking really is the monetary one that people just don’t want to pay for it. They should have a right to park and maybe the city needs to look at not emphasizing that it be cost neutral for an area that’s been impacted so quickly. I also want to go back really quickly on the handicap parking where we are looking at enforcing illegal spots. I hope in doing that that you’re also looking at why people have taken it upon themselves to provide that, that you’re not kicking the kettle while it’s hot. And then third, going back one slide beyond that to talk about the bicycle corrals, from an urban design perspective, they are really ugly, you know the painting on the pavement like that. I hope that stays part of Cal Avenue urban design plan there. We are looking at something more attractive that integrates sidewalk and street and really doesn’t make them… So people who ride bikes can find it without that sort of emphasis. We could really make this a more attractive kind of thing. I think I heard you say that you’re really looking at businesses in the right condition for bicycle corrals like in front of the Apple Store and certain restaurants. I think that’s good to have this conversation and dialogue to make it really as dynamic as possible. I think you’re doing a great job of that. Thank you. Chair Tuma: With that, if there isn’t anything else burning on this topic and of course you are free to submit additional comments and concerns, I’m sure Mr. Rodriguez would be happy to receive it. With that, we will close the study session.  42  43  44  City of Palo Alto (ID # 2023) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 2023) Summary Title: Library Card Sign-Up Month Title: Proclamation Recognizing September as Library Card Sign-Up Month 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Library PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PROCLAMATION. Attachments: ·Library Card Month Proclamation (DOC) Prepared By:Evelyn Cheng, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Monique le Conge, Library Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SEPTEMBER AS LIBRARY CARD SIGN-UP MONTH 2011 WHEREAS, the library card is the most important school supply of all; and WHEREAS, children who use the library perform better in school; and WHEREAS, libraries enhance the educational experience; and WHEREAS, libraries meet the needs of all types of students by providing free access to educational databases, the Internet, homework help, online tutoring and books; and WHEREAS, libraries provide activities and resources to the communities they serve and inspire life long learning; and WHEREAS, a library card is the “Smartest Card” you can own. NOW, THEREFORE, I, SIDNEY A.ESPINOSA, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby proclaim September as Library Card Sign-Up Month in Palo Alto, CA and encourage everyone to sign up for the Smartest Card at your local library. Presented: September 2011 ___________________ SIDNEY A.ESPINOSA MAYOR CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 12, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning and Transportation Commission for One Term Ending on July 31, 2015. Eight applications have been submitted for one term, ending on July 31, 2015 on the Planning and Transportation Commission. At the Council Meeting on September 12, 2011, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Planning and Transportation Commission, with the interview date to be determined. The applicants are as follows: 1.Sarah Carpenter 2.Sunny Dykwel3.Leonard Ely4.Tzuchi Fan 5.Mark Michael6.Gordana Pavlovic7.Doria Summa8.Mark Weiss REPORT PREPARED BY:Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·Carpenter application-Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Dykwell Application-Approved for Packet(PDF) ·Ely Application-Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Fan Application-Approved for Packet (PDF) Updated: 9/7/2011 10:10 AM by Donna Grider Page 2 ·Michael Application-Approved for Packet(PDF) ·Pavlovic Application-Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Summa Application-Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Weiss Application-Approved for Packet (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 12, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Architectural Review Board for Two Terms Ending on September 30, 2014. Nine applications have been submitted for two terms, ending on September 30, 2014 on the Architectural Review Board. At the Council Meeting on September 12, 2011, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Architectural Review Board, with the interview date to be determined. The applicants are as follows: 1.Robert Kuhar2.Lee I. Lippert 3.Whitney Lundeen4.Clare Malone Prichard5.Richard Pearce 6.Sassan Pedramrazi7.Matt Robinson8.Carolyn Samiere9.Lai Tin REPORT PREPARED BY:Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·Kuhar Application Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Lippert Application Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Lundeen Application Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Pearce Application Approved for Packet (PDF) Updated: 9/7/2011 10:09 AM by Donna Grider Page 2 ·Pedramrazi Application Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Prichard Application Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Robinson Application Approved for Packet (PDF) ·Samiere Application Approved for Packet(PDF) ·Tin Application Approved for Packet (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CA ell Y CLERK'S OFFICE " JUl , 2 PM '2: 2. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 . Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/ A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: tlltl N DE:~ 1&l+lTN~ HOME PHONE: lR)l) ~ 2-1 (p 1'1'11 Last First . fv+ WORK PHONE: RESIDENCE e4~· \2-4M ()N4-ST-~ A'(:>'f. 1~1 (J!9) ~ 14' &J q't~r ADDRESS: CELL PHONE: Street EMAIL: EM--O 4t;;ro CA-q+~) w l·tynJ E"t1. t.."V NOEa-.[ B/I46 City State Zip e GrM4--IL. c-aYVI - Education: \I, -()~ ~A \ N 1 Nnp.t bYL Df35\ ~ N ~ .4f?CttrrrGfl1 g;E @ B ~ k1 I D41-tD . Ot), 8)lItvt1l6N 1]}tle.. 6F wts:rwN EVlR{)P£kN At2vH1~ilA~ SUMMaz Dp. \ N I List relevant training and experience, certificates oftraining, licenses, or professional registration: ~~~.;.r' I * l-\A \W.,fN 1lA1 S1lIl 0'{1 N l1 ~ LEE D Caz-iTP ( C41l 01"'{ . • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the tern1 applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Name of Company: Occupation: I N1FJk1 ({VZ-Dat", N I ~ (Ifretired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant w-~-----Date: Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE \ J Name: \Nli(TNtYJ VVlNDBtN Date: 1/ (p /" Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Architectural Review Board (Date: ______ J 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Rotary Club: Palo Alto Weekly: __ Palo Alto Weekly Online: __ Email from City Clerk: -X-AlA: Fogster.com: Other, Please Specify: __________________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 4. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Architectural Review Board? ) '\ ) 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? ttl S1lfVVl cA1J~ A<=LlA ~ As P b&S1 t~lk. l wlJVl VD 1 rO \IE-1"b bEe Mb\.t.t; 1,,£8) AcLf2..ED lnD g fA I l-rDf NUS AN D H-'z>MeS. 6. What are the current issues facing the Architectural Review Board? N/K 7. If.appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve? -----------------------------.------ City of Pa 10 Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM __ I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I wish to provide my written permission to the City of Palo Alto to post my home address and telephone number on the City's website. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. -K-I do not give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post my home address, telephone number, and email to the internet and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address (gS1) k~(P q4~1 Email 1/~/{/ Print Name Date Page 1 of2 Gonsalves, Ronna From: whitney lundeen [whitney.lundeenbills@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:34 AM To: Gonsalves, Ronna Subject: Re: Architectural Review Board Application You have permission to post my info online. Thank you. Whitney On Aug 10,20119:24 AM, "Gonsalves, Ronna" <Ronna.Gonsalves@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: > I have received your Architectural Review Board Application. Thank you > very much for being willing to serve this community and for taking the > time to apply. > > > > The next step in the process is for the City Council to review the > applications and determine who they want to interview. Council is on > break in August so they won't look at them until their September 12, > 2011 Council Meeting. > > > > I h,ave a question regarding the Consent Form (the last page of the > application). You checked that you do not give permission to post your > information to our website,but then provided your information in the > section of the form meant for providing the information you do want > published. I don't want to make any assumptions so please clarify. > Just so you know the applications are public documents. Anyone from the > public can come in and request a copy which I will have to provide. The > applications are .also included in our packet, which is how Council gets > them. The packets are put on our website. I can't legally post your > home address, phone number, or email address to our website without your > permission. That is what the Consent Form is for. So what I need to > know from you is whether or not you need me to redact your application > before including it in the packet. The Consent Form includes a space > where you can provide alternate contact information; otherwise Council > Members only receive a redacted application and cannot contact you if > they have questions. > > > > I am sorry the form was not clearer; I am working on revising it for > future applicants. > > > > I will attach a blank consent form. Please complete it given the > instructions above and return it to me by,August 15th. You can mail it, > bring it in, or email to me. Please feel free to call me if you have > any questions at all. 8112/2011 , ... \ j CITY OF PA LO ALTO. GA CIT Y CLERK'S OFFICE II AUG -~ AM 9: 03 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place NI A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Pedramrazi Last Sassan First RESIDENCE 6111 west walbrook drive ADDRESS: ~ __________________ ~ ____________ _ Street San Jose ca 95129 City State Zip Education: HOME PHONE: 408 973 1374 WORK PHONE: 408 297 8899 CELL PHONE: ~ __________ __ EMAIL: sassanp@yahoo.com Master of science from faculty of Architecture and Planning, National University Tehran/Iran 1980 List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: planner and consultant for Capital city of Tehran, designer and planner for new Cities- Residential! commercial Complexes In the Middle East, 1990-2000 Designer and Planner for Residential! Commercial projects in Bay Area since 01-2000 ". (' • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ) \ ) ~ • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products Or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney 's Office at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer aai-Architects and planner Name of Company: Occupation: I . Senior designer/ Architect (If retired, indicate fornler occupation) Signature of Applicant sassan pedramrazi Digitally siWtod by &asun pedramrazi ON: cn=sasaan podfamfaZi, o-aai, ou=architect, email=sa&S8np@yanoo.ccrn, c-US Oal~: 2011.08.03 17:05:21 -07'00' Date: 08.03.11 Please Return to: Qffice of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Sassan Pedramrazi Date: 08.03.11 \ J Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, ifnecessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Architectural Review Board Yes X (Date: _2_0_1_0 ___ ...,1. No 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Rotary Club: __ Palo Alto Weekly: __ Palo Alto Weekly Online: __ Email from City Clerk: \ --AIA: X Fogster.com: __ Other, Please Specify: __________________________ _ 3. Describe yoUr involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: AAI member-USGBC member, in Santa Clara and North California Chapter Runmng educational program for public, participate for voluntary deSign and planmng for ci6t5ies arollOd 4. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Architectural Review Board? ' I worked as designer and consultant for nearly 25 years and I want sharing my expenence with my fellow Citizen, I deSigned and planned city and bUlldmg complex in II S and Middle Fast, and I tallght in I Iniversity and write articles abollt good plans and building, so I can share these with cities and inhabitants. 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? I tried to make a standard system to answer to architectural issues. I will check prevIous code and regulation and try to match them With new demands for current sihlation 6. What are the current issues facing the Architectural Review Board? unifying codes and regulations and matching them with current demands. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve? I want to see a better unified city with an appropriate environment for flourishing a better architectural proJects. ) City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM ·1 have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I wish to provide my written permission .to the City of Palo Alto to post my home address and telephone number on the City's website. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto CitY Clerk. SASSAN PEDRAMRAZI 08.10.11 Name Date PrlntName __ S_A_S_S_AN __ P_E_D_~ __ RA __ ZI ____________ _ Board/Commission If you wish to use another address or phone number, other than the. ones we have on file, please add them below. BdslCommissions -702-23 7/30/2008 ') J CALIFORNIA CODES I GOVERNMENT CODE I SECTION 6250-6270 I http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home addressor telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission cif that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official,or of the official's residing spouse or child on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivisio,n is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. ' (c) (1) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prio'r to the end of the four-year period. For this purpose, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. . (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected orappointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an official whose home address or telephone number is soliciteCl, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer serVice or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of litle 47 of - the United States Code, shall ncit be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers. (2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners. (4) District attorneys. (5) Public defenders. (6) Members of a city council. (7) Members of a board of supervisors. (8) AppOintees of the Governor. (9) Appointees of the Legislature. (10) Mayors. (11) City attorneys. (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs. (13) A public safety official as defined in Section 6254.24. (14) State administrative law judges. (15) Federal judges and federal defenders. (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. Gonsalves, Ronna From: sassan pedram [sassanp@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 1 0, 2011 10:35 AM To: Gonsalves, Ronna Subject: Re: Architectural Review Board Application Ronna, I am ok with posting my information in your website, Sorry for this misunderstanding, Sassan Pedramrazi ---On Wed, 8/10/11, Gonsalves, Ronna <Ronna.Gonsalves@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: From: Gonsalves, Ronna <Ronna.Gonsalves@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Architectural Review Board Application To: "sassan pedram" <sassanp@yahoo.com> Cc: "Gonsalves, Ronna" <Ronna.Gonsalves@CityofPaloAlto.org> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 9:27 AM I have received your Architectural Review Board Application. Thank you very much for being willing to serve this community and for taking the time .to apply. The next step in the process is for the City Council to review the applications and determine who they want to interview. Council is on break in August so they won't look at them until their September 12, 2011 Council Meeting. I have a question regarding the Consent Form (the last page of the application). You checked that you do not give permission to post your information to our website, but then provided your information in the section of the form meant for providing the information you do want published. I don't want to make any assumptions so please clarify. Just so you know the applications are public documents. Anyone from the public can come in and request a copy which I will have to provide. The applications are also included in our packet, which is how Council gets them. The packets are put on our website. I can't legally post your home address, phone number, or . email address to our website without your permission. That is what the 8110/2011 Page 1 of2 Consent Form is for. So what I need to know from you is whether or not you need me to redact your application before including it in the packet. The Consent Form includes a space where you can provide alternate contact information; otherwise CounCil Members only receive a redacted application and cannot contact you if they have questions. I am sorry the form was not clearer; I am working on revising it for future . applicants. I will attach a blank consent form. Please complete it given the instructions above and return it to me by August 15th. You can mail it, bring it in, or email to me. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions at all. Thanks! Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk City of Palo Alto 650-329-2267 8/10/2011 Page 2 of2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Malone Prichard, Last RESIDENCE ADDRESS: Education: Street City State Bachelor of Architecture, U.C. Berkeley Palo Alto High School gradllate Clare HOME PHONE: First WORK PHONE: CELL PHONE: EMAIL: Zip List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Licensed architect in the state of California I EFD-AP • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the CityAttorney's Office at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Name of Company: Stoecker & Northway Architects Inc. Occupation: r· DlgbllyaignedbyClaMalOll8Prithan!. Architect (If retired; indicate former occupation) Clare Malone pricha.r~,_,"'._ ~ ... ~',:,~"-,,,:'":::'-.--' Signature of Applicant 1-::"" ~ v._. ,_ Date: 7/8/2011 CITY OF PALO ALTO ARCIDTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 Name: Clare Malone Prichard Date: 07/07/2011 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Architectural Review Board Yes X No (Date: 07/07/2011 ) 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Rotary Club: Palo Alto Weekly: __ Palo Alto Weekly Online: __ . Email from City Clerk: AlA: Fogster.com: __ Other, Please SpecifY: my current term is expiring 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am currently serving my second term on the ARB. In addition, I have served since 2008 as a Judge In the Acterra BUSiness EnVironmental Awards In the Sustainable Bllilt Environment category From 2005 -2008, I was a member of the Community Development Block Grant Commission In the city of CUpertino. 4. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Architectural Review Board? I enjoy working with applicants to improve their proposed projects so that Palo Alto can continue to enJoy a vibrant and diverse bUilt environment. Because I grew up in Palo Alto and have practiced architecture here for over 20 years, I believe that I have a good understanding of the community and its values. As a LEED-accredited professional, I bring a strong understanding of sustainable desigll pi h lciples to tile I eview pi ocess. 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? As a board member, it is my role to provide advice to the Council regarding planning Issues and processes that are dealt with at the ARB level, drawing on experience gained from reviewing both sllccessflll and I IOSIIccessfi II projects COmmUnity Input would be Important In determining Whether or how to to change current roles. Neighborhood representatives, developers. architects and other interested parties from the community should be consulted to first define goals, then suggest possible patlls to tllose goals. 6. What are the current issues facing the Architectuml Review Board? The review of the project proposed at Edgewood Plaza will be critical in providing the framework fOI tile success of tllis 1001g-0i Idel utilized slloppillg celltel . As the economy Improves and hoUSing developments begin to be proposed again, the ARB needs to carefully balance neighbors' desires for traffic and parking control with the community b~nefit of providing connectivity. The City's pilot program for LEED-Neighborhood Development may be a valuable tool for enhancing community design.The ARB will need to evaluate its usefulness as the related data becomes available. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve? To the extent possible as a design review entity, the ARB should be working to promote mixed-use development that enhances community Interaction, walkable neighborhoods and alternative transportation, encOllraging designs that are of an appropriate scale, and discouraging "cookie cutter" design. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I wish to provide my written permission to the City of Palo Alto to post my home address and telephone number on the City's website. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. ~ I do not give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post my home address, telephone number, and email to the internet and request that they use the following contact information instead. c/o Stoecker & Northway Architects, 1000 Elwell Ct., Suite 150A, Palo Alto CA 94303 Address (650) 965-3500 Phone clare@stoeckerandnorthway.com Email Clare Malone Prichard Print Name Clare Malone PricharcV,==~=~--"--,/ DoiIt;20um.o810:4CI:23-417'011' Signature Date CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (6) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, business, or association shall not transfer the appointed or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) Ali official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a Violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appointed official may designate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official, (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) Appointees of the Governor, (9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and appOintees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. CiT Y OF PALO AUO. CA CITY CLEHK'S OFFlCE , I AUG 22 PH 3: 53 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW HOARD CITY OF PALO ALTO HOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton A venue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/ A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Robinson Matt Last RESIDENCE 171 Washington Ave ADDRESS: Street Palo Alto CA City State Education: BA UCLA JD OSF HOIvjE PHONE: 6503221379 First WORK PHONE: ___ -__ _ CELL PHONE: 6502243294 EMAIL: matt.robinson@yahoo.com 94301 Zip List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Served asVP of Legal Affairs for Yahoo managing all global compiiance affairs (application of rules to establish consistent gUidelines/enforcement). Run current company Attnbutorbased on principles of consistent application of Qllidelines RIIO small private eqllity firm and co".follOder of retail business as we.11. Well rounded legal and business executive with experience in all facets of policy creation and application. . . • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? \ ) ) } • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to tile a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director ot: a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believ<; is likely to; i) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Attributor Name of Company: Occupation: President (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant Date: August 17, 2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Matt Robinson Date: August 17, 2011 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Architectural Review Board Yes X (Date: Spring 2010 No 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Rotary Club: __ Email from City Clerk: ~ Palo Alto Weekly: __ Palo Alto Weekly Online: __ AlA: Fogster.com: __ Other, Please Specify: _____________________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and dvic organizations: Currently serve on board of directors for the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. Lots of community Involvement VIS a VIS the University Club of Palo Alto and First Congregational F?rescbool 4. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Architectural Review Board? Maintaining and improving the overall "health" of Palo Alto's architectural evolution is a key to maintaining our status as one of the most desirable residential and business locations in the world. I've planted my roots here, married a native Palo Altan who works closely with her mother in Palo Alto. This is my community and I care about how it evolves architecturally. My past experiences n !Dning large legal departments, entire companies. and serving on non-profit boards are the perfect background to develop the skill set of measured and consistent application of guidelil les with 1'1 aeticality al,d I easonablel less as the keyS to resolution. I'm also a young parent in the community with a voice that resonates for many other families of young Children -the future of the communitY. If you will. \ ) 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? Providing consistent and reasonable application of established guidelines should be paramount. Changmg roles can often be accomplished gracefully through consenSllS b"i1ding -having other members commit their thollghts to a change before forcing it upon them would be my approach. 6. What are the current issues facing tht Architectural Review Board? Speed/efficiency 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve? More consistent decision makinglrecommendations. More efficient turn around times. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSEr T FORM mrr I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I wish to provide my written permission to the City of Palo Alto to post my home address and telephone number on the City's website. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. mrr I do not give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post my home address, telephone number, and email to the internet and request that they use the following contact information instead. 171 Washington Ave Address 6502243294 Phone matt.robinson@yahoo.com Email Print Name Signature Date CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (6) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on tne Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, business, or association shall not transfer the appOinted or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appOinted official to the telephone corporation or its ;~ffiliate. VV (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise nake available to the general public. ~' (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may oring an action seeking injunctive or deciorative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has "occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A -fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appOinted official may designate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity , or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstonding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in ar/y court of competent jurisdidion. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in anamount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) Appointees of the Governor, (9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A publiC safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and appOintees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of iaw. Gonsalves, Ronna From: Matt Robinson [matt.robinson@yahoo,comj Sent: Tuesday, August 23,2011 2:17 PM To: Gonsalves, Ronna Cc: Gonsalves, Ronna Subject: Re: Architectural Review Board Application Yes you can use my info publicly. Sorry for mixup. Sent from my iPhone. Page 1 of 1 On Aug 23, 2011, at 6:40 AM, "Gonsalves, Ronna" <ROlma.Gonsalves@CitvofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hello! Thank you for submitting an application to serve on the Architectural Review Board for the City of Palo Alto. The last part of the application is a Consent Form. This form is designed to indicate your approval or non-approval for us to include your home address, phone number, and email address on our website. The form also has a place for you to provide alternate information in the event you do not want us to post your home information. You checked that you both do and that you do not approve, then you listed the same information that is included on your application. Please clarify, do you give permission for me to post your application including your home address, phone number, and email address to the City of Palo Alto website? If not, please provide alternate contact information that I can use. Thanks! Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk City of Palo Alto 650-329-2267 8/2312011 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1994) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 1994) Summary Title: Inn Vision --Community Presentation Title: Inn Vision -Opportunity Center Community Presentation From:City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Attachments: ·Attachment A -InnVisionInformation (DOC) Prepared By:Minka VanDerZwaag, Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Dear Council Members, The Opportunity Services Center, operated by InnVision the Way Home is proud to announce the celebration of our 5th anniversary this September. To commemorate this event, we are undertaking a number of activities including beautification projects, barbeque lunch with music, and a host of volunteer and fun activities. I would like to highlight a few of many wonderful achievements over the last three months that directly benefited the population we serve in our community. Hotel d Zink, the only emergency shelter in Palo Alto provided 1259 bed nights to 32 individuals. As the only safety net for unforeseen financial emergencies, InnVision assisted 16 households of 35 Palo Alto residents pay their rent and utilities at a cost of $6,913. Our partnership with Stanford’s Social Security Disability project helped 9 of our drop in center clients apply and obtain SSI benefits that they had been denied in previous attempts. Finally, Inn Vision’s Summer Adventure Program provided an elaborate summer camp for our young residents with fun fieldtrips. This program served over 20 of our resident children and a few low income children from the community. Please join us at a date to be announced soon for our celebration and volunteer activities. Thank you. Philip Dah Director of Peninsula Programs City of Palo Alto (ID # 1910) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 1910) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Reappropriations Title: Recommendation from Finance Committee to Preliminarily Approve Fiscal Year 2011 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2012 From:City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation The Finance Committee recommends that the Council preliminarily approve the Fiscal Year 2011 reappropriations to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2012 (Attachments B and C). Reappropriation is defined as the inclusion of a balance from the prior year’s budget as part of the budget of the subsequent fiscal year. This year, General Fund proposed reappropriations total $483,290. Enterprise Fund proposed reappropriations total $1,400,221. Committee Review and Recommendations On July 5, 2011, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to accept staff’s recommendation to carry forward the Fiscal Year 2011 reappropriations into Fiscal Year 2012, striking the words “high speed” from the rail project reappropriation request and making the reappropriated amount available for rail projects. This change is reflected in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A: Reappropriation Requests Summary (PDF) ·Attachment B: CMR ID #1853 (PDF) ·Attachment C: Reappropriation At Places Memo to Finance Committee (PDF) ·Attachment D: Finance Commitee Minutes 7/5/2011 (PDF) Prepared By:Sherry Nikzat, Senior Financial Anlyst Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 1910) Page 1 of 3 FY 2011 REAPPROPRIATION REQUESTS SUMMARY OF REQUESTS Total Requests Total Recommended GENERAL FUND $483,290 $483,290 ENTERPRISE FUND $1,400,221 $1,400,221 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND $0 $0 TOTAL $1,883,511 $1,883,511 $ AMOUNT INTENDED USE COMMENTS/REASONS FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2011 STATUS City Manager’s Office $68,890 Rail Project This reappropriation is being requested for costs related to the Rail Project which is a multi-year project without an identified source of funding. Council approved the appropriation of funds from the FY 2011 Council contingency. $68,890 represents the balance remaining from those funds. Recommended $68,890. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. $94,000 Various projects See attached (Attachment 2). Recommended $94,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Planning Department $221,800 Development Center Blueprint Process This reappropriation is being requested for contract services related to the Development Center Blueprint Process, a multi-year project. In FY 2011, CMR1442 increased the budget for the Blueprint Process by $115,000 for contract staff and $113,233 for salaries and benefits. A delayed start to the contracting effort resulted in remaining budget that will be needed immediately and was not included in the FY2012 budget proposal. Recommended $221,800. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Administrative Services $68,600 Fee Study This reappropriation is being requested to hire a consultant to update the cost allocation plan, municipal fee schedule, and development impact fees. Development of the RFP was delayed due to staffing shortages. The RFP is now completed and will be released early in Fiscal Year 2012. Recommended $68,600. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Fire Department Attachment A Page 2 of 3 $ AMOUNT INTENDED USE COMMENTS/REASONS FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2011 STATUS $30,000 Fire Chief Recruitment This reappropriation is being requested for the funding of the recruitment of a Fire Chief. CMR1442 added a budget of $50,000 for this effort. The bid process is not yet complete and a specific contract award timeframe has not yet been established. Concurrent experience with other recruitment indicates that $30,000 is more than adequate for this activity. Recommended $30,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department $100,000 Organizational Assessment This reappropriation is being requested for the funding of an organizational assessment to review the services Utilities delivers and how to best deliver these services. It will include evaluating utility industry trends and challenges. This project was funded mid-year 2011. Utilities is coordinating the drafting of the scope and does not have $100,000 in its budget for FY2012 to cover this expense if not reapprorpriated.. Recommended $100,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department- Electric Fund $250,000 Electric Efficiency Financing Program This reappropriation is being requested to fund rebates for customers who complete electric energy efficiency projects. There are many projects in process, but they did not complete by June 30, 2011. Recently updated Council goals are expected to increase the number of efficiency rebates in FY 2012. These energy efficiency projects support Council’s environmental sustainability objectives. Recommended $250,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department – Gas Fund $230,000 Energy Efficiency Projects This reappropriation is being requested to fund rebates for customers who complete energy efficiency projects related to gas. Utilities expects to work with new vendors to increase the number of rebates issued. Funds are expected to be exhausted in FY 2012. Recommended $230,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. $62,000 Energy Risk Management This reappropriation is being requested to contract for energy risk management services. These services had been part of the Energy Risk Management position. Duties will be undertaken by contractor, alongside the .5 FTE Senior Financial Analyst in the FY2012 budget, saving the City an estimated $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Recommended $62,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Page 3 of 3 Public Works Department- Storm Drainage Fund $758,221 Storm Drain Innovative Improvements This reappropriation is being requested for innovative storm drain improvements. These funds must be reappropriated because they were specifically earmarked for innovative storm drain improvements per the 2005 Storm Drainage ballot measure approved by Palo Alto property owners. These funds have been budgeted for a stormwater rebate program that offers incentives to residents and businesses to reduce stormwater runoff, but the rebate program has not generated sufficient demand to exhaust funds. Staff has proposed to utilize the unused funds to fund the Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements CIP project, which may include permeable pavement, infiltration devices, and/or an underground cistern that could supplement irrigation water demands for Peers Park. Recommended $758,221. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. City of Palo Alto (ID # 1853) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type:Meeting Date: 7/5/2011 July 05, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 1853) Summary Title:Reappropriation Title:Request to Preliminarily Approve Fiscal Year 2011 Reappropriation Requests to Be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2012 From:City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that the Council preliminarily approve the Fiscal Year 2011 reappropriations be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2012 (Attachment 1). Background As a part of the fiscal year-end process, staff reviews the City’s unencumbered and unspent appropriations of the fiscal year just ended, along with the City’s spending plans. Encumbered amounts are those subject to the legal claims of other parties due to contractual obligations (for example, commitments made through purchase orders). The City has a process for carrying forward encumbrances. However, each year there are a small number of important projects the City carries forward into the next year with unencumbered funds. The reappropriations process is used for these projects. The Council must provide a preliminary approval at this time to allow the reappropriations to move forward, although the Municipal Code also requires that the Council provide final approval at mid-year, once the accounting books are closed. Because projects may need funding in the first part of the fiscal year, the Municipal Code was amended in 1995 to allow the Council to preliminarily approve the reappropriations (Chapter 2.28, Section 2.28.090) Discussion As noted above, the Municipal Code allows the “preliminary” approval of reappropriations as long as final approval is included with the normal year-end closing ordinance. The preliminary reappropriation action allows for an early review of uncommitted funds in a just-concluded fiscal year. Attachment A identifies those reappropriation requests that staff recommends for preliminary approval. ߬¬¿½¸³»²¬Þ July 05, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 1853) Resource Impact Staff has determined that sufficient uncommitted budgeted funds exist to allow for the preliminary approval of the attached Fiscal Year 2011 reappropriations list (Attachment A). General Fund proposed reappropriations total $389,290. Enterprise Fund proposed reappropriations total $1,400,221. Policy Implications, This recommendation is consistent with adopted Council policy. Environmental Review The action recommended is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: ·Attachment A: FY 2011-Reappropriations (DOC) Prepared By:Sherry Nikzat, Senior Financial Anlyst Department Head:Lalo Perez,Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Page 1 of 3 FY 2011 REAPPROPRIATION REQUESTS SUMMARY OF REQUESTS GENERAL FUND $389,290 $389,290 ENTERPRISE FUND $1,400,221 $1,400,221 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND $0 $0 TOTAL $1,789,511 $1,789,511 City Manager’s Office $68,890 High Speed Rail Project This reappropriation is being requested for costs related to the High Speed Rail Project which is a multi-year project without an identified source of funding.Council approved the appropriation of funds from the FY 2011 Council contingency. $68,890 represents the balance remaining from those funds and is needed for the delayed EIR, which will be completed in FY2012. Recommended $68,890.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Planning Department $221,800 Development Center Blueprint Process This reappropriation is being requested for contract services related to the Development Center Blueprint Process, a multi-year project.In FY 2011, CMR1442 increased the budget for the Blueprint Process by $115,000 for contract staff and $113,233 for salaries and benefits. A delayed start to the contracting effort resulted in remaining budget that will be needed immediately and was not included in the FY2012 budget proposal. Recommended $221,800.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Administrative Services $68,600 Fee Study This reappropriation is being requested to hire a consultant to update the cost allocation plan, municipal fee schedule, and development impact fees. Development of the RFP was delayed due to staffing shortages. The RFP is now completed and will be released early in Fiscal Year 2012. Recommended $68,600.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Attachment A Page 2 of 3 Fire Department $30,000 Fire Chief Recruitment This reappropriation is being requested for the funding of the recruitment of a Fire Chief. CMR1442 added a budget of $50,000 for this effort. The bid process is not yet complete and a specific contract award timeframe has not yet been established.Concurrent experience with other recruitment indicates that $30,000 is more than adequate for this activity. Recommended $30,000.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department $100,000 Organizational Assessment This reappropriation is being requested for the funding of an organizational assessment to review the services Utilities delivers and how to best deliver these services. It will include evaluating utility industry trends and challenges.This project was funded mid-year 2011.Utilities is coordinating the drafting of the scope and does not have $100,000 in its budget for FY2012 to cover this expense if not reapprorpriated.. Recommended $100,000.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department-Electric Fund $250,000 Electric Efficiency Financing Program This reappropriation is being requested to fund rebates for customers who complete electric energy efficiency projects. There are many projects in process, but they did not complete by June 30, 2011. Recently updated Council goals are expected to increase the number of efficiency rebates in FY 2012.These energy efficiency projects support Council’s environmental sustainability objectives. Recommended $250,000.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department –Gas Fund $230,000 Energy Efficiency Projects This reappropriation is being requested to fund rebates for customers who complete energy efficiency projects related to gas. Utilities expects to work with new vendors to increase the number of rebates issued. Funds are expected to be exhausted in FY 2012. Recommended $230,000.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. $62,000 Energy Risk Management This reappropriation is being requested to contract for energy risk management services. These services had been part of the Energy Risk Management position.Duties will be undertaken by contractor, alongside the .5 FTE Senior Financial Analyst in the FY2012 budget, saving the City an estimated $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Recommended $62,000.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Page 3 of 3 Public Works Department-Storm Drainage Fund $758,221 Storm Drain Innovative Improvements This reappropriation is being requested for innovative storm drain improvements.These funds must be reappropriated because they were specifically earmarked for innovative storm drain improvements per the 2005 Storm Drainage ballot measure approved by Palo Alto property owners.These funds have been budgeted for a stormwater rebate program that offers incentives to residents and businesses to reduce stormwater runoff, but the rebate program has not generated sufficient demand to exhaust funds.Staff has proposed to utilize the unused funds to fund the Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements CIP project, which may include permeable pavement, infiltration devices, and/or an underground cistern that could supplement irrigation water demands for Peers Park. Recommended $758,221.There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. City of Palo Alto M E M O R A N D U M TO:  Finance Committee Members    DATE:  July 5, 2011    SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to Preliminary Approval of FY 2011  Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into FY 2012  Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining  to the Fiscal Year 2011 Preliminary Approval of FY 2011 Reappropriation Requests.    Amendment  Staff recommends that the Finance Committee include an additional $94,000 in its  recommendation to the City Council for the preliminary approval of Fiscal Year 2011  reappropriations.  Details regarding this request can be found in Attachment 2.  Attachment 1 to this memo provides the revised summation of all reappropriation  requests.  DEPARTMENT HEAD: LALO PEREZ  Director, Administrative Services  CITY MANAGER: JAMES KEENE  City Manager  8/1/2011 1 FY 2011 REAPPROPRIATION REQUESTS SUMMARY OF REQUESTS Total Requests Total Recommended GENERAL FUND $483,290 $483,290 ENTERPRISE FUND $1,400,221 $1,400,221 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND $0 $0 TOTAL $1,883,511 $1,883,511 $ AMOUNT INTENDED USE COMMENTS/REASONS FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2011 STATUS City Manager’s Office $68,890 High Speed Rail Project This reappropriation is being requested for costs related to the High Speed Rail Project which is a multi-year project without an identified source of funding. Council approved the appropriation of funds from the FY 2011 Council contingency. $68,890 represents the balance remaining from those funds and is needed for the delayed EIR, which will be completed in FY2012. Recommended $68,890. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. $94,000 Various projects See attached (Attachment 2). Recommended $94,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Planning Department $221,800 Development Center Blueprint Process This reappropriation is being requested for contract services related to the Development Center Blueprint Process, a multi-year project. In FY 2011, CMR1442 increased the budget for the Blueprint Process by $115,000 for contract staff and $113,233 for salaries and benefits. A delayed start to the contracting effort resulted in remaining budget that will be needed immediately and was not included in the FY2012 budget proposal. Recommended $221,800. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Administrative Services Attachment 1 8/1/2011 2 $ AMOUNT INTENDED USE COMMENTS/REASONS FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2011 STATUS $68,600 Fee Study This reappropriation is being requested to hire a consultant to update the cost allocation plan, municipal fee schedule, and development impact fees. Development of the RFP was delayed due to staffing shortages. The RFP is now completed and will be released early in Fiscal Year 2012. Recommended $68,600. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Fire Department $30,000 Fire Chief Recruitment This reappropriation is being requested for the funding of the recruitment of a Fire Chief. CMR1442 added a budget of $50,000 for this effort. The bid process is not yet complete and a specific contract award timeframe has not yet been established. Concurrent experience with other recruitment indicates that $30,000 is more than adequate for this activity. Recommended $30,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department $100,000 Organizational Assessment This reappropriation is being requested for the funding of an organizational assessment to review the services Utilities delivers and how to best deliver these services. It will include evaluating utility industry trends and challenges. This project was funded mid-year 2011. Utilities is coordinating the drafting of the scope and does not have $100,000 in its budget for FY2012 to cover this expense if not reapprorpriated.. Recommended $100,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department- Electric Fund $250,000 Electric Efficiency Financing Program This reappropriation is being requested to fund rebates for customers who complete electric energy efficiency projects. There are many projects in process, but they did not complete by June 30, 2011. Recently updated Council goals are expected to increase the number of efficiency rebates in FY 2012. These energy efficiency projects support Council’s environmental sustainability objectives. Recommended $250,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Utilities Department – Gas Fund $230,000 Energy Efficiency Projects This reappropriation is being requested to fund rebates for customers who complete energy efficiency projects related to gas. Utilities expects to work with new vendors to increase the number of rebates issued. Funds are expected to be exhausted in FY 2012. Recommended $230,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. 8/1/2011 3 $ AMOUNT INTENDED USE COMMENTS/REASONS FOR NOT COMPLETING IN FY 2011 STATUS $62,000 Energy Risk Management This reappropriation is being requested to contract for energy risk management services. These services had been part of the Energy Risk Management position. Duties will be undertaken by contractor, alongside the .5 FTE Senior Financial Analyst in the FY2012 budget, saving the City an estimated $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Recommended $62,000. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. 8/1/2011 4 8/1/2011 5 Public Works Department- Storm Drainage Fund $758,221 Storm Drain Innovative Improvements This reappropriation is being requested for innovative storm drain improvements. These funds must be reappropriated because they were specifically earmarked for innovative storm drain improvements per the 2005 Storm Drainage ballot measure approved by Palo Alto property owners. These funds have been budgeted for a stormwater rebate program that offers incentives to residents and businesses to reduce stormwater runoff, but the rebate program has not generated sufficient demand to exhaust funds. Staff has proposed to utilize the unused funds to fund the Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements CIP project, which may include permeable pavement, infiltration devices, and/or an underground cistern that could supplement irrigation water demands for Peers Park. Recommended $758,221. There is sufficient balance in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that can be reappropriated. Attachment 2 $94,000 Reappropriation Request This reappropriation request is for costs related to projects in the City Manager’s Office (MGR) including the following: Community engagement program initiatives. The MGR is often approached to be a test bed for new emerging software platforms that companies are seeking to deploy particularly in the area of social media applications. Palo Alto has become a center for social media companies. For example, we are currently working with a social media company that is using Palo Alto and Berkeley to test out a new social networking system. Estimated costs for this program initiative is $15,000 Communications planning. The MGR is currently working to enable the City to develop new and enhanced communication methodologies including more interactive systems to communicate with business partners and the public via teleconference systems, use of video technology and enhanced interactive website features. Man y of these projects are in progress now. Estimated cost $10,000 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. The MGR and Administrative Services Department have been working for several months to identify systems that may work for the city. We have evaluated several systems and firms and have preliminarily identified a potential solution but have not executed a contract yet. The estimated initial phase cost for the system is $30,000 Event costs. During the year the MGR is asked is handle events not anticipated during the budget process. These events oftentimes require the City to close streets and incur other related costs. We are estimating we will need a minimum of $25,000 to offset events that will occur during this coming year Summary  Community engagement $15,000  Communications planning $10,000  Customer relationship mgt $30,000  Event costs $25,000  Contingency carry-over $14,000 Total $94,000 Page 6 FILENAME 1 FINANCE COMMITTEE TMB Special Meeting July 5, 2011 Roll Call Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh Absent: Oral Communications None Agenda Items 1. Request to Preliminarily Approve Fiscal Year 2011 Reappropriations Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2012. Assistant Director Administrative Services, David Ramberg stated the reappropriations being presented were a portion of the beginning stages for the Year-End close process. Typically the Committee saw the full Year-End close process in December. Staff brought this portion forward to request preliminary approval from the Committee so critical projects listed could move forward in the upcoming Fiscal Year. The reappropriations request was broken out intothe departments and the supplemental At-Place item which covered the City Manager. The total General Fund reappropriations request amount was $483, 290. Vice Mayor Yeh asked why the Organizational Assessment of the Utilities Department did not specify a Fund. Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez stated it would be in the Administration portion of the Utilities Department budget which was spread throughout the Enterprise FILENAME 2 Fund. City Manager, James Keene asked if there was a piece in each fund. Mr. Ramberg stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if it the scope envisioned impacting every single Fund or just the Administration of Utilities. Mr. Perez stated it was for the entire organization. Mr. Keene stated there would be a graduated allocation with electricity and gas. He stated there would be larger portions for one over the other. Vice Mayor Yeh stated his understanding was the previous Director of Administrative Services had the Utilities Department Gas Fund in the portfolio. He asked why there was not more than the Energy Risk Management covered and how efficient it was in terms of expenditures if it was isolated at the Gas Fund. Mr. Perez stated the Energy Risk Management would cover both the Electric and Gas Funds. He clarified Staff was seeking Committee approval for reappropriations in the Gas Fund because there was sufficient funds remaining in the Electric Fund. Vice Mayor Yeh asked how the other Funds, which had not been previously reviewed from an energy risk perspective, would be addressed. Mr. Perez stated Staffs’ goal was to maintain the same level of review and continue to work with the Utilities Department and the City Manager and then ultimately to Council. He stated if the Committee felt there should be a different direction, Staff was open to their direction. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if there would be continued consistency in the methodology that Council had seen in the past. Mr. Perez stated yes, that was the goal. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if the innovative CIP for the Southgate Neighborhood Project was included in the list they had reviewed. Interim Public Works Director, Mike Sartor stated the Southgate project was on the list of Capital Projects included in the voter initiative in 2005. He noted there were concerns about a lack of funds to complete the project, however, with the requested FILENAME 3 reappropriations and better news with the Fund in general the Southgate Project would continue. Vice Mayor Yeh asked what was happening with the Innovative Program. Mr. Sartor stated the City would continue offering the Innovative Program. He noted the program had not been well subscribed to; although the Storm Drain Oversight Committee had recommended redirecting funds for completion of the Southgate Project. Vice Mayor Yeh stated some portion of the total $758,000 was structured toward the Innovative Programs versus the CIP with the larger break down being in favor of the CIP. Mr. Sartor stated that was correct, the Innovative Programs were planned for $150,000 annually. Council Member Shepherd stated there were concerns with the lack of allocated funds to solve the alternative to storm drain experiment in the Southgate area. Mr. Sartor stated it was Staff’s goal to accomplish the objective of the voter initiative. He clarified the process may include some pipes as well as innovative technology. Council Member Shepherd stated what the Committee was reviewing was good information to get out to the neighbors. Mr. Sartor stated Staff would be performing outreach efforts to the neighborhoods. Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification and status on the Fire Chief recruitment. Mr. Keene stated he would present a final recommendation just prior to or shortly after the Council break in August 2011. Council Member Shepherd stated there was a budget of $50,000, and the information presented to the Committee was for $30,000. She stated that meant $20,000 had been spent and the recruitment process had not begun yet. Mr. Keene stated he was uncertain as to why there was $50,000 in the budget. He indicated the recruitment would cost less than that. Council Member Schmid confirmed the dollars in discussion were reappropriations, FILENAME 4 where the funds were already available but were being moved to serve a different purpose than originally intended from last year to this year. Mr. Perez stated that was correct. Council Member Schmid stated the two Utility Efficiency Programs moving $250,000 and $230,000. He asked whether that indicated that the City was not finding ways in which to spend the money. Senior Management Analyst, Dave Yuen stated the Utilities Department had a number of projects in the pipeline and not all of them had been fully refunded or paid out from the rebates. He clarified in order for the Department to meet the City’s energy efficiency goals for this next year, Staff had foreseen there would be additional funds necessary to cover the additional rebates. Council Member Schmid stated the rebates to date had been slower in moving through the process than anticipated. Mr. Yuen stated that was correct. He noted this year Staff budgeted approximately $1 million in electricity, but actual payments had been $1.3 million. He noted the rollover last year was a similar amount. Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the various projects in the amount of $94,000. He stated with a budget that had $4 million in question he found it surprising to see something come in after the budget had been approved. He noted each of the extra requests were helpful to the City, but asked whether they should have been listed under the $250,000 City Manager Discretionary Fund rather than a part of the budget. Mr. Keene stated there was only $14,000 in unspent contingency that could be helpful elsewhere. He stated basically the unspent funds would be carried forward to the next year, effectively treating the funds as though they were spent during the current Fiscal Year. Council Member Schmid asked for confirmation that the $94,000 was already in the budget. Mr. Keene stated yes, it was in the 2011 budget and was being carried forward. He stated the funds could be used to accomplish some of the projects that were not completed during the 2011 year. He noted there had been $25,000 put in for event costs as there had been success with different types of events this past year. FILENAME 5 Council Member Schmid stated there was no net impact on the budget. Mr. Perez stated that was correct. He stated when a contract was awarded it was called an encumbrance and those funds were automatically carried forward with the project; when there was no contract the projects slated for the funds were considered reappropriations. Mr. Keene stated the Customer Relations Management (CRM) software that the Administrative Services Department (ASD) had been working on had not come to fruition and at the present time the City did not have an adequate integrated software program to take calls, track them across departments, and ensure there was feedback. Council Member Scharff stated in Attachment A, FY 2011 Reappropriation, under the City Manager’s office there was a request for $68,000 listed under High Speed Rail. He asked what the funds were intended for. Council Member Shepherd stated at the present time there was no activity at the High Speed Rail Authority level; they have dismantled the Policy Working Group and the Technical Working Group which was processing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conjunction with Staff. She noted there appeared to be no accepted timeframe for reactivating the working groups; although, there was a timeframe of 18 months for completing the EIR. Mr. Keene stated the thought was there was funding available this year and did the Council wish to reappropriate it knowing only a small amount could be spent. Mr. Perez stated reappropriation early in the process allowed for Staff to move quickly if there were a need in a short timeframe. If the funds were not reappropriated as requested and the funds were needed at a later date the process of requesting a Budget Amendment Ordinance and writing a Staff Report required time. Council Member Scharff stated he understood there was nothing occurring with the High Speed Rail movement. His understanding of the reappropriations requests were that they allowed something to get done within the first quarter. He asked if there was a reason why the funds should be reappropriated at this time. Council Member Shepherd stated as a City Council Rail Committee member, it would frighten her to not have access to the funds based on the non-transparent techniques the High Speed Rail Authority had used in the past. Council Member Scharff asked if it was anticipated that the funds would be used quickly. FILENAME 6 Mr. Keene stated Mr. Braulik, the Staff liaison felt having the funds set aside was beneficial. Council Member Shepherd stated Staff was studying the Caltrain EIR which should be certified this summer. She stated the question was whether or not Palo Alto was allowed to change the language to make it for a Rail Project instead of High Speed Rail. Mr. Perez stated that would provide more flexibility. Council Member Scharff stated there were procedures that the Finance Committee or the City Council Rail Committee would ask Council for approval of recommendations. If reappropriation of the funds was not a time sensitive matter it could be sent before the Council, even as a Consent item. Council Member Shepherd stated bringing the item forward to the Finance Committee was the process for approval to bring it forward to the full Council. She asked why that process should be changed to another process. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if, assuming the reappropriations moved forward to Council, they would approve it for the first quarter or the second. Mr. Perez stated if it moved forward to the Council, Staff would request it be agendized for December 2011, closer to the end of the second quarter. Vice Mayor Yeh stated he supported moving forward if the item in question was broadened to accommodate the Caltrain EIR being released. Council Member Scharff asked if the Caltrain EIR was returning to Council this summer. Council Member Shepherd stated yes, during the months of July or August they would be bringing it forward to their Board for certification. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid, that the Finance Committee change the language “High Speed Rail” to “Rail Project” on the Reappropriations Request for the City Manager’s Office, and recommend the City Council preliminarily approve the Fiscal Year 2011 Reappropriations Requests to be carried into Fiscal Year 2012 per Staff recommendations. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1983) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 1983) Council Priority: Emergency Preparedness Summary Title: Amendment-Standby Generators Replacement Project Title: Approval of Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $28,013 to Contract No. C11138402 with TMAD, Taylor & Gaines for a total contract amount of $159,600 for adding design of two permanent load banks to the power monitoring and standby generator replacement project at the Water Quality Control Plant – Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to contract C11138402 with TMAD, Taylor & Gaines Corporate (TTG) in the amount of $28,013, for design of two permanent resistive electric load banks. The revised total contract amount is not to exceed $159,600 which includes $145,091 for basic services and $14,509 for additional services. Background During the extended citywide power outage on February 17, 2010 the Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s (Plant) standby emergency generators were activated automatically and manually. One of the Plant’s seven emergency generators did not work as expected. The Plant still operated successfully throughout the nearly ten hour power outage without exceeding the Plant’s discharge limits however, the generator malfunction highlighted the need for replacement of the plant’s older and less reliable generators. Of the seven generators, four are more than 20 years old. On December 6, 2010, Council approved Contract No. C11138402 with TTG for the Power Monitoring and Standby Generators Replacement Project (CMR:433:10). TTG is completing the design replacements for the four oldest standby generators including the 27-year old generator that under performed during the outage on February 17, 2010. The original scope included design of two resistive electric load banks, which allow staff to test generators at full load electrical conditions without disturbing Plant operations. September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 1983) Discussion Standby generators are tested periodically, under various load conditions, as part of a standard generator maintenance program. Currently, in order to test and exercise the generators, Plant staff must switch a live Plant electric load onto the generators, which is an undesirable way for testing. Testing with live equipment requires disruptive Plant shutdowns. Furthermore, typical Plant flow conditions cannot furnish the needed electrical full load test condition recommended by generator manufacturers. Resistive electric load banks will allow staff to test generators at full load electrical conditions without disturbing Plant operations. This Amendment No. 1 adds engineering services for design of two additional permanent resistive electric load banks not included in the original contract. The new resistive electric load banks will serve existing generators not being replaced as part of this project. Scope of Consultant Services Amendment No. 1 adds design of two permanent load banks to the Scope of Services of the original contract: one for the UV Disinfection Facility generator and one for the Equipment/Blower Room generator. The new work includes preparation of construction bid documents, providing technical support during bidding and construction, and preparing the “as-constructed” record drawings for the project. Resource Impact Funds for this project are included in the FY 2011 Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund budget Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021. Policy Implications Authorization of this project does not represent a change in existing City policies. Environmental Review This project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (b), which includes repair and maintenance of publicly-owned wastewater facilities involving negligible expansion. Attachments: ·AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT C11138402-SIGNED (PDF) Prepared By:Padmakar Chaobal, Project Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager AMENDMENT NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO. C11138402 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TMAD TAYLOR & GAINES CORPORATE This Amendment No. 1 to contract No. C11138402 ("Contract") is entered into September 12, 2011, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and TMAD TAYLOR & GAINES CORPORATE, a California corporation, located at 311 California street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA94104("CONSULTANT"). R E CIT A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of consulting services for power monitoring and standby generators replacement as described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 4. Section "NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: "The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Ninety-One Dollars ($145,091.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($159,600). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-l", entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement." The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Services " b. Exhibit "B-1" entitled "Schedule of Performance". c. Exhibit "C" entitled "Compensation 1 110815 sm 010 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. (Signature pages follow) APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: TMAD TAYLOR & GAINES CORPORATE By: ~~+-GLtf Name: f\10ltftN JitrfJlfPfH'lt't Pe Title: Vlc..e: frz..t:::!> I PeN., EXHIBIT "A"! EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT SCHEDULE COMPENSATION 2 110811 sm 010 I. INTRODUCTION EXHIBIT "A" -AMENDED SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Palo Alto, Department ofPnblic Works, Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) intends to replace four of the plant's seven older standby power generators. Consultant services shall include sizing, design, automation and permitting of two portable and two stationary standby power generation systems and design of a power monitoring system at the RWQCP. As an option, the City may choose to replace the existing portable generator sets with stationary sets. The Consultant (Engineer) shall provide engineering services during all phases of the project from preliminary options assessments, design and permitting through support in commissioning/start up. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP or Plant) treats wastewater from six communities (the Partners). The City of Palo Alto (City) owns and operates the RWQCP. The service area is a mix of institutional, residential, and commercial uses consisting of approximately 223,100 residents. The Plant has a design capacity of 39 mgd, average treated flow of 22 mgd, and a wet weather capacity of 80 mgd. The Plant was constructed from 1970 to 1972 at the site of the pre-existing Palo Alto wastewater treatment plant built in 1934. The Plant was upgraded to tertiary treatment in 1980. Plant capacity was increased in 1988. Wastewater treatment facilities include primary sedimentation, fixed film reactors (FFR), activated sludge aeration and nitrification, secondary clarification, dual media filtration (DMF), ultraviolet disinfection (with redundant sodium hypochlorite disinfection and sodium bisulfite dechlorination), followed by outfall discharge to the San Francisco Bay. Biosolids are thickened, dewatered on belt presses, and incinerated in multiple hearth furnaces (Incinerators) before ash is hauled to offsite disposal. Recycled water is coagulated, filtered, disinfected with sodium hypochlorite, stored, and pumped to customers in Palo Alto and Mountain View. III. SCOPE OF WORK A. General The consultant shall size, design, develop specifications including automation, prepare bid documents and facilitate the air permitting for four stationary standby power generation systems. In the event of electric power failure the control system designed shall commence the sequence of automatic power transfer; i.e. start generators and automatically pick up the load. Upon resumption of the grid power supply, the Plant prefers the option of manual switchover. The new replacement generators shall be as follows: • One stationary generator to sustain the operation of Fixed Film Reactors (FFR). • One stationary generator to sustain the operation of Dual Media Filters (DMF). • The two generators for FFR & DMF, shall be designed to be paralleled together to provide (N+ I) generation. The system shall be designed so that either one or both generators come online in the event of grid power failure, depending on the loads that need to be serviced. The system shall be programmed such that loads can be added or shed depending on the criticality of the plant operation. • City chooses to have both stationary standby generators for above (FFR and DMF) services at a location near the southwest comer of the DMF building. • Two stationary generators to sustain the operation of head works, both old and new raw sewage pumping plants, part of the solids incinerators, and equipment in the building known as the 'chlorine building'. The stationary generators shall replace two existing stationary generators located in the New Pumping Plant (NPP) building. 3 110811 8m OlD • The two stationary generators in NPP, shall be designed to be paralleled together to provide (N+ I) generation. The system shall be designed so that either one or both generators come on line in the event of grid power failure, depending on the loads that needs to be serviced. The system shall be programmed such that loads can be added or shed depending on the criticality of the plant operation. The existing portable generator at the FFRs currently must be started manually in the event of power failnre. The consultant shall design a system that automates generator startup and power transfer, and sends the generator operating statns signal to the local PLC for tie-in to SCADA system. The project ends at the local PLC, Plant staffwill integrate the signal into the SCADA system. To facilitate the periodic testing of the standby generators; the Consultant shall size and specify appropriate load banks; research and review the options such as installation of a stationary load bank on a common bus, portable load bank or individual load bank for each generator. City chooses to have stationary/permanent resistive load bank at each location. Consultant shall research and evaluate methods and systems to place the fonr new generator sets on a common bus so that emergency power is available to the NPP, FFR and DMF, in the event one of the generators is out of operation. Consultant shall also review the option and prepare a technical memorandum to the City, to tie four new standby generators and the existing 3 standby generators on a common bus, so that each treatment area of the plant always has standby power available. In addition, the Consultant shall design; develop specifications, and prepare bid documents for installation of power/load monitoring or metering instrumentation at various load centers in the plant. Nine load centers have been identified to receive power meter/monitors (Refer to Utility Plan U-7 and the Load Center Table). Currently, some locations have power meters installed. Consultant shall verify their functionality, compatibility and evaluate if the existing meters need to be replaced or upgraded. The power monitoring system shall be capable of transmitting the power usage data to the plant's SCADA system in real time. This shall enable the plant operators to track and record the power usage remotely. The Consultant shall evaluate, with information from Plant instrumentation staff, if the local PLCs have the spare capacity for the power monitoring signals. If required, the Consultant shall design additional equipment and/or wiring to connect to Plant's SCADA system. For construction project, the contractor will install the instrumentation and run wires to local PLC for Plants SCADA system. The Plant staff shall integrate the signals from the new power monitors into the SCADA system. The Consnltant shall prepare the bid package to include; procnrement standbyand installation of four stationary standby generators; and for procnrement and installation ofload/power monitoring instrumentation at various load centers in the plant. The design/specifications shall comply with all local, state, and federal rules and regnlations such as EPA's Clean Air Non-road Diesel rules EPA420-F-04-032, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) administrated Statewide Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Stationary Diesel Engines (portable engines may be exempt from the stationary ATCM), California Air Regulatory Board (CARB) adopted ACTM. Consultant shall perform the design in phases. The design goals and deliverables shall be performed for 30% design and 90% design. At the completion of each phase of design, consultant shall submit the design package and meet with City staff to review the submittal and discuss comments. The intent of the design review meeting is to solicit and compile comments and address/resolve issues. Design drawings shall be prepared in AutoCAD and PDF, and specifications shall be prepared in Microsoft Word for use by the City. 4 110811 smOlO B. Tasks The Consultant's scope of work shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Task 1 -Design Design 30% -Develop Design Criteria • Review the power requirement for each generator set service area. • Evaluate and recommend optimnm size and type of generator for each service area. • Develop plan for antomating start up of the FFR portable generator in response to power interruption, including tie-ins with plant's ATS and communication with plant's SCADA network. • Research, evalnate and prepare a technical memorandum outlining the pros and cons of stationary generators versus portable generators for servicing the FFR and DMF areas. • Validate the capacity of existing above ground diesel fuel storage tank for the stationary generators at the N.P.P. • Develop the outline of plan for the replacement of stationary generators in the N. P. P. • Determine what permits will be required for the standby generators; and the permit requirements, the application materials required and the steps involved in the permit process. • With input from Plant staff, establish the power monitoring criteria, such as, Number of, type of, and location of power monitoring meters. Power monitoring equipment features. Schematic of power monitoring system showing meter location (e. g. which load center) equipment monitored (powered by conductor) and the connection to (interface with) the existing PLC and/or SCADA system. • Recommend a portable power metering and data recording/storage device that can be temporarily connected to individual equipment to record and store data which can be transferred to a computer or SCADA system. • For the 30% design review, prepare a technical memorandum outlining the basis of design, preliminary system sizing and performance specifications, and preliminary layout. • Provide four sets of drawings, specifications, and other 30% deliverable documents. Design 90% -Power Monitoring and Standby Generators • Consultant shall incorporate all the comments and concerns issued during the previous review. The design shall be the tme reflection of City's intent for this project. • The generator specifications shall meet the following objectives: Meet the Plant's electric power needs for the specific treatment areas. Meet all EPA and BAAQMD requirements for Compression Ignition Engines (CIE). The generator automation shall communicate with the RWQCP's SCADA system. Comply with provisions of the latest California Electric Code (CEC). • The design shall include the installation details, specifically for the two stationary generators in the N. P. P. This includes civil and stmctural engineering for the installation of the stationary generators. (Note -The City may choose to have stationary generators for all four service areas). • The design for power monitoring system, including the specifications for portable power monitor. • Provide four sets of drawings, specifications and other 90% deliverable documents. Design Final-Power Monitoring and Standby Generators Consultant shall perform final updates derived from City's comments and Consultant's own internal quality control and audits. • The system design at this stage will include constmction documents with plans, specifications, design calculations and final constmction cost estimate. • Prepare the design package to secure applicable permitting and soliciting constmction I procurement for each task. 5 110811 smOIO o Provide one unbound copy and one Microsoft Word electronic copy of fmal specifications for the bid package. o Provide two wet stamped hard copies, one digital copy in PDF format and one in AutoCAD 3D Civil 2010 format of the fmal stamped plans. Provide two hard copies & one digital copy iu MS Word format of the fiual specifications for the package. Task 2 -Permits and Environmental Docnments o The new generator sets must be permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District under the Regional Water Quality Control Plant's Permit to Operate. The specifications shall include compliance with the regulatory limits applicable for standby diesel generators that are imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, including Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) regulations. The individual regulatory limits shall be specifically stated in the specifications, so that bidders are required to provide information about their product's compliance with each applicable limit. o The consultant shall prepare the applications for all the required permits and shall assist the City in obtaining them. o Prepare application and support documents for CEQA Categorical Exemption. If and as required; prepare application and support documents for mitigated negative declaration. o If and as required; prepare an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC) for submittal to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in sufficient lead time to receive ATC for the project schedule. The task deliverable shall include submittal of all requisite application forms and information, desigu . plans and details, equipment specifications, and air emissions estimates. o If and as required; attend up to four (4) meetings with regulatory agencies such as BAAQMD, CARBetc. o Respond to BAAQMD's comments and assist in securing the ATC, as required. Task 3 -Deconstruction of Existing Stationary Generators o The consultant shall develop a plan and write procedures to de-construct the two existing stationary emergency generators in the N. P. P. bnilding. o The work plan should place emphasis on minimizing exposure time during replacement of existing generators with new ones. 'Exposure time' is defined as the duration when the plant equipment is operating without any backup power. o The work plan shall include provisions and details for hooking the N.P.P. and associated loads to temporary / portable standby generators while existing generators are being removed and new ones installed. The City, at plant manager's discretion, may choose to rent temporary standby power while this work is being performed. Task 4 -Services During Bidding o Consultant shall assist the City in preparation of one construction bid package. o Consultant shall respond to the requests for clarification and/or information from prospective bidders. o Consultant shall assist the City with preparation of Project addenda and furnish the originals required for said addenda. o Consultant shall attend and assist the City at the pre-bid conferences and the walk through. Task 5 -Services Dnring Construction o Consultant shall review submittals from the contractor for conformance with the Contract Docmnents. The Consultant shall review and return the submittal comments to the City within seven calendar days. o Consultant shall prepare written response to the Request for Information (RFI) submitted by the 6 110811 smOIO contractor. The Consultant shall review, comment and return the RFI responses within seven calendar days. • Consultant shall review and validate the Contract Change Order requests submitted by contractor for accuracy and correctuess, as requested by the City. • As requested, the Consultant shall attend periodic Project Progress Meetings with the Contractor. Please allow for one meeting per month, at the minimum, during the construction phase. • The Consultant shall provide the technical support to the City during start up and commissioning of the new standby generators. The Consultant shall work with Contractor and equipment (generator) manufacturer's representatives, as requested by the City. • The Consultant shall assist the City in monitoring, documenting andlor validating any testing required by the permitting agencies. • The Consultant shall review the "as-built" or "red line" drawings and documents maintained by the contractor during construction. Upon construction completion, the Consultant shall prepare one full size, one half size (11 "XI?") set and one electronic copy of the record drawings. The electronic copy shall be in AutoCAD 3D Civil 2010 format. The record drawings shall consist of annotated contract drawings and electronic files showing changes in design and construction. Task 6 -StationarylPermanent Load Banks • Consultant shall provide design services to add two permanent 1000kW, 480Y/277V resistive load banks to facilitate periodic partial and full load testing of existing stationary standby generators. • The design shall include: electrical work for switching, cabling/connecting, and modifications to existing power distribution system as required; and all civil/structural/architectural work for installation at two locations: One for UV Disinfection Facility, to test the existing 800 KW standby diesel generator set. Location of this load bank shall be at accessible grade level near the Old Chlorine building (UV Electrical Room). One for EquipmentIBlower room to test the existing 750 kW standby diesel generator set. Location of this load bank shall be at accessible grade level near Blower room, close to the location of generator. Consultant shall prepare Construction Documents and Specifications for bidding. Consnltant shall provide Services During Bidding as described in III. B. Task 4. Consultant shall provide Services During Construction as described in m.B. Task 5. IV. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY The selected Consultant will be given a copy of existing documents as follows: • Relevant drawings ofN.P.P. and other RWQCP. • Any available electric load information. • Any available drawings and manuals of existing generator sets. -End of Scope - 7 110811 smOlO EXHIBIT B-1 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE -AMENDMENT NO. 1 CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones 1. Design 30% -Develop Design Criteria: 2. Design 90% -Construction Documents: 3.100% Construction documents: Completion No. of Weeks From NTP 3 4 6 4. Deconstruction of Generators: Existing Stationary Emergency 5. Permits and Environmental Documents: 6. Services During Bidding: 7. Services During Construction: 8 110811 smOIO 8 10 TBD TBD CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll138402 EXHIBIT "C-l" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $145,091.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $159,600.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY's proj ect manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $119,625.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $11,962.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE Task 1(Design) Task 2 (Permits and Environmental Documents) Task 3 (Deconstruction of Existing Standby Generators) Task 4 (Services During Bidding) Task 5(Services During Construction) Task 6 (Load Banks) Sub-total Basic Services Reimbursable Expenses NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT $ 51,000 $ 14,750 $ 17,125 $ 8,700 $ 24,050 $ 24,716 $ 140,341 $ 4,750 Total Basic Services & Reimbursable Expenses $ 145,091 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) Maximum Total Compensation REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $ 14,509 $ 159,600 The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, 9 110811 smOlO CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll138402 insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, third-party reproduction service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,000.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's proj ect manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subj ect to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: (i) Detail engineering and construction bid packages to put: (a) four new standby generators on common bus/local grid, or (b) four new plus three existing standby generators on common bus/local grid; (ii) Attending more than four (4) meetings with regulatory agencies, such as BAAQMD, CARB, etc. 10 110811 smOIO City of Palo Alto (ID # 2012) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2012) Summary Title: Grand Jury Response -Emergency Dispatch Title: Approval of Response to Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report “Can You Hear Me Now? Emergency Dispatch in Santa Clara County” From:City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the attached response to the Santa Clara County Grand Jury report on public safety dispatching and radio communications in Santa Clara County. Executive Summary The 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report entitled “Can You Hear Me Now? Emergency Dispatch in Santa Clara County” outlines a series of concerns, findings and recommendations regarding public safety dispatching and radio communications in Santa Clara County. The primary concerns of the Grand Jury are: ·The duplication of resources by multiple agencies and jurisdictions. ·The duplication of resources may cause delayed or inadequate responses, particularly for EMS, or conversely the “over-allocation” of resources when multiple jurisdictions respond to the same incident. ·The transfer of medical calls to County EMS results in a delayed response to medical emergencies. ·The facts that Police, Fire and EMS agencies are on three different frequency bands and that radio coverage is limited to local areas inhibits the ability of agencies to communicate with each other and restricts inner-agency radio communication to a relatively small geographic area. Background September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2012) The Palo Alto Police Department operates the Emergency Communications Center for City and has dispatch responsibilities for Police, Fire, Stanford DPS, Animal Control and Utilities Customer Service. In calendar 2010, the center received 145,267 incoming phone calls of which 32,401 calls were received over 9-1-1 trunk lines. The Communications center dispatched 53,992 Palo Alto Police incidents, 10,279 Stanford DPS incidents, 9,370 Fire incidents, 4,349 Animal Control incidents and 6,684 Utilities incidents for a total of 84,674 incidents. Because of the center’s ancillary responsibilities, Palo Alto has the third highest incoming call volume in Santa Clara County (behind San Jose and County Communications). The center employs 20 Public Safety Dispatchers. Contracts with Stanford and Palo Alto Utilities result in the cost recovery of 25% of the Communications budget. Discussion The report mentions the “virtual consolidation” effort by the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos. The three Police departments spearheading this effort believe that this strategy addresses most of the Grand Jury concerns without burdening the cities with the start-up costs of a brick and mortar consolidation. The Grand Jury Report cites the West Jordan, Utah Regional Center as a model for successful dispatch consolidation. The center is an excellent example of a unified operation. However, the initial cost for building and equipping the facility in the year 2000 was $10 million dollars. In order to estimate the true cost savings of a physical consolidation, the anticipated savings would need to be clearly defined and amortized to understand how long it would take to recover the construction and equipment costs. A distinct advantage of virtual consolidation is the geographic redundancy of three locations. A single location has increased vulnerability in the event of a catastrophic event. The virtual consolidation concept enables the three cities’ 9-1-1 centers to operate on the same technology platform and networks for core public safety applications, the 9-1-1 phone system and a shared radio frequency. The first phase of this strategy is the joint acquisition of public safety applications that will operate on a single network. These applications include Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management (RMS) and mobile and in-field reporting systems. A vendor has been selected for this project and project implementation is anticipated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2011. The second phase of this concept is the installation of a common radio channel covering all three cities. A frequency has been identified and licensed by the FCC and an RFP for construction has been issued. Grant funding through the State Homeland Security Grant program has been secured for this project. The third phase of virtual consolidation is the design and deployment of a common 9-1-1 phone system that will allow the three cities to load share and have redundant capabilities. Initial discussions with potential providers have been initiated and implementation is anticipated for 2012. The State 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Office provides the funding for this project. September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2012) Leveraging this shared technology will enable the cities to increase efficiency, share resources and reduce costs. The Grand Jury report is accurate in describing the duplication of resources by multiple agencies across the County. Each dispatch center allocates staffing based on peak call volume and demand and must be prepared to handle major incidents such as a multi-alarm fire or a large scale police response 24/7. On a shared system, duplication would be reduced in a number of areas. Staffing adjustments based on shared capabilities would reduce overtime for sick calls and, potentially, the number of FTE positions. The overall staffing for three physically separate centers based on the tri-city activity level is inherently complex but each city would no longer be required to staff for the worst possible scenario. For example, if Palo Alto was working a 3 alarm fire, incoming 9-1-1 calls could be routed to Mountain View or Los Altos. The other agencies could create calls-for- service in the shared computer aided dispatch (CAD) system and dispatch Palo Alto responders over the shared radio frequency, thus freeing Palo Alto personnel to focus exclusively on the critical Fire event. In addition, the shared technology will facilitate the use of resources outside of the geographic boundaries of each individual city. The enhanced situational awareness the technology provides will allow the dispatch of the closest available Police or Fire resource regardless of jurisdiction. These capabilities will also provide the opportunity to pursue true boundary drops for Fire response districts, initially between Palo Alto and Mountain View and possibly with County Fire in Los Altos. The Grand Jury’s concerns about delayed EMS responses and the transfer of EMS calls to County Communications are not applicable to Palo Alto as Palo Alto Fire provides its own EMS services including ambulances. Palo Alto Communications dispatches EMS resources and does not transfer callers to County Communications. A county-wide CAD to CAD interoperability project has the potential to reduce EMS response times for the other participating cities. The tri-city CAD system will allow the three agencies to create common response algorithms that insure the correct allocation of resources to joint response incidents and precludes the duplication of efforts. The radio communication concerns expressed by the Grand Jury continue to be an issue not only for Santa Clara County but for the State and the County as a whole. The Department concurs with the recommendations that all three cities continue to participate in the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) in an effort to provide a long term solution to radio issues in Santa Clara County. Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos have representatives on various working committees of the JPA. The aforementioned regional radio channel under development solves Police communication issues in the short term between the three Cities. September 12, 2011 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2012) The radio channel provides a critical communication link between the Police units and allows for better coordination of joint responses or major events in the region. There are number of other issues identified in the Grand Jury Report. The report cites the maintenance of back-up power as an additional expense necessitated by the need for continuity of operations in the dispatch centers. While this true, most Cities have other critical technology infrastructure and services that require an Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)and generators. Elimination of the Communications Centers would not eliminate the need for these redundant power sources. The report identifies County Communications as the “Alternate Answering Point” for most Santa Clara County 9-1-1 centers. This back-up design is vulnerable in the event of a major catastrophe such as an earthquake when multiple centers could cease operations. County Communications is not capable of providing dispatch services for other centers as it does not have access to their radio systems. It is highly unlikely the center could handle the influx of 9-1- 1 calls from several additional cities after a major event. The advantage of virtual consolidation is that the Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos will provide redundant capabilities for each other. The technology is duplicated at all three locations insuring continuity of operations as long as one center is functioning. Policy Implications This response is consistent with City policy. Attachments: ·Can You Hear Me Now Cover Letter 090111 (PDF) ·Can You Hear Me Now -Emerg Dispatch June 2011 (PDF) Prepared By:Dennis Burns, Police Chief Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Included: AGENDA ITEM 10 RESCANNED ITEMS • Table 1: Cost of Fire Service to SCC Towns and Cities • Table 2: Number and ')pe of Fire Service calls • Table 3: EMS Response Performance • Table 4: Agency Costs Comparison • Table 5: Fire Department Assets and Coverage • Table 6: Stations, Coverage and Aid Given/Received • Table Bl: Fire District Special District Funding and . Expenditures Summary • Table B2: Consolidated Data from LAFCO Report: Countywide Fire Services Review (December 15, 2010) • Table B3: Consolidated Data from LAFCO Report: Countywide Fire Services Review (December 15, 2010) Table 3: EMS Response Performance (data sourced from LAFCO Report) Table 4: Agency Costs Comparison (data sourced from LAFCO Report) Table 5: Fire Department Assets and Coverage (data sourced from LAFCO Report) Table 6: Stations, Coverage and Aid Given/Received (data sourced from LAFCO -Report) Included: AGENDA ITEM 11 RESCANNED TABLES • Table 1: Countywide Survey of Public Sector Agencies Shows the Number of Rehired Pensioners Compared to Full-Time • Table 2: Employers Enjoy Cost Savings When Rehiring Pensioners: RHPs Receive Wages But No Fringe Benefits Table 1: Countywide survey of public sector agencies shows the number of rehired pensioners compared to full-time City of Palo Alto (ID # 2027) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2027) Summary Title: Contract with RHDG for Enjoy Catalog Title: Approval of a Contract with Riezebos Holzbaur Group (RHDG) in the Amount of $93,350 for Graphic Design, Printing and Photography for the Quarterly Production of the Enjoy! Catalog Classes and Activities Guide From:City Manager Lead Department: Community Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract with Riezebos Holzbaur Group (RHDG) in the amount of $93,350 for graphic design, printing and photography for the quarterly production of the Community Services Department’s Enjoy!catalog (Attachment A –Contract). 2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise the option to renew the contract for the second and third years, as applicable, provided the proposed cost of each of the renewed contracts does not exceed the original contract price of $93,350, adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose MSA), the contractor is responsive to the City's needs, and the quality of the contractor's work is acceptable during the preceding year. DISCUSSION Scope of Services Description The Enjoy!catalog is the Community Services Department’s quarterly class and activity guide. In addition, the Winter catalog includes the annual Summer Camps and Aquatics guide. The scope of work to be performed under the contract is for graphic design, photography, formatting, editing and printing of the Enjoy! catalog (Attachment B –Scope of Services). Summary of Solicitation Process September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2027) Enjoy!Catalog Graphic Design/RFP 140427 Proposed Length of Project 36 months Number of Proposals Mailed 4 Total Days to Respond to Proposal 12 Pre-proposal Meeting Date None Number of Proposals Received:2 Company Name Location (City, State)Oral interview? 1. Riezebos Holzbaur Group San Francisco, CA No 2. Kelly Connelly Design + Print San Francisco, CA No Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted $69,000 to $93,350 The RFP process allows the City to negotiate the price of the work upon selection of the successful firm. An evaluation committee consisting of Erin Perez, Community Services/Administration, Lam Do, Community Services/Administration, Sharon Eva, Community Services/Recreation, Lynn Stewart, Community Services/ Arts & Sciences, and Ellenjane Taylor, Community Services/Arts & Sciences reviewed the proposals. Neither firm was invited to participate in oral interviews. The committee carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. Both firms’ proposals matched the scope of work; however, the firm selected has the history and experience of working on this project for the past three years, as well as having a prior record of performance for graphic design services in other areas of the City of Palo Alto including the Utilities Department. The quality of work that RHDG provides is professional and meets the standards of the Community Services Department. Although the other firm’s proposed budget was lower, a major reason for RHDG’s selection for this project is that stock photography, which is on every page of the catalog, is included in the proposed budget, whereas the other firm proposed charging fees up to $100 for each photograph. For these reasons, staff unanimously selected RHDG’s option number two, which also includes photo shoots at camps and classes for the cover of the catalogs. Staff, with the concurrence of the City Attorney, has determined that the firm is exempt from complying with the financial disclosure provisions of the City's conflict of interest code, because the firm's range of duties and services to be September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2027) provided under the contract are limited in scope or are primarily ministerial in nature. RESOURCE IMPACT The Community Services Department FY12 budget includes funding to award this contract. Attachments: ·Attachment A -Contract with RHDG for Enjoy! Catalog Graphic Design(PDF) ·Attachment B -Scope of Services (PDF) Prepared By:Erin Perez, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 1987) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 1987) Summary Title: Resolution Waiving Fees for Day of Play Title: Adoption of a Resolution Waiving the Community Services Department’s Recreational Municipal Fees for Nickelodeon’s 8th Annual Worldwide “Day of Play” on September 24, 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) waiving some of the Community Services Department’s fees for recreational activities as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule on September 24, 2011, as part of Nickelodeon's 8th Annual Worldwide Day of Play. Background Nickelodeon’s 8th annual Worldwide Day of Play is an international effort to get kids to become more physically active, get out and play, and live a healthy lifestyle. On Saturday, September 24, 2011, Nickelodeon will turn off its regularly scheduled programming, going completely “dark” from 12- 3pm, in an effort to encourage kids to turn off the television and go outside to play or explore nature. This effort is in conjunction with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition, and the National Park Foundation. Discussion On September 24, 2011, Palo Alto will participate in this educational effort by hosting its own “Day of Play”. Some ways in which the City of Palo Alto is promoting fun and healthy activities free of charge or at a discounted rate include: September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 1987) ·Swimming at Rinconada Pool -enjoy the children’s wading pool, take a dive off the diving board or just float and relax. (Admission fee to the pool for recreation swim to be waived.) ·Going out to your local park -Palo Alto has over 35 beautiful parks and open space preserves to choose from. ·Hiking and exploring the trails -there are fifteen miles of hiking trails, offering a variety of hiking experiences. The longest hike is the Los Trancos Trail, which is 7.5 miles. The Toyon Self-Guided Nature Trail enables you to learn about nature at your own pace. ·Canoeing on Boronda Lake at Foothills Park! Canoes are available for rent on the weekends and holidays from May 1st to October 31st, weather permitting. (Canoe rental fees for the day to be waived.) ·Fishing in Boronda Lake at Foothill’s Park (fishing license required). The lake is stocked with bass, catfish, and sunfish. While swimming is prohibited, you can enjoy the lake with your non-motorized and hand-launched boat. ·Tee up! Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course will be offering a 10% discount on a round of golf on 9/24. Please come and experience this 50 year old classic championship course designed by world renowned golf course architect William Bell. ·Experiencing the art in the community that you can see and touch! Check out the Patrick Dougherty willow sculpture at the corner of Newell and Embarcadero, or the Mildred Howard glass house on the Civic Center King Plaza! Resource Impact The Municipal Fee Schedule states that the Director of Community Services is authorized to offer promotional fee discounts of up to 25% for purposes of promotional and marketing of programs. These discounts are intended to maximize revenue and/or participation. On a Saturday afternoon in late September, Rinconada Pool recreation swim generates approximately $1,600-$2,000, while canoe rentals at Foothills Park generate around $75.Staff feels the waiving of fees for pool admission and canoe rentals on this one-day event will have a limited impact to revenues and entice more people to participate in Palo Alto’s “Day of Play” in promoting health and wellness.Staff also feels as more people participate in our programs, the fees waived on September 24, September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 1987) 2011, may be recouped through future participation and awareness of the variety of leisure and educational programs offered through the Community Services Department. Attachments: ·Attachment A -Resolution-Worldwide Day of Play (PDF) ·Attachment B -Municipal Fees Associate with Day of Play (DOC) Prepared By:Erin Perez, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Not Yet Approved 110802 jb 0130818 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing September 24, 2011 as Worldwide Day of Play in the City of Palo Alto Encouraging Kids to Get Up, Get Out, and Go Play WHEREAS, the residents of the City of Palo Alto join the President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition, the National Park Foundation, Nickelodeon, and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America in celebrating Worldwide Day of Play, and in ensuring that today's generation of kids becomes one of the healthiest; and WHEREAS, the Worldwide Day of Play is designed to get kids more physically active and to encourage positive, healthy, and playful lifestyles across the globe and is a fun event to empower our youth; and WHEREAS, the rate of childhood obesity continue to rise at alarming rates; and WHEREAS, today's children and adults don't get as much physical activity as they should; and WHEREAS, nutritious diets and physical activity are an important component to living a healthy lifestyle and reducing diseases; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto would like to promote fun and healthy activities to support this special educational event, including swimming at Rinconada Park Pool and canoeing at Foothill Park on September 24, 2011; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto is committed to working to support kids in becoming the healthiest generation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby proclaims September 24, 2011 as Worldwide Day of Play in Palo Alto. SECTION 2. The Council hereby recognizes all those associated with making this endeavor a reality, and wishes them all the very best in the future. SECTION 3. To further support this event, the City will agree to waive the municipal fees for one day use of canoes at Foothills Park, and for one day recreational swim admission at Rinconada Pool on September 24, 2011. // // // Not Yet Approved 110802 jb 0130818 SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, no environment assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney ______________________________ Director of Community Services ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services Attachment B Community Services Department Municipal Fees Associated with Palo Alto’s “Day of Play”, Saturday, September 24, 2011 Rinconada Pool www.cityofpaloalto.org/aquatics Admission Daily Drop In Rate Senior (60 & Over)$3.00 Adult (18-59)$5.00 Youth (3-17)$4.00 Infants (0-2)FREE Foothills Park www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/parks_and_open_space Fishing (License required)http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/fishing/fishdescrip.html Canoe Rental $15 Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course www.paloaltogolfcourse.com Green Fees Weekend Rates Daily Fee Resident Rate: $46-$51/ Non-Resident Rate:$48-$53 Student (18-21)$29-$32 Junior (17 & under)$18-$22 NCGA Jr. Fee $10 Twilight $33-$37 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1968) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 1968) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Approval of Agreement with Geodesy Title: Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Geodesy in the amount of $164,720 for Development Support of New Computer Applications Linked to the Geographic Information System (GIS) From:City Manager Lead Department: IT Department RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached agreement in the amount of $164,720 for a professional services agreement with Geodesy, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to extend this agreement for up to two additional years. Cost for additional years will be predicated on actual scope of services required and will not exceed $164,720, plus an annual increase not to exceed the CPI. DISCUSSION Project Description The Geographic Information System (GIS) provides accurate Citywide property, utility, and infrastructure information to Staff and the public. It is a vital component of the City’s infrastructure management program. GIS is a central element of the City’s information infrastructure that has been integrated with several other major information systems, including the Police Computer Aided Dispatch System, Records Management System, Utilities Computer- Aided Design and Drafting System, and Enterprise Resource Management Program (SAP). Services provided under this agreement will further improve the integration of GIS with these and other systems. Dox is the City’s Document Management System developed by Geodesy. Several years ago, Dox replaced the Building Optical Disc Storage System (BODS) as the City’s document repository. The Building Department, Planning and Community Environment Department, Real Estate Division, Public Works Engineering Division, City Clerk’s Office, Fire Department, and Police Department have all adopted DOX as their document management system. Hundreds of thousands of documents, that were locked in the BODS’ proprietary database, have been September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 1968) extracted, indexed, and stored in the open standards database used by DOX, allowing any authorized user access to them. Further enhancements to this tool will enable Staff, and where appropriate, the public to more easily access and view information stored in the system. Furthermore, improved access will reduce Staff workload and improve customer service because citizens will no longer be required to travel to the City to request this same information. Support for ongoing input of new documents is included in this contract. In the public safety area, GIS-based tools (CADStat) support the City’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system making real-time incident information available in the Dispatch Center, as well as police and fire mobile units. At a glance, dispatchers can view dispatched incidents, and the location of mobile assets, using Automated Vehicle Location technology. This provides Staff with a “big picture” of what’s going on as well as specifics of the incident they are responding to. This agreement will extend these capabilities to other mobile devices, including smartphones and tablet devices. Geodesy will be instrumental in integrating CADStat with the new multi-jurisdiction CAD system developed jointly by the City of Mountain View, City of Los Altos, and City of Palo Alto over the coming year. In Fiscal Year 2010-11, the City’s Utility Engineering Division implemented a new utility management system (Topobase) as its core tool for designing and drafting utility infrastructure projects. Throughout that process, Geodesy provided support for data migration and synchronization between Topobase and the City’s GIS. Under this agreement, Geodesy will continue GIS/Topobase support as well as develop system enhancements, including network model synchronization, GIS utility macro updates, and improved data editing using mobile devices. Previously, Geodesy modified the City’s Pavement Management System (PMMS) to conform to requirements of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). PMMS far exceeds the capability of MTC’s StreetSaver software in its GIS display and analysis capabilities. PMMS currently maintains data in a Microsoft Access database allowing the entire master database to be taken to the field in support of pavement survey activities. Under this agreement, Geodesy will migrate the PMMS data from MS Access to MS SQL Server. This will provide a more reliable and secure backup of Staff work, as well as make the current state of the survey available to authorized users in the City. Geodesy will provide other services under this contract to further enable Staff to take advantage of GIS including: -Mobile User Data Mining capabilities for Police Department management; -Web Page Setup Support providing a common and consistent template for context specific web maps; -Extending SAP Work Orders to the GIS, which will allow work order data to be viewed by a broader audience in an easily accessible, map-oriented format; and -Emergency Damage Assessment Consolidation application, which will support the efforts of CERT volunteers. September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 1968) Training on the use of applications affected by these changes is included under this contract. As part of this training, improved documentation and help screens will be developed. Tasks identified in the attached scope of work are consistent with the objectives of the GIS Strategic Plan. SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT Geodesy has been instrumental in the development of the City’s GIS and related applications, including many of the applications previously mentioned. Geodesy’s unique understanding of the City's specialized GIS system, experience in developing GIS applications for the City, and expertise in the City’s GIS software environment make it necessary to render the award as a sole source contract. RESOURCE IMPACT Tasks under this agreement total $164,720. Funds for this project are budgeted in CIP 10215. Based on the Technology Fund Strategic Plan, the Enterprise Fund will pay 60 percent and the General Fund will pay 40 percent of the expenses. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This agreement does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approval of this agreement does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no environmental assessment is required. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A -Scope of Work for Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 (PDF) ·Attachment B -Estimate for FY 2011 -2012 (PDF) Prepared By:Ron Fong, Manager, IT Department Head:Rob Braulik, Project Manager City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager March 22, 2011 Exhibit A Page 1 Scope of Work for Fiscal Year 2011 - 2012 This scope of work describes the tasks to be performed by Geodesy in support of the PAGIS project for fiscal year 2011 – 2012. Geodesy’s proposed work plan focuses on continuing initiatives for public safety, support for the CPAU Topobase project, and providing dynamic maps and documents to the public through the City’s web site. The total cost for this scope of work is $164,720. The cost basis is 1,136 hours at the rate of $145 per hour. Billing will be on a monthly basis for hours worked. Task 1: Utility Engineering Topobase Coordination In FY 10-11 CAD Masters Inc. implemented AutoDesk’s utility management system Topobase for the City’s Utility Engineering department. Throughout the process Geodesy provided support for data migration and synchronization between Topobase and the City’s GIS. This task provides time to continue the GIS/Topobase support in conjunction with CAD Masters as well as develop system enhancements that may include network model synchronization, GIS utility macro updates, enhanced mobile data editing, and improved edit conflict resolution. Task 2: Document Management Processing and Web Interface The City uses outside vendors such as BMI to bulk scan paper documents like drawings and correspondence. Once scanned, these documents must be organized into the City's street address-based Dox folder structure to support easy document retrieval. Under this task, Geodesy will continue to assist GIS staff in the process of indexing these scanned documents with automation. Additionally, Geodesy will create a browser-based document retrieval web interface to make stored documents more available across the enterprise and a subset of these documents available to the public through the City’s web site. Task 3: Public Safety Application Updates The use of the City’s mobile public safety application CADStat was recently extended to surrounding jurisdictions including Stanford. Under this task, CADStat and the underlying data model will be enhanced to better control system security and make incident and vehicle display more jurisdiction-specific. This enhancement will reduce the administrative effort needed to configure the application for each jurisdiction. March 22, 2011 Exhibit A Page 2 Other possible enhancements to the CADStat Server, Mobile, and Phone applications may include adding the use of external web services for geocoding locations outside the City’s mapped extent, dynamically centering the map on selected vehicle or mobile device, and adding the ability to manage and display street closures. This task also provides time to coordinate with third parties such as Intergraph, Inc. for potential dispatch integration and the Golden Gate Safety Network in support the regional Common Operating Picture (COP) effort. Task 4: Mobile User Data Mining In response to requests from Police Department management the CADStat server was updated in FY 10-11 to store each reported mobile position in a database. This creates one table per day with record counts in the hundreds of thousands. Under this task, Geodesy will develop an application to securely mine this very large database to answer questions such as “What is a specific area’s coverage?” and “Where was a specific mobile unit patrolling over a specific date range?”. Filters may include any combination of geographic extents, date ranges, specific people or groups of people, call signs, vehicle IDs, or phone numbers. The product of a data mining operation will be a graphic report in the form of a map display. This display may be printed to create a summary snapshot or played on-screen to dynamically display activity over the report’s time period. The use of this application will be restricted to a small number of authorized users and a full audit log will track every action these users take. Task 5: Web Page Setup Support NetMap, the City’s web-based map server, was updated during FY 10-11 at the request of Public Works management to provide date sensitive displays to support Public Works pavement projects that are currently active. The pavement map display is designed for use in the City’s Content Management System and establishes a template for context-specific web maps. This task provides support for extending this template into other subjects such as PANDA, trees, and CIPs. Adding dynamic maps to existing web content will significantly enhance the user experience. Additionally NetMap will be updated to use map image tiles currently generated by the City’s GIS that are compatible with conventions commonly used today for web display. This will provide better performance and allow a seamless expansion into surrounding areas using publicly available map tiles from Google, Microsoft, or ESRI (assuming the City satisfies possible license requirements). March 22, 2011 Exhibit A Page 3 Task 6: Department Task Support This budget provides time to support departmental initiatives that can benefit by including GIS data, data analysis, or small amounts of GIS automation. For example, Planning’s Urban Forest Master Plan may involve coordination with external resources to provide specialized analytics. Geodesy may provide assistance for packaging data for analysis and for data model construction so results may easily be displayed on City maps. Another example is application configuration support to optimize data collection for the upcoming Public Works sign inventory project. Task 7: PMMS Migration to SQL Server PMMS, the City’s existing pavement management application, maintains pavement data in a Microsoft Access database. This configuration allows the entire master database to be taken to the field in support of annual pavement survey activities. Under this task, the master pavement data will migrate from MS Access to SQL Server and field edit syncing will be implemented so field edits may be uploaded to the server on a daily basis. This will provide a more reliable and secure backup of the daily work as well as make the current state of the survey available to all authorized users in the City. Note that SQL Server is the citywide standard for database management software. Task 8: Administrative Software Updates The number of City employees that regularly use the GIS has grown to over 400 while the administrative support staff has been reduced. In order to better leverage the reduced administration time this task continues automation to simplify and centralize GIS administrative tasks. Possible automation activities may include: • adding edit logging to meta data editing so meta data may be synchronized with mobile computers just as feature data is currently synced, • automating the publishing of software updated from the test to the production environment, and • further centralizing data QC functions. March 22, 2011 Exhibit A Page 4 Task 9: Support for SQL Server CE on Mobile PCs Currently all mobile computers store replicated feature data in Microsoft Access databases. While this allows for flexibility in data use on PCs that have the full Microsoft Office installed, it also has some limitations and additional administrative overhead. This task provides for the setup and administrative automation of SQL Server CE as a replacement for the Access database where users only connect to the data through the GIS applications. The shift to SQL Server CE on most mobile PCs will reduce GIS administrative effort and bring more mobile PCs into compliance with the City standard for database management software. Task 10: Extend SAP Work Orders to the GIS Leveraging the new utility management system implemented in FY 10-11, this task will extend the ability to display work order data from SAP into the GIS applications. This will allow the work order data to be viewed by a broader audience in a more accessible, map-oriented format. Task 11: Damage Assessment Roll Up A prototype application for damage assessment was developed in FY 10-11 to support the collection of data by public safety personnel or CERT volunteers after a disaster. In order for this data to effectively support operations in the City’s Emergency Operations Center, it needs to be consolidated by neighborhood before being submitted. Under this task Geodesy will develop a consolidation application that will pass only high priority items through to the EOC and provide generalized status data for each neighborhood such as survey completion percentage, hazards, and counts of for damaged structures and injuries. Exhibit B Estimate for FY 11-12 22-March-11 Task Description Hours Cost 1 Utility Engineering Topobase Coordination 220 31,900 2 Document Management Processing and Web Interface 180 26,100 3 Public Safety Application Updates 180 26,100 4 Mobile User Data Mining 100 14,500 5 Web Page Setup Support 120 17,400 6 Department Task Support 60 8,700 7 PMMS Migration to SQL Server 24 3,480 8 Administrative Software Updates 60 8,700 9 Support for SQL Server CE on Mobile PCs 40 5,800 10 Extend SAP Work Orders to the GIS 72 10,440 11 Damage Assessment Roll Up 80 11,600 Total:1136 164,720 Billing rate: $145 per hour Page 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1985) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 8 (ID # 1985) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Response to SCS (SB375) Alternatives Title: Council Direction in Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375) Alternative Scenarios and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessement (RHNA) Process From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding the City’s next steps to respond to the SB375 Alternative Scenarios, including authorizing the City Manager to retain consultant assistance to coordinate review of demographic and economic projections. Executive Summary On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Bay Area was intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, was to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created in Palo Alto over that time period. On May 27, 2011, staff sent a letter to the regional agencies, following review and input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, questioning the approach and outlining many concerns of the City of Palo Alto, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. On July 18, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the letter to the agencies and next steps, September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 8 (ID # 1985) including the upcoming release of alternative scenarios by ABAG and MTC.Council asked staff to work with some Councilmembers over the Council’s August recess and present an approach to Council for proceeding to respond to this planning effort. The three alternative land use scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26, 2011. A preferred alternative is expected to be drafted and released in early 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. Staff met with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt twice in August and has developed an approach that includes: 1) recommending a third party peer review of the State and regional population and employment projections; 2) reaching out to State legislators to pursue this issue at the State and regional level, 3) identifying and coordinating with cities who share Palo Alto’s concerns; 4) directing staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, and the regional agencies; and 5) extending outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios. Staff has also requested that Council authorize the City Manager to engage consultant assistance to support coordination, particularly relative to the demographic and economic analysis. Background On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Bay Area was intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, was to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created in Palo Alto over that time period. On May 27, 2011, staff sent a letter to the regional agencies, following review and input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, questioning the approach and outlining many concerns of the City of Palo Alto, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. On July 18, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the letter to the agencies and next steps, including the upcoming release of alternative scenarios by ABAG and MTC. Council asked staff to work with some Councilmembers over the Council’s August recess and to then present an approach to Council for proceeding to respond to this planning effort. The three alternative land use scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26th. (Attachment D). A preferred alternative is expected to be drafted and released in early 2012 and the Sustainable September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 8 (ID # 1985) Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. The related Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times, and the Committee’s progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. More background information is provided in the July 18, 2011 Council staff report (Attachment G). Attachment H provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning (SB 375) process. Discussion Alternative Land Use Scenarios The Alternative Land Use Scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26, 2011, and identify three (3) primary options: Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Planned Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) in the Inner Bay Area along the region’s core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario:Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. A summary of the scenarios and potential housing and employment projections are included in the August 26th memo from the agencies (Attachment E) and online at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. The objective of each of these scenarios is to accommodate population growth of approximately 770,000 persons and almost 1 million new jobs in the Bay Area by the year 2040. (Note that this 30-year planning horizon is considerably longer than ABAG’s normal 5-7 year planning period.) This is a reduction from the Initial Vision Scenario’s estimated increases of 900,000 persons and 1.2 million jobs. The tables at the back of the memo outline estimated increases for each jurisdiction in the Bay Area, including breaking down how much of the total growth would be located in either PDAs (California Avenue area in Palo Alto) or GOAs (El Camino Real corridor and/or Downtown in Palo Alto). There is no indication of where the agencies expect the remainder of the growth to be located. In summary, the total growth in housing and employment for the City from 2010-2040 breaks down as follows: Core Focused Outer Bay Concentration Growth Area Households 12,250 12,250 6,110 September 12, 2011 Page 4 of 8 (ID # 1985) Jobs 26,630 27,820 19,360 The “Core Concentration” and “Focused Growth” scenarios vary in that more of the projected growth would occur in the PDAs and GOAs in the “Core Concentration” scenario. Staff will need to obtain and analyze data based on traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to determine where the remaining development would potentially be located. Statewide and Regional Projections Staff met with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt twice in August, and one of the primary topics of discussion was the underlying assumptions for population and employment estimates not only for Palo Alto but, more significantly, for the region and the State as a whole. Councilmember Schmid provided two memos (Attachment B) that outline some of the key discrepancies between the projections and the reality represented by the 2010 Census and past trends. In particular, the growth of 995,000 jobs in the next 30 years represents an average of 33,000 new jobs per year, whereas the average has been 10,000 jobs annually the past two decades. While higher job growth occurred in the 60’s and 70’s in the Bay Area, the estimate appears to ignore the basic nature of the technology industry, which is the driver of the Bay Area economic engine, where enhanced value is not equivalent to increased jobs. The projected housing growth in the region amounts to an average of 27,000 new units per year for 30 years and is derived from a 1.3 job to household ratio applied to the jobs projection. Housing growth from 1990-2010, however, was about 20,000 units per year, and considerably less in recent years. The OneBayArea effort assumes that housing production will make up for the loss of production in those years and will more closely approximate production in the 70’s and 80’s, when much “greenfield” development occurred, which would now be contrary to the goals of SB375. Similarly, these projections run counter to recent Census trends and population studies for the State. Those analyses (see Councilmember Schmid’s e-mails) indicate that natural population increase in the state is minimal, with a gradually aging population and a long-term decline in fertility rates. The other component of population increase is migration, the increase of which appears to have declined substantially in the past decade. Since these statewide and regional projections underlie the entire distribution of housing and population for the Sustainable Communities Strategy planning, the Councilmembers and staff expressed a strong desire to request that a peer review, perhaps by University of California or Stanford demographic and econometric analysts, be conducted to verify or dispute the estimates. Such a review, however, should be accomplished at the initiation of State and regional officials, however,rather than by local agencies. Coordination with State Legislators September 12, 2011 Page 5 of 8 (ID # 1985) The Councilmember subgroup also expressed interest in coordinating efforts through the area’s State delegation, including Assembly members Rich Gordon and Jerry Hill, and Senator Joe Simitian. Assemblyman Gordon is meeting with the City Council on September 12th to discuss issues of common concern, and staff has prepared Attachment A to distribute ahead of the meeting to outline some of the key issues Council may want to convey. The Councilmember subgroup suggested requesting that these legislators carry this issue back to the State and regional agencies to authorize an independent review of the assumptions for the projections, as well as other issues of concern. Coordination with Other Cities Staff and the Councilmember subgroup also discussed contacting other cities that may have similar concerns as Palo Alto’s, to encourage further support with State legislators and a stronger voice at ABAG and MTC as the alternatives move forward. Staff will reach out to others as regional and countywide meetings proceed in the coming week and may have more information to report at the Council meeting. Staff believes that Mountain View, Campbell, Milpitas, and even San Jose have voiced some of the same objections to the growth estimates as Palo Alto. Preliminary Action Plan Staff, after meeting twice with the Councilmember subgroup, has developed an approach to addressing the Sustainable Community Strategy Alternative Scenarios that includes: 1)recommending an independent third party review of the State and regional population and employment projections; 2)reaching out to State legislators to pursue these issues at the State and regional level; 3)identifying and coordinating with cities who share Palo Alto’s concerns; 4)directing staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, and the regional agencies; and 5)extending outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios. Attachment A provides a draft of an initial summary of Sustainable Communities Strategy issues and concerns, to be distributed to legislators, other cities, and the broader community. Some of the highlighted concerns would include: ·Employment projections appear to be substantially overstated and do not recognize the evolving economic model in the Bay Area, particularly in Silicon Valley; ·Housing projections are driven by unrealistic employment projections and are substantially higher than recent trends in natural increase and migration, as reflected in the 2010 Census; ·The basic goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not well served by overstating projections, which then require even more extensive resources and more dramatic land use and transportation changes than would be required with more realistic estimates; and September 12, 2011 Page 6 of 8 (ID # 1985) ·Alternatives to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions should be provided to allow cities to propose ways they may otherwise accomplish similar reductions that would exceed those proposed by the Alternative Land Use Scenarios; and The summary is a “generic” discussion of a few key issues for conversation with legislators, other cities, or the public. It is hoped that a more detailed demographic and econometric analysis would occur at a regional or statewide level. Staff expects to also quickly develop a summary for issues specific to Palo Alto, such as the limited availability and cost of land, a variety of constraints to housing expansion, and the city’s growth rate relative to others in the county and region. Community Outreach Staff suggests that the Council direct staff to provide this information to the Planning and Transportation Commission, neighborhood and other community groups, and other cities. Further community outreach should also be requested of the regional agencies, to assure that all affected communities may have a common understanding of the implications of the analysis and proposed Alternative Scenarios. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times through July and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The current methodology under review would require each city and county to provide for 1/3 of the 2035 total in each of the three 8-year planning periods during that timeframe. The two primary topics of discussion have been: 1.How to split the total allocations between PDAs/Growth Opportunity Areas and other areas within cities or counties. The methodology generally assumes that 70% of the housing is provided in the PDAs and growth opportunity areas, and then the remaining 30% is to be allocated based on overall housing growth projections for each city or county;and 2.Whether to provide for “equity” factors that would affect the remaining 30% of the RHNA. Factors that are under consideration include: a city’s performance meeting prior RHNA affordable housing goals, transit accessibility, and/or some other “quality of life” factors (though school performance seems to be off the table). The latest memo from ABAG (Attachment C) on the subject provides for each community to accommodate a “minimum housing floor” (e.g., 40% of housing projections) as a proxy for the “equity” issues. The 40% threshold is not a problem for Palo Alto but generally affects smaller communities like Woodside or Los Altos Hills. The Committee’s next meeting is on September 8th (after the distribution of this report) so Councilmember Scharff can report the latest at the Council meeting. Due to the desire to tie the RHNA more closely to the SCS, the timeframe for the Committee’s work has been extended to October or November. September 12, 2011 Page 7 of 8 (ID # 1985) Resource Impacts Review of the Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Housing Needs Assessment process involves considerable time of the Director of Planning and Community (estimated 20- 40 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. There are, however, no direct costs associated with the staff review. As part of this report, staff has suggested retaining a consultant to review and coordinate the effort to address the demographic and economic assumptions of the Alternative Land Use Scenarios. Staff estimates that the cost of such assistance would not exceed $25,000 and could be absorbed within the current budget of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Next Steps 1.Set up meetings with State legislators and interested cities to outline the need for independent analysis of the projections and econometrics underlying the Alternative Land Use Scenarios and to inform them of other critical issues. 2.Retain consultant assistance to outline parameters for studying the projections and econometrics of the regional agencies and to coordinate work with the other cities. 3.Refer the issue to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and to provide outreach to the community. Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council. Attachments: ·Attachment A: SB375 Issues Summary_09.12.11 (DOC) ·Attachment B1: Schmid_Projections (PDF) ·Attachment B2: Schmid_Subregional (PDF) ·Attachment C: July 25, 2011 Minimum Housing Floor Analysis Memo from ABAG (PDF) ·Attachment D: August 26, 2011 OneBayArea Report: "Alternative Land Use Scenarios" (PDF) ·Attachment E: May 27, 2011 City Staff Response to ABAG re: Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment F: August 15, 2011 ABAG Response to City of Palo Alto Letter (PDF) ·Attachment G: July 18, 2011 Council Staff Report re: Response to Initial Vision Scenario w/o Attachments (PDF) ·Attachment H: SB375 Glossary (PDF) Prepared By:Curtis Williams, Director September 12, 2011 Page 8 of 8 (ID # 1985) Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375) Key Issues for Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 12, 2011 The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375) is based on the premise that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may be reduced significantly by land use patterns and transportation facilities and programs to reduce vehicle-miles traveled. The potential for GHG reductions relates to the extent to which land uses and transportation systems accommodate an unknown future of population increase, economic growth, market forces, and public funding availability and pricing approaches. As such, realistic basic demographic and growth assumptions for such a strategy are imperative to derive the appropriate strategies and to assure that cities and counties in the Bay Area region (and other regions) plan accordingly. Similarly, all alternatives to provide for GHG reduction strategies must be considered to provide the appropriate mix of programs to cost-effectively meet regional and statewide goals. To ensure these issues are adequately addressed, the City of Palo Alto believes that further independent analysis of many of the assumed demographic and economic projections and GHG benefits must be provided at the State and regional level, and the following key questions must be answered: Demographic and Economic Projections Are the assumptions for the demographic and economic projections realistic? Or are they overstated and reflective of a different time period when the economy of the region was manufacturing-heavy and migration to California and the Bay Area was rapid and substantial? 1.The State’s Department of Finance is working with a forecast model that projected a population growth of 9.9% for 2000-2010, whereas the Census showed a growth rate of 5.4% over that period.A similar overestimate occurred for statewide population. 2. Natural population increase (births –deaths) is now minimal, with a gradually aging population and a long-term decline in fertility rates. Migration to the state has slowed substantially in the past decade and is not expected to rise dramatically in the future. 3.The proposed Alternative Land Use Scenarios anticipate an increase of 33,000 jobs annually in the region, as compared to 10,000 jobs annually in the past two decades. This is a dramatic increase as Silicon Valley and many other technology centers continue to find ways to provide value with fewer jobs, not more. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Will greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions be achievable under an unrealistically high population and employment scenario, given the amount of infrastructure (and land use change) necessary to support that growth? Are there viable alternatives to allow cities to propose means to achieve reductions at the local level to supplement the assumed savings for the region? SB375 Key Issues for Alternative Land Use Scenarios Page 2 2 1.The Sustainable Communities Strategy is expected to provide for about 9% of the GHG reductions to satisfy statewide AB32 climate change objectives. These objectives are to be achieved by gaining a 15% per capita reduction in the Bay Area. 2.Overestimating population and employment would mandate a level of infrastructure (particularly for transportation), new programs, and land use change that may not be warranted and almost certainly won’t be affordable. 3.Many cities have adopted or are considering climate change, land use, and transportation programs to reduce GHG emissions. Examples of efforts that relate to SB375 objectives include: compact development policies and plans, protected open space buffers, bicycle and pedestrian programs and facilities to decrease vehicle ridership, and promotion of electric vehicle infrastructure and programs. Could the SCS allow cities to provide programs and facilities that may more effectively (less costly) achieve the needed GHG reductions? From: gregschmid@sbcglobal.net Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:46 AM To: Williams, Curtis Cc: pat burt; Holman, Karen; Scharff, Greg Subject: Demographics--Subregional Curtis, A few thoughts on the upcoming discussion of the sub-regional allocation of housing units. A sub- regional agreement would allow the spreading out of RHNA housing allocation numbers across communities that cluster around job centers or commute corridors. There are at least ten communities that seem to share with Palo Alto easy commuting distance from the Stanford job centers--the campus, the Hospital and the Business Park. They would include: Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, EPA, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Atherton and Portola Valley. Among this group of ten there are five that share the targeted growth corridor of El Camino/CalTrain (Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City). A close look at population growth figures from the last decade seems to indicate that there is no incentive whatsoever for these surrounding communities to join with rapidly growing Palo Alto in a housing allocation partnership. It is interesting to compare Palo Alto's population growth over the last decade with two different sets of numbers--the projected population growth made by the California Department of Finance (who allocates RHNA growth goals through the Dept of Housing and ABAG) with the actual Census numbers for 2010 just released by the Census Bureau. For the nine county Bay Area the Department of Finance's (DoF) is working with a forecast model that projected a population growth of 9.9% for 2000-2010; the actual growth over the decade from the recently released Census numbers was a much smaller 5.4%. For the three West Bay counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara), the DoF projection was 10.2%; the actual Census number was 4.3%. For comparison, Palo Alto's actual Census based population growth was 9.9%. In the ten nearby cities that surround Palo Alto (Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, EPA, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Atherton and Portola Valley), DoF projected a total population growth for the decade of 6.5%; actual Census reported growth was about half that at 3.4%. Palo Alto's actual growth was 9.9%. For the five local cities that share both the Caltrain rail corridor and the El Camino corridor with Palo Alto (Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City), the DoF projected growth was 6.0% over the decade; the actual Census growth was 4.4%. Palo Alto's population growth over the period was 9.9%. The numbers seem to show two things: --For their RHNA allocation formula, the Department of Finance seriously overestimated California's growth rate and that of communities throughout the Bay Area, including the West Bay; --Our neighbors--those gradually growing communities that are within easy commuting range of Stanford or who share the El Camino/Caltrain corridor--have no incentive whatsoever to join a sub- regional grouping that includes rapidly growing Palo Alto. Greg Schmid Page 1 of 1 9/4/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\cwillia\Desktop\Initial Vision Scenario\Alternative Scenar...     Date: July 25, 2011  To: SCS Housing Methodology Committee  From: Ken Kirkey, ABAG Planning Director  Subject: Minimum Housing Floor Analysis    Overview   ABAG and MTC staff are proposing a minimum housing floor as part of the “fair share” component of  the 2015–2022 RHNA methodology. The minimum housing floor intends to ensure that each jurisdiction  is planning to accommodate at least a portion of the housing need generated by the population growth  within that jurisdiction. The floor would be set at a percentage of the jurisdiction’s forecasted household  formation growth. The household formation for each community is calculated from natural increases  (births minus deaths) along with migration. If a jurisdiction’s total RHNA does not reach the floor, the  minimum is applied, and the units allocated to other jurisdictions are reduced proportionally.    This memo presents an analysis comparing the application of a 40% minimum housing floor with a  number of “quality of life” factors that are under consideration as part of the RHNA methodology.    “Quality of Life” Factors Comparison   The attached table shows all of the region’s jurisdictions, and lists their scores for some of the “quality  of life” factors that the HMC has considered. These factors include: median household income as an  indication of the jurisdiction’s desirability, median home value as an indication of the jurisdiction’s  housing affordability, and average 2009 API score as an indication of the quality of schools in the  jurisdiction. Higher “quality of life” indicators signify higher levels of opportunity in jurisdictions in the  region.    Those jurisdictions highlighted in red do not meet a 40% minimum housing floor in all scenarios, and  those highlighted in orange do not meet a 40% minimum floor in at least one scenario. Thus use of a  minimum housing floor in the methodology increases the housing allocation in those jurisdictions to  40% of their household formation growth, and proportionally reduces the allocation to other  jurisdictions.    The table shows close parallels between those jurisdictions that have higher “quality of life” scores and  those jurisdictions where a 40% minimum housing floor would be applied. A total of 36 jurisdictions  (both cities and unincorporated county areas) would have a 40% minimum floor applied in at least one  scenario. Of the fifteen jurisdictions with the highest median incomes, all but three would have the  minimum floor applied in determining their housing allocation. The same is true in comparing the  minimum floor application with the jurisdictions with the highest average API scores. Of the fifteen  jurisdictions with the highest median home values, all but five would have the minimum floor applied.  The inapplicability of the minimum floor to a few of these jurisdictions with the highest “quality of life”  indicators means that, based on the other components of the RHNA methodology, these jurisdictions  would already be allocated more than 40% of their household formation growth.    Recommendation  Based on this analysis, it appears that use of a 40% minimum household floor achieves many of the  objectives that have prompted consideration of the use of “quality of life” factors, and produces a  methodology that accomplishes fair‐share goals while remaining clear and understandable.  County City Median Household Income Median Home Value Average 2009 API Score Alameda Alameda $73,503 $664,200 858 Alameda Albany $72,516 $625,400 898 Alameda Berkeley $59,097 $724,100 806 Alameda Dublin $108,711 $682,600 869 Alameda Emeryville $57,211 $435,100 739 Alameda Fremont $95,028 $650,100 872 Alameda Hayward $61,001 $483,300 716 Alameda Livermore $94,530 $626,700 840 Alameda Newark $82,782 $575,400 768 Alameda Oakland $49,695 $537,800 753 Alameda Piedmont $167,014 $1,000,001 942 Alameda Pleasanton $113,582 $799,200 920 Alameda San Leandro $61,824 $529,500 757 Alameda Union City $86,761 $593,500 807 Alameda Unincorporated $67,500 807 Contra Costa Antioch $68,934 $449,800 742 Contra Costa Brentwood $90,036 $534,200 809 Contra Costa Clayton $130,083 $705,500 885 Contra Costa Concord $64,954 $514,100 753 Contra Costa Danville $128,810 $929,000 932 Contra Costa El Cerrito $76,656 $603,500 784 Contra Costa Hercules $88,179 $535,900 793 Contra Costa Lafayette $125,519 $1,000,001 925 Contra Costa Martinez $76,703 $566,800 839 Contra Costa Moraga $125,978 $967,400 952 Contra Costa Oakley $76,130 $426,300 780 Contra Costa Orinda $160,867 $1,000,001 962 Contra Costa Pinole $78,835 $516,800 738 Contra Costa Pittsburg $57,661 $408,900 728 Contra Costa Pleasant Hill $79,597 $633,500 849 Contra Costa Richmond $55,146 $436,900 722 Contra Costa San Pablo $46,007 $375,200 704 Contra Costa San Ramon $119,297 $779,600 929 Contra Costa Walnut Creek $79,629 $642,200 905 Contra Costa Unincorporated $87,500 801 Marin Belvedere $117,778 $1,000,001 937 Marin Corte Madera $97,608 $883,500 918 Marin Fairfax $87,639 $723,900 895 Marin Larkspur $84,411 $944,800 915 Marin Mill Valley $106,017 $1,000,001 932 Marin Novato $80,923 $705,700 844 Marin Ross $145,208 $1,000,001 938 Marin San Anselmo $90,600 $877,700 907 Marin San Rafael $71,339 $827,500 811 Marin Sausalito $107,438 $982,800 788 Marin Tiburon $146,917 $1,000,001 942 Marin Unincorporated $87,500 852 Napa American Canyon $78,718 $467,000 796 Napa Calistoga $52,393 $318,800 752 Napa Napa $64,180 $565,200 788 Napa St. Helena $70,900 $959,700 795 Napa Yountville $69,028 $588,800 866 Napa Unincorporated $87,500 823 San Francisco San Francisco $70,040 $781,500 777 RED BOLD = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in all scenarios ORANGE = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in at least one scenario Note: $1,000,001 is the maximum amount shown on the ACS even though home prices may be higher            Median home value for the unincorporated portion of each county was unavailable Sources: US Census, 2005‐2009 American Community Survey (ACS) for incomes and and home values                 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco for 2009 API school scores County City Median Household Income Median Home Value Average 2009 API Score San Mateo Atherton $185,000 $1,000,001 854 San Mateo Belmont $98,598 $895,700 885 San Mateo Brisbane $95,972 $709,800 806 San Mateo Burlingame $82,295 $1,000,001 888 San Mateo Colma $77,596 $591,100 755 San Mateo Daly City $72,214 $618,200 755 San Mateo East Palo Alto $47,964 $575,000 708 San Mateo Foster City $109,437 $824,700 903 San Mateo Half Moon Bay $90,104 $774,400 825 San Mateo Hillsborough $202,292 $1,000,001 967 San Mateo Menlo Park $107,261 $1,000,001 774 San Mateo Millbrae $81,742 $929,100 863 San Mateo Pacifica $88,768 $683,700 812 San Mateo Portola Valley $168,750 $1,000,001 946 San Mateo Redwood City $76,183 $818,800 794 San Mateo San Bruno $74,375 $652,100 813 San Mateo San Carlos $105,042 $925,000 898 San Mateo San Mateo $81,831 $766,700 802 San Mateo South San Francisco $72,203 $662,500 782 San Mateo Woodside $214,310 $1,000,001 932 San Mateo Unincorporated $112,500 773 Santa Clara Campbell $77,371 $697,100 821 Santa Clara Cupertino $119,398 $976,900 953 Santa Clara Gilroy $67,317 $620,500 778 Santa Clara Los Altos $155,466 $1,000,001 962 Santa Clara Los Altos Hills $218,922 $1,000,001 968 Santa Clara Los Gatos $118,158 $1,000,001 919 Santa Clara Milpitas $92,205 $619,600 829 Santa Clara Monte Sereno $167,417 $1,000,001 919 Santa Clara Morgan Hill $96,367 $706,800 792 Santa Clara Mountain View $86,616 $758,800 835 Santa Clara Palo Alto $119,483 $1,000,001 928 Santa Clara San Jose $78,660 $645,700 802 Santa Clara Santa Clara $83,139 $647,500 818 Santa Clara Saratoga $140,866 $1,000,001 960 Santa Clara Sunnyvale $87,263 $704,300 829 Santa Clara Unincorporated $87,500 896 Solano Benicia $84,665 $566,700 858 Solano Dixon $69,500 $434,100 762 Solano Fairfield $69,001 $432,400 784 Solano Rio Vista $50,319 $355,600 758 Solano Suisun City $70,958 $387,000 745 Solano Vacaville $69,658 $420,300 798 Solano Vallejo $61,343 $403,400 747 Solano Unincorporated $67,500 852 Sonoma Cloverdale $57,500 $460,900 746 Sonoma Cotati $66,667 $479,900 782 Sonoma Healdsburg $65,811 $627,000 735 Sonoma Petaluma $72,881 $572,600 828 Sonoma Rohnert Park $57,413 $439,300 782 Sonoma Santa Rosa $58,899 $505,000 810 Sonoma Sebastopol $61,753 $614,000 809 Sonoma Sonoma $60,613 $640,400 789 Sonoma Windsor $75,673 $530,200 799 Sonoma Unincorporated $67,500 815 RED BOLD = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in all scenarios ORANGE = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in at least one scenario Note: $1,000,001 is the maximum amount shown on the ACS even though home prices may be higher            Median home value for the unincorporated portion of each county was unavailable Sources: US Census, 2005‐2009 American Community Survey (ACS) for incomes and and home values                 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco for 2009 API school scores     Sustainable Communities Strategy ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS Core Concentration, Focused Growth, and Outer Bay Area Growth August 26, 2011 In July, ABAG’s Executive Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a framework for Five Alternative Scenarios, which will be used to inform the development of the Preferred Scenario of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Scenario 1 and 2 are based on unconstrained growth, assume very strong employment growth, and unprecedented funding to support housing affordability. Scenario 1, the Initial Vision Scenario was released in March 2011. Scenario 2, Core Concentration will be developed to provide a more concentrated development pattern along transit corridors. These two scenarios are essential to identify the challenges and policies for an ideal sustainable development path. This report presents the land use patterns for scenarios 3, 4, and 5 based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning strategies. They provide a range of housing and employment distribution across places and cities that support equitable and sustainable development. The three scenarios are as follows:  Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected PDAs in the Inner Bay Area along the region’s core transit network.  Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors.  Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. These three scenarios assume a strong economy supported by the appropriate affordable housing production. They also assume targeted local and regional strategies and additional funding to support employment and housing growth for sustainable and equitable growth. They are designed primarily around Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas, as places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. (PDAs will refer to both areas in this report) The level of growth for PDAs is defined based on the Place Type established by the local jurisdiction (i.e., regional center, transit neighborhood, rural town), which provides a regional language to recognize the character, scale, density and expected growth for the wide range of places in the Bay Area. Beyond the PDAs, household growth is distributed based on employment, transit access, household formation, and housing production. Employment distribution is based upon the existing employment pattern, reversing the previous dispersal trends throughout the region. 1 Regional dialogue on land use scenarios The purpose of the land use alternative scenarios is to expand the regional dialogue on the type of development, planning strategies, and investments to define the SCS. We are seeking input from local jurisdictions, community organizations, business organizations, and general public on the following themes: Distribution of growth  Shifting from previous trends of dispersed growth, do these three land use scenarios provide an appropriate spectrum for sustainable and equitable development trends? Is growth concentrated at the appropriate places? Development of vital and healthy places  Are housing and jobs converging at the appropriate places? Can this convergence support greater access to jobs and housing, particularly for the low and moderate income populations?  What elements of the scenarios would support the development of complete communities?  Do the scenarios address the local expectations and necessary adjustments for regional equity and sustainability? Planning strategies and investments  How can local jurisdictions, community organizations, and business organizations converge into a coherent regional strategy?  What policies and investments should be prioritized to support the SCS? This memo includes five sections and three appendices. The first section is a brief summary of the input received from local jurisdictions and stakeholders on local development and equity. The second section is an overview of regional employment and household growth between 2010 and 2040. The third section describes employment trends and distribution, including some details of the recent regional employment analysis undertaken by ABAG and MTC to inform the land use patterns. The fourth section provides an overview of the housing distribution, which relies on the housing analysis presented in previous reports. The fifth section covers the next steps towards the development of the Preferred Scenario. The appendices include, first, details on the methodology for growth distribution; second, tables of growth by PDA and local jurisdiction; and third, a set of regional maps. 1. INPUT ON SCS SCENARIOS The development of the SCS Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Scenarios are informed by a wealth of input we received on the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) from local elected officials, planning directors, and Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) as well as from the Regional Advisory Working Group, Equity Group, and stakeholders groups. County-level Basecamp sites have been well noticed and public workshops were held throughout our nine-county region. 2 As indicated in previous reports, land use decisions are a local responsibility governed by local jurisdictions. The land use scenarios presented here are based upon local input and strong coordination among local and regional agencies. Regional agencies have incorporated local input into three coherent land use development patterns. Local jurisdictions should be able to identify their specific input on household growth in at least one of the scenarios. The only exception would be if the local input proposes a level of growth below the minimum 40 percent of household formation for a city. Input on local development The input received reflects the unique characteristics of the region’s communities. Some communities described the level of housing growth depicted in the IVS as too high, while other jurisdictions responded that IVS housing growth levels would be appropriate if funding for redevelopment, public schools, transit and other community infrastructure were available. Still, a number of common themes have emerged.  Addressing the Bay Area economic challenges: The Bay Area’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy should advance a vibrant economy and strong growth for the region. Employment growth should be aligned with existing and planned transit. Employment totals are too high given past performance and the depth of the recession.  Sustainable and equitable housing production: Growth levels in the Initial Vision Scenario are not feasible given current market constraints and funding availability. Infill development challenges require capital investments and supportive policies. The SCS should reward communities that advance sustainable growth at transit nodes.  Transit service: Cuts in transit service will impede sustainable growth. Transit-served, infill areas that have not been nominated by local communities as PDAs should take on comparable levels of growth.  Coordination of regional efforts: Loss of redevelopment agencies will limit infill development. The SCS should provide CEQA benefits for projects in PDAs. Air District and BCDC requirements should be aligned with the SCS. Input on equity Regional agency staff has worked with the Regional Equity Working Group and MTC’s Policy Advisory Council to develop inputs to the Alternative Scenarios that will increase access to opportunities and an improved quality of life for residents from all income categories in communities throughout the region. Social equity as well as economic growth and environmental sustainability are promoted through the emphasis on encouraging growth in complete communities served by transit. In addition, each of the alternative scenarios will also distribute growth in a way that ensures each jurisdiction is planning to accommodate a minimum percent of its expected household growth. Factors related to transit service, employment, and net low- income commuters to a jurisdiction will also inform the alternative scenario housing distributions. 2. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2010 – 2040 The recent national economic recession triggered a major employment decline. Recent data and research indicates that the nation is facing a slower recovery than expected over the next few years, which will in turn impact the recovery of the Bay Area. Beyond this short term recovery, 3 the rates of employment growth for the Bay Area and California have become closer to or lower than the national rates since the 1980s. They were higher than the nation from the 1960s to the 1980s, but as the region and the state matured in its economic composition, growth rates became closer to the national average. Due to lowered forecasts of national economic and job growth, along with dramatic decreases in state and national immigration levels (even prior to the recession), the Bay Area job forecast for 2040 would be revised downward by an estimated 100,000 jobs than the forecast employment for the Initial Vision Scenario. The total jobs for 2040 would drop by another 200,000 jobs by switching to a forecast where the Bay Area maintains its current share of national employment. Even under those considerations, the SCS can reasonably assume a healthy economy for the Bay Area by 2040. High expectations are based on the strength of our knowledge-based economy, the development of new high technology sectors as well as the diverse economy to support these leading sectors. In addition, the Bay Area has a highly qualified labor force when compared to other regions and a high quality of life based on access to urban amenities, natural resources, and a Mediterranean climate. The region also provides businesses with a wealth of research and development resources and a strong network of international exchange. Given these resources, regional and economic experts working with ABAG and MTC suggest the Bay Area could add almost a million jobs up to 4.26 million jobs by 2040. This is an average of 33,000 per year over the next 30 years, which assumes a healthy and strong economy. This is more than three times the 10,000 average annual job growth of the previous two decades. It is close to the 40,000 average annual job growth of the last 50 years when the region experienced the development of the high technology industry and the finance sector. This employment growth will be supported by strong housing production of about 770,000 units by 2040. This would represent an annual production of 27,000 units per year. The slow recovery of job growth and housing prices are expected to limit housing production in the near- term. This period should be addressed independently from the housing production of the later years. Assuming a suppressed housing production rate of 15,000 units from 2010-2015, this level of growth would increase to almost 30,000 units per year over the 2015-2040 timeframe. In comparison, historical rates were 20,000 per year from 1990-2010 and 36,000 averaging 1970, 1975, 1980, and 1985 rates, periods of much greenfield housing production. The expected growth of 770,000 housing units by 2040 in the scenarios under discussion is lower than the equivalent one million units in Initial Vision Scenario. The former is the expected housing production while the latter reflects the housing need. The expected housing production addresses lower 2010 household and population counts (Census 2010), lower employment growth than previous forecasts, and reasonable assumptions on market trends, local and regional policies, and infrastructure. This level of housing reflects a reasonable job to household ratio for the Bay Area and would consider a reasonable pace of recovery of the housing market. For these scenarios we are assuming a job to household ratio of 1.3 by 2040. This ratio is based on the regional average over the past six decades and is also similar to the present-day ratio. It could be expected that 4 demographic shifts would lower this ratio over the next fifteen years as the baby boomer generation retires, but that it would rise again in the later years of the planning horizon. Regional Growth: Households, Population, Employed Residents, Jobs, 2010 - 2040 Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios Initial Vision Scenario 2010 2040 Growth 2010-40 Growth 2010-40 Households 2,608,000 3,378,000 770,000 1,031,000 Population 7,151,000 9,236,000 2,085,000 2,432,000 Employed residents 3,153,000 3,974,000 821,000 1,338,000 Jobs 3,271,000 4,266,000 995,000 1,463,000 These scenario land development patterns will be supported by transportation scenarios that will vary the level of funding for “fix-it-first” maintenance, transit capacity improvements, roadway improvements, and bike/pedestrian funding. 3. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION The region is experiencing a transformation in its economic activities and in its population composition, both of which have major land use implications. The very strong growth of knowledge-based activities at the intersection with urban amenities brings new strength to employment centers. These economic trends are parallel to some key emerging demographic changes: young professionals’ preferences for vital urban places instead of office parks, an increase in the ethnic diversity of the labor force and residents, and a major wave of retirement and increase in the senior population. Providing that the region can develop and implement a solid SCS, these changes provide an opportunity to strengthen the economic health, social equity, and sustainability of the Bay Area. SCS tasks to support a healthy economy include:  Provide the appropriate transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities to support the new wave of industries at urban locations and densified office parks.  Support a diverse economy through public investments that support strategic sectors, and the retention and expansion of affordable housing close to major employment centers.  Regain the economic vitality of regional centers, which lost employment over the past decades. Support increased densities and a mix of uses at suburban office parks, which have been major employment growth areas.  Concentrate urban amenities and affordable housing in downtown areas and along transit corridors across the region.  Maintain and increase the viability and productivity of industrial lands and agricultural resource areas. 5 For the purpose of the SCS Alternative Scenarios we are revising the total employment growth by 2040, the growth by industry, and the distribution by PDA and city. We have defined a preliminary regional employment growth level of almost one million additional jobs for a total of 4.2 million jobs by 2040. The rationale for this healthy economic growth in relation to population and housing growth will be discussed in a separate memo. This memo primarily focuses on growth by industry and distribution patterns based on the employment analysis developed by ABAG and MTC in collaboration with Strategic Economics. Changes in the regional industrial composition The Bay Area is experiencing a change in the composition of its economic sectors with major implications for its land development patterns. Starting in the 1970s the region experienced major employment growth in San Francisco’s financial district and the emergence of Silicon Valley as the global center of high technology. In contrast to many other metropolitan regions for the next few decades, the Bay Area’s economic sectors developed through very distinct specialized clusters. At the turn of the millennium the region is facing a more mature economic base with an economic sector composition that is closer to the national average. Professional and business services and information jobs have become the major leading sectors in the regional economy. Over the last decades they have experienced sharp growth but they have also been the most impacted during periods of economic decline. These regional leading sectors have increased the demand for highly educated labor and provided high wage jobs. Educational and health services have displayed more moderate but steady growth than professional services. They have surpassed manufacturing, government administration, and retail employment. Over the next 30 years, educational and health services sectors are expected to continue their rate of growth. Professional and business services are expected to generate more than one third of the total regional growth by 2040. Over several decades, these growing sectors have more than compensated the loss in manufacturing and finance jobs. During this period, much of the region’s traditional manufacturing employment has relocated to low cost labor regions in Asia and Latin America. More recently despite steady growth in professional and business service jobs related to emerging technology industries, high tech manufacturing has also relocated out of Silicon Valley to lower cost locations. Changes in technology have also reduced labor requirements and increased productivity for the remaining manufacturing businesses. On the opposite spectrum of the economic sector location patterns, while the region continues to be an important financial center, finance employment jobs have been eliminated or have relocated from the Bay Area. The decline of these two sectors has resulted in a loss of middle-income jobs for the region. Looking forward to 2040, manufacturing and finance are not expected to significantly expand. However, they will remain essential and stable sectors in the regional economy and are expected to retain approximately the same employment size over the next 30 years. The Bay Area is a major international destination for business and leisure travel. Leisure, hospitality and retail are growing employment sectors. In particular, leisure and hospitality employment has grown at a faster pace than retail, following the pattern of professional and 6 business services. Both industry groups are expected to retain a steady growth over the next 30 years. Changes in the regional spatial patterns Over the past decades the Bay Area experienced a decline of employment at its major regional economic centers while suburban employment centers and office parks emerged and grew throughout the region. These spatial patterns were conditioned by the decline of the finance sector in San Francisco, the growth of the high technology sectors in Silicon Valley, the formation of the Tri-Valley business cluster supported by labor from lower housing cost communities in the eastern part of the Bay Area and the central valley, and the strengthening of medium size downtowns such as Walnut Creek, Santa Rosa and Berkeley. Recent changes in the economic sector composition of the region discussed above, in particular the growth of professional services in close proximity to urban amenities, point toward some changes in the current spatial pattern. These trends suggest a new wave of growth that could be accommodated at major economic centers and a demand for urban amenities, mixed-uses and higher densities at suburban employment locations. Analysis of employment and demographic trends indicates that the SCS can serve to support these emerging trends by increasing access to transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities at employment centers. The SCS would recognize the economic function of each place in the region and the potential they offer for the growth of selected industry groups, jobs and businesses. This recognition is also informed by the community choices on the function and qualities of their places. Some of the expected trends are described below.  Renewed regional centers Regional centers have reduced their office jobs as a share of the region from 49 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2010. San Francisco and Oakland also reduced their absolute employment levels. San Jose had a small increase. In the SCS Scenarios we expect a reversal of this trend. This is based on the rate and scale of growth of professional services and its close link to urban entertainment, which brings a new economic vitality to the regional centers. Similar to the growth of the financial district in the 1970s, the Bay Area is attracting new businesses and workers that want to locate in close proximity to related firms, services and amenities. The new wave of businesses and young professionals’ demand for building space prioritizes flexibility to adjust spaces to multiple functions and requires less office space per worker relative to the early growth of traditional downtown office space. The growth of health and educational services would also support the growth of regional centers.  Office parks: Office parks have been a dominant building pattern in the two suburban areas that experienced major growth in the Bay Area over the past several decades: Silicon Valley and the Tri-Valley. In the SCS Alternative Scenarios office park employment will continue to grow but at a slower pace than in recent decades. The emerging private shuttle services run by businesses, particularly in San Mateo and Santa Clara County are expected to grow and improve transit access while lessening, but not fully mitigating increased freeway traffic congestion related to 7 employment growth. Growth in office park employment is limited in part by the capacity of the region’s congested freeway network. Office parks in the Tri-Valley area would house more workers within their own jurisdictions, but will continue to draw from lower cost labor in the Central Valley. Some office parks would be transformed with additional office buildings and a mix of uses including housing.  Downtown areas and transit corridors The increasing need and desire for local services in close proximity to residential locations has led to a clustering of services along corridors and in small downtown areas over the past decades. The increasing size of the region’s senior population will likely reinforce this trend over the next decades. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume an increase in local serving jobs in Priority Development Areas proportional to housing growth in PDAs.  Industrial land The decline of the manufacturing and wholesale employment due to business relocation and changes in technology has resulted in a major contraction of those businesses in industrial areas. In many areas this has not resulted in vacant industrial land, but a different mix of businesses that are necessary to support the local and regional economies. In addition to basic services such as refuse collection or supply distribution, industrial lands are now occupied by a wide range of businesses from food processing to green industry manufacturing to auto repair to high tech product development drawing employment from many sectors into traditional industrial land. The SCS Scenarios assume limited but stable job growth in manufacturing, given retention of industrial land at core locations and an expanding array of production, distribution and repair activities.  Agricultural land The Bay Area has a wealth of agricultural land unparalleled among our nation’s largest metropolitan regions that provides high quality agricultural products including diverse high- value crop production and its world-renowned wine industry. For the most part the region’s remaining farmland is policy-protected from urban expansion. All of the counties outside of San Francisco have a growth management framework (e.g. urban growth boundaries, agricultural zoning, etc.) in place. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume the retention of most agricultural land with some increase in productivity yielding modest employment growth. Core Concentration, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios Given the expected levels of regional growth, changes in the economic sector composition, and changes in the spatial patterns of employment location, the three alternative scenarios provide alternative land use development patterns based on various degrees of employment concentration. All scenarios assume one million additional jobs in the region through 2040. They also assume the same growth rates by industry. The three scenarios assume slowing or reversal in the declining share of employment in Priority Development Areas experienced in previous decades. The three scenarios also assume some growth in local serving jobs proportional to the housing growth by PDAs. 8 The three employment scenarios are CONCEPTUAL scenarios to understand and assess distinct land use patterns in relation to housing and transit. Starting from the current distribution of employment and growth trends over previous decades, the scenarios add three factors: the concentration of jobs in PDAs, the concentration of knowledge-based jobs (Information, Finance, Professional & Business Services), and the link of local serving jobs (primarily Retail, some Health, Educational, and Recreational Services) to housing growth. They do not yet include input from local jurisdictions or analysis of land constraints, industrial cluster support, or public and private investments. This input and analysis will be essential to develop the employment distribution for the Preferred Scenario. Overview of job growth by scenario Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Land use trends Higher growth in major employment centers close to transit Higher concentration of employment in PDAs than 2010 Continued trends of more growth in Outer Bay Area and more growth outside of PDAs PDA job growth Small increase of PDAs share of regional jobs over Focused Growth Scenario Small increase of PDAs share of regional jobs over 2010 Decline of PDAs share of regional jobs over 2010 Knowledge- base jobs Additional 15% in inner bay PDAs Additional 10% across all PDAs Decline in share of PDAs following previous trends Local serving jobs Follows housing growth, more jobs in inner bay area PDAs Follows housing growth, distributed across all PDAs and jurisdictions Follows housing growth, more jobs in outer bay area Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: This scenario follows the growth trends from the previous 30 years but with lower rates of job dispersal. Regional Centers and large City Centers grow but slower than other Place Types, while Suburban Centers and office parks outside of PDAs continue to grow at higher rates than the regional average. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based and local serving jobs will be more concentrated in PDAs by 2040 than in 2010. Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based jobs will be more concentrated in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use neighborhoods in the Inner Bay Area places where jobs are concentrated today. Local 9 serving jobs will follow housing in PDAs, which will be more concentrated in the Inner Bay Area. Employment by economic sector The employment growth by economic sector is based on the forecast prepared by Caltrans and adjusted to the total regional growth established by ABAG and MTC. While the same level of growth by industry is assume in the three scenarios, the distribution by city and PDA varies across scenarios. Employment growth by economic sector 2010 - 2040 Jobs 2010 Jobs 2040 Job growth 2010 – 2040 Annual Growth Rate 2010- 2040 Total Jobs 3,270,906 4,265,736 994,831 1.01% Agriculture and Natural Resources 22,142 22,286 144 0.02% Manufacturing Wholesale and Transportation 543,974 659,580 115,606 0.71% Retail 325,168 402,036 76,868 0.79% Professional and Business Services / Finance 774,502 1,153,879 379,378 1.63% Health, Education, Recreation Services 853,755 1,106,095 252,340 0.99% Other: Information, Government, Construction 751,365 921,860 170,495 0.76% Distribution of Employment The employment distribution for 2010 is based on NETS data. This data provides employment information by location of a business establishment. This is a high level of geographical resolution, which allows us to capture the employment by PDA more accurately than previous zip code data. In 2010, the total jobs in PDAs was an estimated 1,586,000 or 48 percent of jobs regionwide. This is 5 percent lower than the PDA share in 1990 according to ABAG analysis of the NETS data. The three scenarios assume different shares of jobs in PDAs as indicated below. Following previous trends but at a slower pace, the Outer Bay Area Scenario assumes a lower PDA share of total jobs in 2040 than in 2010. The Focused Growth and Core Concentration Scenarios both assume a higher concentration of jobs in PDAs in 2040 than in 2010. 10 Job Share in PDAs by Scenario: Past and Future Trends 1990 – 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth PDA Job Share 1990 53% 53% 53% PDA Job Share 2010 48% 48% 48% PDA Job Share 2040 51% 50% 48% PDA Job Growth Share 2010-2040 58 % 55 % 47 % Within PDAs, the distribution of jobs varies according to sector and Place Type. The Outer Bay Area Scenario retains a similar distribution in 2010 and 2040 except for the local serving jobs, which shifts according to housing growth. The Focused Growth Scenario increases knowledge- based jobs across all PDAs. The Core Concentration Scenario increases knowledge-based jobs in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use corridors in the inner Bay Area. Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Industry Group by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total region 58% 55% 47% Agriculture and Natural Resources 27% 27% 27% Manufacturing Wholesale and Transportation 43% 43% 39% Retail 61% 58% 55% Professional services/Finance 65% 60% 45% Health, Education, Recreation Services 48% 48% 47% Other: Information, Government, Construction 67% 63% 51% 11 Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Jobs 58.3% 55.3% 46.9% Inner Bay Regional Center 21.4% 19.0% 12.5% City Center 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% Suburban Center 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% Transit Town Center 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% Urban Neighborhood 5.1% 4.6% 3.5% Transit Neighborhood 2.3% 2.5% 1.8% Mixed-Use Corridor 13.3% 12.1% 11.1% Employment Center 1.4% 1.5% 1.2% Outer Bay Regional Center 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% City Center 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% Suburban Center 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% Transit Town Center 1.7% 1.9% 1.8% Transit Neighborhood 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% Mixed-Use Corridor 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% Employment Center 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12 Share of Regional Professional and Business Services / Finance Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Jobs 65.1% 60.0% 45.4% Inner Bay Regional Center 29.5% 25.3% 12.8% City Center 4.7% 4.0% 5.1% Suburban Center 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% Transit Town Center 2.0% 2.4% 2.9% Urban Neighborhood 4.7% 4.0% 2.8% Transit Neighborhood 1.9% 2.3% 0.7% Mixed-Use Corridor 14.3% 12.3% 11.5% Employment Center 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% Outer Bay Regional Center 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% City Center 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% Suburban Center 1.9% 2.2% 1.9% Transit Town Center 1.5% 1.8% 1.1% Transit Neighborhood 0.6% 0.7% 1.4% Mixed-Use Corridor 1.1% 1.4% 1.5% Employment Center 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13 Share of Regional Retail Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Jobs 61.3% 57.9% 55.0% Inner Bay Regional Center 10.2% 9.2% 9.5% City Center 4.7% 4.4% 4.2% Suburban Center 3.2% 3.0% 3.2% Transit Town Center 5.3% 4.8% 3.6% Urban Neighborhood 5.1% 4.4% 3.6% Transit Neighborhood 4.5% 4.0% 3.3% Mixed-Use Corridor 16.2% 14.7% 12.1% Employment Center 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Outer Bay Regional Center 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% City Center 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% Suburban Center 4.1% 4.3% 6.3% Transit Town Center 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% Transit Neighborhood 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% Mixed-Use Corridor 2.3% 2.7% 2.8% Employment Center 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Job Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 – 2040 PDA Jobs County Jobs Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Alameda 106,300 104,000 93,500 203,800 203,700 216,300 Contra Costa 38,000 41,300 46,500 96,400 104,900 126,300 Marin 6,000 6,800 7,900 31,700 34,600 35,900 Napa 300 300 300 14,600 15,600 22,000 San Francisco 206,500 178,000 127,000 206,900 179,100 127,000 San Mateo 41,900 40,300 35,200 99,600 104,000 112,700 Santa Clara 159,300 154,000 129,300 254,200 257,400 247,400 Solano 6,600 7,300 7,500 42,000 46,200 50,200 Sonoma 15,600 17,600 19,700 45,500 49,200 57,100 TOTAL 580,400 549,700 467,000 994,800 994,800 994,800 14 4. REGIONAL HOUSING DISTRIBUTION The three scenarios, Core Concentration, Focused and Outer Bay Area Growth, address the distribution of 771,000 households by 2040 through alternative land use patterns. Each of these scenarios relates to the employment growth and the three distribution patterns described in the previous section. Levels of household growth are specifically linked to the concentration of knowledge–based and local serving jobs. The three scenarios support healthy economic growth by 2040. Shifting from the dominant development trend of single-family homes in greenfield areas over the last three decades, the three scenarios assume a higher concentration of households within multi-family housing at transit nodes and corridors with appropriate services and stores. Most of the growth is expected to be accommodated through 3 to 6 story wood-frame buildings, with the exception of major downtown areas where steel-frame buildings of more than 10 stories would be constructed. The scenarios vary in the overall share of households in PDAs as well as by Place Type and city. The distribution of household growth is based on local input and regional criteria established through the densities and scale of Place Types, transit service, employment, and net low-income commuters. In addition, in the three scenarios each city is expected to reach a minimum household growth equivalent to 40 percent of its household formation. This last factor comes from the Regional Housing Need Allocation methodology for 2014-2022, which identifies the housing needs by city to be addressed through local plans and zoning controls. Local plans and their proposed housing growth are an important component in the distribution of household growth. Local input on household growth from each jurisdiction was utilized in at least one of the three scenarios. The PDAs and the growth factors directly addressed equity in the SCS. This final approach to the alternative scenarios is the result of in-depth interactions with equity groups. PDAs cover a wide range of neighborhoods with diverse income levels, infrastructure needs, and transit service. Regional staff worked closely with local jurisdictions to identify potential PDAs in areas that need public investment for current and future populations as well as in areas that are ready to accommodate additional housing. Two growth factors are directly linked to equity. The low-income net in-commuters’ factor recognizes the potential of cities with high employment and limited affordable housing to accommodate future household growth. Similarly, the minimum growth floor of 40 percent of jurisdictions’ household formation level allows cities with good services to accommodate a portion of their own population growth. In order to appropriately address equity in the SCS, ABAG and MTC will conduct a thorough assessment of regional income levels and distribution. This report only includes some minor revisions to the income distribution factors used in Projections 2009. Current regional economic changes in the type of businesses, jobs, and labor indicate some regional income polarization. This task requires detailed attention and would be a priority over the next weeks. 15 Overview of household growth by scenario Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Land use trends More growth in PDAs, particularly in Inner Bay Area’s major employment centers and transit nodes Growth throughout regional transit corridors and job centers Less growth in PDAs, more growth in Outer Bay Area along transit corridors. Growth factors Transit service Employment Net low-income commuters Minimum level of growth 40% of the expected household formation rate for each jurisdiction PDA household growth Based on Focused Growth Scenario, increase household growth by 20% in Inner Bay Area, plus or minus housing value factor Growth within PDAs based on minimum level of growth by Place Type. Based on Focused Growth Scenario, increase household growth by 5 to 30% in Outer Bay Area depending on job growth Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes a concentration of households in PDAs/GOAs and jurisdictions in the Inner Bay Area to take advantage of the core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes focused household growth in PDAs/GOAs throughout the region’s transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Closer to recent development trends than the other two scenarios, this scenario assumes more growth of households in the Outer Bay Area in relation to the employment growth by jurisdiction. The three scenarios vary in their share of PDA household growth from 67 to 79 percent of all regional growth. PDAs currently account for 24 percent of all households in the region. The PDA share of households increases to between 34 and 37 percent of all households in the three scenarios. 16 Households in PDAs by Scenario: Current and Future Trends 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth PDA households 2010 634,730 634,730 634,730 PDA households 2040 1,239,900 1,187,740 1,154,970 PDA households growth 2010-2040 605,170 553,010 520,270 PDA share of total households 2040 37% 35% 34% PDA share of growth 2010-2040 79% 72% 67% In the Core Concentration-Constrained Scenario, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions for the most part experience a greater concentration of growth within their PDAs than in the Focused Growth Scenario, whereas in the Outer Bay Area Scenario growth is less concentrated in the PDAs. In each of the scenarios, the 40 percent housing growth threshold has a considerable affect on some of the smaller residential communities throughout the region. The concentration of households varies by Place Type. In each scenario, the greatest share of regional growth is within the Mixed-Use Corridors, followed by Regional Centers. The Core Growth Scenario brings a higher concentration of households at Regional Centers, City Centers, Urban Neighborhoods, and Mixed-Use Corridors. This includes San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco downtown areas and San Pablo, Mission, and El Camino transit corridors. The Transit Town Centers and Transit Neighborhoods also play an important role in the Core Scenario, as many of the PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area are these Place Types. In the Focused Growth and Outer Bay Area scenario, growth is more evenly distributed across all Place Types. The Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario shows higher growth in suburban centers such as the Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon PDAs 17 Share of Regional Household Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Share of Households 37% 35% 34% Regional Center 12.6% 11.2% 10.3% City Center 8.4% 8.3% 7.7% Suburban Center 8.3% 8.3% 8.5% Urban Neighborhood 7.3% 6.1% 5.1% Transit Town Center 11.2% 9.9% 9.8% Transit Neighborhood 10.2% 9.3% 9.2% Mixed-Use Corridor 20.2% 18.3% 16.6% Employment Center 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% The distribution of growth by county varies according to their transit access and relationship of the county to the Inner and Outer Bay Area. Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, counties with high transit service and primarily within the Inner Bay show more growth in Core Growth Scenario. North Bay Counties—Marin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma— and Contra Costa are part of the Outer Bay Area and many of their cities have limited transit access. Thus they display higher growth in the Outer Bay Area Scenario. Household Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 – 2040 PDA Households County Households Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Alameda 132,610 121,050 111,740 167,750 172,990 164,300 Contra Costa 66,790 67,510 72,650 96,880 110,930 136,550 Marin 4,100 6,380 6,690 10,100 11,260 13,250 Napa 1,660 1,660 1,740 5,520 6,290 7,170 San Francisco 105,110 85,940 71,900 110,640 90,470 76,430 San Mateo 54,820 44,130 40,810 72,110 68,570 61,700 Santa Clara 205,960 182,220 167,280 245,990 242,060 227,120 Solano 15,440 16,390 17,230 28,740 30,860 38,690 Sonoma 18,680 27,730 30,230 33,080 37,380 45,620 TOTAL 605,170 553,010 520,270 770,810 770,810 770,830 18 5. NEXT STEPS The three land use scenarios presented in this report provide the preliminary analysis for the development of the SCS Preferred Scenario. Additional tasks are pending to inform the Preferred Scenario. 1. Land use analysis o Further analysis of regional employment and population growth o Further analysis of income forecast and distribution 2. Policy Development to support the Preferred Scenario o Housing production o Infill development investments o Transit access o Complete Communities 3. Transportation network analysis 4. Performance targets results for the three Alternative Land Use Scenarios 5. Gather input from local jurisdictions and stakeholders to inform development of the Preferred Scenario 19 APPENDIX I 1. EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Sources California Department of Transportation Sector Forecast (Caltrans) Caltrans uses an econometric model to project employment by industry out to 2040 for each county in California. The agency’s model uses variables and assumptions taken from the UCLA Anderson Forecast and historic employment data from EDD. The most recent projections were released in March 2010. In comparison, the most recent EDD and BLS projections available date from 2008 and 2009. A complete description of the 2010 Caltrans projection methodology and data out to 2035 (2040 data was provided upon request) is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio_economic.html. Walls & Associates / Dun and Bradstreet (NETS) Walls & Associates converts Dun and Bradstreet archival establishment data into a time-series database of establishment information called the National Establishment Times-Series (NETS) Database. ABAG has analyzed the NETS data to provide information on the spatial distribution of jobs at the jurisdiction and PDA level by employment sector, as well as changes in spatial distribution at these geographies from 1989-2009. More information on the NETS data is available at: http://www.youreconomy.org/nets/?region=Walls Methodology 2010 Employment Current employment is based on total jobs established for the Current Regional Plans and Initial Vision Scenario and the Caltrans breakdown by employment sector for the region for 2010. NETS 2009 data is used to distribute jobs by geography for each sector. Scenario Employment Distribution The Caltrans forecast – scaled to match the regional constrained employment total established for the three alternative scenarios – was used for the regional growth by employment sector for all three scenarios. Each scenario follows two basic steps for then distributing employment growth by geography for each sector. 1. As a baseline, Focused Growth and Core-Constrained Growth Scenarios maintain 2010 employment distribution by Place Type and county into the future and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios slows down the 1989-2009 trends in distribution of jobs by Place Type and county. 2. A portion of local-serving jobs and knowledge-based jobs are then distributed to follow the investments and growth pattern for each scenario. 20 Core-Constrained Scenario The core-constrained scenario starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were then allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution, reflecting a share of local-serving jobs that follows the housing growth in the core-constrained scenario. An additional 15% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs were located in Inner Bay PDA locations that were Regional Center, Mixed-Use Corridor, City Center, and Urban Neighborhood Place Types. This reflects a further concentration in these sectors into the transit- served locations where they are already concentrated, corresponding to a stronger agglomeration of the knowledge-based and other vertical-office-user jobs into these core areas. These additional office jobs were also allocated to the corresponding jurisdiction. Focused Growth Scenario The focused growth scenario also starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were again allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution in the focused growth scenario. The focused growth scenario also includes an additional 10% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs locating in PDA locations, reflecting a further consolidation of office uses in PDAs. These additional office jobs were distributed to PDAs throughout the region in proportion to their existing share of these sectors. Outer Growth Scenario The outer growth scenario starts with a baseline that slows the 1989-2009 trend in job distribution by PDA Place Type (for the PDA distribution) and by County (for the jurisdiction distribution). In general this exhibits higher growth in the outer bay counties and slower growth in PDAs overall and a shift in share from inner bay PDAs to outer bay PDAs. As in the other two scenarios, 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Education, and Recreation jobs were allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction to match the housing growth distribution in the outer growth scenario. In this scenario, no additional office jobs were added to PDA locations. However, for the counties with both inner and outer bay designations (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties), a share of Professional & Business Services jobs were reallocated from the inner bay to outer bay jurisdictions to reflect the trend in greater dispersal of jobs within these counties. 21 2. HOUSING DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY AND DATA Data Sources U. S. Census Bureau – 2010 Census U. S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics (LEHD) MTC Transit Coverage and Frequency by City Methodology Scenario Housing Distribution Each scenario was developed based on the three key components. 1. Growth in Priority Development Areas: PDAs define a sustainable and equitable development framework for the SCS. Local and regional efforts support the development of PDAs as complete communities with the appropriate level of services and urban amenities for the current and future residents and workers. The minimum level of growth for each Place Type and local input were used as a basis for the level of growth in the PDAs. 2. Growth by local jurisdiction: At the city level, jurisdictions’ housing levels were based on Projections 2009, with adjustments based on the 2010 Census and local feedback. Household growth by city was determined based on job concentration, transit service, and existing population and jobs. In addition, a factor based on low-wage commuters was applied to the distribution of housing in order to improve access to employment centers served by transit for low-wage workers. 3. Growth pattern informed by the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The scenarios utilized the proposed RHNA approach1 for setting a minimum level of growth in the jurisdictions to ensure each jurisdiction is doing a reasonable amount of fair share housing to meet the region’s housing need. A minimum housing growth threshold for each jurisdiction was set at 40 percent of its household formation growth. The scenarios assume that RHNA, as a short term housing strategy through local general plans, will shape the long term development pattern through a minimum housing floor (jurisdictions would accommodate at least 40 percent of their future household formation). The income distribution component of the proposed RHNA methodology, which is intended to address housing affordability (whereby jurisdictions would move towards the regional distribution of income groups), was not applied for the scenarios. Analysis of regional income levels and distribution is pending. 1 The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state mandated process for determining how many housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to accommodate. See http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/housing.htm for more information on RHNA. 22 Transit and Employment Criteria for Housing Distribution TRANSIT TYPE EXISTING JOB CENTER (10,000+ JOBS) FOCUSED GROWTH 2035 HOUSING BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light Rail Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 25% BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light Rail No Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 20% Caltrain Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 25% Caltrain No Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 20% ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, eBART, Dumbarton Rail Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 10% ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, eBART, Dumbarton Rail No Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 5% BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, San Pablo Avenue, E.14th Street/Mission Bvd Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 5% BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, San Pablo Avenue, E.14th Street/Mission Bvd No Increase to low-range Place Type density PDAs not on major corridors Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 10% PDAs not on major corridors No Increase to min Place Type density minus 10% Focused Growth Scenario For the Focused Growth Scenario, the level of growth in a PDA was taken as the higher of: a. the planned level of growth in the PDA, based on jurisdictional feedback on the Initial Vision Scenario, and b. the minimum level of growth based on the PDA's Place Type. The minimum level of growth for a PDA was calculated by multiplying the minimum density for the PDA's Place Type by the redevelopable acreage in the PDA, which was assumed to be 10% of net acreage. The minimum density for each PDA was scaled up or down based on transit tiers and whether the PDA is an existing job center containing 10,000+ jobs. The table below shows the distribution rules for each transit tier/job center combination. If the planned level of growth 23 in a PDA was lower than the minimum calculated for its Place Type, the growth for that PDA was increased to the calculated minimum. At the city level, the share of growth within each jurisdictions’ PDAs was capped at 95 percent of the jurisdiction’s total growth. Core Concentration-Constrained Scenario For the Core-Concentration-Constrained Scenario, growth was shifted to PDAs in the Inner Bay Area. First, housing growth was increased by 20 percent above Focused Growth Scenario levels for these PDAs. Next, housing levels were adjusted up or down based on a housing value factor for each jurisdiction. The housing value adjustment ranged from +15 to -15 percent, based on median home value. ABAG reduced growth in Outer Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. At the city level, housing growth within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was reduced to account for the re-distribution of housing to Inner Bay Area PDAs. Housing levels in Inner Bay Area jurisdictions were kept at their Focused Growth Scenario levels or were increased slightly to account for an increase in their PDAs’ housing levels, with the share of growth within each jurisdictions’ PDAs capped at 95 percent of the jurisdiction’s total growth. Outer Bay Area Scenario To create the Outer Bay Area Scenario, ABAG first estimated the potential job increase to each jurisdiction. ABAG continued the trend of jobs shifting from inner to outer counties and from PDAs to outer areas. Within Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties, a share of professional and business growth was also shifted from the Inner Bay Area to Outer Bay Area jurisdictions. ABAG increased housing growth in those Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that saw significant job growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that had more than 3,000 new jobs received a 30% increase in housing growth in their PDAs over the Focused Growth Scenario, those that grew by 1,000 to 3,000 jobs received a 10% increase in their PDAs, and those that grew by less than 1,000 jobs received a 5% increase. ABAG reduced growth in Inner Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. However, since the City and County of San Francisco did not request a reduction from the Initial Vision Scenario, ABAG reduced each San Francisco PDA's housing growth by 20%. At the city level, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions’ housing units were reduced to desired levels. These housing units were re-distributed to the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction’s share of regional growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdiction growth levels may also have increased to account for an increase in units within their PDAs. The share of jurisdictional growth in PDAs within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was capped at 85 percent. 24 25 Transportation Assumptions The following transportation network assumptions were used to develop the three scenarios: Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Growth Increased service levels on all existing transit systems (including frequency and capacity) X X X including increased local bus service Bus Rapid Transit service on major corridors El Camino Real and E.14th Street/ Mission Blvd El Camino Real, San Pablo Ave, and E.14th Street/ Mission Blvd Full operation of SMART X X Full operation of eBART, including at Pittsburg Railroad Ave station X X Dumbarton Rail service X X Future Irvington BART station X X Future Warm Springs BART station X X Restoration of AC Transit service to levels before recession X X APPENDIX II: TABLES  Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction  Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction KEY Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth Opportunity Area (italics) Alameda County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Alameda 26,480 7,570 8,220 7,870 Naval Air Station Transit Town Center 1,310 770 770 830 Northern Waterfront Transit Neighborhood 1,290 460 470 260 Albany 5,070 1,410 1,350 1,000 San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 2,880 920 830 560 Berkeley 73,780 22,300 22,100 21,430 Adeline Street Mixed-Use Corridor 940 310 280 250 Downtown City Center 14,220 6,750 5,970 6,240 San Pablo Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 2,430 730 690 670 South Shattuck Mixed-Use Corridor 1,000 280 250 160 Telegraph Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,700 570 530 500 University Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,680 520 480 450 Dublin 17,490 4,950 5,520 9,890 Downtown Specific Plan Area Suburban Center 4,620 1,030 1,130 1,400 Town Center Suburban Center 320 220 220 270 Transit Center Suburban Center 0 160 170 200 Emeryville 16,350 6,010 5,660 5,290 Mixed-Use Core City Center 11,490 4,630 4,190 4,650 Fremont 89,280 26,360 26,320 27,770 Centerville Transit Neighborhood 2,980 1,140 1,230 670 City Center City Center 16,300 7,070 6,330 6,630 Irvington District Transit Town Center 2,670 890 930 1,020 Ardenwood Business Park Employment Center 1,970 610 680 530 Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,710 3,350 3,050 2,910 Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing Mixed-Use Corridor 270 90 90 80 South Fremont/Warm Springs Suburban Center 7,940 1,990 2,060 1,940 Hayward 63,960 16,050 16,650 17,440 Downtown City Center 6,200 1,950 1,790 1,820 South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor 330 140 140 120 South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood 480 320 300 280 The Cannery Transit Neighborhood 1,190 360 400 320 Carlos Bee Quarry Mixed-Use Corridor 0404040 Mission Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,450 470 440 410 Livermore 47,200 13,540 15,090 20,130 Downtown Suburban Center 2,870 910 960 1,180 Vasco Road TOD Suburban Center 5,910 1,220 1,410 1,790 Newark 16,820 4,170 4,440 4,420 Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Transit Town Center 1,200 370 370 380 Old Town Mixed Use Area Transit Neighborhood 180 70 70 50 Cedar Boulevard Transit Transit Neighborhood 170 100 90 70 Civic Center Re-Use Transit Transit Neighborhood 510 150 160 200 Oakland 196,600 64,390 58,930 57,160 Coliseum BART Station Area Transit Town Center 5,450 1,520 1,610 1,680 Downtown & Jack London Square Regional Center 92,180 34,070 35,210 26,080 Eastmont Town Center Urban Neighborhood 3,570 1,270 1,130 790 Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Urban Neighborhood 8,490 2,920 2,690 2,190 MacArthur Transit Village Urban Neighborhood 10,460 3,270 3,110 2,570 Transit Oriented Development Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 33,650 12,620 11,540 10,960 West Oakland Transit Town Center 7,570 2,370 2,390 2,660 Piedmont 2,100 610 690 330 Pleasanton 52,510 14,580 16,150 21,510 Hacienda Suburban Center 9,870 3,720 4,290 4,400 San Leandro 39,350 10,750 10,800 11,300 Bay Fair BART Transit Village Transit Town Center 1,470 340 360 350 Downtown Transit Oriented Development City Center 7,910 3,220 2,890 2,960 East 14th Street Mixed-Use Corridor 7,500 2,660 2,390 2,300 Union City 19,260 4,650 4,790 4,620 Intermodal Station District City Center 340 160 150 160 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 20 20 20 20 Old Alvarado Mixed-Use Corridor 470 210 190 180 Alameda County Unincorporated 23,480 6,420 6,960 6,170 Castro Valley BART Transit Neighborhood 2,030 530 560 330 East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,390 770 710 670 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Contra Costa County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Antioch 19,910 5,140 5,560 6,900 Hillcrest eBART Station Suburban Center 20 150 170 170 Rivertown Waterfront Transit Town Center 3,910 1,060 1,190 1,200 Brentwood 8,370 2,470 2,750 3,480 Clayton 2,280 610 670 1,000 Concord 50,570 13,890 15,070 18,900 Community Reuse Area Regional Center 170 220 230 300 Community Reuse Area Transit Neighborhood 0 550 600 710 Downtown BART Station Planning Area City Center 6,910 2,160 2,400 2,550 North Concord BART Adjacent Employment Center Employment Center 5,940 1,590 1,770 2,680 West Downtown Planning Area Mixed-Use Corridor 3,300 1,010 1,140 1,380 Danville 12,750 3,490 3,780 4,850 El Cerrito 6,550 1,880 1,870 1,680 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,480 920 850 680 Hercules 4,390 1,400 1,500 1,970 Central Hercules Transit Neighborhood 900 400 450 590 Waterfront District Transit Town Center 1,280 400 430 450 Lafayette 10,330 2,990 3,280 4,200 Downtown Transit Town Center 6,180 1,770 1,930 1,740 Martinez 32,020 6,960 7,860 8,860 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 6,820 1,660 1,910 2,730 Moraga 4,180 1,270 1,380 1,890 Moraga Center Transit Town Center 1,200 460 520 400 Oakley 3,760 1,130 1,210 2,110 Downtown Transit Town Center 580 210 230 210 Employment Area Suburban Center 730 220 230 270 Potential Planning Area Transit Neighborhood 300 180 190 250 Orinda 5,200 1,560 1,730 2,350 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,750 840 950 790 Pinole 6,600 1,740 1,870 2,490 Appian Way Corridor Suburban Center 2,460 660 690 840 Old Town Transit Town Center 1,410 360 390 400 Pittsburg 16,710 4,510 4,820 5,960 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 1,560 620 650 1,010 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Town Center 150 200 220 200 Railroad Avenue eBART Station Transit Town Center 6,500 1,670 1,820 1,860 Pleasant Hill 19,490 6,080 6,760 8,440 Buskirk Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,510 1,170 1,360 1,680 Diablo Valley College Transit Neighborhood 2,950 1,610 1,910 3,550 Richmond 34,290 10,130 10,220 8,720 Central Richmond City Center 6,250 2,540 2,310 2,280 South Richmond Transit Neighborhood 6,600 1,880 2,060 1,420 23rd Street Mixed-Use Corridor 320 140 140 130 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,910 900 810 780 San Pablo 8,000 2,050 2,150 2,700 San Ramon 42,110 10,930 12,130 14,820 City Center Suburban Center 11,290 1,980 2,190 2,830 North Camino Ramon Transit Town Center 10,720 3,490 3,870 3,670 Walnut Creek 50,600 13,690 15,290 18,610 West Downtown Suburban Center 7,410 2,670 3,060 3,050 Contra Costa County Unincorporated 14,740 4,500 4,930 6,380 Contra Costa Centre Mixed-Use Corridor 3,470 890 1,050 1,200 Downtown El Sobrante Mixed-Use Corridor 970 280 290 370 North Richmond Transit Neighborhood 1,850 520 540 760 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Neighborhood 400 340 360 420 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,490 2,660 2,770 3,320 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Marin County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Belvedere 460 130 140 150 Corte Madera 6,840 1,760 1,880 2,000 Fairfax 2,430 650 700 760 Larkspur 8,250 2,270 2,460 2,590 Mill Valley 6,330 1,900 2,080 2,180 Novato 22,600 5,820 6,370 6,640 Ross 510 150 160 160 San Anselmo 4,160 1,210 1,320 1,380 San Rafael 42,000 11,040 12,030 12,310 Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Transit Town Center 5,800 1,730 1,940 1,770 Downtown City Center 8,830 2,590 2,930 3,060 Sausalito 7,460 2,520 2,820 2,860 Tiburon 2,960 930 1,030 1,090 Marin County Unincorporated 10,860 3,320 3,620 3,740 Urbanized 101 Corridor Transit Neighborhood 2,630 820 1,010 1,560 San Quentin Transit Neighborhood 3,100 870 940 1,520 Napa County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth American Canyon 2,480 610 630 920 Highway 29 Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,040 280 290 340 Calistoga 2,300 570 600 790 Napa 28,740 7,270 7,730 10,950 St. Helena 4,390 970 1,040 1,570 Yountville 1,440 400 430 610 Napa County Unincorporated 22,390 4,830 5,170 7,130 San Francisco County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth San Francisco 550,340 206,920 179,140 126,990 19th Avenue Transit Town Center 10,490 2,850 2,880 3,350 Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood 2,540 810 870 910 Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood 20,270 7,970 7,170 5,900 Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center 300,220 114,920 94,080 57,350 Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood 60,230 22,950 20,680 16,040 Market & Octavia Urban Neighborhood 29,780 8,760 7,900 4,810 Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood 2,900 1,380 1,230 980 Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 12,030 4,740 4,300 4,050 Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor 5,280 2,010 1,850 1,710 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of BrisbanTransit Neighborhood 1,830 1,230 1,240 460 Transbay Terminal Regional Center 7,680 4,480 3,870 2,340 Treasure Island Transit Town Center 250 650 570 450 Citywide 96,840 33,720 31,390 28,630 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction San Mateo County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Atherton 2,280 710 780 780 Belmont 7,400 2,520 2,470 2,560 Brisbane 6,270 1,780 1,910 2,160 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San FranciscoSuburban Center 440 190 190 110 Burlingame 25,880 7,440 8,060 8,610 Burlingame El Camino Real Transit Town Center 10,520 2,940 3,090 3,330 Colma 2,540 510 490 430 Daly City 19,370 5,840 5,930 5,810 Bayshore Transit Town Center 980 430 440 450 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 3,520 1,110 1,030 980 Citywide 12,670 3,430 3,730 3,410 East Palo Alto 2,670 880 920 920 Ravenswood Transit Town Center 900 290 310 300 Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood 170 130 100 110 Foster City 13,380 3,900 4,360 4,730 Half Moon Bay 4,940 1,260 1,370 1,410 Hillsborough 2,110 660 740 740 Menlo Park 41,320 11,090 12,080 12,370 El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center 5,200 1,520 1,650 1,780 Millbrae 6,910 2,140 2,000 1,990 Transit Station Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,280 450 410 390 Pacifica 5,690 1,550 1,680 1,680 Portola Valley 1,780 500 560 580 Redwood City 58,370 17,820 18,250 21,190 Downtown City Center 7,920 3,100 2,740 2,640 Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor 5,010 1,490 1,380 1,170 Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor 2,380 830 760 700 Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor 610 360 320 300 Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,880 1,220 1,120 1,010 San Bruno 12,110 3,960 3,720 3,850 Transit Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 6,390 2,170 1,990 1,700 San Carlos 16,050 4,990 4,890 5,170 Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center 1,820 420 450 470 San Mateo 50,640 16,320 17,210 18,580 Downtown City Center 3,900 1,420 1,310 1,520 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Corridor 2,110 580 540 450 Rail Corridor Transit Neighborhood 8,780 2,060 2,210 1,280 South San Francisco 38,490 11,410 12,030 13,490 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,200 880 900 930 Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 2,530 1,180 1,330 310 Woodside 2,630 570 640 660 San Mateo County Unincorporated 11,110 3,810 3,950 4,970 City County Association of Governments of San Mateo CountyMixed-Use Corridor 68,720 22,870 21,200 18,430 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Campbell 23,950 6,300 6,700 6,590 Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 5,850 1,640 1,820 1,380 Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Transit Neighborhood 1,110 280 310 200 Cupertino 20,990 6,660 6,630 6,360 Gilroy 17,730 4,200 4,490 8,420 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,030 640 700 660 Los Altos 13,290 4,870 4,810 4,810 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,710 1,200 1,080 1,020 Los Altos Hills 2,960 1,140 1,220 1,400 Los Gatos 18,900 5,250 5,570 5,370 Milpitas 38,820 10,610 11,360 10,720 Transit Area Suburban Center 3,760 1,790 1,920 2,370 Hammond Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 710 160 160 40 McCandless Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 920 400 460 150 McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Employment Center 1,440 340 370 270 Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 720 310 290 270 Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 570 130 130 120 Tasman Employment Center Employment Center 7,560 1,740 1,870 1,050 Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 530 170 160 150 Yosemite Employment Center Employment Center 7,000 1,730 1,890 1,340 Monte Sereno 530 200 220 220 Morgan Hill 16,370 4,090 4,450 7,160 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,370 480 530 530 Mountain View 45,690 14,180 15,280 14,630 Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 710 310 340 310 Downtown Transit Town Center 5,810 2,170 2,470 2,670 East Whisman Employment Center 4,220 1,670 1,920 1,670 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,950 1,460 1,330 1,240 Moffett Field/NASA Ames Suburban Center 410 270 260 360 North Bayshore Suburban Center 6,420 2,080 2,270 230 San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 2,530 850 890 880 Palo Alto 75,380 26,630 27,820 19,360 California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 2,770 1,260 1,390 680 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,230 5,990 5,190 4,990 University Avenue/Downtown Transit Town Center 12,830 4,080 4,530 4,840 San Jose 363,730 116,760 112,610 109,040 Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 5,910 1,530 1,630 1,060 Communications Hill Transit Town Center 3,440 1,010 1,050 1,060 Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 2,110 610 610 820 Downtown "Frame" City Center 25,780 10,390 9,420 9,560 East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,970 2,910 3,250 3,930 Greater Downtown Regional Center 27,820 21,250 23,630 13,650 North San Jose Regional Center 78,840 37,840 31,970 24,660 West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 8,260 3,860 3,250 3,390 Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,220 480 450 390 Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,830 710 640 590 Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 910 350 330 300 Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 5,120 1,500 1,480 1,420 Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 2,600 1,170 1,120 1,000 Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 3,150 1,240 1,400 1,890 Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Suburban Center 4,860 1,380 1,400 1,650 Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,700 1,490 1,360 1,290 Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,550 1,500 1,410 1,280 Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 3,010 800 840 1,030 Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,350 2,000 1,800 1,680 Santa Clara 96,340 30,080 31,370 29,820 Central Expressway Focus Area City Center 2,550 1,030 930 950 El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 4,060 1,150 1,080 1,020 Great America Parkway Focus Area Urban Neighborhood 2,030 1,300 1,150 880 Lawrence Station Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 3,200 1,260 1,300 520 Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 3,430 1,040 960 830 Tasman East Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 560 310 320 180 Saratoga 9,850 3,580 3,920 3,890 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County (continued) 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Sunnyvale 63,860 18,270 19,330 17,930 Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 3,310 1,550 1,380 1,320 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,910 2,680 2,870 2,790 Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 3,800 1,410 1,540 1,700 East Sunnyvale ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 2,510 760 710 690 Moffett Park Employment Center 9,610 2,550 2,870 2,310 Peery Park Employment Center 5,180 1,510 1,680 1,250 Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 960 230 250 190 Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,290 510 470 440 Santa Clara County Unincorporated 3,510 1,360 1,640 1,720 Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor 172,750 77,640 74,000 60,440 Solano County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Benicia 14,160 3,630 3,950 4,990 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 2,570 720 800 900 Northern Gateway Suburban Center 1,830 490 540 600 Dixon 4,490 1,070 1,160 1,310 Fairfield 82,840 18,060 20,310 21,420 Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Suburban Center 4,100 1,270 1,450 1,410 Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Transit Town Center 330 460 470 490 North Texas Street Core Mixed-Use Corridor 1,410 440 450 530 West Texas Street Gateway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,640 490 530 640 Rio Vista 2,010 470 540 610 Suisun City 3,510 1,010 1,110 1,280 Downtown & Waterfront Transit Town Center 1,670 500 560 520 Vacaville 32,290 7,600 8,230 8,740 Allison Area Suburban Center 1,040 150 180 240 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,860 700 750 880 Vallejo 34,790 8,810 9,530 10,190 Waterfront & Downtown Suburban Center 4,660 1,350 1,540 1,340 Solano County Unincorporated 5,840 1,320 1,420 1,640 Sonoma County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Cloverdale 1,840 470 510 560 Downtown/SMART Transit Area Transit Town Center 980 300 330 330 Cotati 3,170 680 710 830 Downtown and Cotati Depot Transit Town Center 560 170 180 -190 Healdsburg 6,330 1,660 1,790 2,070 Petaluma 27,880 7,920 8,660 10,300 Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Suburban Center 2,710 750 810 970 Rohnert Park 12,600 3,200 3,400 3,770 Sonoma Mountain Village Suburban Center 130 160 170 160 Santa Rosa 70,670 18,160 19,640 22,740 Downtown Station Area City Center 8,390 2,370 3,160 3,390 Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 27,500 7,070 8,050 9,700 Sebastopol Road Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 7,990 2,270 2,680 3,070 North Santa Rosa Station Suburban Center 6,150 1,830 2,000 2,280 Sebastopol 4,980 1,270 1,340 1,470 Nexus Area Transit Town Center 3,830 1,000 1,090 1,130 Sonoma 6,090 1,590 1,700 1,880 Windsor 5,630 1,410 1,530 1,920 Redevelopment Area Suburban Center 1,180 450 500 530 Sonoma County Unincorporated 0 9,180 9,950 11,530 8th Street East Industrial Area Employment Center 660 150 160 220 Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Suburban Center 5,480 1,440 1,580 1,030 Penngrove Urban Service Area Rural Town Center 320 120 120 170 The Springs Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 3,220 1,020 1,090 1,260 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction KEY Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth Opportunity Area (italics) Alameda County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Alameda 30,120 6,800 5,810 5,720 Naval Air Station Transit Town Center 1,090 5,250 4,420 4,420 Northern Waterfront Transit Neighborhood 390 1,210 1,010 1,010 Albany 7,400 960 960 960 San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,600 820 700 700 Berkeley 46,030 8,370 8,370 8,370 Adeline Street Mixed-Use Corridor 620 310 260 260 Downtown City Center 2,570 4,900 3,980 3,980 San Pablo Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,440 1,150 960 960 South Shattuck Mixed-Use Corridor 310 130 110 110 Telegraph Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 990 510 430 430 University Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,560 710 580 580 Dublin 14,910 10,900 13,810 15,780 Downtown Specific Plan Area Suburban Center 790 470 1,030 1,330 Town Center Suburban Center 3,750 2,150 2,150 2,710 Transit Center Suburban Center 620 2,580 2,580 3,350 Emeryville 5,690 5,660 5,230 5,240 Mixed-Use Core City Center 3,530 5,370 5,010 5,010 Fremont 71,000 19,090 17,380 15,500 Centerville Transit Neighborhood 5,570 1,880 1,600 1,030 City Center City Center 6,870 6,580 5,540 2,490 Irvington District Transit Town Center 4,390 2,380 2,020 2,020 Ardenwood Business Park Employment Center 0000 Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 8,540 2,640 2,230 2,180 Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing Mixed-Use Corridor 650 510 430 430 South Fremont/Warm Springs Suburban Center 20 4,140 3,460 3,000 Hayward 45,370 15,480 15,480 15,480 Downtown City Center 2,540 3,390 3,070 3,070 South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor 170 1,300 1,170 1,170 South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood 1,660 2,670 2,420 2,420 The Cannery Transit Neighborhood 410 830 750 750 Carlos Bee Quarry Mixed-Use Corridor 30 610 550 550 Mission Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 910 2,410 2,200 2,200 Livermore 29,130 9,120 11,210 12,550 Downtown Suburban Center 920 2,860 2,860 3,700 Vasco Road TOD Suburban Center 330 670 2,500 3,250 Newark 12,970 5,800 5,800 5,800 Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Transit Town Center 140 2,800 2,430 2,430 Old Town Mixed Use Area Transit Neighborhood 580 440 380 380 Cedar Boulevard Transit Transit Neighborhood 0 980 850 850 Civic Center Re-Use Transit Transit Neighborhood 200 400 340 340 Oakland 153,790 58,720 57,720 46,210 Coliseum BART Station Area Transit Town Center 3,440 2,510 2,250 2,130 Downtown & Jack London Square Regional Center 10,630 10,650 9,490 9,490 Eastmont Town Center Urban Neighborhood 5,960 2,460 2,250 1,100 Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Urban Neighborhood 12,840 7,080 6,350 4,930 MacArthur Transit Village Urban Neighborhood 8,030 4,140 3,710 3,370 Transit Oriented Development Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 60,970 22,640 20,470 14,620 West Oakland Transit Town Center 9,030 6,300 5,720 5,720 Piedmont 3,800 630 630 630 Pleasanton 25,250 6,300 7,380 8,340 Hacienda Suburban Center 1,270 2,820 3,120 4,050 San Leandro 30,720 7,120 7,120 7,120 Bay Fair BART Transit Village Transit Town Center 630 820 730 730 Downtown Transit Oriented Development City Center 3,930 3,930 3,490 3,490 East 14th Street Mixed-Use Corridor 4,490 1,510 1,370 1,370 Union City 20,430 4,550 4,550 4,160 Intermodal Station District City Center 1,030 880 750 650 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 0 180 150 150 Old Alvarado Mixed-Use Corridor 290 180 160 160 Alameda County Unincorporated 48,520 8,270 11,540 12,440 Castro Valley BART Transit Neighborhood 1,400 570 500 160 East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,740 2,060 1,820 1,790 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Contra Costa County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Antioch 32,250 6,350 6,890 9,740 Hillcrest eBART Station Suburban Center 150 2,430 2,430 2,680 Rivertown Waterfront Transit Town Center 1,430 2,060 2,060 2,250 Brentwood 16,490 6,500 8,160 9,620 Clayton 4,010 530 530 530 Concord 44,280 16,740 17,280 24,620 Community Reuse Area Regional Center 70 2,890 2,890 3,730 Community Reuse Area Transit Neighborhood 0 9,030 9,030 11,740 Downtown BART Station Planning Area City Center 2,080 3,910 3,910 5,030 North Concord BART Adjacent Employment Center Employment Center 10000 West Downtown Planning Area Mixed-Use Corridor 0 600 600 770 Danville 15,420 2,630 2,880 3,100 El Cerrito 10,140 2,130 1,840 1,840 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,200 1,680 1,460 1,460 Hercules 8,120 4,650 4,650 4,880 Central Hercules Transit Neighborhood 400 2,570 2,570 2,700 Waterfront District Transit Town Center 640 1,090 1,090 1,150 Lafayette 9,220 1,500 1,650 1,780 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,890 810 810 850 Martinez 14,290 2,300 2,550 2,760 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 750 1,310 1,310 1,370 Moraga 5,570 1,010 1,100 1,190 Moraga Center Transit Town Center 430 630 630 660 Oakley 10,730 3,750 3,870 11,980 Downtown Transit Town Center 520 1,290 1,290 1,360 Employment Area Suburban Center 560 980 980 1,030 Potential Planning Area Transit Neighborhood 980 1,400 1,400 1,470 Orinda 6,550 940 980 1,010 Downtown Transit Town Center 330 370 370 390 Pinole 6,780 2,130 2,630 3,760 Appian Way Corridor Suburban Center 510 630 630 700 Old Town Transit Town Center 680 230 390 430 Pittsburg 19,530 9,340 10,200 10,850 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 1,600 2,180 2,180 2,270 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Town Center 0 2,430 2,430 2,560 Railroad Avenue eBART Station Transit Town Center 3,600 3,370 3,370 3,530 Pleasant Hill 13,710 4,490 5,770 6,900 Buskirk Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,670 170 700 760 Diablo Valley College Transit Neighborhood 730 320 320 350 Richmond 36,090 12,250 12,250 12,140 Central Richmond City Center 4,700 4,050 3,780 880 South Richmond Transit Neighborhood 3,250 2,310 2,150 1,690 23rd Street Mixed-Use Corridor 640 970 900 900 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,710 1,620 1,510 1,510 San Pablo 8,760 2,350 2,350 1,860 San Ramon 25,280 4,190 8,090 9,080 City Center Suburban Center 480 630 1,410 1,830 North Camino Ramon Transit Town Center 40 2,400 2,400 3,090 Walnut Creek 30,440 3,760 7,330 8,460 West Downtown Suburban Center 1,270 1,960 1,960 2,480 Contra Costa County Unincorporated 57,710 9,320 9,920 10,450 Contra Costa Centre Mixed-Use Corridor 1,780 450 450 470 Downtown El Sobrante Mixed-Use Corridor 1,670 560 560 580 North Richmond Transit Neighborhood 1,030 2,460 2,460 2,570 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Neighborhood 1,020 3,940 3,940 4,130 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,950 3,070 3,180 3,320 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Marin County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Belvedere 930 60 60 60 Corte Madera 3,790 370 560 640 Fairfax 3,380 240 240 240 Larkspur 5,910 530 530 610 Mill Valley 6,080 500 500 500 Novato 20,280 1,570 1,600 1,610 Ross 800 70 70 70 San Anselmo 5,240 410 410 410 San Rafael 22,760 2,500 2,790 4,000 Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Transit Town Center 1,900 820 820 860 Downtown City Center 2,420 1,170 1,840 1,930 Sausalito 4,110 260 280 300 Tiburon 3,730 300 300 300 Marin County Unincorporated 26,190 3,290 3,920 4,510 Urbanized 101 Corridor Transit Neighborhood 4,290 580 2,190 2,290 San Quentin Transit Neighborhood 110 1,530 1,530 1,610 Napa County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth American Canyon 5,660 1,690 1,750 2,010 Highway 29 Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 400 1,660 1,660 1,740 Calistoga 2,020 120 120 130 Napa 28,170 2,660 3,160 3,600 St. Helena 2,400 120 120 120 Yountville 1,050 100 150 170 Napa County Unincorporated 9,580 830 990 1,140 San Francisco County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth San Francisco 345,810 110,640 90,470 76,430 19th Avenue Transit Town Center 4,790 3,080 2,490 2,490 Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood 1,190 2,350 1,870 1,500 Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood 10,470 15,000 12,030 9,790 Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center 89,850 32,810 27,770 23,950 Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood 31,650 8,720 7,230 6,110 Market & Octavia Urban Neighborhood 11,130 7,650 6,150 5,010 Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood 3,200 3,280 2,630 2,140 Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 29,360 6,220 5,120 4,290 Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor 110 2,900 2,300 1,840 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of BrisbanTransit Neighborhood 1,510 8,370 6,630 5,320 Transbay Terminal Regional Center 190 5,500 4,410 3,580 Treasure Island Transit Town Center 590 9,240 7,320 5,880 Citywide 161,770 5,520 4,520 4,530 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction San Mateo County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Atherton 2,330 400 400 400 Belmont 10,580 1,390 1,390 1,390 Brisbane 1,820 1,580 1,580 300 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San FranciscoSuburban Center 0 1,420 1,160 20 Burlingame 12,360 3,930 3,930 3,930 Burlingame El Camino Real Transit Town Center 7,170 3,540 2,630 2,630 Colma 560 610 520 210 Daly City 31,090 7,470 7,470 5,700 Bayshore Transit Town Center 1,550 2,420 2,060 2,060 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 2,070 1,360 1,180 1,180 Citywide 27,470 3,690 4,230 2,460 East Palo Alto 6,940 3,050 3,050 3,050 Ravenswood Transit Town Center 970 1,070 930 930 Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood 1,290 1,230 1,110 1,110 Foster City 12,020 1,670 1,670 1,670 Half Moon Bay 4,150 700 700 700 Hillsborough 3,690 820 820 600 Menlo Park 12,350 3,050 3,050 2,450 El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center 1,010 1,030 770 770 Millbrae 7,990 2,890 2,180 2,180 Transit Station Area Mixed-Use Corridor 270 1,960 1,460 1,460 Pacifica 13,970 1,110 1,110 1,110 Portola Valley 1,750 240 240 240 Redwood City 27,960 10,510 9,070 8,280 Downtown City Center 990 5,320 4,150 4,150 Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,710 770 600 380 Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor 2,170 640 500 410 Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor 210 1,350 1,050 1,050 Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 150 990 770 770 San Bruno 14,700 4,670 4,670 4,220 Transit Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 4,140 3,330 2,800 2,800 San Carlos 11,520 2,400 2,400 2,340 Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center 440 650 650 650 San Mateo 38,230 11,810 11,810 10,130 Downtown City Center 500 650 520 520 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Corridor 840 1,210 970 970 Rail Corridor Transit Neighborhood 140 6,580 5,310 5,310 South San Francisco 20,940 7,610 6,300 7,430 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,510 3,640 3,030 3,030 Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 0 860 710 710 Woodside 1,980 310 310 310 San Mateo County Unincorporated 20,910 5,910 5,910 5,090 City County Association of Governments of San Mateo CountyMixed-Use Corridor 38,460 15,470 12,420 10,560 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Campbell 16,160 2,940 2,940 2,880 Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 1,140 1,430 1,180 1,180 Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Transit Neighborhood 580 160 130 130 Cupertino 20,180 3,960 3,960 3,960 Gilroy 14,180 5,710 6,440 7,090 Downtown Transit Town Center 880 1,600 1,600 2,060 Los Altos 10,750 2,160 2,160 2,160 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 610 470 350 350 Los Altos Hills 2,830 730 730 730 Los Gatos 12,360 2,330 2,330 2,330 Milpitas 19,180 12,810 12,810 12,810 Transit Area Suburban Center 750 8,140 6,910 6,910 Hammond Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 300 690 580 580 McCandless Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 0 410 340 340 McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Employment Center 0000 Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 340 770 660 660 Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 210 40 40 10 Tasman Employment Center Employment Center 0000 Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 0 860 730 730 Yosemite Employment Center Employment Center 30000 Monte Sereno 1,210 300 300 300 Morgan Hill 12,330 3,820 4,150 8,760 Downtown Transit Town Center 510 1,200 1,200 1,550 Mountain View 31,960 15,120 12,460 11,020 Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 650 1,200 950 950 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,170 1,200 960 960 East Whisman Employment Center 250 290 230 230 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,330 2,690 2,170 2,170 Moffett Field/NASA Ames Suburban Center 180 2,770 2,210 1,940 North Bayshore Suburban Center 350 2,640 2,110 1,330 San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 1,480 3,580 2,870 2,870 Palo Alto 26,490 12,250 12,250 6,110 California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 750 2,360 1,720 800 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,090 5,380 3,930 1,570 University Avenue/Downtown Transit Town Center 1,820 3,590 2,630 1,250 San Jose 301,370 133,030 130,890 116,500 Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 1,850 5,540 5,100 4,640 Communications Hill Transit Town Center 6,540 3,670 3,390 2,780 Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 0 3,390 3,120 2,840 Downtown "Frame" City Center 16,980 12,660 11,710 10,720 East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,750 4,850 4,480 4,100 Greater Downtown Regional Center 3,670 8,320 7,720 7,100 North San Jose Regional Center 10,420 37,200 34,260 31,220 West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 4,730 15,820 15,040 14,230 Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 260 1,630 1,500 1,360 Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,810 990 910 840 Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 700 1,280 1,180 1,070 Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 920 1,150 1,060 960 Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 4,210 7,270 6,700 6,110 Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 1,410 2,610 2,400 2,190 Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Suburban Center 2,650 8,760 8,070 7,360 Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,710 1,310 1,200 1,100 Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,210 4,580 4,230 3,850 Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 1,010 2,920 2,690 2,450 Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,150 2,430 2,250 2,060 Santa Clara 43,020 24,260 21,130 20,350 Central Expressway Focus Area City Center 0 4,640 3,880 3,880 El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,650 1,300 1,110 1,110 Great America Parkway Focus Area Urban Neighborhood 0 3,940 3,300 3,300 Lawrence Station Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 0 7,190 6,020 6,020 Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 450 3,890 3,260 3,260 Tasman East Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 0 2,090 1,750 1,750 Saratoga 10,730 2,250 2,250 2,250 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County (continued) Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Sunnyvale 53,380 16,780 16,780 16,780 Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 1,730 1,840 1,510 1,510 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,350 5,310 4,400 4,400 Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 1,560 2,900 2,380 2,380 East Sunnyvale ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 0 3,340 2,730 2,730 Moffett Park Employment Center 20000 Peery Park Employment Center 110 10 10 10 Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 0000 Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 850 1,660 1,350 1,350 Santa Clara County Unincorporated 28,080 7,540 10,480 13,090 Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor 68,650 43,880 42,860 38,920 Solano County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Benicia 10,690 1,190 1,190 1,440 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 530 1,010 1,010 1,100 Northern Gateway Suburban Center 0 120 120 140 Dixon 5,860 1,390 1,680 1,940 Fairfield 34,480 11,960 12,520 14,420 Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Suburban Center 600 380 910 950 Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Transit Town Center 90 6,510 6,510 6,820 North Texas Street Core Mixed-Use Corridor 1,600 1,880 1,880 1,970 West Texas Street Gateway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,020 2,590 2,590 2,720 Rio Vista 3,450 1,420 1,900 2,330 Suisun City 8,920 1,360 1,180 1,500 Downtown & Waterfront Transit Town Center 1,090 1,190 1,190 1,240 Vacaville 31,090 4,940 1,430 9,950 Allison Area Suburban Center 550 140 570 590 Downtown Transit Town Center 220 750 750 780 Vallejo 40,560 5,490 5,320 5,780 Waterfront & Downtown Suburban Center 980 870 870 910 Solano County Unincorporated 6,710 990 5,640 1,340 Sonoma County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Cloverdale 3,180 960 1,040 1,090 Downtown/SMART Transit Area Transit Town Center 1,040 810 900 940 Cotati 2,980 460 470 540 Downtown and Cotati Depot Transit Town Center 830 450 450 470 Healdsburg 4,380 860 980 1,080 Petaluma 21,740 2,800 2,800 2,800 Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Suburban Center 750 1,610 1,610 1,760 Rohnert Park 15,810 2,870 3,210 3,490 Sonoma Mountain Village Suburban Center 200 2,140 2,140 2,350 Santa Rosa 63,590 15,170 18,150 22,620 Downtown Station Area City Center 2,080 1,220 6,860 7,540 Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,910 1,590 4,280 4,670 Sebastopol Road Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,750 3,250 3,250 3,560 North Santa Rosa Station Suburban Center 3,940 3,350 3,350 3,660 Sebastopol 3,280 480 520 600 Nexus Area Transit Town Center 1,150 200 500 520 Sonoma 4,960 520 520 520 Windsor 8,970 1,330 1,360 3,930 Redevelopment Area Suburban Center 2,040 1,290 1,290 1,350 Sonoma County Unincorporated 56,950 7,640 8,330 8,940 8th Street East Industrial Area Employment Center 80 20 20 20 Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Suburban Center 2,850 1,110 1,250 1,380 Penngrove Urban Service Area Rural Town Center 630 670 670 730 The Springs Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 6,580 1,680 1,680 1,810 May 27,2011 Ezra Rapport, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Oovelllments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 ~~ity" of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Re: Initial Vision Scenario for Sustainable Communities Strategy Dear Mr. Rapport: On behalf of the City Manager and City of Palo staff, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to One Bay Area's Initial Vision Scenario, released on March I 1,2011. City staff has reviewed the document with the City Council and with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and has prepared the preliminary responses below. We expect to visit with the Council again on June 27, 2011, and will then forward an updated letter from the Mayor and Council. The City of Palo Alto generally SUppOltS the intent and concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along transit corridors throughout the Bay Area, including around Caltrain stations and along El Camino Real on the Peninsula, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those conidors. The City also SUppOltS the provision of affordable housing in the region, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of hOllsing in the region, particularly in Santa Clara County and Palo Alto. The City further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting greenhouse gas (OHO) emission reduction goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. The City believes that it has modeled many of these principles in the past and continues to do so. The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS), however, offers a plan that is highly unrealistic and in some ways contrary to many of those goals. The City of Palo Alto has several key concellls with the IVS and requests that the regional planning group substantially modify the plan in its subsequent iterations to address these issues: I. The Sustainable Communities Strategy and future aitelllative scenarios should recognize that Palo Alto is a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area. Employment analyses should consider: a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto (high percentage of technology professionals), b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain stops, the synergy of industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit. According to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) studies, jobs close to transit generate at least twice the rate of transit use than housing near transit (see attached chart). A greater focus on locating jobs near transit is likely to produce significant benefits for OHO reduction. Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Printed with soy-b~scd inks on 100% recycled paper pruc€~sed without chlorine Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue PO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329.2240 2. The Initial Vision Scenario is expected to result in only a 2% decrease per capita in GHG emissions for the region by 2035 (l0% under the "Current Regional Plans" scenario v. 12% under the IVS). The public is likely to ask "why is the IVS preferred over the existing planning scenario and is it worth the extent of change to accommodate such a minor reduction in GHG?" The Sustainable Communities Strategy must more directly address the location of employment near transit, move away from a jurisdiction-specific approach, and should also focus on other strategies, such as pricing, to achieve more meaningful GHG benefits. 3, The Initial Vision Scenario (and therefore ultimately the Sustainabk Communities Strategy) is based on housing increases and employment projections largely derived from the State of California and modified by ABAG and MTC, The models for projecting these fundamental housing and jobs figures should be thoroughly vetted by third parties to reflect many of the realities of tile present and future, including economic trends and limiting constraints such as land cost and availability, needed infrastructure, and diminishing capacity for schools and other public services. 4. The Initial Vision Scenario docs not provide a realistic evaluation of future employment increases in Palo Alto. The IVS shows an increase of slightly less than 5,000 new jobs in Palo Alto, when the City already has plans in the process or approved (Stanford Medical Center, downtown offices, remaining capacity in the Stanford Research Park, pending occupancy of I million square feet of vacant space in the Research Park, etc,) that would account for nearly that many jobs by 2020, 5. The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to: a) the high cost and limited availability of l.and, b) traffic congestion, c) capacity of the Palo Alto Unified School District, and d) community services, Attached is a January 9, 2008 letter from Mayor Klein to ABAG objecting to the City's most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which letter outlined many of those concems and others. 6. The IVS and SCS and the upcoming RHNA methodology also rely heavily on ABAG's 2009 projections, which already overstate the potential housing growth in Palo Alto, as outlined in the attached 20081ctter. The SCS should provide an opportunity to move away from a city- specific approach (based on household formation) to regional and subregional growth patlerns that better distinguish between employment centers and housing nodes and the means to connect the two with transit, bicycling, walking andfor shOlier vehicle tlips. The employment and housing linkage should be evalualCd more dynamically, as appropriate locations for each are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. 7, The housing growth estimates are highly overestimated and unrealistic. The potential increase of 11,990 households (HH) over the 20]0-2035 timeframe represents an average increase of 4S0 Hll per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a "boom" housing market. And as housing has grown, land resources, school capacity and other services have decreased, so that it is extremely difficult to imagine even that level of growth continuing through 2035. The City believes that the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) analysis (below) indicates that the IVS overestimates the potential household growth by at least 100%. Page 2 Letter to Ezra RapP0l1: May 25, 2011 8. At least half of the potential housing increases in Palo Alto are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, lands which are not available or appropliate for intensification. The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be designed to strengthen existing communities, but implementation of the IVS would be contrary to that purpose. Any increases in housing growth should be limited to the City's identified Priority Development Area (PDA) and Growth Opportunity Areas (OOAs). 9. Any expectations of growth foJ' the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must be Lied to the provision of adequate transp0l1ation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. Policies of the SCS should emphasize this connection. 10. Any estimates of future growth in housing and jobs must clearly delineate what is generated on the Stanford University campus (apalt from the medical center and research park). These areas are wholly within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. According to a tri-party agreement between the City, Stanford and the County, no part of the campus may be annexed to the City of Palo Alto, unlike many areas adjacent to other cities, where the County encourages annexations. The housing needs of the Stanford campus should not be assigned to the City of Palo Alto. I!. The City's T AZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and understatements of employment potential. Additionally, several of the TAZs encompass areas pattly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto jobs numbers are understated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. The employment growth totals conflict with (nre considerably less than) the sum of growth in the TAZs. The total employment growth for the TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed in the IVS. This docs not include any Palo Alto jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jutisdictions. b. TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The cun'ent SUMC expansion, near approval by the City Council, entails over 2,000 additional jobs in itself, and future growth of the Shopping Center is expected as well. c. T AZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Resenrch Pnrk, however, employment increases would be ex.pected closer to 2,500 jobs for this area. d. TAZ 365 is a smaJi area shared by Palo AllO and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. e. T AZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstllted, since the aren is zoned for and occupied by single-family homes. 12. The City's TAZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and overstatements of housing potential. Additionally, several of the TAZs encompass areas pattly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto housing numbers are overstated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360 and 363 is highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for Palo Alto) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Page 3 .J anuary 9, 2008 ABAG Executive Board Cio Henry Gardner, Secretary -Treasurer Association of Bay Area Governments PO. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Gardner: ~!tySl(l?91~A!~~ Department of Planning and Communjty Environment The City of Palo Alto thanks you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the revised Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which was adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on November 15, 2007. The City acknowledges ABAG's modification to Palo Alto's RHNA to address the City's Sphere of Iniluence circwnstance with the County.of Santa Clara and Stanford University. However, our City Council, the Planning and Transportation Commission and staff have all detennined that the RHNA of 2,860, even after the reduction of 645 units, is completely unachievable in Palo Alto given the lack of available land, the high cost of land acquisition, and the impacts of that amount of growth on the City's neighborhoods and infrastructure. setting these requirements that cannot be achieved threatens the credibility and viability of important public institutions and becomes simply an exercise'in futility. . Palo Alto has an extensive and long history of leading and implementing affordable housing in an area highly impacted by the high cost of housing. We. were the first to implement inc1usionary zoning in this region and Palo Alto Housing Corporation was established back in 1970 as a non-profIt affordable housing provider. Although the ,Ciiyof Palo Alto has adopted zoning and programs supporting core concepts behind the al1ocation method such as smart growth, infill development, protection of open space and rura) areas,restricting urban sprawl, and transit oriented development, there should be a reasonable eiqiectatioil of success in meeting goals when assigning allocations to cities. .. .... . Factors such as essential irifi;aslruCture needs nnd service rcquit~fi1~Jij!".a)sol)e~d to be taken into consideration. Many components of the City's infrastructure ,ate'cah~~dy at capacity and another critical factor is the capacity limitations of the Palo Alto UIlified School Di.,tric!. The current school population has already pushed the present facilities beyond capacity so that every elementary school now has multiple portables. Students from an additional 2,860 housing Units simply cannot be accommodated with'the existiijg<faciHties ~hd budget. Given that the'school . district is at capacity, and there isnbavailable funding to· accommodate the increased student . population from the allocation, these requirements would amount to an unfimded mandate for Palo Alto, Planning 25U Hamilton Avenue P.O, B DX to25() Palo Alto, CA 94303 6..'0.329.2441 65i),329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 943()3 650.329.2520 650,617,3108 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329,2496 650,329,2240 Mr. Henry Gardner Page 20f4 January 9, 2008 As staff has indicated previously in transmittals to ABAG, the population and household growth projections for Palo Alto will not be realized and should be adjusted to reflect a population growth rate of approximately 3.0 % over the next RHNA period within our jurisdictional boundary. ABAG's Projections 2007 assumes a population growth rate of approximately 7% during the next 7 years in our jurisdictional boundary. Historically, the City of Palo Alto's population has grown only by approximately 4.7% over the last thirty years. We understand that the methodology uses Sphere of Influence population projections but we believe that the population trend within our Sphere of Influence is proportional to the historic jurisdictional boundary population trends. Although the City has experienced a growth rate of approximately 8% during the last seven years, this has been a period when Palo Alto has constructed significant new housing development well in excess of historic averages and that rate cannot be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and redevelopment potential. Therefore, iI's very likely that the City's population growth will remain far below ABAG's projections since it will be very difficult for Palo Alto to continue the housing development it has experienced in the last seven years. During the last RHNA period, the City's population growth was largely attributable to a single development of approximately 1,000 units on the City's only remaining vacant large residential site. This City'S housing growth occurred during a temporary period of substantial declin~ in the market for commercial development and increasing demand for housing. Taking this anomaly and extrapolating this into the future is not appropriate. By using its own overestimated Projections 2007 population numbers, the RHNA methodology compounds this error by assigning a 45% weight to the population projections that ABAG itself created. This logic appears circular in that the driver behind this growth appears to be the mandate from ABAG. Additionally, the City should receive credit in this RHNA cycle for the 1,036 units that were built during that last RHNA period that exceeded the City's assigned allocation. The City exceeded its above moderate allocation by 1,282 units and its low allocation by 14 units with a deficit of 51 units in the very low category and 208 in the moderate category, Palo Alto has also protected and retained existing units that arc more affordable and should receive further credit to offset the City's RHNA requirements. The City also continues to oppose the inclusion of an additional Transit Oliented Development (TOO) factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assign housing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD, in effect penalizing cities that have developed smart growth policies. Additional growth requirements for built out cities like Palo Alto should be predominantly TOD housing, not the core ABAG allocation plus TOD housing. The emphasis of transit use in the methodology is unrealistic at least for Palo Alto. Transit at the University and California Avenue stations is used more emciently by commuters and not Mr. Henry Gardner Page 3 of 4 January 9, 2008 so ef[lcienlly by residents; many more people take transit TO Palo Alto than FROM Palo Alto. A greatcr concentration of jobs in the vicinity of transit will promote mass transit in Palo Alto mO]'e effectively than the concentration of housing. FurthemlOrc, Palo Alto has been assigned additional units based on transit access from the San Antonio Avenue station. However, this station is located in and serves primarily Mountain View, not Palo Alto. Also, Caltrain only services the San Antonio Caltrain station once per hour during rush hours further reducing its TOO effectiveness. Palo Alto has promoted smart growth in its Comprehensive Plan policies and its Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (P1'OD) zoning all in the midst of VTA reducing bus services to Palo Alto neighborhoods and with little or' no proj ected additional funding for transit to support the TOO aspects ofRHNA. However, Palo Alto's diligence and success in implementing smart growth policies appear to have led ABAG to assume that the City has no limit to further intensifying with infill development. Given the RHNA mandate to provide housing for all income levels, it is impossible for the City to provide the 1,875 nnits assigned for below market rate income levels. Palo Alto prioritized affordable housing as one of the City'S top five goals and built over 90 percent of the City's very low and low income housing allocation for the last RHNA cycle. However, the current RHNA methodology uses 2000 Census income distribution data for allocating housing based on afford ability, and does not reflect the City's success in building affordable housing over the last seven years. Instead, the current methodology allocated more affordable housing to Palo Alto compared to the region as a whole. Additionally, due to the extraordinary cost of land in Palo Alto, all very low and low income rental housing that has been developed recently bas required signi1icant City subsidy. The cost of low and very low income projects in Palo Alto are averaging $400,000 to $500,000 per unit. Recently the City has had to subsidize approximately 50% of the project cost for most low income and very low income projects .. This is in large part due to the exorbitant land costs in Palo Alto which average $10 million an acre but have been as high as $16 million an acre. In order to develop the assigned 1,234 units of low and very low income housing under current funding conditions, the City would be expected to provide a subsidy of approximately $245 to $310 million, which is clearly unrealistic and unattainable as the City struggles to maintain revenues adequate to support basic services to its residents and businesses. Given state subsidy restrictions, and because of the high land costs in Palo Alto, moderate income units are achieved only through the City's inc1usionary zoning program, which requires 15 -20% afford ability. As a result, approximately 70% of the ABAG allocation would need to be subsidized by Palo Alto. In order to provide the assigned 641 moderate income level units, the City would have to develop 3,205 -4,272 market rate units. The high cost to the City of providing this housing as well as supporting services and facilities, schools, transit and parks, is an unfunded state mandate. There may also be insufficient water resources available to serve this additional popUlation. Until there is state Mr. HeillY Gardner Page4of4 January 9, 2008 subsidy available for affordable units, identifying adequate sites to meet proposed RHNA housing for lower income levels in communities like Palo Alto win be a paper exercise. The City requests that you confirm that the job growth anticipated with the proposed Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Facility expansions are included in ABAG's projections for the City's job b'l"Owth for the 2007-2014 period, and the City will not be assigned these jobs a second time in a future RHNA regardless of those projects' occupancy dates. Finally, much discussion has occurred about the impact of commute emiSSIOns on climate change. Palo Alto has just concluded a comprehensive climate change impact analysis. A significant finding of that report is that 11 % of Palo Alto's C02 emissions are attributable to trips into Palo Alto. Consequently, the report indicates that even an additional 2,860 units with similar commuting characteristics would impact Palo Alto C02 emissions by less that 0.1 % or l/lOOO'h Palo Alto's total C02 In closing, the City requests that ABAG revise Palo Alto's RHNA to reflect a 3% population growth over the seven-year RHNA period, exclude the San Antonio station from our transit factor, adjust the transit factor to eliminate any "double counting" aml credit the City ",-jth the 1, 036 units the City built in excess of our last RHNA assignment The City also urges ABAG to consider factors such as land costs and availability as well as community needs to provide adequate open space and essential services in developing a realistic RHNA. Given that there was no representative from the 250,000 residents of North Santa Clara County on the Housing Methodology Committee, we were not adequately represented and, therefore, unique factors prevalent in our area were not sufIiciently considered in the ABAG allocations. If ABAG adopts more realistic and achievable RHNA allocation goals, this will enable cities to focus on actually providing adequate housing for a diverse population, a goal strongly supported by the City Council and the Palo Alto community. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our appeal of the assigned allocation. Sincerely, -~--z, -_._* . Larry Klein Mayor cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director OneBayArea August 15, 2011 Curtis Williams, Dir., PlngJCom. Bnv. Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301-2503 Re: Sustainable Communities Strategy Process -Initial Vision Scenario Input Dear Mr. Williams: Thank you for your letter regarding the Initial Vision Scenario (NS), and for your ongoing engagement to create the Bay Area's tlrst Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The Initial Vision Scenario is a starting point in the development of the SCS and MTCI ABAG greatly appreciate your community's involvement in the development of the SCS. The SCS is a long- range strategy for sustainable growth that will be adopted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), also known as Plan Bay Area, in spring 2013. During the past two months the regional agencies have reeeived substantial input from local jurisdictions that will infonn the development of the Bay Area's first SCS. Jurisdictional feedhack and public comment is a primary input into the development of four additional Alternative Scenarios. The Alternative Scenarios will provide MTCI ABAG with varied land development patterns and supportive transportation packages that will lead to the development of a Preferred Scenario slated for adoption in spring 2012. We arc providing you below an overview of the ongoing tasks related to the SCS scenarios as well as the related efforts: the Regional Housing Need Allocation and the One Bay Area Grant. I. From the Initial Vision Scenario to the Alternative Scenarios Initial V'lSwn Scenario On March II, 2011 MTC/ABAG released the Initial Vision Scenario to open the dialogue on the Sustainable Communities Strategy. This was an unconstrained, long-range land development and transportation scenario that assumed strong regional economic growth and resources for housing production, expanded transit service, and tlnancing for neighborhood development and infrastructure. This scenario proposeda future land use pattem driven by Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas and their locally designsted place types. This land use pattern resulted in some success relative to adopted perfonnance targets but additional work on employment distribution and transportation strategies and funding remained to be done. Regional agencies presented the Initial Vision Scenario before local eleeted officials, planning directors, and Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). Similarly, local planning directors have presented this scenario to their respective boards and councils. We have been gathering input through those presentations, meetings with the Regional Advisory Working Group and stakeholders groups, county-level Basecamp sites where local staff can share ideas about the SCS, as well as through letters, additional meetings, and phone calls. Public workshops were held throughout our nine-county region. Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland. C.4 94607-4700 The Bay Area is a large, complex region with diverse communities and sub-regions. Jurisdictional responses to the Initial Vision Scenario in many ways reflect the unique characteristics of the region's communities. Nonetheless, a number of common themes have emerged. Some communities described the level of housing growth depicted in the IVS as too high, while other jurisdictions responded that IVS housing growth levels would be appropriate if funding for redevelopment, public schools, transit and other community infrastructure were available. Some communities provided specific information about growth in a particular area of their community. Many communities indicated that the Bay Area's first Sustainable Communities Strategy should advance a vibrant economy and strong growth for the region. IVS responses from multiple jurisdictions included the following; • Housing growth levels are not feasible given current market constraints and funding availability • Infill development challenges require capital investments and supportive policies • The SCS should reward cOmn:lunities that advance focused growth • Transit service cuts and the loss of redevelopment agencies will impede focused growth • Employment totals are too high given past performance and the depth of the recession • The SCS should provide CEQA benefits for projects in PDAs • Air District and BCDC requirements should be aligned with the SCS • Employment growth should be aligned with existing and planned transit • Transit-served, infill areas that have not been nominated by local communities as PDAs should take on comparable levels of growth • The SCS should support and enhance the Bay Area's economic growth and vitality Alternative Scenarios In July, ABAG's Executive Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a framework for four Alternative Scenarios that along with the IVS will be used to inform the development of a Preferred Scenario. The Preferred Scenario will serve as the basis for a draft Sustainable Communities Strategy. Under SB375, the adopted SCS must be a based on a forecasted land use pattern that utilizes reasonable planning assumptions. In addition to the Initial Vision Scenario, a second "unconstrained" scenario, Core Concentration will be developed that identifies areas within the region that could potentially meet the region's total housing need through 2040 while meeting other performance measures related to the economy and sustainable growthfor our region's communities. Regional agency staff has not yet completed sufficient analysis to identify the level of pubiic resources require<l'to implement such a strategy, but our preliminary assessment indicates that it may exceed a reasonable forecast. The remaining three scenarios-Focused Growth, Core Concentration-Constrained, and Outer Bay Area-are based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning strategies. These assumptions rnay result in lower regional future housing and employment growth through 2040 compared to the IVS. These scenarios will be developed to get as close to the region's total housing need as possible. They are informed by the input provided by local jurisdictions and the regional criteria established by place type. The scenarios will consider various options for the distribution of employment in the region, particularly relative to housing and transit. Alternative Scenario Land Use Patterns Focused Growth Scenario 2 This scenario will maximize the potential ofPriorily Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on growth along major transit corridors and near employment centers, Core Concentration-Constrained Scenario This scenario builds upon the pattern ·of growth outlined in the Focused Growth Scenario, but shifts additional growth toward PDAs in the Inner Bay Area, to take advantage of the region's core transit network Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario This scenario will also build upon the Focused Growth Scenario, but will incorporate a regional employment analysis to address higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area than in the Focused Growth Scenario or Core Concentration -Constrained Scenario. Transportation assumptions The Alternative Scenario land development patterns will be supported by transportation scenarios that will vary the level of funding for "fix-it-first" maintenance, transit capacity improvements, rOadway improvements, and bike/pedestrian funding. fuJ.\!in' Regional agency staff has worked with the Regional Equity Working Group and MTC's Policy Advisory Council to develop inputs to the Alternative Scenarios that will increase access to opportunities and an improved quality of life for residents from all income categories in communities throughout the region. Social equity as well as economic growth and environmental sustainability are promoted through the emphasis on encouraging growth in complete communities served by transit. In addition, each of the alternative scenarios will also distribute growth in a way that ensures each jurisdiction is planning to accommodate a minimum percent of its expected household growth. Factors related to transit service, employment, and net low- income commuters to a jurisdiction will also inform the alternative scenario housing distributions. II. From the Alternative Scenarios to the Preferred Scenario Regional Agency Staff are currently developing the Alternative Scenarios described above. The draft Alternative Scenario land development patterns will include housing and employment distributions at the county, jurisdictional, PDA/Growth Opportunity Area and Travel Analysis Zone levels. Localjurisdictional staff participating in ceunty-Ievel online Basecamps established for the SCS process will have the opportunity to access and comment on the draft Alternative Scenario land development patterns, The dnlft land-use scenarios are slated for release on August 26,2011. . During September 2011 MIC will be developing and refining transportation scenarios to support the draft land-use scenarios and will subsequently assess the performance of each Alternative Scenario relative to the regionally adopted performance targets. The Alternative Scenarios will be released with narrative information, maps, and the performance analysis in October 20]1. The Alternative Scenarios and related performance analysis will be discussed among local jurisdictions and regional agencies to select the draft Preferred Scenario. This draft Preferred Scenario then will be revised for fmaladoption by February 2012. We expect input from local jurisdictions' elected officials and planning staff on this process, We will request that to the extent possible planning directors present the Alternative and Preferred Scenarios before their councils to gather their input. These are the two upcoming input periods to define the Preferred Scenario: 3 • Review of Alternative Scenarios and Selection of the Preferred Scenario: Septemher- November 2011 • Review of Preferred Scenario before adoption: Novemher 2011 -February 2012 A conwrehensive PlanBayArea timeline may be found at: http://www.onebayare!\.grg/planhayarea/process.htm m. Consistency between the SCS and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state mandate .that requires each community to plan for its share of the state's housing need, for people at all income levels. The most recent R1lNA covers the seven·yearperiod from 2007-2014. It is ABAG's responsibility to distribute this need to local governments in the Bay Area. SB375 requires that the short-term housing allocation plan for R1lNA is consistent with the long- term land development pattern encompassed in the SCS. To promote this consistency, the methodology for the 2015-2022 R1lNA period will be based on the growth pattern in the Preferred Scenario of the SCS. Since January 2011, members of the SCS HouSing Methodology Committee (HMC), comprised oflocal staff, poJicyrnakers and stakeholder group representatives, . has been discussing and refining the conceptual framework for allocating a portion of the region's total housing need to each jurisdiction in the region. Proposed Methodology ConceptuaIFrmnework The R1lNA methodology consists of several major steps, including detennining a jurisdiction's total R1lNA, identifying the share of the jurisdiction's total RHNA in each income category, and adjusting ajurisdiction's total R1lNA for areas included in its Sphere of influence. In developing the R1lNA methodology, staff and the HMC have identified two components that would be us.ed together to assign total housing need to local jurisdictions. The first is the "Sustainability Component" that incorporates the PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas. The second is the "Fair Share Component" that seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction in the region shares responsibility for accommodating the region's housing need. Detailed information on the R1lNA Methodology Conceptual Framework may be found by locating the 7/21/11 agenda, Item #10 at: www.abag.ca.gov/meetings/exec.board.html. IV. One Bay Area Grant For the past several years, MTC and ABAG have worked in collaboration with our local agency partners, congestion management agencies, transit agencies, foundations, development professionals, and equity and environmental stakeholders to advance the development of the region's varied and unique neighborhoods as complete communities. One key message that we have heard, particularly from local jurisdictions in response to the Initial Vision Scenario, is that communities taking on focused growth need support. In July, 201 J MTC released the OneBayArea grant proposal for public review and discussion. Regional agency staff is proposing an alternative to the current framework for distributing Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds effective l\1arch, 2012. The proposed framework would better integrate the region's federal transportation program with land-use and housing policies by providing incentives for new housing starts and supportive transportation investments in Bay Area Communities. Funding for the OneBay Area grant program is the result of merging many existing programs into a single flexible grant program and represents a roughly 70 percent increase in the funding distributed to the counties. The OneBay Area Grant supports Priority Development Area and Growth 4 Opportunity Areas while also offering flexibility to fund tl'lUlllportation needs in other areas. Detailed infonnation on the OneBayArea grant may be found at: http://www.mte.ca.gov/funding/onebayareaJ Again, thank you very much for your feedback on theInitial Vision Scenario. We appreciate your engagement in the development of this first Sustainable Communities Strategy in the Bay Area. These are challenging times. However, working together we believe our region will continue to elevate its role as a global center of inoovation, economic vitality and environmental stewardship. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Sailaja Kurella, ABAG RegionalPlanner, at 510.464.7597 or sailaiak@abag.ca.gov. Regards, Doug Kimsey Ken Kirkey MTC Planning Director ABAG Executive Director 00: Palo Alto City Clerk 5 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1741) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 1741) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Response to Initial Vision Scenario Title: Update of SB 375/Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Direction on City’s Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies, and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide input regarding the Initial Vision Scenario and revisions to staff’s letter response to the regional agencies. Executive Summary On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the SCS for the Bay Area is intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, is to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created over that time period. Staff has developed a letter outlining the City’s serious concerns about the IVS, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. The Council will provide input to the letter to provide the City’s official comments on the IVS. The regional agencies expect to prepare 3-5 alternative scenarios for analysis in the next month, and then to release those for review by cities and July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 1741) counties in the region. A preferred alternative is expected for release in early 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. Background On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The staff report providing that information is included as Attachment H to this staff report. At the same meeting, staff provided an overview of the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the SCS, which had been released on the prior Friday (March 11). The document was prepared jointly by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The supplemental information for the IVS was outlined in a memo to Council on the day of the meeting and is included as Attachment G to this staff report. The Council’s immediate reaction to the Initial Vision Scenario was that it clearly does not recognize the constraints on Palo Alto in providing for new housing, and was equally inadequate at representing the accurate potential for employment growth. Council indicated that the City’s initial reaction should be at a “big picture” level, and that tweaking the details of the plan would not be a meaningful change. On April 14th, the regional agencies and several environmental groups sponsored a forum to discuss the IVS, at which approximately a dozen (of about 100 total) attendees were from Palo Alto. In reality, however, the discussion entailed only a very general look at preferences in urban form and transportation for the region, and did not help illuminate issues of specific concerns to cities and counties. Staff understands that there will be additional forums for more specific input, and will let the Council and community know when those are scheduled. The regional agencies have been receiving preliminary responses from cities and counties in late May and into June. The agencies have also received input at a number of meetings with planning and transportation officials and with other stakeholders, providing input to the development of alternative scenarios to be considered in the process. On May 4th, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) considered this background and update and provided suggestions for topics to address in a letter response from the City to ABAG and MTC. These suggestions were incorporated into a letter (Attachment A) sent on May 25, 2011, and copied to the City Council. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times now as well,and the Committee’s progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. Please also note that Attachment N provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning process. Discussion July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 1741) Initial Vision Scenario The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Bay Area is intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita GHG emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS attempts to do so by assigning “place types” (“transit town center,” “mixed use corridor,” etc.), that reflect Priority Development Areas (PDAs) nominated by cities and counties, plus “growth opportunity areas” (GOAs) identified but not quantified by local jurisdictions. ABAG and MTC indicate that the growth included in the PDAs and GOAs accounts for approximately 70% of regional growth through 2035. The remaining 30% of the growth was allocated to cities relative to each city’s household growth anticipated in ABAG’s Projections 2009. ABAG and MTC indicate that they believe the housing projections from the State are high, given historical trends and the recent economy, and that those numbers will be adjusted downward, perhaps substantially (though they do not indicate when). ABAG and MTC also acknowledge that the IVS does not adequately address the distribution of jobs, so that there is not a similar relationship for employment to either PDAs or to transit access. Attachment B is a summary table of the household and job totals and growth for Santa Clara County and each city within the county. An overview of the IVS is included as an attachment to the March 14, 2011 supplement (Attachment G) and the entire document is available for viewing at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. Adequacy of Place Types “Place types” are outlined on pages 13-18 in the Initial Vision Scenario (and are shown in the presentation materials in Attachment G). For Palo Alto, staff identified the California Avenue PDA as a “Transit Neighborhood,” identified downtown as a “Transit Town Center” growth opportunity area, and identified the El Camino corridor as a “Mixed Use Corridor.” Staff considered identifying downtown as an “Employment Center,” but did not since that place type seemed to exclude residential development entirely, and would seem more appropriate for a research park type of area. The maps included as Attachment E identify growth scenarios for “Transportation Analysis Zones” (TAZs) in Palo Alto and, in some cases, overlapping with other jurisdictions. These TAZs are used by the City, VTA, ABAG and others to analyze land use and transportation distributions for mapping and modeling purposes. It is fairly clear from these maps that the California Avenue PDA, downtown and the El Camino Corridor are locations noted for some substantive growth over the next 25 years. Staff has concluded that the place types identified for Palo Alto are probably okay, but they reflect increased growth over the density estimates that the City provided. ABAG has acknowledged that, to meet the overall growth targets, estimates from staff in most cities were increased. July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 1741) The growth in the PDAs and GOAs shown in the Initial Vision Scenario amount to about 70% of the total Bay Area growth through 2035. Additional housing was then dispersed among the cities outside of place types to achieve the desired totals. Of concern to staff is that, for most cities, the growth in PDAs and GOAs ranges from 60-80% of the city’s total growth estimates. In Palo Alto, however, the PDA and GOAs account for only 45% of the total growth, which means that extensive housing growth (55% of the total) was identified for areas outside those designated areas. Attachment B indicates that total housing growth increases in Palo Alto are similar to those in several other Santa Clara County cities. But Attachment F compares Palo Alto growth estimates outside the PDAs and GOAs to other cities, showing a significant burden on Palo Alto to provide more housing in areas without sufficient available land and in conflict with goals to provide housing close to transit and services. The subsequent analyses indicate that many of these growth areas are within existing single-family neighborhoods. ABAG has since indicated that the growth was not intended to be specific to residential TAZs, but should be located wherever it is best accommodated, such as in the PDAs or GOAs (though those are already beyond their capacity). Housing and Employment Trends Analysis Attachment C includes tables that compare ABAG’s 2007 and 2009 jobs, housing, and population projections with those outlined in the Initial Vision Scenario. The first table shows a significant decrease in jobs over time, reflecting the general decline in employment in the region since 2001 and the severe economic decline in recent years. The IVS expects a growth of 5,000 jobs in Palo Alto from 2010-2035. There is, however, a substantial increase in housing shown over that same period, a total of 11,990 households. This would comprise an average increase of 480 households per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a “boom” housing market. Staff believes this is an unrealistic rate of growth,particularly given the limited land resources and multiple other constraints. Analysis by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Staff has analyzed the data from the Initial Vision Scenario by TAZ (Attachment E shows the TAZs). There are 25 TAZs that encompass the IVS for Palo Alto. Thirteen (13) of those are entirely within the city limits, and another 12 are shared with other jurisdictions. The fact that a number of the TAZs are shared makes it difficult to be conclusive about any analysis, but there are several observations that are of concern to staff and that were conveyed to the regional agencies: ·Housing Ø Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360, and 363 are highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for the City) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Ø TAZ 365 is shared with Mountain View, but housing appears to be overstated, with 981 households, though the portion in Palo Alto is again a single-family zoned area. July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 1741) Ø TAZ 401 includes lands east of Hwy. 101 in Palo Alto and Mountain View, including the Moffett/NASA Ames property. This TAZ includes growth of over 4,000 households, with 2,118 specifically noted in the Moffett area PDA. Thus, it appears that almost 2,000 households would be planned in the E. Bayshore and Baylands area of Palo Alto, clearly an unrealistic figure. Ø TAZ 349 household growth is shown at only 13 households, which is understated, since this area includes Stanford properties subject to the “Mayfield Agreement,” with a minimum of 180 units required of Stanford. ·Employment Ø The total employment growth for the 13 TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to job growth of 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed for the city in the IVS. This does not include any jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jurisdictions. Ø TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The SUMC expansion entails 2,000 additional jobs in itself, so the jobs are substantially understated. Ø TAZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the allowable 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Research Park, however, employment increases would be expected closer to 2,500 jobs for these areas. Ø TAZ 365 is a small area shared by Palo Alto and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. Ø TAZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstated, since the area is single-family residential. In summary, staff believes that the TAZ analysis substantially overstates the potential household growth by at least 100%, and that the employment numbers understate the job growth by at least 50%, and perhaps more once a realistic economic projection is produced. Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies Staff has developed and sent a preliminary letter (Attachment A) to ABAG and MTC, outlining the City’s first response to the Initial Vision Scenario. The letter included the following key points, developed by staff after input from the PTC and considering the initial comments of the Council on March 14th: ·The City of Palo Alto in general supports the concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along El Camino Real, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those corridors. The City also supports the provision of affordable housing, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of housing in the region, the county, and the city. The City further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting GHG emission goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. ·The City of Palo Alto should be considered a key employment center in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, and the analysis should consider the type of jobs, the desire of July 11, 2011 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 1741) technology firms to locate here, and the GHG reduction benefits of locating jobs near transit (with reference to MTC and other studies). ·The IVS results in only a minimal decrease (2%) in GHG reductions. More extensive impacts are likely from focusing on jobs near transit or other mechanisms to reduce GHG. (PTC addition) ·The basic growth estimates based on State projections and regional assumptions need to be analyzed by independent experts to produce credible projections or ranges of projections. (PTC addition) ·The Initial Vision Scenario does not provide a reasonable evaluation of future employment increases. The IVS should recognize the City of Palo Alto as a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area, and employment analyses should consider a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto, b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (the proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain, industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit (jobs close to transit generate higher transit use than housing near transit). References are provided to a chart from MTC supporting that relationship ·The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be based on a concept of identifying transit commute sheds, such as within the Caltrain corridor and the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, in a way that establishes, for example, 30-45 minute thresholds for locating housing and employment centers linked by transit. This would help to move the concept away from a city-by-city scenario to a more subregional approach, allowing job growth where it is most attractive for employers and housing located where available land and costs are more affordable, but allowing for ready transit, bicycle or pedestrian access from housing nodes to employment centers. ·The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to the cost of land, traffic, school capacity, and community services. Staff attached the January 9, 2008 letter (Attachment I) from Mayor Klein to ABAG appealing the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which outlined many of those concerns. ·The housing growth estimates are severely overestimated and unrealistic, using the overstated 2009 Projections as a starting point. At least half of the potential increases in the IVS are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, which are not appropriate for intensification. Any increases in housing should be limited to the identified Planned Development Area and Growth Opportunity Areas. ·Any expectations of growth for the Sustainable Communities Strategy must be tied to provision of adequate transportation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. ·Any scenario for future development should separate Stanford University’s housing impact from that of the City. Those demands for housing should not be assigned as the responsibility of Palo Alto. ·The employment growth totals conflict with (are considerably less than) the sum of growth in the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). ·Staff identified the specific TAZ deficiencies discussed above. July 11, 2011 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 1741) The responses reflect comments added by the PTC, particularly for items #2 and 3 in the letter. Staff also suggests reference to the publication “Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America” in the response item #1 in the letter. Staff requests that the Council provide input and comment to help finalize the City’s response to ABAG and MTC, which would be transmitted over the Mayor’s signature. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The PTC reviewed the Initial Vision Scenario and staff’s suggested responses on May 4, 2011. The PTC generally supported and reiterated staff’s key points. In addition, the PTC recommended that the letter include points to 1) note the minimal decrease in GHG resulting from this scenario, reinforcing the need to look at employment centers near transit and other strategies to achieve greater GHG benefits, and 2) request independent reviews of the demographic, economic, and growth assumptions underlying the preparation of the Initial Vision Scenario (and presumably the alternatives to be evaluated as well). These points were incorporated as items #2 and 3 in the letter. Responses of SCCAPO and Other Local Agencies The Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCCAPO) has met regularly during the SCS process and has formulated some initial suggestions to the regional agencies (Attachment K). SCCAPO has also compiled a survey of responses from Santa Clara County cities, which has been provided to ABAG and MTC (Attachment L). The County and the cities of Mountain View and Campbell have sent additional responses specific to their communities. Many of the themes were similar to those expressed in the Palo Alto letter, such as the need to better address job growth, the extensive constraints to housing (school capacity, infrastructure needs, traffic, etc.), and the lack of a supportive transportation network to accommodate projected development levels. Not all of the cities are aligned, however, as about half (generally those without transit stations and without extensive new housing expected) did not object to the Initial Vision Scenario. Staff notes that San Jose has, unlike prior projections, objected to the extent of housing envisioned for that city, suggesting a greater jobs allocation to balance its current housing inventory. Alternative Scenarios ABAG and MTC are expected to prepare and release 3-5 “alternative scenarios” for review, likely in July. The alternatives are expected to include variations that: 1) focus more growth in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; 2) focus more on job centers near transit and housing with reasonable “commute sheds”; 3) attempt to locate more than 70% of new housing in PDAs or growth opportunity areas; and/or 4) locate more growth in areas not proximate to transit. These concepts may be presented to the ABAG and MTC executive boards in the next couple of weeks for direction. Staff will report to Council and the PTC when something is released. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. July 11, 2011 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 1741) The current methodology under review would require each city and county to provide for 1/3 of the 2035 total in each of the three 8-year planning periods during that timeframe. There has also been discussion of “backloading” (given the current economy) to allocate less units in the 2014-2022 period and more in later years. The two primary topics of discussion have been: 1.The examples portrayed begin with the numbers used in the Initial Vision Scenario, which virtually no one buys into; and 2.The methodology generally relies on assuming 70% of the housing is provided in the PDAs and growth opportunity areas, and then various formulas may be used for the remaining 30%, with factors to be considered including prior affordable housing success, access to transit, quality of schools (not quantity), and/or others. Most of those, of course, are not favorable to Palo Alto. The attached memo from ABAG (Attachment M) was discussed at the March 26th meeting and describes some of the various options and implications. There was considerable objection and no consensus among the group. The Committee’s next meeting is on June 24th so staff and Councilmember Scharff can report the latest at the Council meeting. Due to the desire to tie the RHNA more closely to the SCS, the timeframe for the Committee’s work has been extended to September or October, at least. Resource Impacts Review of the Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Housing Needs Assessment process involves considerable time of the Director of Planning and Community (estimated 20- 40 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. There are, however, no direct costs associated with the staff review. Next Steps 1.The Council letter will be forwarded to ABAG and MTC. 2.Staff will return to PTC and Council with updates and recommended actions, if timely, once the Alternative Scenarios are released (expected in July). 3.Staff and Councilmember Scharff will report to Council in September regarding status and progress regarding the RHNA Methodology Committee’s progress. 4.Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A: May 25, 2011 Letter to Ezra Rapport (ABAG) Re Initial Vision Scenario(PDF) ·Attachment B: Table 2.4 -Initial Vision Scenario: Household and Job Totals and Growth (PDF) ·Attachment C: ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial Vision Scenario Comparison (PDF) ·Attachment D: SCS Initial Vision Scenario Household and Employment Analysis per TAZ (PDF) July 11, 2011 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 1741) ·Attachment E: Maps of Initial Vision Scenario Growth (Households and Employment) by TAZ (PDF) ·Attachment F: Graph and Tables 3.2-3.10c -PDA and GOA Growth Re Total Growth (PDF) ·Attachment G: March 14, 2011 Supplemental Staff Memo Re Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment H: March 14, 2011 Staff Report to Council Re Sustainable Communities Strategy Update (PDF) ·Attachment I: January 9, 2008 Letter from Mayor to ABAG Re Appeal of RHNA Determination (PDF) ·Attachment J: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Excerpt Minutes of May 4, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment K: June 8, 2011 Letter from Santa Clara County Planning Officials to One Bay Area (PDF) ·Attachment L: Santa Clara County Planning Officials Survey of Responses to Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment M: May 26, 2011 Memo from RHNA Committee (PDF) ·Attachment N: Glossary of Acronyms and Terms (PDF) ·Attachment O: Initial Vision Scenario available at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/(TXT) Prepared By:Curtis Williams, Director Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (SB375) GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS AB 32 Assembly Bill 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; state legislation requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels or lower by the year 2020. ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments: A voluntary association of counties and cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG provides demographic, financial, administrative, training and conference services to local governments and businesses. A member sits on MTC. ABAG Regional Planning Committee This committee studies and submits matters to the ABAG Executive Board regarding: Plan Bay Area; environmental management, housing, and infrastructure planning; special plans and reports from planning task forces or other regional agencies; comprehensive planning policies and procedures; and such other matters as may be assigned by the Executive Board. Members include a minimum of 18 elected officials, including at least one supervisor from each member county and a city representative from each county, as well as not less than 10 citizens representing business, minority, economic development, recreation/open space, environment, public interest, housing, special districts and labor interests. BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Also known as the Air District, since the acronym seems to take longer to say than the full name): Regulates industry and employers to keep air pollution in check and sponsors programs to clean the air. The Air District also works with MTC, ABAG and BCDC on issues that affect transportation, land use and air quality. Bay Area Partnership Often referred to simply as “The Partnership,” this is a confederation of the top staff of various transportation agencies in the region, including MTC, public transit operators, county congestion management agencies (CMAs), city and county public works departments, ports, Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as well as environmental protection agencies. The Partnership works by consensus to improve the overall efficiency and operation of the Bay Area’s transportation network, including developing strategies for financing transportation improvements. Bay Plan The San Francisco Bay Plan guides policies for future uses of the Bay and its shoreline. The first San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968, and it is periodically updated. The two main objectives are: 1) Protect the Bay as a great natural resource for the benefit of present and future generations, and 2) Develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay filling. BCDC will be releasing a revised recommendation on amendments to the Bay Plan to Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  2  prepare for inevitable sea-level rise and storm surges affecting areas on and near the Bay shoreline due to climate change. BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission: A state-established agency with jurisdiction over dredging and filling of San Francisco Bay and limited jurisdiction over development within 100 feet of the Bay. Call for Projects Regional agencies use this procedure to solicit competing bids from counties, cities, transit agencies, community-based organizations and other stakeholders for projects to be funded as part of long-range plans, such as Transportation 2035 or Plan Bay Area. Caltrans California Department of Transportation: The state agency that maintains and operates California’s highway system. Capital Funds Moneys to cover one-time costs for construction of new projects — such as roads, bridges, bicycle/pedestrian paths, transit lines and transit facilities — to expand the capacity of the transportation system, or to cover the purchase of buses and rail cars. CEQA California Environmental Quality Act: This statute requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA Guidelines The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines are developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. The primary purpose is to provide a means to identify proposed local plans and development projects that may have a significant adverse effect on air quality and public health. The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines, updated in June 2010, recommend air quality significance thresholds, analytical methodologies and mitigation measures for local agencies to use when preparing air quality impact analyses under CEQA. The updated CEQA Guidelines seek to better protect the health and well-being of Bay Area residents by addressing new health protective air quality standards, exposure to toxic air contaminants, and adverse effects from global climate change. Clean Air Plan At a public hearing on September 15, 2010, the Air District Board of Directors adopted the final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP), and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on the CAP. The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area ozone plan in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. In addition, the 2010 Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  3  CAP provides an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. Climate Change Climate change refers to changes in the Earth’s weather patterns, including the rise in the Earth’s average temperature due to an increase in heat-trapping or “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Climate scientists agree that climate change is a man-made problem caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal. Transportation accounts for about 40 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions. Climate change is expected to significantly affect the Bay Area’s public health, air quality and transportation infrastructure through sea level rise and extreme weather. CMAs Congestion Management Agencies: Countywide agencies responsible for preparing and implementing a county’s Congestion Management Program. CMAs came into existence as a result of state legislation and voter approval of Proposition 111 in 1990. Subsequent legislation made them optional. Most Bay Area counties still have them. Many CMAs double as a county’s sales tax authority. CO2 Carbon dioxide: A gas that is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle or through human activities. The largest source of CO2 globally is the combustion of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and gas) in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources. In the Bay Area, the single largest source of CO2 emissions, some 41 percent, comes from transportation sources. Committed Revenues Funds that are directed to a specific entity or for a specific purpose as mandated by statute or by the administering agency. Conformity A process in which transportation plans and spending programs are reviewed to ensure they are consistent with federal clean air requirements; transportation projects collectively must not worsen air quality. Congestion Pricing A policy designed to allocate roadway space more efficiently by charging drivers a fee that varies with the level of traffic on a congested roadway. (See also Value Pricing.) CTC California Transportation Commission: A state-level commission, consisting of nine members appointed by the governor, which establishes priorities and allocates funds for highway, passenger rail and transit investments throughout California. The CTC adopts the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP, and implements state transportation policy. Detailed Scenarios Following development of the Initial Vision Scenario, detailed scenarios that account for Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  4  available revenues will be developed, analyzed and discussed as part of the Plan Bay Area process. (See also Initial Vision Scenario and Preferred Scenario.) EIR Environmental Impact Report: State law requires that an EIR shall be prepared if there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. A draft EIR shall be included as part of the review and approval process whenever a public hearing is held on the project. Following adoption of a final EIR by the lead agency makes a decision whether to proceed with the project. Environmental Justice This term stems from a Presidential Executive Order to promote equity for disadvantaged communities and promote the inclusion of racial and ethnic populations and low-income communities in decision-making. Local and regional transportation agencies must ensure that services and benefits, as well as burdens, are fairly distributed to avoid discrimination. Equity Analysis Consistent with federal requirements for environmental justice, MTC and ABAG will conduct an equity analysis covering Plan Bay Area to determine how the benefits and burdens of the plan’s investment strategy affect minority and low-income communities. Equity Working Group This Equity Working Group was set up to advise MTC and ABAG staff in developing of an equity analysis related to low income and minority communities of concern for Plan Bay Area. It consists of representatives from MTC’s Policy Advisory Council (PAC) and the Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG) The group is identifying some of the key issues and challenges for the region to grow equitably to help meet the sustainability goals as Plan Bay Area is developed. (See also Equity Analysis.) Executive Working Group The Executive Working Group — including city managers, congestion management agency directors, regional agency executives, transit officials and others — was formed to provide a forum for input on technical and policy issues surrounding development of Plan Bay Area. The Executive Working Group met on June 7, 2010. Additional meeting times/locations as well as meeting materials will be posted on the OneBayArea website. FHWA Federal Highway Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency responsible for administering the federal highway aid program to individual states, and helping to plan, develop and coordinate construction of federally funded highway projects. FHWA also governs the safety of hazardous cargo on the nation’s highways. Financial Constraint A federal requirement that long-range transportation plans include only projects that have a reasonable expectation of being funded, based upon anticipated revenues. In other words, long- range transportation plans cannot be pie-in-the-sky wish lists of projects. They must reflect Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  5  realistic assumptions about revenues that will likely be available during the 25 years covered in the plan. Flexible Funding Unlike funding that flows only to highways or only to transit by a rigid formula, this is money that can be invested in a range of transportation projects. Examples of flexible funding categories include the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. FOCUS A regional planning initiative spearheaded by ABAG in cooperation with MTC, and in coordination with the Air District and BCDC. FOCUS seeks to protect open space and natural resources while encouraging infill development in existing communities (See also PCA and PDA). FPI Freeway Performance Initiative: MTC’s effort to improve the operations, safety and management of the Bay Area’s freeway network via deploying system management strategies, completing the HOV lane system, addressing regional freight issues and closing key freeway infrastructure gaps. FTA Federal Transit Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency that provides financial and planning assistance to help plan, build and operate rail, bus and paratransit systems. The agency also assists in the development of local and regional traffic reduction programs. Global Warming See Climate Change. Greenhouse Gases Any of the gases – including carbon dioxide, methane and ozone – whose absorption of solar radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, in which the atmosphere allows incoming sunlight to pass through but absorbs heat radiated back from the earth’s surface. Greenhouse gases act like a heat-trapping blanket in the atmosphere, causing climate change. HOV Lane High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lane: The technical term for a carpool lane, commuter lane or diamond lane. Initial Vision Scenario As part of Plan Bay Area, the Initial Vision Scenario articulates the Bay Area’s vision of future land uses and assesses its performance relative to statutory greenhouse gas and housing targets as well as other voluntary performance targets. The Initial Vision Scenario serves as a starting point for the development, analysis and discussion of detailed scenario alternatives that will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. Another reason the Initial Vision Scenario is just a starting point is because it is unconstrained by available revenues. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Preferred Scenario.) Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  6  JPC Joint Policy Committee: This consortium coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, the Air District, BCDC and MTC. Land Use Model Used by researchers and planners to identify expected population, jobs and housing growth and to understand the interactions between land use, transportation, and the economy. Models help planners analyze and test various spatial distributions of jobs, population and land uses and describe to policy-makers and the public about the relationship between land use and transportation. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization: A federally required planning body responsible for the transportation planning and project selection in its region; the governor designates an MPO in every urbanized area with a population of over 50,000. MTC is the Bay Area’s MPO. MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission: The transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. One Bay Area One Bay Area is a new initiative meant to coordinate efforts of the Bay Area’s regional government agencies — the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) — in partnership with the region’s 101 towns and cities to create a more sustainable future. One major effort now underway is the development of Plan Bay Area, the region’s long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation and housing. Paratransit Door-to-door bus, van and taxi services used to transport elderly and disabled riders. Paratransit is sometimes referred to as dial-a-ride service, since trips are made according to demand instead of along a fixed route or according to a fixed schedule. PM Particulate Matter: A mixture of tiny solid and liquid particles – such as those from dust, dirt, soot or smoke – that are found in the air. When inhaled, these particles can settle deep in the lungs and cause serious health problems. PCA Priority Conservation Area: Regionally significant open spaces for which there exists a broad consensus for long-term protection and for which public funds may be invested to promote their protection. These areas must be identified through the FOCUS program. PDA Priority Development Area: Locations within existing communities that present infill Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  7  development opportunities, and are easily accessible to transit, jobs, shopping and services. Local jurisdictions identified these locations voluntarily through the FOCUS program. Performance Measures Indicators of how well the transportation system or specific transportation projects will improve transportation conditions. Place Types A place type groups neighborhoods or centers with similar sustainability characteristics and physical and social qualities, such as the scale of housing buildings, frequency and type of transit, quality of the streets, concentration of jobs, and range of services. For Plan Bay Area, Place Types are a tool of local-regional exchange to identify places and policies for sustainable development. Bay Area jurisdictions can select a place type to indicate their desired level of growth in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Plan Bay Area Plan Bay Area is one of our region’s most comprehensive planning efforts to date. It is a joint effort led by ABAG and MTC in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC. All four agencies are collaborating at an unprecedented level to produce a more integrated land use-transportation plan. Planning Directors Forums These are regularly scheduled meetings of local planning directors and staff in each county. Local and countywide issues of concern are discussed, and the forums act as a platform for information sharing. Other participants include congestion management agencies (CMAs) and staff from local community and economic development and public works departments. Potential New Revenues Funds that may be available for transportation investment in the future if proposed new revenue sources are approved. These potential revenues are not included in the financially constrained portion of long-term transportation plans and Plan Bay Area. Preferred Scenario Consideration of the detailed scenario alternatives will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Initial Vision Scenario.) Program (1) verb, to assign funds to a project that has been approved by MTC, the state or another agency, and (2) noun, a system of funding for implementing transportation projects or policies. Resolution 3434 MTC adopted Resolution 3434 in December 2001 to establish clear priorities for the investment of transit expansion funds over the next decade. It focused on identifying high-priority rail and express/rapid bus improvements to serve the Bay Area’s most congested corridors. Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  8  RAWG Regional Advisory Working Group: An advisory group set up to advise staff of ABAG, MTC, BAAQMD and BCDC on development of Plan Bay Area. Its membership includes staff representatives of local jurisdictions (CMAs, planning directors, transit operators, public works agencies) as well as representatives from the business, housing, environmental and social-justice communities. RHNA Regional Housing Need Assessment: The Regional Housing Need Assessment process is a state mandate regarding planning for housing in California. ABAG is responsible for allocating this state-determined regional housing need among all of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities. Factors used by ABAG in its allocation process include projected household growth, existing employment and projected employment growth, and projected household and employment growth near transit. RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program: A listing of highway, local road, transit and bicycle projects that the region hopes to fund; compiled by MTC every two years from priority lists submitted by local jurisdictions. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) must either approve or reject the RTIP in its entirety. Once the CTC approves an RTIP, it is combined with those from other regions to comprise 75 percent of the funds in the State Transportation Improvement Program or STIP. (Also see “STIP.”) RTP Regional Transportation Plan: A master plan to guide the region’s transportation investments for a 25-year period. Updated every three years, it is based on projections of growth in population and jobs and the ensuing travel demand. Required by state and federal law, it includes programs to better maintain, operate and expand transportation. The Bay Area’s most recent update of its long-range transportation plan, is known as Transportation 2035. The next RTP will be included as part of Plan Bay Area. Sales Tax Authority An agency that administers a voter-approved county transportation sales tax program; in most Bay Area counties, the congestion management agency (CMA) also serves as the sales tax authority. SB 375 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg): SB 375 became law in 2008. It includes two main statutory requirements and a host of voluntary measures. It is designed to complement AB 32, which requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The first requirement is to reduce per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars and light duty trucks, primarily by building more compact communities with better access to mass transit and other amenities, so people have more transportation choices and do not have to drive as much. The second requirement is to house 100 percent of the region’s projected 25-year population growth, regardless of income level. Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  9  Smart Growth A set of policies and programs designed to protect, preserve and economically stimulate established communities, while protecting valuable natural and cultural resources and limiting sprawl. STIP State Transportation Improvement Program: What the California Transportation Commission (CTC) ends up with after combining various RTIPs, as well as a list of specific projects proposed by Caltrans. Covering a five-year span and updated every two years, the STIP determines when and if transportation projects will be funded by the state. Projects included in the STIP must be consistent with the long-range transportation plan. Sustainability Sustainability means doing things and using resources in ways that protect them so they will be available for current and future generations. The “Three E” goals of sustainability are Economy, Environment and Equity. Sustainability is all about helping support a prosperous and globally competitive economy, providing for a healthy and safe environment, and producing equitable opportunities for all Bay Area residents. Sustainable Communities Strategy The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is an integrated land use and transportation plan that all metropolitan regions in California must complete under Senate Bill 375. In the San Francisco Bay Area this integration includes ABAG’s Projections and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Title VI Refers to Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and requires that transportation planning and programming be nondiscriminatory on the basis of race, color and national origin. Integral to Title VI is the concept of environmental justice. TLC Transportation for Livable Communities: Program created by MTC in 1998 to fund small-scale, community- and transit-oriented projects that improve neighborhood vitality. TOD Transit-Oriented Development: A type of development that links land use and transit facilities to support the transit system and help reduce sprawl, traffic congestion and air pollution. It includes housing, along with complementary public uses (jobs, retail and services), located at a strategic point along a regional transit system, such as a rail hub. TOD Policy To promote cost-effective transit, ease regional housing shortages, create vibrant communities and preserve open space, MTC adopted a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy in 2005 that applies to transit extension projects in the Bay Area. Research shows that residents living within half a mile of transit are much more likely to use it, and that large job centers within a quarter mile of transit draw more workers on transit. Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  10  Travel Model Used by researchers and planners for simulating current travel conditions and for forecasting future travel patterns and conditions. Models help planners and policy-makers analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative transportation investments in terms of performance, such as mobility, accessibility, environmental and equity impacts. Value Pricing The concept of assessing higher prices for using certain transportation facilities during the most congested times of the day, in the same way that airlines offer off-peak discounts and hotel rooms cost more during prime tourist seasons. Also known as congestion pricing and peak- period pricing, examples of this concept include higher bridge tolls during peak periods or charging single-occupant vehicles that want to use carpool lanes. (See also Congestion Pricing.) VMT One vehicle (whether a car carrying one passenger or a bus carrying 30 people) traveling one mile constitutes a vehicle mile. VMT is one measure of the use of Bay Area freeways and roads.   City of Palo Alto (ID # 1711) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 7 (ID # 1711) Summary Title: Contingency increase to 25% Mitchell Park Lib/CC Title: Approval of Increase in Construction Contingency from 10% to 25% on Contract C11136473 with Flintco Pacific Construction, Inc. for Construction of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, PE-09006; and Approval of Two Contract Amendments for Additional Construction Management and Design Services: Amendment No. Three with Turner Construction, Inc., to Add $205,287 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $3,783,745 and Amendment No. Five with Group 4 Architecture, Inc. To Add $220,670 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $7,902,421 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Executive Summary Several issues have or are projected to increase the construction costs of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPLCC), including many underground utility conflicts and the overall complexity of the library itself, particularly the electrical-mechanical systems, which will contain cutting-edge technology. The building is expected to reach the level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or Platinum; a very positive aspect, but one which increases complexity even further. Due to these factors, actual and known projected contract change orders for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center construction through April have used 53 percent of the Council approved percent contingency amount while only 33 percent of the work is in place (see Attachment A for contingency graph). Based on the current usage rate, staff recommends that Council authorize increasing the contingency by an additional 15 percent for a total construction contingency of 25 percent. Having this amount available if necessary will help insure no disruption to the construction schedule. This added contract contingency will not change the Projected Project Cost of $41 million. Staff continues to estimate project savings (as calculated from the Engineer’s Estimate of $49,043,000) to be $7.4 million. These projections do not change because a larger contingency need had been anticipated in the Projected Project Cost. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council” September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 7 (ID # 1711) 1.The existing contingency for construction of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center PE-09006) (“MPLCC”) is 10 percent of the construction contract of $24,365,000, or $2,436,500. Staff recommends the construction contingency for contract C11136473 with Flintco Pacific, Inc., be increased by $3,654,750 an additional 15 percent of the Contract amount. The revised total contingency authorization for this contract would be $6,091,250 for a total contract contingency of 25 percent. 2.Approve and Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. Three (Attachment B) to contract C10131631 with Turner Construction, Inc., to add $205,297 for additional construction management services for a total contract amount of $3,783,745. This increase represents a 7.5 percent increase in the Additional Services budget. 3.Approve and Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. Five (Attachment C) to contract C09130744 with Group 4 Architecture, Inc., to add $220,670 for additional design services for a total contract amount of $7,902,421. This increase represents a 5 percent increase in the Additional Services budget. Background Measure N, which passed on November 4, 2008, includes funding for construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (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 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:334:10 and CMR:435:10) that can be viewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/reports/cmrs.asp). On August 5, 2010, Council awarded contract C11136473 to Flintco Pacific Inc., for construction of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center in the amount of $24,365,000. Council also authorized a 10 percent construction contingency in the amount of $2,436,500 for a total of $26,801,500. The construction costs are a component of the overall Projected MPLCC Project Cost of $41,566,317, as reported in the May, 2011 Palo Alto Library Projects Monthly Report. · ·Discussion The American Institute of Architects recommends a construction change order contingency of 10 to 12 percent on projects the size of the MPLCC. Contingency has varied on past on City building projects based on the nature of the project: the College Terrace Library had a 25 percent contingency; the Downtown Library has 15 percent contingency; and the two downtown parking structures had a 15 percent contingency. This request would increase the Mitchell Park Library contingency to 25 percent of Flintco Pacific Inc.’s original contract, more typical of the City’s recent, large construction contracts. The construction manager for the MPLCC project, Turner Construction, had originally recommended a 10 percent contingency since new buildings not in a downtown area are typically more straightforward projects than building remodels, which can have many unforeseen factors such as termites, dry rot, and features not shown on the older plans used to September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 7 (ID # 1711) develop the remodel. In the case of the MPLCC, however, the complexity and sophistication of the project that is being undertaken make it distinguishable from typical new construction projects. The MPLCC building will contain complex, cutting-edge technology (such as blinds that open and close automatically in response to the amount of sunlight available) and is expected to reach the level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or Platinum. As the complexity of a project goes up, it becomes more difficult for public “lump sum” bid documents to address every condition that will be encountered during construction. · ·In addition, significant unforeseen items have impacted the contingency budget to date. These items include issues related to the PG&E high-pressure gas transmission line, site utilities, foundations, and structural steel. Anticipated issues that may arise as construction continues and could potentially require increased contingency levels are the electrical and mechanical components. Details of the major categories impacting contingency are listed below: · ·PG&E High Pressure Gas Line ·The Notice to Proceed for construction was issued on September 7, 2010. Two days later, a PG&E gas transmission line exploded in San Bruno which led to a heightened awareness of gas line safety. A similar gas transmission line exists at the back of walk along Middlefield Road, including the frontage of this project and it was necessary to re-check the elevations and designs of all utilities crossing the gas line. Many underground utilities were in close proximity to the gas line and as a result, all members of the project team worked together to develop and implement additional, elevated safety protocols for working near that gas transmission line which included added cost for coordination meetings with all utilities and all relevant subcontractors. The safety protocols led to additional costs by requiring that more careful excavation methods, such as hand digging and vacuum excavation, be used near the gas line. These methods of excavating are also more expensive than standard methods that would have been reasonable to presume while bidding. · ·Structural Steel changes ·One of the unfortunate consequences of a competitive bid market and the weak economy is that many subcontractors find that they cannot meet the obligations of all the projects that they bid. This project has experienced more subcontractors pulling out than any other project that the City has done. One of the major components of a building like the MPLCC is that its structural steel frame is a significant portion of the work that needs to be done. Nearly all other components of the building are dependent on the completion of the structural steel frame. As a result, it becomes part of the critical path for scheduling and any delays to the progress of the structural steel frame delay the entire project. · ·One of the first subcontractors to withdraw from this project was the structural steel subcontractor. Such an action typically would cause a three month delay in the project. Through significant effort on the part of the general contractor, the construction manager, the design team, and the City, delays were avoided by approving a new subcontractor for the structural steel in an expeditious manner. In order to make up for some of the delay caused by September 12, 2011 Page 4 of 7 (ID # 1711) the three weeks that it took to find a new structural steel subcontractor, acceleration of the structural steel work was necessary, requiring overtime by the new structural steel subcontractor. In the process of working through all of the shop drawings necessary to get the structural steel done as quickly and efficiently as possible, modifications to the structural steel design were made. · ·Completeness of Design Plans and Specifications ·At the time of the public bidding process, it appears that certain areas of the design were not detailed to the level needed for actual construction. For example, while a detail was shown for the size of tube steel that would be needed to reinforce exterior walls, there was no mention of the spacing or length of said steel members. As a result, the steel actually necessary for construction was more than the amounts detailed in the design plans on which the contractor based its bid, and an additional approximately $250,000 was needed to reimburse the contractor for the additional steel that was needed for the building. · ·Other design areas where similar design plan issues have been identified relate to the means of connecting various parts of the building. The building is composed of a variety of angles and the angles may abut differing types of materials (stone to metal, etc). The way of connecting to one type of material is different from connecting to another type of material and the differing angles add complications. For the most part, the plans only showed a few standard details. · Staff is taking a two-fold approach to minimize potential delay resulting from these issues. First, Group 4 Architecture is working as quickly as possible to correct the plans and the contractor and construction manager are working together to implement them in the field. Second, Staff is reviewing the extent to which the change orders for this project were driven by the completeness of Group 4 Architecture’s design drawings and tracking related costs caused by the design changes. If it is determined that the number and type of deficiencies in the design work was atypical and resulted in significant delay or other change order costs, appropriate follow-up actions will be taken. · ·However, it is important to note that the additional costs associated with the steel and connections could likely not have been avoided. These are critical components of the building. If the details had been fully shown in the plans at the time of the bid, the contractor would probably have accounted for those details in the bid and the City would have likely paid a higher price for the building at the time of contract award. · ·Exterior Cladding of the Building ·The exterior cladding (skin) of the building has been more challenging to build than anticipated. The purpose of the exterior skin is keep the elements out, but also to provide the level of thermal and moisture protection necessary for efficient energy usage. The basis of design for the exterior skin required the development of a performance specification of specific structural and thermal properties which were incorporated into the building’s design. After September 12, 2011 Page 5 of 7 (ID # 1711) construction started, however, the project team came to the conclusion that the only way to meet the performance specification was to use a proprietary system instead of conventional framing. Additional effort by the contractor, construction manager, and design team was needed to detail how all of the parts would fit together since standard details do not necessarily apply to a proprietary system. Additionally, numerous openings in the exterior skin require coordination with other parts such as the book drops for the automated materials handling equipment, anchorage for art work, signs and plaques at the entrance, in addition to the doors and windows of the entrance. Since all of these parts were being designed by many different parties as the construction got underway, adjustments and interconnections required additional care, effort, and thought. · ·Interiors and Electrical-Mechanical Systems ·Interiors and electrical-mechanical systems are the two significant areas remaining to be addressed that have the potential to trigger the need for additional contingency funding. These areas are where the advanced building technology is most present, so it is possible that additional unexpected issues might arise. The rate at which the contingency is used should ease off after the electrical-mechanical issues are addressed · Analysis Actual and projected potential contract change orders for the MPLCC construction have thus far used 53 percent of the contingency while only 33 percent of the work is in place (Attachment A). During the first eight months of construction, contingency usage averaged $160,000 per month. The current 10 percent contingency funding level allows only an average of $120,000 per month. Therefore, staff recommends that Council authorize increasing the contingency by another 15 percent, for a total of 25percent. Based on a review of the construction documents, field conditions and change orders to date, staff projects a 20 percent contingency authorization would likely cover projected additional work required through completion of the project. Increasing the contingency to 25 percent, however, provides the Director of Public Works with the authority to continue approval of change orders through conclusion of the contract and ensures a sufficient funding cushion to avoid the possibility of delays due to lack of contingency funding. Any unused funding at the end of the project returns to its source, in this case to Bond proceeds. Even with this added contingency amount, the projected MPLCC project cost will continue to be $41,566,317, as reported in the May, 2011, Palo Alto Library Projects Monthly Report. The projected savings (as calculated from the Engineers’ Estimate of $49,043,000) will continue to be $7,476,683. The amount being added to the construction contract contingency does not impact the projected project cost because a larger contingency had been anticipated in the engineering estimate. Council had authorized 15 percent contingency on the Downtown Library and 25 percent on the recent College Terrace Library project. Construction efforts to date reveal that the MPLCC is at that level of complexity where a 25 percent contingency is justified. Staff had requested September 12, 2011 Page 6 of 7 (ID # 1711) the 25 percent contingency on the College Terrace Library due to the low bids received and to the competitive bidding climate in which profit margins were very thin or non-existent so that contractors could secure work for their crews. When bids are substantially below the project budget, as was the case with the College Terrace Library and the MPLCC, there is no room for the contractor to provide anything but what is shown on the plans. For example, in the past a contractor might have provided additional landscaping in a small area where it had not been shown on the plans but in today’s market the owner would be asked to pay for that small amount of extra work. Given that construction climate, staff will reassess whether to recommend 15, 20 or even 25 percent contingencies on future projects that are significantly below the engineer’s estimated cost. Consultant Contract Amendments Staff recommends approval of Amendments No. 3 and 5, respectively, to contracts with Turner Construction and Group 4 Architecture. The Additional Services (contingency) budgets within these contracts have been increased to correspond to the issues described in this report and allow for increased flexibility in the future. The previous Additional Services budgets have been depleted by increasing both Turner and Group 4 Architecture staffing in order to respond to design and construction issues, thereby reducing the likelihood of construction delay claims by the contractor. If additional services are not needed by the consultants, the funding will not be spent. In addition to the 5 percent increase requested by Group 4 Architecture, Turner Construction is requesting a higher contingency amount of 7.5 percent in order to assist staff with the preparation of the numerous contract packages (furniture, signage, equipment, telecommunication, etc.) that are required for this project. Resource Impact Additional 15 percent construction contingency funding in the amount of $3,654,750 is available in the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center CIP, PE-09006. This funding amount was initially set aside and assumed for budgeting purposes that it would be used for project costs. Its use for increased construction and consultant costs will therefore have no impact on the projected project reserves of $7.41M. The Measure N contracts and contract amendments encumbered to date are as follows: Contract Group 4 Architecture Turner Construction Construction Original contract $3,827,280 $138,198 $24,365,000 Original Contingency -10%$2,436,500 Additional Contingency -15%$3,654,750 Amendment 1 $92,034 $432,000 Amendment 2 $312,396 $3,008,250 Amendment 3 $3,192,000 $205,297 Amendment 4 $258,041 n/a September 12, 2011 Page 7 of 7 (ID # 1711) Amendment 5 $220,670 n/a Subtotals: Total Contract Value to Date $7,902,421 $3,783,745 $30,456,250 Policy Implications Increasing the contingency to 25 percent for the construction contingency budget and for increased consultant services does not conflict with any current City policy. Timeline Construction of the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center began in September of 2010 and construction is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2012. After the construction is completed, library and community center staff will move materials and equipment back into the new facilities which are expected to re-open in the fall of 2012. Attachments: ·A -Contingency Analysis (PDF) ·B -Turner Construction, Amendment 3 (PDF) ·C -Group 4 Architecture, Amendment 5 (PDF) Prepared By:Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Mitchell Park Library Community Center Flintco Construction General Contract Contingency Analysis August 2011 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 Se p -10 Oc t -10 No v -10 De c -10 Ja n -11 Fe b -11 Ma r - 11 Ap r -11 Ma y - 11 Ju n -11 Ju l -11 Au g - 11 Se p -11 Oc t -11 No v -11 De c -11 Ja n -12 Fe b -12 Ma r - 12 Ap r - 12 Ma y - 12 Ju n -12 Ju l -12 Au g - 12 Average monthly use 10% contingency Average monthly use 25% contingency Changes Orders approved to date Potential Change Orders 10 % Contingency 25%Contingency AMENDMENT NO.3 TO CONTRACT NO. CI0131631 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY This Amendment No.3 to Contract No. C10131631 ("Contract") is entered into on 12th day of September, 2011, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a California corporation, located at 60 S. Market Street, STE 1100, San Jose, CA 95113 ("CONTRACTOR"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center construction services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract to add funding for additional services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions ofthis Amendment, the parties agree: Section 1. Section 4 of the contract. Not to exceed compensation. is hereby amended to read as follows: "The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Million Two Hundred Fifty-four Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-seven Dollars ($3,254,337.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the TOTAL compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed ($3,783,745). Section 2. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachments to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Work Mitchell Park LibrarylCommunity Center, Renovation of the. Downtown Library, Renovation and Addition to the Main Library & Temporary Library Design Services". b. Exhibit "B" entitled "EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE". c. Exhibit "c" entitled "EXHIBIT "c" COMPENSATION". Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. II II July 21, 2011. Page 1 of21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT SCHEDULE COMPENSATION TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BY:~~ T~ Name: ~~ J. Prr. fndt Title: VUL {Jr4.'} O\~. July 21, 2011 Page 2 of21 EXHIBIT" A" SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. INTRODUCTION In November 2008, voters approved Measure N, which provided for the upgrade, replacement and/or expansion of three libraries in Palo Alto. These libraries are the Downtown Library, the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPLCC) and the Main Library. Environmental clearance has been completed and approved for the three sites. The design plans, which are currently approximately 50 percent complete, have been reviewed by City boards and commissions and have been presented to the community, although additional public meetings are scheduled. I>owntownLibrafY Improvements to the I>owntown Library, located at 270 Forest Ave, consist primarily of accessibility improvements, code required upgrades, electrical and mechanical systems upgrades, and interior space remodeling. The estimated 2008 construction cost was $2.4 million which was based upon 35% completed plans. The construction cost estimate excludes d'esign costs, contingency, inflation escalation, permits, testing, fixtures and furnishing. Environmental clearance has been completed and approved for the project. The Downtown Library will not be a certified LEED building but will follow the City's Green Building Policy and submittal requirements. Mitchell Park LibrafY and Community Center The existing Mitchell Park Library building is located at 3700 Middlefield Road and the adjacent Community Center building is located at 3800 Middlefield Road. The existing library building is less than 10,000 square feet. The existing community center building is approximately 10,000 square feet. Construction will entail demolition and removal of the existing buildings and parking lots, construction of a combined library and community center building and associated site amenities including parking. The new building'S total area will be approximately 51,000 square feet, of which 36,000 square feet will be a two-story library and 15,000 square feet will be a single-story community center around a heritage oak tree. The 2008 estimated construction cost was $28.1 million which was based upon the 35% plan design. The construction cost estimate excludes design costs, contingency, inflation escalation, permits, testing, fixtures and furnishing. The MPLCC will be designed to U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy Efficiency and I>esign (LEEI> ®) Gold standard. I>uring construction, the library services and the community center will be relocated to a temporary facility or facilities. Design of the temporary facility is underway and construction management services for that facility will be performed by Public Works staff. Main Library (Potential Future Phase) Construction management services for the Main Library are not included at this time, as design of improvements to the Main Library will not begin until approximately early 2011. The City reserves the right to negotiate a fee for and enter into a contract (amendment) with Turner Construction Company (hereinafter "Consultant") for these services, or to issue a new Request for Proposals for the services. July 21, 2011 Page 3 of21 The Main Library, located on Newell Road, will have both an interior renovation and an expansion. The renovation to the existing historic structure will consist of seismic, accessibility, and systems upgrades as well as minor expansions and reconfigurations. In addition, a detached building of approximately 4,500 square feet will be constructed. The 2008 estimated construction cost was $9 million which was based upon the 35% plan design. The construction cost estimate excludes design costs, contingency, inflation escalation, permits, testing, fixtures and furnishing. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES All work described below will be done in conjunction with the City's ongoing review and approval process for the projects described above. The Consultant's services shall include full Construction Management Services as required to assist staff in the management of the design and construction of the above projects. If at any time, the City is not satisfied with the performance of Consultant's staff, the City reserves the right to request the services of a different individual. If for any reason the Consultant proposes a change of staffing during the course of the project, the City reserves the right to approve any new staff. Additional Services must be approved in advance of services, in writing, by the City Project Manager. Office space, computers, cell phones, furnishings and other equipment needed for Consultant's staff shall be provided by the Consultant. These costs shall be included in the Consultant fee proposal. Downtown Library Phase I -Design Phase Staff support for this library will be primarily by City staff. During the design phase, Consultant services are primarily required for specialty (mechanical, electrical) and for pre-qualifiction of contractors and key subcontractors. A. Preconstruction Document and Constructability review Consultant shall: • become familiar with the project history, plans, and specifications. • review plans, specifications and cost estimates submitted for City review. Review by Consultant shall be performed by engineers or contractors who have experience in relevant fields. Review of documents shall be done at the current and 100% completion stage of Design Development and at 60%, 95% and 100% of Construction Development. • provide a constructability review for the project documents and make appropriate cost and/or time-savings recommendations to the City. • provide an independent opinion of probable cost. • analyze and document the costs and benefits associated with combining construction of the Downtown Library with the MPLCC. • coordinate as-needed and directed with the ArchitectlEngineers (AE) firm, City staff, City boards and commission members, and community members. July 21, 2011 Page 4 of21 • assist the City's Contracts Manager with the preparation of the "Instructions to Bidders" which will define the scope of work that must be included in the bid packages and other related bid documents needed to ensure a complete bid package. The AE will prepare technical specifications. • become familiar with the various City department functions and requirements for project coordination. Contractor and Key Subcontractor Pre qualification Prior to the construction bid phase, the Consultant shall prepare, and obtain approval from the City of Palo Alto, to advertise forms required for Contractor and key subcontractor Pre qualification. Consultant shall administer the feedback from same, including but not limited to: answering questions from contractors and subcontractors, coordinating responses with the City's Purchasing Division, preparing spreadsheets or other documentation necessary to compile and compare contractor responses, preparing a recommended bidder's list with a brief report summarizing findings, assisting in representing the City in any subsequent hearings challenging the validity of the results and any follow-up documentation resulting from said hearings. The City Purchasing Division will verify Consultant's recommendation in order to finalize the decision. Additional Services Additional Services include, but are not limited to, attendence at meetings, value engineering, calculations and reimbursable expenses not included in the base fee. Phase II -Construction Phase Services -Downtown Library A. Turner Staff Services General: Consultant shall be the point of contact for the project's contractor (Contractor), and shall endeavor to enforce compliance with all of Contractor's contractual requirements, as follows: Daily Construction Management: Consultant shall oversee the day-to-day construction work performed by the Contractor. Consultant shall track the construction process, logistics, Request For Information (RFI), Change Order (CO) and other information or requests. Consultant shall oversee the construction activities and ensure that all aspects of LEED ® construction requirements are followed and documented and shall work closely with the project's Commissioning Agent and design consultant, Group 4 Architecture (ARCHITECT), in that regard. City shall approve Additional Services requests and other items that are part of the City's contract with the ARCHITECT firm. Consultant shall work with the Contractor and any involved parties to implement logistical and communications measures to minimize any impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood, park, fire station, and the various pre-school, elementary, middle, special needs, and charter schools on that block. Consultant shall implement expeditious methods for resolving conflicts. Consultant shall handle the coordination between the City staff, Contractor, and ARCHITECT. If night time, holiday or weekend work is required periodically to minimize impacts or due to delay in schedule, Consultant services shall still be required in full effect, but will be compensated as additional services, for costs incurred. Consultant shall assume that the third Monday in January (Martin Luther King Day), the second Monday in October (Columbus Day) July 21, 2011 Page 5 of21 and November 11 (Veteran's Day) of each year shall be a working day for the contractor and for the Consultant. December 24 (Christmas Eve) and the Friday following Thanksgiving Day (the fourth Thursday in November) shall also be considered to be regular working days. Consultant shall install, advertise, and maintain a hot-line for community updates, questions, and complaints. Advertisement, equipment and other related costs shall be included in the Reimbursables cost section below. Consultant shall liaison with City staff and assist Contractor as-needed in the connection of a Contractor-installed video camera(s) that will be connected to a website to monitor site progress. Documentation: Consultant shall oversee and manage the Contractor's preparation and/or review of all necessary documentation for the project including, but not limited to, daily logs and inspection progress reports, photos/videos, RFI, correspondence, shop drawings, and other contractor submittals. Consultant shall maintain all files and documentation related to managing the project. Consultant shall track all RFI, correspondence, and submittal status. Responses, approvals, and decisions relative to Contractor's documents shall be provided in a timely manner and as required in the construction documents. Consultant shall review and comment on any project-related correspondence as requested by the City. Routine correspondence that is related to product information or minor design issues may be prepared and answered by Consultant on its letterhead, with a copy of the response directed to PM and ARCHITECT. Correspondence requiring City response, including but not limited to correspondence with residents, cost or contractual issues, may be drafted by Consultant but shall be signed only by City. Submittals: Consultant shall manage, log and track all project submittals (i.e. shop drawings, product information, substitution request, and samples) for approval in timely manner as required by the construction documents and in order to prevent any delays to the project. Comments from different reviewers of the submittal shall be compiled before being returned to the Contractor for revisions. All submittals shall be sent directly between the Contractor and the Design team, with copies, documentation and management reports submitted to and managed by the Consultant. Construction Schedule: Consultant shall review the Contractor's construction schedule. Consultant shall analyze, monitor, and request updates for the master schedule as the project progresses. Consultant shall analyze the schedule for logical construction, constraints, level of critical activities and to verify progress in conjunction with the analysis of pay applications. Consultant shall review Contractors' individual Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules, monitor the contractor's progress, notify the City of any slippage, and coordinate contractor recovery plans. Progress Payments: Consultant shall review progress payment requests submitted by Contractor, within five (5) days of receipt and verify the accuracy and percentage of completion against the schedule, and resolve any discrepancies in the invoices. Consultant shall review the invoices and backup for completeness and compliance with contract documents and make a recommendation to PM for payment of the progress payment requests. Change Order Monitoring and Processing: Consultant shall review and evaluate all Contractor extra work requests. Consultant shall review the contract documents to determine entitlement, complete an independent estimate of the cost of the changes, and reconcile with the contractor's change order request. Consultant shall prepare contract change order authorizations for City July 21, 2011 Page 6 of21 approval and track all scope and schedule changes. Consultant shall also implement expeditious methods for resolving conflicts. Claims: Consultant shall analyze any claims from the contractors (i.e., compensation and delay) as to whether they are excusable, inexcusable, or compensable and prepare a response for City. Meetings: Throughout the construction process, Consultant shall be prepared to address comments and concerns of the construction contractors, ARCHITECT, PM, the City Staff, and the general public on an as-needed basis. Consultant shall set up and conduct weekly progress meetings and any other meetings necessary to facilitate the project work. Consultant shall write and distribute the meeting agendas, and meeting minutes, including: City-Consultant meetings, regular site meetings, and meetings with the City staff, contractors, various City departments, and also the public. The meeting minutes will explicitly track who has the responsibility for each action item with expected completion dates. Consultant shall coordinate the logistics related to a ground-breaking and to a ribbon-cutting ceremony, including working with committees, identifying power sources, etc. Costs for beverages, materials, photographs shall not be the responsibility of the Consultant. Soils-related testing shall be under the Consultant's . contract. Physical oversight of the geotechnical aspects of the construction project shall be contracted by the ARCHITECT firm. Miscellaneous: Consultant shall monitor Contractor's compliance in general with the construction documents and contract. Consultant shall address comments and concerns of the contractors and the ARCHITECT as needed. During construction, the Consultant's office space shall be provided, maintained and removed by the Contractor, including offices, furniture and office equipment. Quality Control and Assurance: Consultant shall monitor and document the Contractors' work for any deviations in scope, schedule, or performance and keep the City informed of and assist in resolving any issues that may arise. Record Drawings: Consultant shall coordinate the preparation of record drawings with the Contractors and ARCHITECT on a regular basis, both during the construction and post construction phases, and review the drawings for "as-built" accuracy. Training: Consultant shall set up and coordinate contractor-provided training of City staff as required by the contract documents and as necessary to ensure that the appropriate City personnel are adequately trained and familiar with the new equipment and systems. Commissioning: Consultant shall work with the commissioning agent, design consultants, and the Contractors to ensure that all new equipment have been installed in accordance with the contract documents, are working properly as stand-alone equipment, and are working properly as part of a complete system. Substantial Completion: As per the construction contract, once the Contractor requests substantial completion and it is determined to be warranted, Consultant shall prepare and compile a project punch list with the assistance from the City and ARCHITECT to be forwarded to the Contractor. Consultant shall oversee the completion of the punch list items before the final notice of completion is issued. July 21, 2011 Page 7 of21 As-Built drawings shall be scanned by Consultant for archiving by City. Close Out: Consultant shall ensure completion and delivery of all required close out documentations including operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals, record drawings, and warranties. Consultant shall review all these materials for compliance with the contract documents and for completeness, and report any deficiencies or discrepancies to Contractor for corrections and re-submittal. Consultant shall work under the direction of the Project Manager to resolve any contract claim issues that may arise (stop work notices, bonding, delays, extra work, etc). Files: Consultant shall consolidate and deliver all project files and documentation maintained to be retained by the City B. Testing Laboratories and Special Inspections: Testing and Special Inspections: A testing agency shall be under contract with and paid for by the Consultant. Consultant shall coordinate with the Contractor in scheduling the testing agency services for materials testing and special inspections needed for the life of the project. This testing includes, but is not limited to, collecting and running geotechnical tests, concrete strength and weld inspection. Consultant shall ensure that all required sign-offs are reviewed and distributed and are in compliance with the specifications and the California' Building Codes. Geotechnical Engineering is included by the Architect, and is not included by the Consultant. C. Electronic Documents: Electronic Documents: Consultant shall provide electronic, fully addressable and cross referenced electronic document filing system. It will be developed and used as the project filing system during construction and will be updated with all closeout documentation, and cross referenced for simple search and retrieve functionality for all project documentation for City's use after construction. Consultant will provide Labor to input all documentation, and to train City in the use and access to all electronic project files. Any monthly service fees shall be included herein and not in Reimbursables. D. Additional Services: Additional Services: Include, but are not limited to, additional meetings, additional public outreach, unforeseen testing or inspection needs. E. Reimbursables: Reimbursables: Travel and meal expenses shall not be Reimbursable items but shall be considered as included in the fee for associated work items. Any temporary trailers, computers, copiers, printers and office supplies are not considered as a Reimbursable expense, but will be provided to the Consultant under the Contractor's Contract. City may, at its option, provide working space and computer connection for Consultant. Printing of plans and specifications shall be paid by City. Consultant shall, at the direction of the Project Manager, install, advertise, and maintain a hot- line for community updates, questions, and complaints. Printing of flyers, presentation boards, advertisement, equipment and other related outreach material costs shall considered a Reimbursable expense, the cost for which shall be approved in writing in advance by the Project July 21, 2011 Page 8 of21 Manager. Phase III-Post Construction Services -Downtown F. Post Construction Services Post Construction and Warranty Services: Consultant shall meet with Library, Community Services and Public Works staff (Staff) monthly for three months commencing after the building is open to the public in order to complete any remaining punch-list items and/or to contact the Contractor for any warranty issues that might arise. After the initial three month period, Consultant shall contact the Staff quarterly for a period of nine months to determine whether any new building or systems issues have been identified. Systems deficiencies that cannot be resolved by the Contractor shall be reported to the Commissioning Agent. Commissioning Verification: Consultant shall participate in the post-construction activities of the Commissioning Agent as follows: Participate in an off-season testing (Le., testing the heating system prior to winter) session and work with the Contractor to correct any deficiencies. Compile the final testing documentation for the Commissioning Record and O&M manuals. Return to the site at month 10 of the 12 month warranty period and review operating conditions with City facility staff and the Commissioning Agent in order to identify any outstanding issues related to the original and seasonal commissioning. The Commissioning Agent will interview facility staff and identify problems or concerns that they have with operating the building as originally intended. The Commissioning Agent will make suggestions for improvements and for recording these changes in the O&M manuals. The Commissioning Agent will identify areas that may come under warranty or under the original construction contract. The Construction Management Consultant shall work with the Contractor to resolve any warranty issues. Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Phase I -Design Phase A. Preconstruction Document and Constructability review Consultant shall: • become familiar with the project history, plans and specifications • review plans, specifications and prepare cost estimates submitted for City review. Review by Consultant shall be performed by engineers or contractors who have experience in relevant fields. Review of documents shall be done at the current and 100% completion stage of Design Development and at 60%, 95% and 100% of Construction Development. • provide a constructability review for the project documents and make appropriate cost and/or time-savings recommendations to the City. • provide an independent opinion of probable construction cost. • coordinate as-needed and directed with the ArchitectlEngineers (AE) firm, City staff, City boards and commission members and community members. • assist the City's Contracts Manager with the preparation of the "Instructions to Bidders" which July 21, 2011 Page 9 of21 will define the scope of work that must be included in the bid packages and other related bid documents needed to ensure a complete bid package. The AE will prepare technical specifications. • become familiar with the various City department functions and requirements for project coordination. Community Outreach The Consultant shall collect information and prepare community, City Manager, oversight committee, boards and commission and any other needed updates, presentations or reports not provided by the AE. The Consultant shall attend community meetings to update various civic orginazations (Kiwanas, school groups, etc.) or community meetings on the project progress. Fee for this service shall be included in 'Meetings'. Seven public meetings are currently scheduled from Sept 22,2009 through January 26, 2010, however, Consultant shall budget for up to five (5) additional public meetings. Contractor and Key Subcontractor Pregualification Prior to the construction bid phase, the City shall prepare, with City of Palo Alto approval, and advertise forms required for Contractor and key subcontractor Prequalification. Consultant shall administer the feedback from same, including but not limited to: answering questions from contractors and subcontractors, coordinating responses with the City's Purchasing Division, preparing spreadsheets or other documentation necessary to compile and compare contractor responses, prepare a recommended bidder's list with a brief report summarizing findings, assist in representing the City in any subsequent hearings challenging the validity of the results, and any follow-up documentation reSUlting from said hearings. Bidding: Consultant shall organize and manage contractor participation. Consultant shall review the contractor bids for compliance with the technical portions of the bid requirements as set forth in the specifications and make a recommendation for award or rejection. Consultant shall assist with the bid period work items including clarifications, and bid evaluation relative to the contract documen!s. Consultant shall review the subcontractor list for completeness and compliance with the bid documents. The City Purchasing Division will verify Consultant's recommendation in order to finalize the decision. Pre-bid Conference and Pre-construction Meeting: Consultant shall coordinate and facilitate the Pre-bid Conference and Pre-construction Meeting including preparation of the agendas and meeting minutes Addenda: If changes to the construction documents are required during the bidding period, Consultant shall prepare the addenda items with the assistance from the AE. The City will issue the addenda. Budget: Consultant shall work with the City to develop a construction budget format and tracking system. Hazardous Material Abatement: Hazardous materials may be removed from the existing structures prior to their demolition (under City contract) or may be included as part of the construction bid package. Consultant shall assume that the abatement will be done by City contract and Consultant shall prepare, assist in the bidding of and coordinate the remediation contract. A third party consultant shall be employed by the City to survey, test, develop and July 21, 2011 Page 10 of21 implement removal procedures, monitor abatement and report. Relocation of Existing Library Services The Consultant shall provide CM Services to support the City of Palo Alto in relocating library services to a temporary facility. It is estimated the move coordination for the Consultant wi11last approximately 3 weeks. Meetings: Throughout the design process, Consultant shall be prepared to address comments and concerns of the contractors interested in bidding on the project, AE, City Staff, boards and commissions and the general public on an as-needed basis. Consultant shall schedule and conduct weekly progress meetings and any other meetings necessary to facilitate the project work. City will provide the administrative support to provide a meeting room and invite attendees. Consultant shall write and distribute the meeting agendas, and meeting minutes, including: City-Consultant meetings, regular site meetings, and meetings with the City staff, contractors, various City departments and also the public. The meeting minutes will explicitly track who has the responsibility for each action item with expected completion dates. Additional Services Additional Services include, but are not limited to, attendence at meetings, value engineering, calculations and reimbursable expenses not included in the base fee. Phase II -Construction Phase Services -MPLCC A. Turner Staff Services General: Consultant shall be the point of contact for the project's contractor (Contractor), and shall endeavor to enforce compliance with all of Contractor's contractual requirements, as follows: Daily Construction Management: Consultant shall oversee the day-to-day construction work performed by the Contractor. Consultant shall track the construction process, logistics, Request For Information (RFI), Change Order (CO) and other information or requests. Consultant shall oversee the construction activities and ensure that all aspects of LEED ® construction requirements are followed and documented and shall work closely with the project's Commissioning Agent and design consultant, Group 4 Architecture (ARCHITECT), in that regard. City shall approve Additional Services requests and other items that are part of the City's contract with the ARCHITECT firm. Consultant shall work with the Contractor and any involved parties to implement logistical and communications measures to minimize any impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood, park, fire station, and the various pre-school, elementary, middle, special needs, and charter schools on that block. Consultant shall implement expeditious methods for resolving conflicts. Consultant shall handle the coordination between the City staff, Contractor, and ARCHITECT. If night time, holiday or weekend work is required periodically to minimize impacts or due to delay in schedule, Consultant services shall still be required in full effect, but will be compensated as additional services, for costs incurred. Consultant shall assume that the third July 21, 2011 Page 11 of21 Monday in January (Martin Luther King Day), the second Monday in October (Columbus Day) and November 11 (Veteran's Day) of each year shall be a working day for the contractor and for the Consultant. December 24 (Christmas Eve) and the Friday following Thanksgiving Day (the fourth Thursday in November) shall also be considered to be regular working days. Consultant shall install, advertise, and maintain a hot-line for community updates, questions, and complaints. Advertisement, equipment and other related costs shall be included in the Reimbursables cost section below. Consultant shall liaison with City staff and assist Contractor as-needed in the connection of a Contractor-installed video camera(s) that will be connected to a website to monitor site progress. Field Inspection and Supervision: For Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, the Consultant, whose title shall be CM Field Superintendent (CMFS), shall maintain a field presence whenever work is under way by the Contractor. The role of the CMFS will be to enforce the Contract daily in the field to ensure that the work is being constructed in compliance with the contract documents, the approved shop drawings, the current RFI answers, etc, and in general, 'to protect the interest of the City of Palo Alto daily in the field. The CMFS will also observe and report daily field problems with respect to quality, cost and schedule. The CMFS will develop and maintain deficiency, incomplete work item, and preliminary punch list reports and will maintain a daily construction report, as the daily history of the project, to include significant jobsite field events that occur each day. The CMFS will not be responsible for means and methods of the general Contractor, nor for safety of any of the contractor's employees, but will have the authority, but not the responsibility, to observe and report concerns with regard to such issues. Documentation: Consultant shall oversee and manage the Contractor's preparation and/or review of all necessary documentation for the project including, but. not limited to, daily logs and inspection progress reports, photos/videos, RFI, correspondence, shop drawings, and other contractor submittals. Consultant shall maintain all files and documentation related to managing the project. Consultant shall track all RFI, correspondence, and submittal status. Responses, approvals, and decisions relative to Contractor's documents shall be provided in a timely manner and as required in the construction documents. Consultant shall review and comment on any project-related correspondence as requested by the City. Routine correspondence that is related to product information or minor design issues may be prepared and answered by Consultant on its letterhead, with a copy of the response directed to PM and ARCHITECT. Correspondence requiring City response, including but not limited to correspondence with residents, cost or contractual issues, may be drafted by Consultant but shall be signed only by City. . Submittals: Consultant shall manage, log and track all project submittals (i.e. shop drawings, product information, substitution request, and samples) for approval in timely manner as required by the construction documents and in order to prevent any delays to the project. Comments from different reviewers of the submittal shall be compiled before being returned to the Contractor for revisions. All submittals shall be sent directly between the Contractor and the Design team, with copies, documentation and management reports submitted to and managed by the Consultant. Construction Schedule: Consultant shall review the Contractor's construction schedule. Consultant shall analyze, monitor, and request updates for the master schedule as the project progresses. Consultant shall analyze the schedule for logical construction, constraints, level of July 21, 2011 Page 12 of21 critical activities and to verify progress in conjunction with the analysis of pay applications. Consultant shall review Contractors' individual Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules, monitor the contractor's progress, notify the City of any slippage, and coordinate contractor recovery plans. . Progress Payments: Consultant shall review progress payment requests submitted by Contractor, within five (5) days of receipt and verify the accuracy and percentage of completion against the schedule, and resolve any discrepancies in the invoices. Consultant shall review the invoices and backup for completeness and compliance with contract documents and make a recommendation to PM for payment of the progress payment requests. Change Order Monitoring and Processing: Consultant shall review and evaluate all Contractor extra work requests. Consultant shall review the contract documents to determine entitlement, complete an independent estimate of the cost of the changes, and reconcile with the contractor's change order request. Consultant shall prepare contract change order authorizations for City approval and track all scope and schedule changes. Consultant shall also implement expeditious methods for resolving conflicts. Claims: Consultant shall analyze any claims from the contractors (Le., compensation and delay) as to whether they are excusable, inexcusable, or compensable and prepare a response for City. Meetings: Throughout the construction process, Consultant shall be prepared to address comments and concerns of the construction contractors, ARCHITECT, PM, the City Staff, and the general public on an as-needed basis. Consultant shall set up and conduct weekly progress meetings and any other meetings necessary to facilitate the project work. Consultant shall write and distribute the meeting agendas, and meeting minutes, including: City-Consultant meetings, regular site meetings, and meetings with the City staff, contractors, various City departments, and also the public. The meeting minutes will explicitly track who has the responsibility for each action item with expected completion dates. Consultant shall coordinate the logistics related to a ground-breaking and to a ribbon-cutting ceremony, including working with committees, identifying power sources, etc. Costs for beverages, materials, photographs shall not be the responsibility of the Consultant. Consultant shall, at the direction of the Project Manager, install, advertise, and maintain a hot- line for community updates, questions, and complaints. Printing of flyers, presentation boards, advertisement, equipment and other related outreach material costs shall considered a Reimbursable expense, the cost for which shall be approved in writing in advance by the Project Manager. Miscellaneous: Consultant shall monitor Contractor's compliance in general with the construction documents and contract. Consultant shall address comments and concerns of the contractors and the ARCHITECT as needed. During construction, the Consultant's office space shall be provided, maintained and removed by the Contractor, including offices, furniture and office equipment. Ouality Control and Assurance: Consultant shall monitor and document the Contractors' work for any deviations in scope, schedule, or performance and keep the City informed of and assist in resolving any issues that may arise. July 21, 2011 Page 13 of21 Record Drawings: Consultant shall coordinate the preparation of record drawings with the Contractors and ARCHITECT on a regular basis, both during the construction and post construction phases, and review the drawings for "as-built" accuracy. Training: Consultant shall set up and coordinate contractor-provided training of City staff as required by'the contract documents and as necessary to ensure that the appropriate City personnel are adequately trained and familiar with the new equipment and systems. Commissioning: Consultant shall work with the commissioning agent, design consultants, and the Contractors to ensure that all new equipment have been installed in accordance with the contract documents, are working properly as stand-alone equipment, and are working properly as part of a complete system. Substantial Completion: As per the construction contract, once the Contractor requests substantial completion and it is determined to be warranted, Consultant shall prepare and compile a project punch list with the assistance from the City and ARCHITECT to be forwarded to the Contractor. Consultant shall oversee the completion of the punch list items before the final notice of completion is issued. Close Out: Consultant shall ensure completion and delivery of all required close out documentations including operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals, record drawings, and warranties. Consultant shall review all these materials for compliance with the contract documents and for completeness, and report any deficiencies or discrepancies to Contractor for corrections and re-submittal. Consultant shall work under the direction of the Project Manager to resolve any contract claim issues that may arise (stop work notices, bonding, delays, extra work, etc). As-Built drawings shall be scanned by Consultant for archiving by City. Files: Consultant shall consolidate and deliver all project files and documentation maintained to be retained by the City. Additional Services: Include, but are not limited to, additional meetings, additional public outreach, unforeseen testing or inspection needs. Reimbursables: Travel and meal expenses shall not be Reimbursable items but shall be considered as included in the fee for associated work items. Temporary trailers, computers, copiers, printers and office supplies are not considered as a Reimbursable expense, but will be provided to the Consultant under the Contractor's Contract. Printing of plans and specifications shall be paid by City. Printing of flyers, presentation boards, telephone hotlines and other communication materials needed to fulfill outreach as described herein shall be budgeted for and provided as a Reimbursable item by Consultant. Job site safety fencing is a reimbursable expense. B. Testing and Special Inspections Testing and Special Inspections: A testing agency shall be under contract with and paid for by the Consultant. Consultant shall coordinate with the Contractor in scheduling the testing agency services for materials testing and special inspections needed for the life of the project. This testing includes, but is not limited to, collecting and running geotechnical tests, concrete strength and weld inspection. Consultant shall ensure that all required sign-offs are reviewed and July 21, 2011 Page 14 of21 distributed and are in compliance with the specifications and· the California Building Codes. Geotechnical In~pections are included by the Architect, and are not included by the Consultant. Building Code Inspection Services -Mitchell Park Library and Community Center: Consultant shall provide all building code inspection services for construction phases for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. Inspectors shall have a minimum of 5 years of experience as inspectors and be certified by the International Code Council (ICC) or International Building Code Officials (IBC) as inspectors. The City reserves the right to review the qualifications of the inspectors, approve their working on the project, and to request a change of inspectors at any time. Soils-related testing shall be under the Consultant's contract. Physical oversight of the geotechnical aspects of the construction project shall be contracted by the ARCHITECT firm. C. -Electronic Documentation and Photograph Recording Electronic Documents: Consultant shall provide electronic, fully addressable and cross referenced electronic document filing system. It will be developed and used as the project filing system during construction and will be updated with all closeout documentation, and cross referenced for simple search and retrieve functionality for all project documentation for City's use after construction. Consultant will provide Labor to input all documentation, and to train City in the use and access to all electronic project files. Any monthly service fees shall be included herein and not in Reimbursables. Project Documentation -Photographic Record: Based upon a build period of twenty three (23) months, provide a photographic pre-construction site-survey of existing conditions; twenty three (23) maximum exterior progressions; interior progressions; six (6) maximum interior mechanical, electrical and plumbing; pre-concrete slab pour; exterior elevation, including window-flashing and waterproofing; three (3) maximum roofing exact built showing the roof at various stages of the project; and finished condition prior to occupancy. All documentation shall include consultations with City identifying project-specific needs, appropriate photographic intervals, schedules, determination of optimal locations based on the site plans, a representative number of digital photographs at such intervals and for such durations and at the specified milestones; linking each photo set to the appropriate location on the site plans and floor plans; online web hosting of the documentation on the Multivista website for the construction period covered by the documentation and for a minimum period of I-year thereafter; password protected access to the documentation and two CD or DVD ROM copies of the entire documentation upon completion. D -Extended Construction Duration Provide Construction Phase services for extended construction duration, if not caused by the CONSULTANT. Services in this category are to be provided and compensated only with the approval of the CITY Project Manager. Schedule C includes 30 working days of extended duration. Phase III: Post Construction Services A -Turner Staff Services: July 21, 2011 Page 15 of21 Post Construction and Warranty Services: Consultant shall meet with Library, Community Services and Public Works staff (Staff) monthly for three months commencing after the building is open to the public in order to complete any remaining punch-list items and/or to contact the Contractor for any warranty issues that might arise. After the initial three month period, Consultant shall contact the Staff quarterly for a period of nine months to determine whether any new building or systems issues have been identified. Systems deficiencies that cannot be resolved by the Contractor shall be reported to the Commissioning Agent. Commissioning Verification: Consultant shall participate in the post-construction activities of the Commissioning Agent as follows: Participate in an off-season testing (i.e., testing the heating system prior to winter) session and work with the Contractor to correct any deficiencies. Compile the final testing documentation for the Commissioning Record and O&M manuals. 12 Month Warranty Follow Up: Return to the site at month 10 of the 12 month warranty period and review operating conditions with City facility staff and the Commissioning Agent in order to identify any outstanding issues related to the original and seasonal commissioning. The Commissioning Agent will interview facility staff and identify problems or concerns that they have with operating the building as originally intended. The Commissioning Agent will make suggestions for improvements and for recording these changes in the O&M manuals. The Commissioning Agent will identify areas that may come under warranty or under the original construction contract. The Construction Management Consultant shall work with the Contractor to resolve any warranty issues. MAIN LIBRARY Phase I -Design Phase -Main Library A.l -Turner Staff Services for Temporary Library (Conceptual Design Phase Only) The ARCHITECT will research a location for a temporary Main Library site for use during the construction of the Main Library renovation and expansion. The temporary Main Library would consist of a space approximately 8,000 to 10,000 square feet. The ARCHITECT will develop schematic electrical and mechanical plans, floor plans, signage landscaping and cost estimates for said facility. The Consultant shall participate and assist in the selection of a temporary Main Library site, review and comment on designs prepared by ARCHITECT and prepare independent construction cost estimates. Consultant shall attend meetings with staff and ARCHITECT, which include two (2) technical meetings and three (3) project management team meetings. Fee for these meetings shall be included in the cost for the Temporary Main Library item. Detailed design on any temporary library will not proceed until Council reviews and approves the cost, size, location and other information related to the temporary library. If Council approves completing the design of a temporary library, a scope and fee will be negotiated with Consultant for services related to oversight of the design phase. A.2 -Turner Staff Services for permanent Main Library July 21, 2011 Page 16 of21 Design of the Main Library expansion and renovation is anticipated to begin in mid to late 2010 or early 2011 Consultant shall provide three (3) construction cost estimates: One at 100% Schematic Design, one at 100% Design Development and one at 50% Construction Documents. Consultant shall perform constructability and design document review at the Design Development Phase Consultant shall develop and grade pre-qualification forms, attend any protest hearings and defend findings . . Consultant shall review overall project schedule and budget development and update same. Contractor Prequalification Prior to the construction bid phase, the Consultant shall prepare,and obtain approval from the City of Palo Alto, to advertise forms required for Contractor Prequalification. Consultant shall administer the feedback from same, including but not limited to: answering questions from contractors and subcontractors, coordinating responses with the City's Purchasing Division, preparing spreadsheets or other documentation necessary to compile and compare contractor responses, preparing a recommended bidder's list with a brief report summarizing findings, assisting in representing the City in any subsequent hearings challenging the validity of the results and any follow-up documentation resulting from said hearings. The City Purchasing Division will verify Consultant's recommendation in order to finalize the decision. Additional Services Additional Services include, but are not limited to, attendence at meetings, value engineering, calculations and reimbursable expenses not included in the base fee. Phase II -Construction Phase Services (Potential Future Phase) -Main Library Services and Fee for Construction Administration services may, at the City's sole discretion, be negotiated prior to the start of construction for the Main Library. July 21, 2011 Page 17 of21 EXHIBIT "C" (page 1 of 3) COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-l up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. For Subconsultants, such as Inspections, special inspections, electronic document services, and photographic documentation services, the CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the actual cost of the sub consultant, plus a fee of 5%, up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhjbit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $3,254,337,00 .. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $3,783,745.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a t6talexceediiigthe lllaxil11umamourifbf compensation set forth herein shall beat no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $3,254,337.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $529,408.00 . July 21, 2011 Page 19 of21 EXHIBIT "C" (page 2 of 3) COMPENSATION DESCRIPTION: NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT BASIC SERVICES Downtown Library Phase I -Design Phase A Pre-construction Phase Downtown Library Phase II -Construction Phase A Turner Staff Services B Testing and Special Inspections C Electronic Documents Downtown Library Phase III Post Construction & Warranty Phase F Turner Staff Services TOTAL DOWNTOWN LIBRARY BASIC SERVICES Mitchell Park Phase I Design Phase A Preconstruction Mitchell Park Phase II Construction Phase A Turner Staff Services B Testing and Special Inspections C Electronic Documents & Photo Recording D Extended Construction Duration Mitchell Park Phase III Post-Construction Phase A Turner Staff Services TOTAL MITCHELL PARK BASIC SERVICES Main Library Phase I $17,545 $345,000 $12,000 $20,000 $10,000 $404,545 $107,292 $1,835,000 $445,000 $135,000 $115,000 $45,000 $2,682,292 . (Design Phase for Main Library & Concept Design Phase for Temporary Main Library) A.l A.2 Turner Staff Services -Temporary Library for Main Turner Staff Services -Permanent Main Library TOTAL MAIN LIBRARY BASIC SERVICES (Design Phase Only) ALLOWANCE FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES DT Library (not to exceed) MP Library (not to exceed) Main Library Total Allowance for Reimbursables TOTAL BASIC SERVICES (including Allowance for Reimbursables July 21, 2011 $15,000 $90,500 $105,500 $5,000 $55,000 $2,000 $62,000 $3,254,337 Page 20 of21 EXHIBIT "C" (Page 3 of 3) COMPENSATION DESCRIPTION: NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT ADJ>ITIONAIJ SERVICES: ALLOWANCE FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES-Not to Exceed DTLibrary MPLCC Main Library TOTAL ALLOWANCE FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $42,632 $476,026 $10,750 $529,408 $ 3.783.745 The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. July 21, 2011 Page 21 of21 1 110829 sm 010 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH + PLANNING INC. This Amendment No. 5 to Contract No. C09130744 (“Contract”) is entered into on ___ of September, 2011, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California (“CITY”), and Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning Inc., a California corporation, located at 211 Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 (“CONTRACTOR”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of design services forthe Mitchell Park Library and community center, rehabilitation of the Downtown Library, Main Libraries, and Community Center, and provide temporary facilities during the construction of the other projects; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract to add funding for additional services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: Section 1. Section 4 of the Contract,. Not to exceed compensation. is hereby amended to read as follows: “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Seven Million Six Thousand One hundred Eighty-Nine Dollars ($7,006,189). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed same ($7,902,421). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.” Section 2. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachments to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A” entitled “Scope of Work Mitchell Park Library/Community Center, Renovation of the Downtown Library, Renovation and Addition to the Main Library & Temporary Library Design Services”. b. Exhibit “B” entitled “EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. c. Exhibit “C” entitled “EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION”. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 3 110829 Scope of Work Mitchell Park Library/Community Center, Renovation of the Downtown Library, Renovation and Addition to the Main Library & Temporary Library Design Services I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 The “Palo Alto Libraries Schematic Design Report” and drawings, dated May 2008, were prepared by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning Inc. (CONSULTANT) for the City of Palo Alto (CITY). These reports include the schematic design documents for three libraries in Palo Alto: the renovation of the Downtown Library, the renovation and addition to the Main Library and the design for the new Mitchell Park Library/Community Center. The building programs for these projects are documented in an earlier Conceptual Design Report also prepared by Group 4 and dated October 2007. The scope of work included in this contract is for preparation of construction documents for the renovation, construction administration, record documents and project closeout for the Downtown Library; the preparation of construction documents, bidding and award, construction administration, record documents and project closeout for the new Mitchell Park Library/Community Center; construction documents for the renovation and construction administration for the Mitchell Park Library Temporary Library Facilities, ; the preparation of construction documents, bidding and award, for the renovation and addition to the Main Library and the preparation of the site analysis and preliminary design for the Temporary Main Library, this work is based on the approved designs for these projects documented in the aforementioned reports. 1.2 The CONSULTANT’s Basic Services shall include: 1.2.1 For the new Mitchell Park Library/Community Center preparation of Design Development Documents, Construction Documents, assistance with Bidding and Award, Construction Administration and Project Closeout Services.. 1.2.2 For the renovation of the Downtown Library programming, budgeting, space planning, Construction Documents, assistance with Bidding and Award, Construction Administration and Record Documents and Project Closeout Services. 1.2.3 For the renovation of the Cubberley Auditorium into the Mitchell Park Temporary Library Construction Documents and Construction Administration Services. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 4 110829 1.2.4 For the renovation and addition to the Main Library - preparation of Design Development Documents, Construction Documents, and assistance with Bidding and Award. 1.2.5 For the Temporary Main Library Site Analysis and Preliminary Design. 1.3 Participation for the projects shall include presentations and meetings as directed by the CITY to the CITY’s Council, Boards and Commissions at appropriate phases in the projects to solicit feedback and comments on the progress of the design(s). 1.4 In selecting the CONSULTANT, the CITY recognizes that the CONSULTANT has qualifications to provide additional planning, architecture, and interior design services including construction phase services specifically related to the renovation and addition of the Main Library and the design documentation for the Temporary Main Library. The CITY, at its discretion, may choose to amend this contract to add these services to the CONSULTANT’s Scope of Services for Additional Compensation if mutually agreed to by the CITY and the CONSULTANT. 2.0 THE PROJECT 2.1 The project includes the new Mitchell Park Library/Community center, the Downtown Library renovation, the Temporary Mitchell Park Library and Library Technical Services Facility, the Main Library renovation and new addition and the site analysis and preliminary design for the Temporary Main Library (collectively, the “Project”). 2.2 The new Mitchell Park Library/Community Center (the “Mitchell Park Project”) is located at 3800 Middlefield Road at the site of the existing Mitchell Park Library and Community Center buildings. The new joint use facility will include a separate 36,254 sf library and a 16,291 sf community center, new parking lots, the realignment of Mayfair Avenue, and associated signal work, and site work. The Mitchell Park Project shall be designed to meet the standards for LEED Gold certification by the US Green Building Council (USGBC). 2.3 The Downtown Library is located at 270 Forest Avenue in downtown Palo Alto. The 9000 square foot building was constructed in 1971. The CITY’s LSMAR and Group 4’s space study recommendations for this branch include a major interior renovation of the building, including its architecture, structure, electrical (power, lighting, data) and mechanical systems. The Downtown Library Project shall be designed to meet the standards for LEED certification by the US Green Building Council (USGBC). 2.4 The Temporary Mitchell Park Library and Technical Services facility is CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 5 110829 located at the Cubberley Community Center at 4000 Middlefield Road in the existing Auditorium Building. 2.5 The Main Library is located at 1213 Newell Road in Palo Alto. The original building was designed by Edward Durell Stone and constructed in 1956, then in 1982-84 the building was renovated and a 2,200 square foot addition completed. The project includes the renovation of the existing building structure, mechanical, electrical and interior finishes as well as additions to accommodate a new program room, group study rooms and new public restrooms. The new additions will add approximately 4,200 square feet. The existing Main Library is 21,313 square feet on grade with a 5,000 square foot basement. The Main Library Project shall be designed to meet the standards for LEED certification by the US Green Building Council (USGBC). 2.5.1 In addition to the work described above, the following deferred maintenance items shall be included in the Construction Documents phase of the project: 2.5.1.1 Replace or the existing wood shake roof 2.5.1.2 Replace or provide new site pedestrian paving and site landscaping 2.5.1.3 Replace the existing fire sprinkler system 2.5.1.4 Replace the existing exterior plywood walls at the staff area 2.5.1.5 Replace basement sump pumps 2.5.1.6 Upgrade stormwater treatment system 2.5.1.7 Upgrade parking lot lighting 2.5.1.8 Provide for separate access to the Teen room conference area 2.5.1.9 Outfit the library to function as a broadcast center for the local television station. 2.5.1.10 Develop concepts to analyze the integration of the Art Center and Main Library sites and prepare design documents and cost estimates for the parking lots, pedestrian plaza and landscaping to the south and south east of the library (between the library, Art Center and Community Gardens). CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 6 110829 2.6 The Temporary Main Library will be located at a site yet to be determined by the CITY. The work includes site selection services, facility and site option analysis, building programming; budgeting and schematic design. 3.0 CITY DUTIES 3.1 During the term of CONSULTANT’s professional services under this AGREEMENT the following items will be the responsibilities of the CITY: 3.1.1 The CITY’s Project Manager or authorized designee shall manage the CONSULTANT’s performance under the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall receive final direction only from the Project Manager or his or her authorized designee. The Project Manager shall resolve any conflicting direction from other groups, departments or agencies. 3.1.2 The CITY shall provide evaluation, mitigation design and administration of work for hazardous materials at each site and in the existing building. 3.1.3 The CITY shall provide reviews and comment on what may be necessary to complete design milestones, and/or approve completion of design milestones and cost estimates. At the completion of each phase, the CITY shall provide written authorization to the CONSULTANT to proceed to the next phase. Said written authorization shall require the signature(s) of the CITY's Project Manager or his/her authorized designee. 3.1.4 CITY shall provide record drawings of existing project facilities (when available). 3.1.5 CITY shall provide all applicable building permits. 3.1.6 CITY shall provide Division 0 and 1 specifications (front-end), in Microsoft Word format to CONSULTANT for review and comment. 3.1.7 CITY shall print and provide construction contractors with copies of bid documents (Plans and Specifications). 3.1.8 CITY shall advertise and award construction contracts. 3.1.9 CITY shall manage the construction of the Project and provide building code and quality control inspections. 3.1.10 The CITY shall oversee and manage the artist selection process, CITY and artist agreements, artwork approvals, budgets and schedule, coordination of artwork with the building design, and artwork installation. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 7 110829 3.1.11 The CITY may prequalify general contractors and key subcontractors and limit bidding to only those firms that have been deemed by the CITY to be qualified. CITY shall actively market the project to general contractors and major trades to increase likelihood of receiving competitive bids. 3.1.12 The CITY shall manage all construction and procurement contracts related to the overall project and shall oversee and coordinate each of the budgets. Within the overall project budget the CITY shall determine with input from the CONSULTANT the specific budgets for each of the procurement contracts including, but not limited to:  Site development  Site preparation  Building and garage construction  Furniture procurement, including multiple contracts for custom, general, systems and miscellaneous furniture  Construction management services  Public art  Moving  Publicity  Computer systems  Telecommunication systems. 3.1.13 CITY shall identify, select and procure all equipment such as copy machines, vending machines, miscellaneous office equipment, etc. that is not included in the technology package. 4.0 CONSULTANT’S DUTIES The CONSULTANT shall keep the Project Manager updated on the status of the Project including but not limited to reviewing the Project schedule and budget, suggesting changes and identifying significant milestones and duration of major tasks needed to complete the work in its entirety, including work components not identified in the CONSULTANT’s scope of services. The CONSULTANT shall periodically update the Project Manager on the validity and responsiveness of the information furnished by the CONSULTANT and its various subconsultants under this agreement, including the schedule requirements and the budget for the cost of the Project. The CONSULTANT shall periodically review such information and advise the Project Manager of any additional or updated information that may be required. II. CONSULTANT’S BASIC SERVICES The CONSULTANT’s scope of basic services for the CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 8 110829 Project is divided into six parts: Basic Services for the Mitchell Park Project; Basic Services for the Downtown Library Project; Basic Services for the Temporary Mitchell Park Library Project, Basic Services for the Main Library; Basic Services for the Temporary Main Library and Participation Services 1.0 MITCHELL PARK PROJECT 1.1 GENERAL 1.1.1 The CONSULTANT’s Basic Services for the New Mitchell Park Library/Community Center (“Mitchell Park Project”) consist of five Tasks: Task D1 Design Development; Task E1 Construction Documents; Task F1 Bidding and Award; Task G1 Construction Administration and Task H1 Record Documents and Project Closeout. 1.1.2 The CONSULTANT’s Basic Services include the services of a civil engineer, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer/lighting designer, landscape architect, cost consultant, audio visual/acoustical engineer, energy analysis engineer, commissioning agent, and library programmer. 1.1.3 The CITY intends that the Mitchell Park Project shall be designed to meet the standards for LEED Gold or higher certification by the USGBC. 1.1.3.1 CONSULTANT shall design the Mitchell Park Project to meet the requirements for LEED V2.2 certification at the Gold or higher level. 1.1.3.2 CONSULTANT shall provide LEED project management services needed for the CITY to obtain LEED certification of the Mitchell Park Project, develop specifications consistent with LEED and the CITY’s policies, and provide the templates, documentation, calculations, and energy modeling studies necessary to obtain LEED certification. 1.1.3.3 CONSULTANT shall include a LEED accredited professional on the design team to support Project Sustainable Building/ Green Building design criteria as required to achieve LEED certification. 1.1.3.4 CONSULTANT shall include in the construction documents appropriate provisions requiring the CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 9 110829 contractor to meet the requirements for CITY’s submittal to USGBC for LEED Gold certification. 1.2 TASK D1: MITCHELL PARK PROJECT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1.2.1 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage its subconsultants throughout the Design Development phase and coordinate with the Project Manager or authorized designee, key departments, including but not limited to CITY’s Building, Public Works, and Engineering staff. 1.2.2 CONSULTANT shall prepare, refine and update project design schedule which identifies all major tasks, key milestones, key meetings, submittal dates and review periods for the CITY’s review and comment. CONSULTANT shall provide updated design schedule at the beginning of each project phase. 1.2.3 CONSULTANT shall prepare Design Development documents based on refinement and further development of the approved schematic design, including preliminary furniture layouts, built-in fixtures, and equipment selections. 1.2.4 CONSULTANT shall refine design development plans based on comments received from the CITY’s review of the 100% SD and 50% DD submittal. 1.2.5 CONSULTANT shall prepare estimates of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 50% and the 100% Design Development submittals. 1.2.6 CONSULTANT shall have the Mitchell Park Project’s LEED commissioning agent review the design, back-check review comments, and develop a commissioning plan, specifications, and checklists. 1.2.7 CONSULTANT shall meet with the CITY to review the estimate of probable construction cost and to confirm that the design is still within the CITY’s approved construction budget. Should the design not be within the budget, CONSULTANT shall revise the design as directed by the Project Manager or her authorized designee at no additional fee to bring the design within the approved budget. 1.2.8 CONSULTANT shall provide all other normal and customary services related to Design Development that the CONSULTANT, the Project Manager or her authorized designee finds necessary or that will lead toward the timely delivery of other phases of work in this Agreement. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 10 110829 1.2.9 Meetings 1.2.9.1 CONSULTANT shall attend and coordinate up to seven (7) PMT meetings, two (2) Technical-Planning meetings, two (2) Technical-Library Meetings, two (2) Technical Building Department meetings, two (2) Artist Coordination meetings, one (1) Technical-Technology meeting, one (1) Technical-Traffic meeting, one (1) Integrated Design Workshop, and other technical meetings as reasonably required for the Mitchell Park Project. 1.2.9.2 CONSULTANT shall coordinate meetings with reviewing agencies as required. 1.2.9.3 CONSULTANT shall attend up to two meetings with the Palo Alto Arts Commission and/or other public art committee for coordination of an arts program. 1.2.10 Deliverables 1.2.10.1 CONSULTANT shall submit document packages at the 50% and 100% completion of Design Development for review by the CITY. Design Development packages shall illustrate and describe the refinement of the design of the Mitchell Park Project, establishing its scope, relationships, forms, size and appearance. 1.2.10.2 Site plans and floor plans for all major disciplines. 1.2.10.3 Preliminary furniture layout plan. 1.2.10.4 Preliminary finish, materials and equipment schedules. 1.2.10.5 Outline specifications shall identify the major materials and systems and shall establish their general quality levels. Specifications shall be consistent with the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format, the version of which shall be determined by CONSULTANT. 1.2.10.6 Engineering documents shall include single line diagrams describing structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. 1.2.10.7 Principal interior and exterior elevations showing preliminary locations of all electrical and mechanical CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 11 110829 controls, telecommunications, security, as well as life- safety devices for coordination with furniture layout. 1.2.10.8 Estimates of probable construction cost associated with the 50% and 100% Design Development submittals. 1.3 TASK E1: MITCHELL PARK PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1.3.1 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage its subconsultants throughout the Construction Documents phase. 1.3.2 Upon written notice to proceed by the CITY, CONSULTANT shall refine and further develop the approved Design Development package based upon the CITY’s comments and the constructability review comments on the 100% Design Development package. 1.3.3 CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a 60% Construction Documents package to the CITY. 1.3.4 CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 60% Construction Documents submittal. 1.3.5 CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a 95% Construction Documents package, with CITY’s comments from the 60% package incorporated into the documents. 1.3.6 CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 95% Construction Documents submittal. 1.3.7 CONSULTANT shall prepare a Construction Documents package for Building and Fire department plan check review and permitting. 1.3.8 CONSULTANT shall prepare the 100% Construction Documents package with final quality control comments from CITY’s Building and Fire department review incorporated. 1.3.9 CONSULTANT shall prepare a Project Manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction provided by the CITY, Technical Specifications, and bidding requirements and sample forms furnished by the CITY. 1.3.10 CONSULTANT shall maintain the LEED matrix and design documentation. 1.3.11 LEED Fundamental and Enhanced Commissioning: CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 12 110829 CONSULTANT shall have the project’s commissioning agent review the design and back-check their review comments, develop a commissioning plan, commissioning specification, and commissioning checklists. 1.3.12 CONSULTANT shall provide, if necessary and as directed by the Project Manager or authorized designee, bid alternates up to a cumulative maximum amount of 1% of the estimate of probable construction cost. 1.3.13 One or more “independent checks” of the plans, specifications and bid documents may be performed by an independent party commissioned by the CITY prior to the 100% Construction Document submittal. CONSULTANT shall incorporate revisions or comments from these reviews, provided by the CITY in a single, compiled, and coordinated document, in the final bid documents, unless CONSULTANT deems them to be inappropriate or in error in which case, CONSULTANT shall communicate concern to the Project Manager or her authorized designee for consideration and further direction. These checks may include architectural peer reviews and/or constructability reviews. These independent checks are to be performed strictly for the benefit of the CITY, and they shall not relieve the CONSULTANT from its obligations under this Agreement. The CITY is not obligated to perform any independent check, and the CONSULTANT shall not rely upon it for any quality or quantitative check or review. 1.3.14 Meetings 1.3.14.1 CONSULTANT shall attend and coordinate twelve (12) PMT meetings, two (2) artist coordination meetings, two (2) Technical-Planning meetings, four (4) Technical- Library meetings, three Technical-Building Department meetings, one (1) Technical-Technology meeting, one (1) Technical-Traffic meeting, one (1) Integrated Design Workshop, and other technical meetings as reasonably required for the Mitchell Park Project. 1.3.14.2 CONSULTANT shall attend two (2) meetings with the Arts Commission and/or Public Art committee for coordination of the arts program in the construction documents. 1.3.15 Deliverables 1.3.15.1 60%, 95%, and 100% Construction Documents packages setting forth in detail the requirements for CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 13 110829 construction of the Mitchell Park Project, including drawings and specifications that establish in detail the quality levels of required materials and systems. The Construction Documents package shall include drawings and technical specifications from all disciplines, executed to a level of detail appropriate for open public bidding. They shall include plans overlaying voice and data cabling with furniture layout as necessary, elevations reflecting relationships between furnishings and items affecting their placement. Site improvements shall include all details necessary to coordinate and properly locate utilities, driveways, roadways, at-grade parking, curbs and gutters, landscape, irrigation and hardscape design. The Construction Documents shall conform to the applicable California Building Code, Title 24, ADA, and all other applicable local, State and Federal codes, regulations, permit requirements, and conditions necessary for issuance of a building permit. 1.3.15.2 Project Manual 1.3.15.3 Detailed technical specifications that are coordinated with the plans and all the design disciplines. 1.3.15.4 Estimates of probable construction cost associated with the 60% and 95% Construction Documents submittals. 1.3.15.5 CONSULTANT shall submit one set of reproducible documents and one set of electronic digital documents at 60%, 95% and 100% completion of Construction Documents. CONSULTANT shall provide a full-sized original set, wet-stamped and signed, as required by the CITY, by all the appropriate licensed design disciplines. CONSULTANT shall also provide digital plot files directly to CITY’s printing company for printing bid sets. 1.4 TASK F1 MITCHELL PARK PROJECT BIDDING AND AWARD 1.4.1 CONSULTANT shall assist CITY during bid solicitation process. 1.4.2 CONSULTANT shall prepare a full-sized original set(s), and provide a digital plot bid package for CITY’s use in printing, and shall make available to the CITY an electronic version of the Construction Documents. 1.4.3 CONSULTANT shall provide bid phase services, as requested by CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 14 110829 the CITY, through award of the Contract for Construction. Service include assistance with responses to bidders' inquiries; preparation of addenda; attendance at one (1) prequalification and (1) pre-bid meeting; and assistance in the CITY’s evaluation of bids. 1.4.4 In preparing estimates of the cost of the work, the CONSULTANT shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the CITY's budget for the Cost of the Work. If an increase in the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the Contract between the CITY and the Contractor causes the budget for the Cost of the Work to be exceeded, that budget shall be increased accordingly. 1.4.5 CONSULTANT will include in its estimate a contingency for bid/market conditions based on competitive bidding with a minimum of 3 bidders for all major items of subcontracted work and 3-5 general contractor bids. The CITY recognizes that the CONSULTANT has no control over competitive bidding or market conditions. If CITY anticipates less favorable bidding conditions or wishes to take a more conservative approach, CITY will cooperate with CONSULTANT to increase bid contingency and either reduce project scope or increase the project budget accordingly. 1.4.6 If bidding has not commenced within 90 days after CONSULTANT submits 95%Construction Documents to the CITY, CONSULTANT shall adjust at no additional cost to CITY, the estimate of probable construction cost to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the construction industry. Should the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost exceed the CITY approved construction budget at this point, any subsequent changes in the plans or value engineering services necessary to align the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost with the CITY approved construction budget shall be considered Additional Services as noted in EXHIBT C of this Agreement. 1.4.7 Deliverables: one reproducible (hard copy for Construction Document contract file) and digital plot set of Construction Documents “Conform” package revised with all addenda, CITY reviews and plan check comments, including Fire Department, incorporated and ready for Award, and Construction. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 15 110829 1.5 TASK G1 MITCHELL PARK PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 1.5.1 CONSULTANT’s responsibility to provide Basic Construction Administration Services for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences with CITY's issuance of a Notice to Proceed with the Contract for Construction and will end 730 calendar days from that date or upon commencement by the CONSULTANT of the Substantial Completion Correction (“Punch”) list, as mutually agreed upon by CONSULTANT, the CITY’s Construction Manager and CITY, whichever comes first. If the punch list does not commence within 730 calendar days of the Notice to Proceed, any further time and effort spent on behalf of the project shall be an Additional Service provided on a time and materials basis. Consultant will not be obligated to provide any work beyond the 730 calendar days unless directed by CITY in writing. 1.5.2 CONSULTANT shall be a representative of and shall advise and consult with the CITY during the provision of the Contract Administration Services. The CONSULTANT shall have authority to act on behalf of the CITY only to the extent provided in this Agreement unless otherwise modified by written amendment. 1.5.3 Duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the CONSULTANT under this phase shall not be restricted, modified or extended without written agreement of the CITY. 1.5.4 CONSULTANT shall neither have control over or charge of, nor be responsible for, the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, since these are solely the Contractor’s rights and responsibilities under the Contract Documents, the CONSULTANT will not be responsible for the Contractor’s schedules or failure to carry out the work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT will not have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of any other persons performing portions of the work.CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. 1.5.5 CONSULTANT will have access to the work at all times wherever it is in preparation or progress within 24 hours of notifying the CITY.. 1.5.6 CONSULTANT shall revise Bid Documents for issuance as Conform Set Contract Documents that incorporate addenda, and clarifications. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 16 110829 1.5.7 CONSULTANT shall attend the pre-construction conference. 1.5.8 Project Meetings and Site Visits 1.5.8.1 CONSULTANT shall attend up to 104 site construction meetings. The CONSULTANT as a representative of the CITY, shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of the Contractor’s operations, or as otherwise agreed by the Project Manager or authorized designee and the CONSULTANT (1) to become generally familiar with and to keep the CITY informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, (2) to endeavor to guard the CITY against defects and deficiencies in the Work, and (3) to determine in general if the Work is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the CONSULTANT shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. 1.5.8.2 CONSULTANT shall report to the CITY observable and known deviations from the Contract Documents by the Contractor. 1.5.8.3 CONSULTANT shall at all times have access to the work wherever it is in preparation or progress. 1.5.8.4 CONSULTANT shall have authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the CONSULTANT considers it necessary or advisable, the CONSULTANT will have authority to require inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the CONSULTANT nor a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the CONSULTANT to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. 1.5.8.5 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for scheduling the Sub CONSULTANTs visits to the site in coordination with and or as directed by CITY. 1.5.9 On the basis of on-site observations as a CONSULTANT, and through information provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY’s Project Manager, the CONSULTANT shall keep the CITY informed of the quality of the work. 1.5.10 Submittals: CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 17 110829 1.5.10.1 CONSULTANT will review Contractor’s submittals, including Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT’s action shall be taken with such reasonable promptness so as to cause no delay in the work, while allowing sufficient time in the CONSULTANT’s judgment to permit adequate review unless otherwise agreed to. Submittals critical to work flow shall be responded to within a timely manner from receipt. Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance equipment or systems designed by the Contractor, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor to the extent required by the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT’s review shall not constitute review of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the CONSULTANT, of construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The CONSULTANT’s review of specific items shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. When professional certification of performance characteristics of materials, systems or equipment is required by the Contract Documents, the CONSULTANT shall be entitled to rely upon such certification to establish that the materials, systems or equipment will meet the performance criteria required by the Contract Documents. 1.5.10.2 CONSULTANT shall maintain copies of submittals supplied by the Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Reviewed submittals shall be stamped with appropriate action to be taken with notes and comments initialed and dated. 1.5.11 If professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment are specifically required of the Contractor by the Contract Documents, the CONSULTANT shall specify appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor shall bear such professional’s written approval when submitted to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services; certifications or approvals performed by such design professionals. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 18 110829 1.5.12 Request for Information (RFI) & Architectural Supplement Information (ASI) 1.5.12.1 CONSULTANT shall review properly prepared, timely requests by the Contractor for Request For Information (RFI) about the Contract Documents. A properly prepared RFI about the Contract Documents shall be in a form prepared or approved by the CONSULTANT and shall include a detailed written statement that indicates the specific Drawings or Specifications in need of clarification and the nature of the clarification requested. 1.5.12.2 If deemed appropriate by the CONSULTANT or if directed by the Project Manager or her authorized designee, the CONSULTANT shall on the CITY’s behalf prepare, reproduce and distribute supplemental Drawings and Specifications (Architectural Supplemental Information (ASI)) in response to RFI by the Contractor or because of a need determined by CONSULTANT to achieve the intent of the Contract Documents. 1.5.12.3 Interpretations and decisions of the CONSULTANT shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and initial decisions, the CONSULTANT shall endeavor to secure faithful performance by both CITY and Contractor, shall not show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for the results of interpretations or decisions so rendered in good faith. 1.5.12.4 CONSULTANT’s action shall be taken with such reasonable promptness as to cause no delay in the Work or in the activities of the CITY, Contractor or separate contractors, while allowing sufficient time in the CONSULTANT s professional judgment to permit adequate review. RFI’s critical to workflow shall be responded to within a timely manner from receipt. 1.5.13 CONSULTANT shall review for compliance, any items submitted by the Contractor for consistency with the contract documents, including but not limited to submittals, O&M Manuals, written guarantees, instruction books, diagrams and charts, etc,. 1.5.14 Review and recommend approval or rejection of substitutions for conformance with the project design concept and for compliance with Contract Documents. CONSULTANT shall briefly review each substitution at no additional cost to the CITY and provide the CITY’s Project Manager with a fee and time schedule for detailed review of each substitution. Time and cost for detailed review of substitutions shall be negotiated with Contractor on a case-by-case CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 19 110829 basis. Detailed review of each substitution cannot begin until authorized by the CITY’s Project Manager. Detailed review of substitutions is subject to the requirements of Additional Services when approved and authorized by the CITY’s Project Manager prior to beginning the detailed review. 1.5.15 Changes in the Work 1.5.15.1 Change Order Review and Negotiation: All changes to the Contract between the CITY and Contractor shall be only by change orders executed by the CITY. 1.5.15.2 CITY and its designee shall review the contents of all Contractor-requested changes to the contract time or price, endeavor to determine the cause of the request, and assemble and evaluate information concerning the request. CITY and its designee shall in its evaluations of the Contractor’s request consider the CONSULTANT’s comments regarding the proposed changes. 1.5.15.3 All proposed CONSULTANT and CITY -initiated changes shall first be described in detail by the CITY and its designee in a request for a proposal issued to the Contractor. The request shall be accompanied by drawings and specifications prepared by the CONSULTANT. In response to the request for a proposal, the Contractor shall submit to the CITY and its designee for evaluation detailed information concerning. The price and time adjustments, if any, as may be necessary to perform the proposed change order work. The CITY and its designee shall review the Contractor’s proposal, shall discuss the proposed change order with the Contractor, and endeavor to determine the Contractor’s basis for the price and time proposed to perform the work. All work by CONSULTANT related to CITY -initiated changes will be performed as Additional Services on a Time and Material Basis or mutually agreed lump sum. 1.5.15.4 The CITY and its designee shall negotiate change requests on behalf of the CITY. CITY and its designee shall prepare and issue to the Contractor appropriate change order documents, reviewed and signed by the CONSULTANT as required by contract. 1.5.16 Furniture, Custom Casework, Shelving and Signage 1.5.16.1 During the Construction Administration Phases the CONSULTANT shall provide the following services related to Furniture, Custom Casework and Signage: CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 20 110829 1.5.16.2 Staff area systems furniture will be specified in general terms showing layout, major components, and finishes. CONSULTANT shall specify that systems furniture vendor to provide detailed systems design and component selection. 1.5.16.3 CONSULTANT shall specify performance requirements for seismic bracing of cantilevered shelving with shelving vendor to provide engineering submittals. 1.5.16.4 If so requested by the CITY’s Project Manager or authorized designee, the CONSULTANT shall prepare up to a total of five different bid packages for furniture, custom casework, building signage and shelving. Each bid package will be suitable for a public bid process or negotiated purchase order by CITY or Library. 1.5.16.5 CONSULTANT shall provide up to two alternative design concepts for custom furniture and casework. 1.5.16.6 CONSULTANT shall prepare for the CITY’s review functional layout drawings of library service desks and custom casework for the Library and the Community Center. 1.5.16.7 CONSULTANT shall conduct up to eight interiors Project Management Team meetings to set direction on furniture and casework. 1.5.16.8 CONSULTANT shall lead up to one day-long furniture review meeting with the furniture committee. 1.5.16.9 CONSULTANT shall prepare a 90% Bid Documents submittal for CITY and Library review. 1.5.16.10 CONSULTANT shall prepare 100% Bid Documents. 1.5.16.11 CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in reviewing bidder questions and provide written addenda as required for each bid package. 1.5.16.12 CONSULTANT shall be available for up to three days to advise on furniture and custom casework placement and punch list services. 1.5.16.13 CONSULTANT shall provide a sign location drawing and sign copy schedule for the site identification, exterior building signage, site wayfinding, and interior signage. 1.5.16.14 CONSULTANT shall provide a 60% and 95% Design Intent Signage Documents for the CITY’s review. And a 100% Bid Design Intent Signage Document. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 21 110829 1.5.16.15 CONSULTAN provide updated estimates of probable construction costs to the CITY at the 60% and 95% Design Intent submittals.. 1.5.16.16 CONSULTAN shall provide written responses to the CITY’s review comments. 1.5.16.17 CONSULTAN conduct up to two signage design review meetings with the CITY. 1.5.16.18 CONSULTANT shall attend a signage pre-installation meeting with the signage contractor. 1.6 TASK H1 MITCHELL PARK PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS AND PROJECT CLOSEOUT 1.6.1 Project Closeout, will begin with the commencement by CONSULTANT of the Punch List as mutually determined by CONSULTANT, CITY and CITY’s Construction Manager, and will end 90 calendar days from that date CONSULTANT shall complete all items over which the CONSULTANT has control indicated in the scope of Project Closeout within the 90 calendar day period. CONSULTANT Closeout Services after 90 days will be provided as an Additional Service on a Time & Materials basis. 1.6.2 CONSULTANT shall receive from the Contractor and forward to the CITY, for the CITY’s review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor. 1.6.3 CONSULTANT’s shall conduct “Punch List“inspection to check conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. 1.6.4 CONSULTANT shall complete and distribute the project punch list in a timely manner from the CITY’s request for inspection in either MSWord or Excel format. 1.6.5 CONSULTANT shall review the work to determine whether the punch list items have been completed and are in conformance with the Construction Documents 1.6.6 CONSULTANT’s shall conduct Final Completion observation with the CITY to check for general conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents package and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. 1.6.7 CONSULTANT shall incorporate information provided by the Contractor and information gained during site visits throughout the Project construction, and prepare record drawings and specifications based on record field construction documents CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 22 110829 package. Prior to acceptance of the Project by the CITY. CONSULTANT shall review the contractor’s “as-built” drawings and specifications, and shall return them to contractor for revision if they are not complete, or otherwise known to not represent facts known to the CONSULTANT. Apart from reviewing Contractor’s as-built documents, CONSULTANT shall prepare and sign the CONSULTANT’s Record Drawings submit both a hard copy on Mylar and an electronic copy on Compact Disc (CD) to the CITY. 2.0 DOWNTOWN LIBRARY PROJECT 2.1 GENERAL 2.1.1 The CONSULTANT’s Basic Services for the renovated Downtown Library (“Downtown Library Project”) consist of five Tasks: Task D2 Design Development; Task E2 Construction Documents; Task F2 Bidding and Award, Task G2 Construction Administration and Task H2 Record Documents and Project Closeout. 2.1.2 The CONSULTANT’s Basic Services include the services of a civil engineer, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer/lighting designer, landscape architect, cost consultant, audio visual/acoustical engineer, and library programmer. 2.2 TASK D2: DOWNTOWN LIBRARY PROJECT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 2.2.1 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage its subconsultants throughout the Design Development phase and coordinate with the Project Manager or authorized designee, key departments, including but not limited to CITY’s Building, Public Works, and Engineering staff. 2.2.2 CONSULTANT shall prepare, refine and update project design schedule which identifies all major tasks, key milestones, key meetings, submittal dates and review periods for the CITY’s review and comment. CONSULTANT shall provide updated design schedule at the beginning of each project phase. 2.2.3 CONSULTANT shall prepare Design Development documents based on refinement and further development of the approved schematic design, including preliminary furniture layouts, built-in fixtures, and equipment selections. 2.2.4 CONSULTANT shall refine design development plans based on comments received from the CITY’s review of the 100% SD submittal. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 23 110829 2.2.5 CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 100% Design Development submittal. 2.2.6 CONSULTANT shall meet with the CITY to review the estimate of probable construction cost and to confirm that the design is still within the CITY’s approved construction budget. Should the design not be within the budget, CONSULTANT shall revise the design as directed by the Project Manager or her authorized designee at no additional fee to bring the design within the approved budget. 2.2.7 CONSULTANT shall provide all other normal and customary services related to Design Development that the CONSULTANT, the Project Manager or her authorized designee finds necessary or that will lead toward the timely delivery of other phases of work in this Agreement. 2.2.8 Meetings 2.2.8.1 CONSULTANT shall attend and coordinate up to seven (7) PMT meetings, two (2) Technical-Library Meetings, two (2) Technical-Building Department meetings, one (1) Technical-Technology meeting, one (1) Integrated Design Workshop, and other technical meetings as reasonably required for the Downtown Library Project. 2.2.8.2 CONSULTANT shall coordinate meetings with reviewing agencies as required. 2.2.9 Deliverables 2.2.9.1 CONSULTANT shall submit a Design Development package at 100% completion of Design Development for review by the CITY. The Design Development package shall illustrate and describe the refinement of the design of the Downtown Library Project, establishing its scope, relationships, forms, size and appearance. 2.2.9.2 Site plans and floor plans for all major disciplines. 2.2.9.3 Preliminary furniture layout plan. 2.2.9.4 Preliminary finish, materials and equipment schedules. 2.2.9.5 Outline specifications shall identify the major materials and systems and shall establish their general quality levels. Specifications shall be consistent with the Construction CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 24 110829 Specifications Institute (CSI) format, the version of which shall be determined by CONSULTANT. 2.2.9.6 Engineering documents shall include single line diagrams describing structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. 2.2.9.7 Principal interior and exterior elevations showing preliminary locations of all electrical and mechanical controls, telecommunications, security, as well as life- safety devices for coordination with furniture layout. 2.2.9.8 Estimates of probable construction cost associated with the 100% Design Development submittal. 2.2.9.9 Presentation materials for meetings. 2.3 TASK E2: DOWNTOWN LIBRARY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 2.3.1 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage its subconsultants throughout the Construction Documents phase. 2.3.2 Upon written notice to proceed by the CITY, CONSULTANT shall refine and further develop the approved Design Development package based upon the CITY’s comments and the constructability review comments on the 100% Design Development package. 2.3.3 CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a 60% Construction Documents package to the CITY. 2.3.4 CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 60% Construction Documents submittal. 2.3.5 CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a 95% Construction Documents package, with CITY’s comments from the 60% package incorporated into the documents. 2.3.6 CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 95% Construction Documents submittal. 2.3.7 CONSULTANT shall prepare a Construction Documents package for Building and Fire department plan check review and permitting. 2.3.8 CONSULTANT shall prepare the 100% Construction Documents CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 25 110829 package with final quality control comments from CITY’s Building and Fire department review incorporated. 2.3.9 CONSULTANT shall prepare a Project Manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction provided by the CITY, Technical Specifications, and bidding requirements and sample forms furnished by the CITY. 2.3.10 CONSULTANT shall provide, if necessary and as directed by the Project Manager or authorized designee, bid alternates up to a cumulative maximum amount of 5% of the estimate of probable construction cost. 2.3.11 One or more “independent checks” of the plans, specifications and bid documents may be performed by an independent party commissioned by the CITY prior to the 100% Construction Document submittal. CONSULTANT shall incorporate revisions or comments from these reviews, provided by the CITY in a single, compiled, and coordinated document, in the final bid documents, unless CONSULTANT deems them to be inappropriate or in error in which case, CONSULTANT shall communicate concern to the Project Manager or her authorized designee for consideration and further direction. These checks may include architectural peer reviews and/or constructability reviews. These independent checks are to be performed strictly for the benefit of the CITY, and they shall not relieve the CONSULTANT from its obligations under this Agreement. The CITY is not obligated to perform any independent check, and the CONSULTANT shall not rely upon it for any quality or quantitative check or review. 2.3.12 Meetings 2.3.12.1 CONSULTANT shall attend and coordinate twelve (12) PMT meetings, four (4) Technical-Library meetings, two (2) Technical-Building Department meetings, one (1) Technical-Technology meeting, one (1) Integrated Design Workshop, and other technical meetings as reasonably required for the Downtown Library Project. 2.3.12.2 Consultant shall attend other meetings as specified in Section 4.0, Participation. 2.3.13 Deliverables 2.3.13.1 60%, 95%, and 100% Construction Documents packages setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Downtown Library Project, including drawings and specifications that establish in detail the CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 26 110829 quality levels of required materials and systems. The Construction Documents package shall include drawings and technical specifications from all disciplines, executed to a level of detail appropriate for open public bidding. They shall include plans overlaying voice and data cabling with furniture layout as necessary, elevations reflecting relationships between furnishings and items affecting their placement. Site improvements shall include all details necessary to coordinate and properly locate utilities, driveways, roadways, at-grade parking, curbs and gutters, landscape, irrigation and hardscape design. The Construction Documents shall conform to the applicable California Building Code, Title 24, ADA, and all other applicable local, State and Federal codes, regulations, permit requirements, and conditions necessary for issuance of a building permit. 2.3.13.2 Project Manual 2.3.13.3 Detailed technical specifications that are coordinated with the plans and all the design disciplines. 2.3.13.4 Estimates of probable construction cost associated with the 60% and 95% Construction Documents submittals. 2.3.13.5 CONSULTANT shall submit one set of reproducible documents and one set of electronic digital documents at 60%, 95% and 100% completion of Construction Documents. CONSULTANT shall provide a full-sized original set, wet-stamped and signed, as required by the CITY, by all the appropriate licensed design disciplines. CONSULTANT shall also provide digital plot files directly to CITY’s printing company for printing bid sets. 2.4 TASK F2: DOWNTOWN LIBRARY PROJECT BIDDING AND AWARD 2.4.1 CONSULTANT shall prepare a full-sized original set(s), and provide a digital plot bid package for CITY’s use in printing, and shall make available to the CITY an electronic version of the Construction Documents. 2.4.2 CONSULTANT shall provide bid phase services, as requested by the CITY, through award of the Contract for Construction. Service include assistance with responses to bidders' inquiries; preparation of addenda; attendance at one (1) prequalification and (1) pre-bid meeting; and assistance in the CITY’s evaluation of bids. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 27 110829 2.4.3 In preparing estimates of the cost of the work, the CONSULTANT shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the CITY's budget for the Cost of the Work. If an increase in the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the Contract between the CITY and the Contractor causes the budget for the Cost of the Work to be exceeded, that budget shall be increased accordingly. 2.4.4 CONSULTANT will include in its estimate a contingency for bid/market conditions based on competitive bidding with a minimum of 3 bidders for all major items of subcontracted work and 3-5 general contractor bids. The CITY recognizes that the CONSULTANT has no control over competitive bidding or market conditions. If CITY anticipates less favorable bidding conditions or wishes to take a more conservative approach, CITY will cooperate with CONSULTANT to increase bid contingency and either reduce project scope or increase the project budget accordingly. 2.4.5 If bidding has not commenced within 90 days after CONSULTANT submits 95%Construction Documents to the CITY, CONSULTANT shall adjust at no additional cost to CITY, the estimate of probable construction cost to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the construction industry. Should the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost exceed the CITY approved construction budget at this point, any subsequent changes in the plans or value engineering services necessary to align the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost with the CITY approved construction budget shall be considered Additional Services as noted in EXHIBT C of this Agreement. 2.4.6 Deliverables: one (1) 100% reproducible (hard copy for Construction Document contract file) and digital plot set of Construction Documents “Conform” package revised with all addenda, CITY reviews and plan check, including Fire Department, ready for Award, and Construction. 2.5 TASK G2 DOWNTOWN LIBRARY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 2.5.1 The CONSULTANT’s responsibility to provide Basic Construction Administration Services for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences with CITY's issuance of a Notice to Proceed CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 28 110829 with the Contract for Construction and will end 365 calendar days from that date or upon commencement by the CONSULTANT of the Substantial Completion Correction (“Punch”) list, as mutually agreed upon by CONSULTANT, the CITY’s Construction Manager and CITY, whichever comes first. If the punch list does not commence within 365 calendar days of the Notice to Proceed, any further time and effort spent on behalf of the project shall be an Additional Service provided on a time and materials basis. Consultant will not be obligated to provide any work beyond the 365 calendar days unless directed by CITY in writing. 2.5.2 The CONSULTANT shall be a representative of and shall advise and consult with the CITY during the provision of the Contract Administration Services. The CONSULTANT shall have authority to act on behalf of the CITY only to the extent provided in this Agreement unless otherwise modified by written amendment. 2.5.3 Duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the CONSULTANT under this phase shall not be restricted, modified or extended without written agreement of the CITY. 2.5.4 The CONSULTANT shall neither have control over or charge of, nor be responsible for, the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, since these are solely the Contractor’s rights and responsibilities under the Contract Documents. 2.5.5 The CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. 2.5.6 Project Meetings and Site Visits 2.5.6.1 The CONSULTANT shall attend up to 52 site construction meetings. The CONSULTANT as a representative of the CITY, shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of the Contractor’s operations, or as otherwise agreed by the Project Manager or authorized designee and the CONSULTANT (1) to become generally familiar with and to keep the CITY informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, (2) to endeavor to guard the CITY against defects and deficiencies in the Work, and (3) to determine in general if the Work is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the CONSULTANT shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 29 110829 2.5.6.2 The CONSULTANT shall report to the CITY known deviations from the Contract Documents. 2.5.6.3 The CONSULTANT shall at all times have access to the work within 24 hours wherever it is in preparation or progress. 2.5.6.4 The CONSULTANT shall have authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the CONSULTANT considers it necessary or advisable, the CONSULTANT will have authority to require inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the CONSULTANT or a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the CONSULTANT to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. 2.5.6.5 The CONSULTANT shall be responsible for scheduling the subconsultants visits to the site in coordination with and or as directed by the CITY. 2.5.7 On the basis of on-site observations as a CONSULTANT, and through information provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY’s Project Manager, the CONSULTANT shall keep the CITY informed of the quality of the work. 2.5.8 Submittals: 2.5.8.1 The CONSULTANT will review Contractor’s submittals, including Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT’s action shall be taken with such reasonable promptness so as to cause no delay in the work, while allowing sufficient time in the CONSULTANT’s judgment to permit adequate review unless otherwise agreed to. Submittals critical to work flow shall be responded to within a timely manner from receipt. Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance equipment or systems designed by the Contractor, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor to the extent required by the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT’s review shall not constitute review of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the CONSULTANT, of construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 30 110829 CONSULTANT’s review of specific items shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. When professional certification of performance characteristics of materials, systems or equipment is required by the Contract Documents, the CONSULTANT shall be entitled to rely upon such certification to establish that the materials, systems or equipment will meet the performance criteria required by the Contract Documents. 2.5.8.2 The CONSULTANT shall maintain copies of submittals supplied by the Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Reviewed submittals shall be stamped with appropriate action to be taken with notes and comments initialed and dated. 2.5.8.3 If professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment are specifically required of the Contractor by the Contract Documents, the CONSULTANT shall specify appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor shall bear such professional’s written approval when submitted to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services; certifications or approvals performed by such design professionals. 2.5.9 Request for Information (RFI) & Architectural Supplement Information (ASI) 2.5.9.1 The CONSULTANT shall review properly prepared, timely requests by the Contractor for for information (RFI) about the Contract Documents. A properly prepared RFI about the Contract Documents shall be in a form prepared or approved by the CONSULTANT and shall include a detailed written statement that indicates the specific Drawings or Specifications in need of clarification and the nature of the clarification requested. 2.5.9.2 If deemed appropriate by the CONSULTANT or if directed by the Project Manager or her authorized designee, the CONSULTANT shall on the CITY’s behalf prepare, reproduce and distribute supplemental Drawings and Specifications (Architectural Supplemental Information (ASI)) in response to RFI by the Contractor or because of a need determined by CONSULTANT to achieve the intent of the Contract Documents.. 2.5.9.3 Interpretations and decisions of the CONSULTANT shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 31 110829 of drawings. When making such interpretations and initial decisions, the CONSULTANT shall endeavor to secure faithful performance by both CITY and Contractor, shall not show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for the results of interpretations or decisions so rendered in good faith. 2.5.9.4 The CONSULTANT’s action shall be taken with such reasonable promptness as to cause no delay in the Work or in the activities of the CITY, Contractor or separate contractors, while allowing sufficient time in the CONSULTANT s professional judgment to permit adequate review. RFI’s critical to workflow shall be responded to within a timely manner from receipt. 2.5.10 CONSULTANT shall review for compliance, any items submitted by the Contractor for consistency with the contract documents, including but not limited to submittals, O&M Manuals, written guarantees, instruction books, diagrams and charts, etc,. 2.5.11 Review and recommend approval or rejection of substitutions for conformance with the project design concept and for compliance with Contract Documents. CONSULTANT shall briefly review each substitution at no additional cost to the CITY and provide the CITY’s Project Manager with a fee and time schedule for detailed review of each substitution. Time and cost for detailed review of substitutions shall be negotiated with Contractor on a case-by-case basis. Detailed review of each substitution cannot begin until authorized by the CITY’s Project Manager. Detailed review of substitutions is subject to the requirements of Additional Services when approved and authorized by the CITY’s Project Manager prior to beginning the detailed review. 2.5.12 Changes in the Work 2.5.12.1 Change Order Review and Negotiation: All changes to the Contract between the CITY and Contractor shall be only by change orders executed by the CITY. 2.5.12.2 CITY and its designee shall review the contents of all Contractor-requested changes to the contract time or price, endeavor to determine the cause of the request, and assemble and evaluate information concerning the request CITY and its designee shall in its evaluations of the Contractor’s request consider the CONSULTANT’s comments regarding the proposed changes. 2.5.12.3 All proposed CONSULTANT and CITY -initiated changes shall first be described in detail by the CITY and its designee in a request for a proposal issued to the Contractor. The request shall be accompanied by drawings CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 32 110829 and specifications prepared by the CONSULTANT. In response to the request for a proposal, the Contractor shall submit to the CITY and its designee for evaluation detailed information concerning. The price and time adjustments, if any, as may be necessary to perform the proposed change order work. The CITY and its designee shall review the Contractor’s proposal, shall discuss the proposed change order with the Contractor, and endeavor to determine the Contractor’s basis for the price and time proposed to perform the work. All work by CONSULTANT related to CITY -initiated changes will be performed as Additional Services on a Time and Material Basis or mutually agreed lump sum. CITY and its designee shall negotiate change requests on behalf of the CITY. CITY and its designee shall prepare and issue to the Contractor appropriate change order documents, reviewed and signed by the CONSULTANT as required by contract. 2.6 TASK G2.1 DOWNTOWN LIBRARY LEED DESIGN AND DOCUMENTATION 2.6.1 The CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit LEED documentation for the Downtown Library for certification purposes based on the LEED Commercial Interiors 2009 for LEED certified level. The work includes preparing and submitting all required design submittal documentation for the LEED credits as identified on the LEED Matrix fated February 2010. 2.6.2 The CONSULTANT shall provide fundamental commissioning services during the design phase construction phases of the project. 2.6.3 The CONSULTANT shall provide design intent information and clarifications to the Contractor during the construction phase of the project. 2.6.4 The CONSULTANT shall provide Construction Administration services which include review of Contractor-provided LEED submittals required for the Construction submittal by the Contractor. 2.7 TASK G2.2 DOWNTOWN STANDARD LIBRARY AND OFFICE FURNITURE 2.7.1 During the Construction Administration Phases the CONSULTANT shall provide the following services related to Standard Library and Office Furniture: 2.7.2 Building Staff area systems furniture will be specified in general terms showing layout, major components, and finishes. CONSULTANT shall specify that systems furniture vendor to provide detailed systems design and component selection. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 33 110829 2.7.3 CONSULTANT shall specify performance requirements for seismic bracing of cantilevered shelving with shelving vendor to provide engineering submittals. 2.7.4 If so requested by the CITY’s Project Manager or authorized designee, the CONSULTANT shall prepare up to a total of five different specification packages for furniture. Each package will be suitable for a negotiated purchase order by CITY or Library. 2.7.5 The CONSULTANT shall provide up to two alternative design concepts for standard furniture. 2.7.6 The CONSULTANT shall conduct up to four furniture meetings to set direction on furniture, casework and signage. 2.7.7 The CONSULTANT shall lead up to one day-long furniture review with the furniture committee. 2.7.8 The CONSULTANT shall prepare a 90% Specification Documents submittal for CITY and Library review. 2.7.9 The CONSULTANT shall prepare 100% Specification Documents. 2.7.10 The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in reviewing bidder questions and provide written addendum as required for each bid package. 2.7.11 The CONSULTANT shall be available for up to two days to advise on furniture and punch list services. 2.8 TASK H2 DOWNTOWN LIBRARY PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS AND PROJECT CLOSEOUT 2.8.1 Project Closeout, will begin with the commencement by CONSULTANT of the Punch list as mutually determined by CONSULTANT, CITY and CITY’s Construction Manager, and will end 60 calendar days from that date CONSULTANT shall complete all items over which the CONSULTANT has control indicated in the scope of Project Closeout within the 60 calendar day period. CONSULTANT Closeout Services after 60 days will be provided as an Additional Service on a Time & Materials basis. 2.8.2 The CONSULTANT shall receive from the Contractor and forward to the CITY, for the CITY’s review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor. 2.8.3 The CONSULTANT’s shall conduct “Punch List” inspection to check conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 34 110829 submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. 2.8.4 The CONSULTANT shall complete and distribute the project punch list in a timely manner from the CITY’s request for inspection in either MSWord or Excel format. 2.8.5 CONSULTANT shall review the work to determine whether the punch list items have been completed and are in conformance with the Construction Documents 2.8.6 CONSULTANT’s shall conduct Final Completion observation with the CITY to check for general conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents package and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. 2.8.7 The CONSULTANT shall incorporate information provided by the Contractor and information gained during site visits throughout the Project construction, and prepare record drawings and specifications based on record field construction documents package. Prior to acceptance of the Project by the CITY. CONSULTANT shall review the contractor’s “as-built” drawings and specifications, and shall return them to contractor for revision if they are not complete, or otherwise known to not represent facts known to the CONSULTANT. Apart from reviewing Contractor’s as-builts documents, CONSULTANT shall prepare and sign the CONSULTANT’s Record Drawings submit both a hard copy on Mylar and an electronic copy on Compact Disc (CD) to the CITY. 3.0 TEMPORARY MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY PROJECT 3.1 GENERAL 3.1.1 The CONSULTANT’s Basic Services for Temporary Library Facilities (“Temporary Library Facilities Project”) consist of one Task: Temporary Library Facilities Project Design. 3.1.2 The CONSULTANT’s Basic Services for the Temporary Library Facilities Project include the services of a, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer/lighting designer, landscape architect, cost estimator and library programmer. 3.2 TASK D3: TEMPORARY MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY FACILITIES PROJECT DESIGN 3.2.1 The CONSULTANT shall develop conceptual design floor plans, with input from the CITY. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 35 110829 3.2.2 The CONSULTANT shall: 3.2.3 Develop a comprehensive building program for temporary library and community center services in the range of 8,000 to 10,000 total square feet spread between different locations yet to be determined by the CITY, Program size is based on the anticipated use of existing CITY facilities as temporary library and community center facilities during the renovation of the Downtown Library and the construction of the Mitchell Park Library. 3.2.4 Provide dimensions and notes to describe the scale and principal features of the interior of the temporary facilities on the conceptual floor plans. The conceptual floor plans will show the desired location and approximate size of the new or relocated windows and doors. 3.3 TASK E3: TEMPORARY MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 3.3.1 The CONSULTANT shall develop construction documents for the temporary library and technical services with input from the CITY. 3.3.2 The CONSULTANT shall: 3.3.2.1 Recommend finishes for the CITY’s approval. 3.3.2.2 Prepare drawings and other documents describing signage and graphics for the new temporary library 3.3.2.3 Prepare technical specifications for the architectural portions of the Temporary Library Facilities Project. 3.3.2.4 Review CITY-provided schedule of existing furniture indicating which furniture is to be reused for the Project and assist the CITY in the selection and specification of new furniture. Prepare a drawing showing the new furniture locations. 3.3.2.5 The CONSULTANT will provide drawings and other project documents to describe the scope of the project in sufficient detail for the CITY to publicly bid the Temporary Library Facilities Project. 3.3.2.6 Deliverables: Contract Document drawings, building program and other project documents to describe the scope of the project for the CITY coordinate and repurpose existing facilities for temporary library, to move existing CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 36 110829 furniture and purchase new furniture; updated project budget. 3.3.2.7 Meetings included in this phase (may be shared with other phases and/or meetings): two (2) Technical meetings; three (3) PMT meetings. 3.4 TASK F3: TEMPORARY MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY PROJECT BIDDING AND AWARD 3.4.1 CONSULTANT shall prepare a full-sized original set(s), and provide a digital plot bid package for CITY’s use in printing, and shall make available to the CITY an electronic version of the Construction Documents. 3.4.2 CONSULTANT shall provide bid phase services, as requested by the CITY, through award of the Contract for Construction. Service include assistance with responses to bidders' inquiries; preparation of addenda; attendance at one (1) prequalification and (1) pre-bid meeting; and assistance in the CITY’s evaluation of bids. 3.4.3 In preparing estimates of the cost of the work, the CONSULTANT shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the CITY's budget for the Cost of the Work. If an increase in the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the Contract between the CITY and the Contractor causes the budget for the Cost of the Work to be exceeded, that budget shall be increased accordingly. 3.4.4 CONSULTANT will include in its estimate a contingency for bid/market conditions based on competitive bidding with a minimum of 3 bidders for all major items of subcontracted work and 3-5 general contractor bids. The CITY recognizes that the CONSULTANT has no control over competitive bidding or market conditions. If CITY anticipates less favorable bidding conditions or wishes to take a more conservative approach, CITY will cooperate with CONSULTANT to increase bid contingency and either reduce project scope or increase the project budget accordingly. 3.4.5 If bidding has not commenced within 90 days after CONSULTANT submits 95%Construction Documents to the CITY, CONSULTANT shall adjust at no additional cost to CITY, the estimate of probable construction cost to reflect changes in the general level of prices in CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 37 110829 the construction industry. Should the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost exceed the CITY approved construction budget at this point, any subsequent changes in the plans or value engineering services necessary to align the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost with the CITY approved construction budget shall be considered Additional Services as noted in EXHIBT C of this Agreement. 3.4.6 Deliverables: one (1) 100% reproducible (hard copy of Construction Document contract file for Bidding), digital plot set, and all project addenda. 3.5 TASK G3: TEMPORARY MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 3.5.1 The Consultant’s responsibility to provide Basic Services for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences with CITY's award of a general contract for the construction of the Project and terminates 90 calendar days later or on the original date of Substantial Completion of the Work, whichever comes first. 3.5.2 The CONSULTANT shall revise Bid Documents for issuance as Conform Set Contract Documents that incorporate addenda, and clarifications. 3.5.3 The CONSULTANT shall attend the pre-construction conference. 3.5.4 The CONSULTANT may visit the site approximately once every two weeks or at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction or as otherwise agreed by the CITY and CONSULTANT to attend Project meetings and to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work completed and to determine, in general, if the work is being performed in a manner indicating that the work when completed will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the CONSULTANT shall not be required to make exhaustive continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the work. 3.5.5 On the basis of on-site observations as a CONSULTANT, and through information provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY’s Project Manager, the CONSULTANT shall keep the CITY informed of the progress and quality of the work. 3.5.6 The CONSULTANT will review Contractor’s submittals, including Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 38 110829 design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT’s action shall be taken with such reasonable promptness so as to cause no delay in the work, while allowing sufficient time in the CONSULTANT’s judgment to permit adequate review unless otherwise agreed to. The CONSULTANT will be allowed a maximum of 14 calendar days in most cases except for large submittals per review, exclusive of substitution. Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance equipment or systems designed by the Contractor, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor to the extent required by the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT’s review shall not constitute review of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the CONSULTANT, of construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The CONSULTANT’s review of specific items shall not indicated approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. When professional certification of performance characteristics of materials, systems or equipment is required by the Contract Documents, the CONSULTANT shall be entitled to rely upon such certification to establish that the materials, systems or equipment will meet the performance criteria required by the Contract Documents. 3.5.7 The CONSULTANT will respond to Contractor’s Requests For Information (RFI). Interpretations and decisions of the CONSULTANT shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and initial decisions, the CONSULTANT shall secure faithful performance by both CITY and Contractor, shall not show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for results of interpretations or decisions so rendered in good faith. CONSULTANT will be allowed a maximum of 14 calendar days in most cases except for large RFI per request for responses. 3.5.8 CONSULTANT shall review for compliance, any items submitted by the Contractor for consistency with the contract documents, including but not limited to submittals, O&M Manuals, written guarantees, instruction books, diagrams and charts, etc, within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt. 3.5.9 Review and recommend approval or rejection of substitutions for conformance with the project design concept and for compliance with Contract Documents. CONSULTANT shall briefly review each substitution at no additional cost to the CITY and provide the CITY’s Project Manager with a fee and time schedule for detailed review of CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 39 110829 each substitution. Time and cost for detailed review of substitutions shall be negotiated with Contractor on a case-by-case basis. Detailed review of each substitution cannot begin until authorized by the CITY’s Project Manager. Detailed review of substitutions is subject to the requirements of Additional Services when approved and authorized by the CITY’s Project Manager prior to beginning the detailed review. 3.5.10 The CONSULTANT will not have control over or charge of and will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or safety precautions and programs in connection with the work, since these are solely the Contractor’s responsibility under the Contract for Construction. The CONSULTANT will not be responsible for the Contractor’s schedules or failure to carry out the work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT will not have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of any other persons performing portions of the work. The CONSULTANT will at all times have access to the work wherever it is in preparation or progress. Duties, responsibilities and limitation of authority of the CONSULTANT shall not be restricted, modified or extended without written agreement of the CITY and CONSULTANT. 4 MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT 4.1 GENERAL 4.1.1 CONSULTANT’s Basic Services for the Renovation and Addition to the Main Library (“Main library Project”) consist of three Tasks: Task D4 Design Development; Task E4 Construction Documents; and Task F4 Bidding and Award. 4.1.2 CONSULTANT’s Basic Services include the services of a civil engineer, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer/lighting designer, landscape architect, cost consultant, audio visual/acoustical engineer, energy analysis engineer, commissioning agent, historical architect and library programmer. 4.1.3 The CITY intends that the Main library Project shall be designed to meet the standards for LEED Certified or higher rating by the USGBC. 4.1.3.1 CONSULTANT shall design the Main Library Project to meet the requirements for LEED V2009 certification at the Certified or higher CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 40 110829 level. 4.1.3.2 CONSULTANT shall provide LEED project management services needed for the CITY to obtain LEED certification of the Main Library Project, develop specifications consistent with LEED and the CITY’s policies, and provide the templates, documentation, calculations, and energy modeling studies necessary to obtain LEED certification. 4.1.3.3 CONSULTANT shall include a LEED accredited professional on the design team to support Project Sustainable Building/ Green Building design criteria as required to achieve LEED certification. 4.1.3.4 CONSULTANT shall include in the construction documents appropriate provisions requiring the contractor to meet the requirements for CITY’s submittal to USGBC for LEED Certified or higher level of certification. 4.2 TASK D4: MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.2.1 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage its subconsultants throughout the Design Development phase and coordinate with the Project Manager or authorized designee, key departments, including but not limited to CITY’s Building, Public Works, and Engineering staff. 4.2.2 CONSULTANT shall prepare, refine and update project design schedule which identifies all major tasks, key milestones, key meetings, submittal dates and review periods for the CITY’s review and comment. CONSULTANT shall provide updated design schedule at the beginning of each project phase. 4.2.3 CONSULTANT shall prepare Design Development documents based on refinement and further development of the approved schematic design, including preliminary furniture layouts, built-in fixtures, and equipment selections. 4.2.4 CONSULTANT shall refine design development plans based on comments received from the CITY’s review of the 100% SD and 50% DD submittal. 4.2.5 CONSULTANT shall prepare estimates of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 50% and the 100% Design Development submittals. 4.2.6 CONSULTANT shall have the Main Library Project’s LEED commissioning agent review the design, back-check review comments, and develop a CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 41 110829 commissioning plan, specifications, and checklists. 4.2.7 CONSULTANT shall meet with the CITY to review the estimate of probable construction cost and to confirm that the design is still within the CITY’s approved construction budget. Should the design not be within the budget, CONSULTANT shall revise the design as directed by the Project Manager or her authorized designee at no additional fee to bring the design within the approved budget. 4.2.8 CONSULTANT shall provide all other normal and customary services related to Design Development that the CONSULTANT, the Project Manager or her authorized designee finds necessary or that will lead toward the timely delivery of other phases of work in this Agreement. 4.2.9 Meetings 4.2.9.1 CONSULTANT shall attend and coordinate up to five (5) PMT meetings, two (2) Technical-Planning meetings, two (2) Technical- Library Meetings, two (2) Technical Building Department meetings, two (2) Artist Coordination meetings, one (1) Technical-Technology meeting, one (1) Technical-Traffic meeting, one (1) Integrated Design Workshop, and other technical meetings as reasonably required for the Main Library Project. 4.2.9.2 CONSULTANT shall attend and coordinate meetings with reviewing agencies as required. 4.2.9.3 CONSULTANT shall attend up to two meetings with the Palo Alto Arts Commission and/or other public art committee for coordination of an arts program. 4.2.10 Deliverables 4.2.10.1 CONSULTANT shall submit document packages at the 50% and 100% completion of Design Development for review by the CITY. Design Development packages shall illustrate and describe the refinement of the design of the Mitchell Park Project, establishing its scope, relationships, forms, size and appearance. 4.2.10.2 Site plans and floor plans for all major disciplines. 4.2.10.3 Preliminary furniture layout plan. 4.2.10.4 Preliminary finish, materials and equipment schedules. 4.2.10.5 Outline specifications shall identify the major materials and CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 42 110829 systems and shall establish their general quality levels. Specifications shall be consistent with the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format, the version of which shall be determined by CONSULTANT. 4.2.10.6 Engineering documents shall include single line diagrams describing structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. 4.2.10.7 Principal interior and exterior elevations showing preliminary locations of all electrical and mechanical controls, telecommunications, security, as well as life-safety devices for coordination with furniture layout. 4.2.10.8 Estimates of probable construction cost associated with the 50% and 100% Design Development submittals. 4.3 TASK E4: MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 4.3.1 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage its subconsultants throughout the Construction Documents phase. 4.3.2 Upon written notice to proceed by the CITY, CONSULTANT shall refine and further develop the approved Design Development package based upon the CITY’s comments and the constructability review comments on the 100% Design Development package. 4.3.3 CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a 60% Construction Documents package to the CITY. 4.3.4 CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 60% Construction Documents submittal. 4.3.5 CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a 95% Construction Documents package, with CITY’s comments from the 60% package incorporated into the documents. 4.3.6 CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with the 95% Construction Documents submittal. 4.3.7 CONSULTANT shall prepare a Construction Documents package for Building and Fire department plan check review and permitting. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 43 110829 4.3.8 CONSULTANT shall prepare the 100% Construction Documents package with final quality control comments from CITY’s Building and Fire department review incorporated. 4.3.9 The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Project Manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction provided by the CITY, Technical Specifications, and bidding requirements and sample forms furnished by the CITY. 4.3.10 CONSULTANT shall maintain the LEED matrix and design documentation. 4.3.11 LEED Fundamental and Enhanced Commissioning: CONSULTANT shall have the project’s commissioning agent review the design and back-check their review comments, develop a commissioning plan, commissioning specification, and commissioning checklists. 4.3.12 CONSULTANT shall provide, if necessary and as directed by the Project Manager or authorized designee, bid alternates up to a cumulative maximum amount of 1% of the estimate of probable construction cost. 4.3.13 One or more “independent checks” of the plans, specifications and bid documents may be performed by an independent party commissioned by the CITY prior to the 100% Construction Document submittal. CONSULTANT shall incorporate revisions or comments from these reviews, provided by the CITY in a single, compiled, and coordinated document, in the final bid documents, unless CONSULTANT deems them to be inappropriate or in error in which case, CONSULTANT shall communicate concern to the Project Manager or her authorized designee for consideration and further direction. These checks may include architectural peer reviews and/or constructability reviews. These independent checks are to be performed strictly for the benefit of the CITY, and they shall not relieve the CONSULTANT from its obligations under this Agreement. The CITY is not obligated to perform any independent check, and the CONSULTANT shall not rely upon it for any quality or quantitative check or review. 4.3.14 Meetings 4.3.14.1 CONSULTANT shall attend and coordinate eight (8) PMT meetings, two (2) artist coordination meetings, two (2) Technical- Planning meetings, four (4) Technical-Library meetings, three Technical-Building Department meetings, one (1) Technical- Technology meeting, one (1) Technical-Traffic meeting, one (1) Integrated Design Workshop, and other technical meetings as reasonably required for the Main Library Project. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 44 110829 4.3.14.2 CONSULTANT shall attend two (2) meetings with the Arts Commission and/or Public Art committee for coordination of the arts program in the construction documents. 4.3.14.3 CONSULTANT shall attend up to seven public meetings related to the integration of the Main Library and the Art Center. 4.3.15 Deliverables 4.3.15.1 60%, 95%, and 100% Construction Documents packages setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Main Library Park Project, including drawings and specifications that establish in detail the quality levels of required materials and systems. The Construction Documents package shall include drawings and technical specifications from all disciplines, executed to a level of detail appropriate for open public bidding. They shall include plans overlaying voice and data cabling with furniture layout as necessary, elevations reflecting relationships between furnishings and items affecting their placement. Site improvements shall include all details necessary to coordinate and properly locate utilities, driveways, roadways, at-grade parking, curbs and gutters, landscape, irrigation and hardscape design. The Construction Documents shall conform to the applicable California Building Code, Title 24, ADA, and all other applicable local, State and Federal codes, regulations, permit requirements, and conditions necessary for issuance of a building permit. 4.3.15.2 Project Manual 4.3.15.3 Detailed technical specifications that are coordinated with the plans and all the design disciplines. 4.3.15.4 Estimates of probable construction cost associated with the 60% and 95% Construction Documents submittals. 4.3.15.5 The CONSULTANT shall submit one set of reproducible documents and one set of electronic digital documents at 60%, 95% and 100% completion of Construction Documents. CONSULTANT shall provide a full-sized original set, wet-stamped and signed, as required by the CITY, by all the appropriate licensed design disciplines. CONSULTANT shall also provide digital plot files directly to CITY’s printing company for printing bid sets. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 45 110829 4.4 TASK F4 MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT BIDDING AND AWARD 4.4.1 CONSULTANT shall assist CITY during bid solicitation process. 4.4.2 CONSULTANT shall prepare a full-sized original set(s), and provide a digital plot bid package for CITY’s use in printing, and shall make available to the CITY an electronic version of the Construction Documents. 4.4.3 CONSULTANT shall provide bid phase services, as requested by the CITY, through award of the Contract for Construction. Service include assistance with responses to bidders' inquiries; preparation of addenda; attendance at one (1) prequalification and (1) pre-bid meeting; and assistance in the CITY’s evaluation of bids. 4.4.4 In preparing estimates of the cost of the work, the CONSULTANT shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the CITY's budget for the Cost of the Work. If an increase in the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the Contract between the CITY and the Contractor causes the budget for the Cost of the Work to be exceeded, that budget shall be increased accordingly. 4.4.5 CONSULTANT will include in its estimate a contingency for bid/market conditions based on competitive bidding with a minimum of 3 bidders for all major items of subcontracted work and 3-5 general contractor bids. The CITY recognizes that the CONSULTANT has no control over competitive bidding or market conditions. If CITY anticipates less favorable bidding conditions or wishes to take a more conservative approach, CITY will cooperate with CONSULTANT to increase bid contingency and either reduce project scope or increase the project budget accordingly. 4.4.6 If bidding has not commenced within 90 days after CONSULTANT submits 95%Construction Documents to the CITY, CONSULTANT shall adjust at no additional cost to CITY, the estimate of probable construction cost to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the construction industry. Should the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost exceed the CITY approved construction budget at this point, any subsequent changes in the plans or value engineering services necessary to align the adjusted estimate of probable construction cost with the CITY approved construction budget shall be considered Additional Services as noted in EXHIBT C of this Agreement. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 46 110829 4.4.7 Deliverables: one reproducible (hard copy for Construction Document contract file) and digital plot set of Construction Documents “Conform” package revised with all addenda, CITY reviews and plan check comments, including Fire Department, incorporated and ready for Award, and Construction. 5 TEMPORARY MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT 5.1 GENERAL 5.1.1 CONSULTANT’s Basic Services for Temporary Main Library (“Temporary Main Library Project”) consist of three tasks: Task A5 Temporary Main Library Site Analysis Phase, Task C5 Temporary Main Library Design Phase, and Task E5 Temporary Main Library Construction Documents Phase. 5.1.2 CONSULTANT’s Basic Services for the Temporary Main Library Project include the services of a mechanical engineer, electrical engineer/lighting designer, cost estimator and library programmer. 5.2 TASK A5: TEMPORARY MAIN LIBRARY SITE ANALYSIS PHASE 5.2.1 CONSULTANT shall review and analyze potential sites and existing buildings for the appropriateness of being a Temporary Main Library. The potential sites and buildings shall be identified by the CITY and provided to the CONSULTANT. 5.2.2 CONSULTANT shall review the potential sites and buildings for the following criteria; site capacity, community access, code compliance, building capacity, and availability. 5.2.3 The CONSULTANT shall develop up to two preliminary building programs for the Temporary Main Library to be used in conjunction with the site analysis the programs shall range in size from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. 5.2.4 CONSULTANT shall develop preliminary project budgets for up to three sites. 5.2.5 CITY and the CONSULTANT shall review the potential sites and analyze them based on the established criteria; a preferred option will be selected. 5.3 TASK C5: TEMPORARY MAIN LIBRARY PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE 5.3.1 CONSULTANT shall develop Preliminary Design Documents for the CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 47 110829 preferred site option for the Temporary Main Library. 5.3.2 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage its subconsultants throughout the Preliminary Design phase and coordinate with the Project Manager or authorized designee, key departments, including but not limited to CITY’s Planning, Building, Public Works, and Engineering staff. 5.3.3 CONSULTANT shall prepare, refine and update project design schedule which identifies all major tasks, key milestones, key meetings, submittal dates and review periods for the CITY’s review and comment. 5.3.4 CONSULTANT shall prepare Preliminary Design documents based on refinement and further development of the site option including site plans, building plans, furniture and shelving layouts, and electrical, lighting and mechanical plans. 5.3.5 CONSULTANT shall refine design plans based on comments received from the CITY’s review of the Preliminary Design Documents. 5.3.6 CONSULTANT shall prepare estimates of probable construction cost for review by CITY in association with Preliminary Design submittals. 5.3.7 CONSULTANT shall meet with the CITY to review the estimate of probable construction cost. 5.3.8 Based on the approved Preliminary Design Documents the CONSULTANT shall finalize the building program for the Temporary Main Library Project in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 total square feet. 5.3.8.1 Provide dimensions and notes to describe the scale and principal features of the interior of the temporary facilities on the floor plans. The floor plans will show the desired location and approximate size of the new or relocated windows and doors. 5.4 TASK E5: TEMPORARY MAIN LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND AWARDPHASES 5.4.1 CONSULTANT shall provide the required documentation, drawings and specifications for Construction Documents through the end of the Bid Phase. 5.4.2 CONSULTANT is adding the following sub-consultant who will oversee and execute the majority of work of this section of the Scope of Work: 5.4.2.1 Mark Cavagnero Associates (MCA), Architecture. MCA will contract directly with the following sub-sub-consultants: 5.4.2.1.1 Gayner Engineers, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Engineering. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 48 110829 5.4.2.1.2 Siverman & Light, Lighting Design & Energy Documentation. 5.4.2.1.3 Stansen Specifications, Technical Specifications. 5.4.3 CONSULTANT will assist with coordination through consultation with the Library in the selection and placement of furniture and equipment. 5.4.4 Based on the Preliminary Design Documents, , CONSULTANT shall complete the documentation of Architectural interior finishes, including all floor, wall and ceiling finishes, including trim, to a minimum level appropriate to a temporary library facility to be in use approximately 2-years. 5.4.5 CONSULTANT shall provide documentation for power circuits and outlets, data cabling, connections and jacks, and lighting to provide functionality to the conceptual design 5.4.6 CONSULTANT shall provide documents to Library representative(s) to keep them informed, but CONSULTANT shall consult with and coordinate finishes, power, data and lighting with the Palo Alto Arts Center staff. 5.4.7 CONSULTANT shall coordinate elements that are being incorporated into the facility for the temporary library keeping in mind the long term need and use of the facility by the Art Center on a permanent basis. 5.4.8 CONSULTANT shall plan and detail all Library specific improvements that will need to be removed at the end of the temporary use of the space as a library in a manner such that selective demolition, removal and patching can reasonably be accomplished to allow the space to be returned to use by the Art Center. 5.4.9 All work shall be done to meet current requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it applies to the use of the facility as a temporary library. 5.4.10 Meetings included in this phase (may be shared with other phases and/or meetings): two (2) Technical meetings; three (3) PMT meetings. 5.4.11 CONSULTANT shall prepare full-sized original drawings of the Temporary Main Library spaces to be incorporated into the Art Center Renovation Project Construction Documents, and provide as a part of the Art Center Renovation Project Construction Documents a digital plot bid package for CITY’s use in printing, and shall make available to the CITY an electronic version of the Construction Documents. 5.4.12 CONSULTANT shall provide bid phase services for the Temporary Main Library as part of the Art Center Renovation Project, as requested by the CITY, through award of the Contract for Construction. Service include CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 49 110829 assistance with responses to bidders' inquiries; preparation of addenda; attendance at one (1) prequalification and (1) pre-bid meeting; and assistance in the CITY’s evaluation of bids. 5.4.13 Deliverables: one (1) 100% reproducible (hard copy of Temporary Main Library Construction Document contract file as a portion of the Art Center Renovation Project Construction Document contract file for Bidding), digital plot set, and all project addenda. 6 PARTICIPATION 6.1 CONSULTANT shall at the CITY’s direction make presentation(s) to the CITY’s Commissions or Boards. 6.2 CONSULTANT shall at the CITY’s direction make presentations to the CITY Council. 6.3 CONSULTANT shall at the CITY’s direction conduct public meeting(s). III. SUPPLEMENTAL AND OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES The following services are not part of the CONSULTANT’s Basic Services and shall be performed by the CONSULTANT as Supplemental Services as directed by the CITY. 1.1 LEED design or documentation for credits other than those identified in the LEED matrix included in the May 2008 Mitchell Park Library/Community Center Schematic Design Report. 1.2 Construction Administration services and Project Closeout Services for the Main Library Project. 1.3 FF&E and Signage services for the Main Library Project. 1.4 Construction Administration Services for the Temporary Main Library Project. 2.0 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES The following services are not part of the CONSULTANT’s Basic Services and shall be performed by the CONSULTANT as Additional Services only if and when authorized by the CITY in writing: 2.1 Additional meetings or presentations. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 50 110829 2.2 Developing and preparation of information kiosks. 2.3 Developing a project flyers and public information posters. 2.4 Providing an architectural scaled presentation model. 2.5 Analyses of other sites or buildings. 2.6 Other participation services not described in Basic Services or Supplemental Services above. 2.7 Other services not specifically identified under Basic Services or Supplemental Services above. 2.8 Making changes in the design or documentation that is contrary to prior direction provided by the CITY. 2.9 Preparing bid alternates other than described in CONSULTANT’s Basic Services. 2.10 Preparing CITY-initiated change orders during construction. 2.11 Providing more than two reviews of each submittal. 2.12 Detailed review of substitution request. 2.13 Work required to correct non-conforming work of contractor. 2.14 Increasing Professional Liability Insurance from the CONSULTANT’s standard two million ($2,000,000) coverage. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 51 110829 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Weeks From NTP MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY/ COMMUNITY CENTER Task D1: Design Development Week 24 Task E1: Construction Documents Week 50 (26 weeks from receipt of authorization to proceed from Design Development Task) Task F1: Bidding & Award Week 63 (13 weeks from receipt of authorization to proceed from Construction Documents Task) Task G1: Construction Administration 104 weeks starting from General Contractors Authorization to Proceed Task H1: Project Closeout & Record Documents 90 days starting from General Contractors receipt of substantial completion. RENOVATED DOWNTOWN LIBRARY Task D2: Design Development Week 22 Task E2: Construction Documents Week 44 (22 weeks from receipt of CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 52 110829 authorization to proceed from Design Development Task) Task F2: Bidding & Award Week 53 (9 weeks from receipt of authorization to proceed from Construction Documents Task) Task G2: Construction Administration 52 Weeks starting from General Contractors authorization to proceed. Task H2: Project Closeout and Record Documents 60 days starting from General Contractors receipt of substantial completion TEMPORARY MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY BUILDING Task D3: Schematic Design & Design Week 13 from NTP Task E3: Plan Check Submittal August 17, 2009 100% Permit Set September 14, 2009Task F3: Bidding & Award 45 Days (from NTP for the additional scope added with Amendment #1) Task G3: Construction Administration 90 Days (from NTP for the additional scope added with Amendment #1) MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT Task D4: Design Development Week 32 from NTP for Amendment 3 Task E4: Construction Documents Week 64 (32 weeks from receipt of authorization to proceed from Design Development Task) Task E4.1 Library and Art Center Concurrent with Construction Site Integration Documents (Design and Construction Documents) Task E4.1: Plan Check City dependent based upon plan check review process. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 53 110829 Task F4: Bidding & Award City Dependent, planned for Summer 2012. TEMPORARY MAIN LIBRARY BUILDING Task A5: Site Analysis Week 6 from NTP for Amendment 3 Task C5: Preliminary Design Documents Week 12 from NTP for Amendment 3 Task E5: Construction Documents, Completed by July, 2011 Bidding & Award Spring 2012 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 54 110829 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be paid to the CONSULTANT on a lump sum basis for Mitchell Park Library Task D1, E1, F1, and Renovated Downtown Library Task D2, E2, F2, G2, and H2. Compensation for Temporary Library Task D3, E3, F3, and G3 shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedules attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the Not to Exceed amount set forth below. Compensation for Participation Task D4 shall be on a per meeting basis as indentified in attached Exhibit C-1 up to the Not to Exceed amount set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A”, (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $7,006,189. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $7,901,751. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $7,006,189 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $1,045,562. CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 55 110829 BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT BASIS MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY/COMMUNITY CENTER Task D1 $845,456 Lump Sum (Design Development) Task E1 $1,882,656 Lump Sum (Construction Documents) Task F1 $150,437 Lump Sum (Bidding & Award) Task G1 (Construction Administration, FFE & Signage $1,156,517 Lump Sum Task H1 (Project Closeout & Record Documents $143.339 Lump Sum Subtotal $4,178,405 RENOVATED DOWNTOWN LIBRARY Task D2 $88,383 Lump Sum (Design Development) Task E2 $227,882 Lump Sum (Construction Documents) Task F2 $14,941 Lump Sum (Bidding & Award) Task G2 $146,100 Lump Sum (Construction Administration) Task G2.1 $81,796 Lump Sum (LEED Design & Documentation) Task G2.2 $20,000 Lump Sum (Furniture) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 56 110829 Task H2 $25,500 Lump Sum (Project Closeout and Record Documents) Subtotal $604,602 TEMPORARY MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY Task D3 (Schematic Design & Design Build Bid Package) $12,688 Time & Materials to a maximum Task E3 (Construction Documents) $95,916 Lump Sum Task F3 (Bidding & Award) $9,440 Lump Sum Task G3 (Construction Administration) $24,415 Lump Sum Subtotal $142, 459 MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT Task D4 (Design Development) $488,307 Lump Sum Task E4 (Construction Documents) $892,814 Lump Sum Task E4.1 Library and Art Center Site Integration (Design and Construction Documents) $41,948 Lump Sum Task F4 (Bidding & Award) $90,749 Lump Sum Subtotal $1,513,818 TEMPORARY MAIN LIBRARY Task A5 & C5 (Site Analysis & Prelim Design Documents) $39,725 T&M to a maximum Task E5 (Construction Documents, Bidding & Award) $22,410 Lump Sum Subtotal $62,135 ART CENTER RENOVATION Task E4.2 Library and Art Center Site Integration (Design and Construction Documents) $41,948 Lump Sum Subtotal $41,948 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 57 110829 PARTICIPATION Task D6 Mitchell Park Library Main Library Art Center $75,000 82,000 7,000 Lump Sum Allowance Subtotal $164,000 Subtotal Basic Services $6,707,367 Reimbursable Expenses Allowance: Mitchell Park Library $160,000 Downtown Library $ 56,000 Temporary MP Library $ 13,500 Main Library $ 50,000 Temporary Main Library $ 19,322 Subtotal Reimbursable Expenses $ 298,822 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $7,006,189 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) Mitchell Park Library: $654,510 Downtown Library $56,000 Temporary MP Library $15,600 Main Library: $157,082 Temporary Main Library: $8,145 Art Center $4,895 Subtotal Additional Services $ 896,232 Amendment 4 Maximum Total Compensation $7,681,751 Added in Amendment 5 (MPLCC Add Services only) $220,670 Amendment 5 Maximum Total Compensation: $7,902,421 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 58 110829 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost not to exceed the total amount shown above. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:  Outside service printing/copying of drawings and documents of any size.  In-house printing of CAD check sets and presentation drawings larger than 11”x 17”: $2.00 per square foot.  In-house black & white photocopying for draft and final reports and specifications: $.20 per page.  In-house color and grayscale printing and photocopying up to 11”x 17” for in-house, consultant or client use: $1.25 per page.  Software purchase and licensure on behalf of the client.  Postage, delivery and messenger service.  Photographic and digital imaging.  Architectural renderings and scale models.  Travel expenses  Subconsultant costs over and above those included in Basic Services.  Presentation boards.  Facilitation tools.  Workshop accessories.  Workshop facilitation materials All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,000.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 59 110829 and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. . Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services. 1. If any of the following circumstances affect the CONSULTANT’s services for the Project, the CONSULTANT may be entitled to an appropriate adjustment in the CONSULTANT’s schedule and compensation: a. Change in the instructions or approvals given by the CITY that necessitate revisions in design drawings and which are not caused by CONSULTANT’s negligence; b. Enactment or revision of codes, laws, or regulations or official interpretations which necessitate significant changes to previously prepared drawings; c. Material delay caused by the CITY beyond CONSULTANT’s reasonable control; d. Significant change in the Project including, but not limited to, size, complexity, the Owner’s schedule or budget, or procurement method; e. Preparation for and attendance at a dispute resolution proceeding or a legal proceeding except where the CONSULTANT is a party thereto; f. Substantial change in the information contained in Exhibit A. Additional services may also include, meetings exceeding those outlined in Exhibit A as Basic Services. CONSULTANT Hourly Rates and Meeting Rates for Additional Services CONSULTANT’s hourly and meeting rate schedule shall be: Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc. Position Hourly Rate Principal $165 Associate $145 Project Manager $135 Professional I $125 Professional II $115 Professional III $105 Technical I $110 Technical II $100 Technical III $90 Technical IV $80 Project Support $70 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Focus Group $1,500 Meeting Type (Architect Only) Per Meeting Steering Committee Meetings $2,500 Boards & Commission Meetings $2,500 Community Meetings $4,000 City Council Meetings $2,500 Meeting Type (Architect + Per Meeting Steering Committee Meetings $3,000 Boards & Commission Meetings $3,000 Focus Group $2,000 Community Meetings $5,000 City Council Meetings $3,000 Page + Moris (Library Programmer) Position Hourly Rate Principal $200 Programming Assistant $75 Project Manager 135 AutoCAD Drafting $45 Project Assistant $35 BKF Engineering (Civil) Position Hourly Rate Engineering: Associate Project Manager Engineer IV Engineer I, II, III $162 $153-$158 $142 $101-$116- $132 Planning: Planner I, II, III $101-$116- $132 Surveying: Project Manager $153 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 60 110829 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 61 110829 Surveyor I, II, III, IV Survey Party Chief Survey Chainman Apprentice I, II, III, IV $101-116- 132-142 $127 $100 $53-73-83-93 Design & Drafting: Technician I, II, III Drafter I, II, III, IV Student Engineer/Surveyor $96-104-113 $75-83-91- 100 $53 Construction Administration: Senior Construction Administration Resident Engineer Field Engineer I, II, III $150 $110 $101-116-132 Services & Expenses: Project Assistant Clerical/Admin Assistant $65 $56 Rutherford & Chekene (Structural) Position Hourly Rate* Executive Principal $215 Principals $180-$190 Senior Engineers $140-$180 Engineers $115-$140 Designers $90-$115 CADD Specialists $85-$135 *rates subject to change on 7/1/09 Guttmann & Blaevoet (Mechanical) Position Hourly Rate Principal $210 Associate Principal $200 Associate $175 Senior Engineer $160 Engineer $130 CAD Manager $120 Designer $115 Drafter $105 Administrative $63 O’Mahony & Myer (Electrical + Lighting) Position Hourly Rate Founding Principal $225 Principals $190 Project Electrical Engineer $125 Project Lighting Designer $125 Electrical/Lighting Designer $110 CAD Supervisor $95 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09130744 – AMENDMENT FIVE Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 62 110829 CAD Technician $85 Administrative $65 Davis Langdon (Cost Estimator) Position Hourly Rate Principals $250-$300 Associate Principals $200 Senior Associates $175 Associates $155 Cost Planners $85-$145 Clerical $65 Gates + Associates (Landscape) Position Hourly Rate President $165 Principal $110-$140 Senior Associates $95-$115 Irrigation Designer $100 Associates $80-$95 Draftspersons/Landscape Designer $65-$80 Clerical Staff $60-$70 Smith Fause McDonald (Technology/Acoustic) Position Hourly Rate Principals $165 Associates/Senior Engineers $135 Project Consultants/Engineers $120 Consultants/Engineers $95 Technicians/Drafting $75 Administrative $60 The above listed rates are adjusted annually. The next adjustment will be 1 January 2012 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2051) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2051) Summary Title: Cafe Operator at MPL & CC Title: Recommendation for Vision on Cafe Operations at the New Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Cafe From:City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council provide direction on the vision for the café operations at the new Mitchell Park Library & Community Center, specifically whether the selection of the café operator should favor a community service or a traditional business. Background One of the enhancements to the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center will be the integration of a cafe into the programming. The café is intended to be a separate community gathering space which will integrate and compliment the other uses at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. At the beginning of summer, staff solicited interest through an RFP for the café operator at the new Mitchell Park Library & Community Center (MPLCC).Although staff was expecting different types of proposals, the divergence between the proposals received was significant.One group of proposers proposed a more traditional business model, and another group emphasized a strong social service program.Staff believes both models would work for the site, but realized that additional community and Council input on the overall visions for the site should be solicited before moving forward. Through research, staff noted that cafés at community centers and libraries are much more likely to succeed if they open concurrently with the opening of such centers. It was Staff’s intention to allow for the maximum amount of time between selection of the operator and the building of the café portion of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. The RFP process allows enough time for some amount of design changes to ensure success. Staff has confirmed that there is still enough time to re-issue the RFP and have a café vendor selected allowing them to make some minor changes to the space (signage, branding, furniture, operational flow, etc) and still be open for business on the same day as Mitchell Park Library and Community Center without delay to the overall project. Staff has confirmed that the café as designed (with limited changes) will work for either type of operator, and will not disrupt the overall Mitchell Park Library and Community Center September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2051) construction timeline. Given the diverging proposal concepts, before selecting a vendor, staff has determined it would be helpful to have Council and community input on the vision for the café. In addition, as we worked through our selection process, staff noticed certain technical inconsistencies with the RFP document that may have caused confusion among some of the proposers and deterred other proposers. Staff has therefore decided to cancel the existing RFP, and re-issue it once it has received additional vision and expectations feedback from the Council. To ensure that none of the existing proposers will be prejudiced by this step, the City will keep the proposals confidential. Discussion The Mitchell Park Library & Community Center will truly be a great new asset to the City and a community gathering place. As a feature of the center, the café space is designed to enhance the experience for the people who visit. The operator the City chooses, and how they run the café become an important part of the overall experience for the users, no matter if they come for the library, an event or meeting, or just to visit and sit in the café or courtyard. Therefore, selection of a qualified vendor is important. Before issuing a new RFP, staff is asking the Council to weigh in on the vision for the café. In particular staff is seeking Council input on whether we should focus more on a social/ community service business model or a traditional business model. Staff will incorporate Council policy direction into the café selection criteria to align with that vision, and include Library/ Community Center Stakeholders on the review panel. Timeline The working timeline for the new RFP is: RFP Issued October 4, 2011 Pre-Proposal Meeting October 18, 2011 Deadline for questions, clarifications October 25, 2011 Proposals Due November 1, 2011 Finalist Identified November 8, 2011 Consultant Interview(s)November 15, 2011 Consultant selection and contract preparation November 22, 2011 Contract Awarded November 22, 2011 Work Commences January, 2012 Resource Impact No financial impacts expected to the General Fund. Policy Implications None September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2051) Environmental Review Not a project under California Environmental Quality Act. Prepared By:Thomas Fehrenbach, Econ Dev Mgr Department Head:James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager