Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-07 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Conference Room October 7, 2013 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 October 7, 2013 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council 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, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. 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 up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1. Potential List of Topics for the Joint Meeting with Human Relations Commission CHAMBERS Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. 2 October 7, 2013 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. City Manager Comments 7:00-7:15 PM Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 7:15-7:25 PM Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Oral Communications 7:25-7:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 7:40-7:45 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 2. Approval of Agreement with PAHC Housing Services, LLC for Administration and Consulting Services for Up to Two Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $175,000 Per Year for the Below Market Rate Housing Program 3. Approval of a Contract with D & D Pipelines, Inc. in the Amount of $675,700 for Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvements, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06104 4. Approval of a Purchase Order with Priority One Public Safety Equipment in the Amount of $287,782.65 for the Purchase of Six Fully- Outfitted Police Patrol Cars 5. Submittal of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Bi-Monthly Construction Contract Report 6. Rejections of Bids for the Administration Building Electrical Systems Upgrade Project at Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021 7. Approval of a Three Year SAP Software Maintenance Contract in the Amount of $258,260.66 per year, Not To Exceed $774,781.98 for the Support and Maintenance of SAP, Including Industry-Specific Solution for Utilities (IS-U), SAP Enterprise Central Component (ECC 6.0), Customer Relationship Management System (CRM), Business Intelligence System (BI), Utilities Customer Electronic Services (UCES), and Business Software, Inc. (BSI) U.S. Payroll Tax 8. Approval of Contract for the Downtown Development CAP to Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners in the Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 3 October 7, 2013 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. 9. Approval of Amendment Number Two to Contract S13149314 with TruePoint Solutions, LLC in the Amount of $495,000, to Provide Deployment and Transition Support for Accela Citizen Access and Future Blueprint Enhancements, for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $652,800 10. Nomination of Council Member Gail Price to Seek Appointment as the Northwest Cities Group 2 Representative to the VTA Board of Directors 11. Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Fiscal Year 2013 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2014 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:45-9:15 PM 12. Public Hearing: Adoption of (1) a Resolution Certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; (2) an Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Approve an Amendment to Planned Community (PC-5150) Mixed use Project to Allow Reconstruction of One of Two Historic Eichler Retail Buildings (Building 1); and 3) Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide Two Commercial Parcels Into Eleven Parcels to Include a Commercial Parcel with a Public Park and Ten Single Family Properties, for a 3.58 Acre Site Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza Mixed Use Project). * Quasi-Judicial 9:15-10:15 PM 13. Recommendation for One-Time Additional Allocation in the Amount of $250,000 Over Two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection with Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless 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. 4 October 7, 2013 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 Policy and Services Committee Meeting 10/8/13 Regional Housing Mandate Committee Meeting Cancellation Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report City of Palo Alto Utilities Energy Risk Management Report for the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2013 Public Letters to Council Set One City of Palo Alto (ID # 4157) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: HRC Study Session with Council Title: Potential List of Topics for the Joint Meeting with Human Relations Commission From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Discussion This report transmits the items to be discussed with the City Council during its joint meeting with the Human Relations Commission (HRC). The HRC will review its accomplishments for the past year as well as share information on current topics and seek feedback on its major initiatives for the upcoming year. Attachments:  Attachement #1 - HRC-CouncilstudysessionAgenda (DOC) CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2013 SUBJECT: POTENTIAL TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR THE JOINT STUDY SESSION SPECIAL MEETING WITH THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Below are the proposed topics of discussion for the joint study session with the Human Relations Commission scheduled for October 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM. 1) Human Relations Commission Accomplishments 2) Human Relations Commission Priorities and Projects for 2013-14 3) Other items City of Palo Alto (ID # 3961) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PAHC Contract with City of Palo Alto for BMR Prog. Title: Approval of Agreement with PAHC Housing Services, LLC for Administration and Consulting Services for Up to Two Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $175,000 Per Year for the Below Market Rate Housing Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached agreement with PAHC Housing Services, LLC (PAHC) for administration and consulting services for the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program for up to two years in the amount of $170,000 for the 2014 Fiscal Year and $175,000 for the 2015 Fiscal Year. Executive Summary PAHC has been administering the City’s BMR housing program for over 40 years. This is a bi- annual renewal of the BMR contract. In addition current responsibilities, an added goal for the next two years is to completely revise the BMR program’s policy and procedures handbook along with other programmatic changes. Background Under contract to the City, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) has administered the BMR housing program since its inception in the mid-1970s. Examples of some of the services provided by PAHC include: administering the sales and re-sales of new and existing BMR owner units; maintaining the home purchase waiting list; monitoring occupancy of BMR rental units; providing advice and consultation to the City regarding negotiations of BMR agreements with developers; and addressing special issues related to the program as a whole. Most of PAHC’s workload is involved with the home ownership component of the BMR program. While PAHC performs most tasks required for the ongoing administration of the home ownership and rental components of the BMR program, City Planning staff also devotes considerable time to the City of Palo Alto Page 2 BMR program, primarily on BMR negotiations and agreements and program improvements. City Real Property staff handles maintenance evaluation and the determination of credits for capital improvements when units come up for resale. There are presently 237 BMR owner units in the BMR program with 3 new BMR owner units scheduled for completion and sale over the next year of this contract (Palo Alto Bowl site). PAHC maintains and annually updates a waiting list of interested potential buyers of BMR units. At this time, there are close to 365 households on this waiting list with about ninety percent qualifying for the live and / or work in Palo Alto preference. PAHC coordinates the sale of both newly built BMR units and the resale of existing units. Sales activities include: establishing the resale price; marketing units to the waiting list; scheduling open houses; qualifying and selecting the buyers; coordinating the transaction between the buyer, seller, lender and escrow; and explaining the requirements of the BMR deed restrictions. PAHC maintains a database on all units and keeps statistics on the number and characteristics of the households served by the program. The owner BMR units require periodic monitoring of occupancy and title, which PAHC handles in cooperation with Planning staff and the City Attorney’s Office. Monitoring and enforcement of the recorded deed restrictions has become a critical task requiring more of PAHC and City staff time. Monitoring activities include reviewing online assessor’s records to detect transfers in title or ownership and an annual self-certification letter to owners verifying owner- occupancy and to remind them of program rules and to provide updates on procedural changes. When a violation of the deed restrictions is discovered, PAHC undertakes initial attempts to remedy the situation. More complex enforcement matters are referred to Planning or to the City Attorney, if legal action is required. Information workshops for prospective buyers on the waiting list are conducted quarterly by PAHC together with housing counseling staff from Project Sentinel. These workshops focus on preparation for homeownership, understanding credit and mortgage financing and the rules of the BMR program. The workshops have been well received, with about 100 persons attending each year. The waiting list workshops will be continued over the next two years. There are currently 197 BMR rental units in six different projects that are managed by PAHC. PAHC’s primary tasks with the BMR rental program are: ongoing training of the on-site property management personnel and reviewing tenant qualifications and BMR rents. PAHC collects and reviews applicants’ certification documentation and determines eligibility under the program rules. They also conduct recertification of existing tenants. PAHC monitors each complex’s waiting list and tenant selection process. Due to the frequent turnover of apartment management staff, PAHC must devote considerable time and effort to explaining the BMR program rules and procedures to new personnel each year. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion The contract amounts for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 anticipate that PAHC’s workload administering the BMR program will increase from current levels over the next two years. Marketing and sales of the 3 new owner units currently under development represent significant activities. City and PAHC staffs believe that resale activity will remain steady at about 12 to 15 units per year due to continued turnover from aging owners, but resale levels are very hard to predict. In addition, PAHC staff will be more involved in updating the BMR Policy and Procedures Manual to reflect Council’s changes to the BMR Program and the Housing Element update. As in preceding years, this agreement is a sole source contract. There is no other entity that provides, or is capable of providing, the total package of services required by the City for the BMR program. PAHC has submitted a proposal to continue providing the City with BMR administration services on a time and materials basis for the next two years at hourly billing rates shown in the attached Exhibit B, with a maximum budget of $170,000 for the first year and $175,000 for the second year. Total costs for the next two years represent an increase of about ten percent over the previous two years’ contract costs. Staff believes that the increase is reasonable and acceptable given the projected increase in activities associated with the administration of the BMR program. PAHC was able to secure liability and other insurance coverage in the last year for its BMR program activities at a lower cost, which helps limit the growth in the cost of its services. In addition, PAHC staff is considering charging fees to developers, owners and applicants to defray costs. For example, PAHC has instituted an annual $15 waiting list fee to help cover printing and mailing costs of BMR sales information. Resource Impact PAHC’s administration of the BMR program has historically been funded from the Residential Housing Fund, which is a special revenue fund created to support all types of affordable housing programs. Revenue for the Residential Fund is primarily from BMR in-lieu fees collected from developers of residential projects that are allowed to pay in-lieu fees (instead of providing BMR units or in return for providing fewer units). Fee payments are permitted for very small projects when less than one full BMR unit is owed or when the City determines that no other alternative is feasible. The Residential Housing Fund includes a budget sufficient to pay $170,000 in FY 2014 and $175,000 in FY 2015 for PAHC services No additional funding is needed for this action. The City of Palo Alto Page 4 Residential Fund’s available balance is currently $1.0 million. Policy Implications The recommendation in this staff report does not represent any change to City policies. Implementation of this Agreement is consistent with the City’s Housing Element and various housing policies that support the provision of affordable housing and a variety of housing opportunities. Environmental Review The approval of an agreement for administrative and consulting services is not an action subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A: Agreement with Palo Alto Housing Corporation on Below Market Rate Housing Program (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14151510 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PAHC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this day of September, 2013, ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and P AHC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, located at 725 Alma Street, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301, Telephone (650) 321-9709 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to engage CONSULTANT to administer below market housing program ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to provide administrative and consulting services in connection with the Project ("Services"). B. CONS UL T ANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/orcertifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULT ANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1,2013 through June 30,2015 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. Professional Services Rev, Nov, 1,2011 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance ofthe Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($170,000.00) for the first contract year, July 1,2013 through June 30, 2014 and One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00) for the second contract year, July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, plus any unused portion of the prior contract year, provided such carryover is approved by the City Council. No additional Services are authorized as part of this contract. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-l ", entitled "BUDGET & BILLING RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-l "). Ifapplicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSUL T ANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LA WS. CONSULT ANT shall keep itselfinformed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULT ANT. If CONSULT ANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design ofa public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor andlor materials ul1q~r this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee ofthe CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent ofthe city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSUL TANTwill assign Candace Gonzalez, Executive Director as the project manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day~to~day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution ofthe project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 The City's project manager is Tim Wong, Sr. Planner, Planning & Community Environment Department, Planning Advanced Planning Division, 250 Hamilton A venue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650)329-2561. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation ofthe work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONS UL TANT' s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnifY, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULT ANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit liD". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY' s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. Ifthe insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULT ANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereofto CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, ifthis Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSUL TANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhis/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance ofthis Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY ; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that term is defined by the Regulations ofthe Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may. be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or compo sting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minim um of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycl ing. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions ofthe Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions ofthis Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5( d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security ofthe system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 EXHIBIT" A" SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR BMR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS: 2013 -2014 and 2014 -2015 CONSULTANT shall administer the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program in compliance with City policy, guidelines, the applicable deed restrictions, the BMR Program Procedures Manual and in a manner that increases affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate-income households. Specific Activities: I) Provide information and advice to interested persons and housing seekers about the City's BMR ownership and rental programs including maintaining and updating the BMR portion of the CONSULTANT'S website. 2) Maintain and, at least annually, update the BMR ownership waiting list. Conduct waiting list outreach activities to attract households with appropriate income levels, as needed. 3) Send an information letter to BMR owners once each year to keep owners informed of their responsibilities under the deed restrictions and distribute other informational materials to owners as appropriate or as directed by the City. 4) Annually update the list of lenders willing to lend on BMR units; conduct outreach to lenders with branches in Palo Alto to encourage participation in the BMR program so that buyers have sufficient choice of lenders and loan products. Maintain liaison with available homebuyer assistance programs (such as mortgage credit certificates, Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Cal HFA, etc.) and provide buyers with current information about such financial assistance programs. 5) Administer the sales of newly constructed units and resale of existing units in the BMR ownership program, and the "discount" units at the Birch Court project with City deed restrictions, in accordance with City policies, guidelines, the applicable deed restrictions and with the Procedures Manual, prepared by CONSULTANT, as accepted by the City. Conduct marketing of new BMR ownership units to help ensure a sufficient pool of qualified buyers, anticipated during this contract term are the 3 units at Monroe Place (formerly known as Palo Alto Bowl). 6) Pursue, in cooperation with the City, the preservation ofBMR units within the program and compliance and enforcement by BMR owners with the provisions of the recorded deed restrictions. 7) Provide assistance and counseling to BMR owners, in coordination with City staff, to help owners resolve financial, occupancy or title situations that can affect the preservation of BMR ownership units. Professional Services Rev, Nov, 1,20)) 8) Annually, coordinate and jointly conduct at least two homeownership educational workshops specifically designed for the Palo Alto BMR program for current BMR owners and/or households on the waiting list by subcontracting with an experienced and qualified organization. 9) Assessment Loan Program for BMR Owners: a) Provide information regarding the assessment loan program to BMR owners, if available through the City to BMR owners. and condominium associations. b) Conduct pre-qualification screening of potential loan applicants. 10) BMR Rental Program Administration: a) For the BMR rental units at Southwood Apartments, Mayfield Apartments, 1100 Welch Road Apartments, Montage Apartments at 4020 El Camino Real, Sunrise Assisted Living, Parker Palo Alto, College Terrace Centre at 2180 EI Camino Real and other BMR rental units that may be newly constructed during the term of this contract: 1) Certify tenants' income eligibility for initial occupancy and review the annual recertification of tenants as required by the applicable agreements between the City and the project owners. 2) Monitor tenant selection, operation of waiting lists, and designation of BMR units as necessary. 3) Provide information and training on the BMR Rental Program to property managers. b) Stanford West Apartments BMR Units: 1) Continue to provide training and information to on-site management staff on BMR unit eligibility requirements, rents and procedures. 2) Conduct an annual sample file audit of tenant selections, eligibility and income certifications for an appropriate portion of the BMR households to assure compliance with the BMR program. 3) If appropriate, make recommendations to City for more comprehensive monitoring. 11) Provide advice, consultation and assistance to City staff in negotiations of BMR agreements for new housing developments. 12) Coordinate the process of evaluation, negotiation and financing related to the acquisition and rehabilitation if necessary, of off-site units or properties contributed under the BMR program. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 13) Assist City staff with review, adoption and implementation of changes resulting from the evaluations of the BMR Study. 14) Provide assistance, review and advice regarding preparation and adoption of a revised BMR ordinance, revised Policies and Procedures Manual, revised ownership deed restrictions and enforcement documents and other new materials to implement the recommendations from the BMR Study. 15) Maintain records and statistics as required by the City, specifically: a) Annual statistics about the BMR ownership and rental units and the households served; and b) A permanent database and record of all ownership units placed in the program and statistics about current BMR owners and all households served over the life of the program, including maintenance of files on each BMR owner unit and retention of copies of the actual recorded deed restrictions for the ownership units; and c) Contact information for current BMR owners with mailing labels and, when available, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. 16) For the 3 BMR units at Monroe Place a) Assist in the marketing and leasing of the newly-constructed 3 BMR units b) Certify applicant's income eligibility for initial occupancy as required by the applicable agreements between the City and the project owners. c) Monitor applicant selection, operation of waiting lists, and designation of BMR units as necessary. d) Provide information and training on the BMR Ownership Program to applicants. e) If appropriate, make recommendations to City for more comprehensive monitoring. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE (NOT APPLICABLE) Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULT ANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-l. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A" ("Services") shall not exceed $170,000.00 for the first contract year, July 1,2013 through June 30, 2014 and $175,000.00 for the second contract year, July 1,2014 through June 30, 2015, plus any unused portion of the prior contract year, provided such carryover is approved by the City Council. No additional Services are authorized as part of this contract. Total Contract Not to Exceed is $345,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, within this amount. 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 may bill City for the following: 1.) Staff time spent on BMR program activities and directly related support work at hourly billing rates shown herein. These hourly billing rates include actual salaries, payroll taxes, benefits, workers compensation insurance and overhead as shown in this exhibit B. 2.) Direct cost, as supported by receipts, invoices, etc. which are reasonable and necessary to conduct the activities described in Exhibit A, such as: • Premiums for liability, errors, omissions, insurance and other insurance specifically covering CONSULT ANTS services under this agreement, if the cost is separately stated or can be reasonably allocated to BMR services, with total amount payable not to exceed $10,000.00 per year. • Postage • Advertising • Conferences & Training • Office Supplies • Outside services, Consultants including Legal fees(except that any such services or consultant work exceeding $3,000.00 shall be authorized in advanced by City) • Printing/Duplicating • Other Necessary expenses including expense necessary to the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of off-site units and properties provided by the developers under the BMR program in-lieu of on-site units Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONS UL T ANT 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 expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-l. 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 ofthe services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 EXHIBIT "C 1" SCHEDULE OF RATES Palo Alto Housing Corporation Below Market Rate (BMR) Billing Rates 2013-2014 STAFF ANNUAL EST. ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL'" RATE RATEIW** wIDIR** BILLING*' SALARY P/R BENEFITS EST. WC COST DIRECT COS & INDIR. RATE TAXES 0.3164 0.4053 BMR 57,200 4,691 13,637 1,459 76,988 37 48.72 68.47 69 Administrator Executive 166,400 13,045 23,833 7,321 210,598 101 133.28 187.30 188 Director Controller 117,520 9,305 29,396 555 156,777 75 99.22 139.44 140 Dir. of Property 133,120 10,499 26,815 5,857 176,290 85 111.57 156.79 157 Management Property 56,360 4,627 17,230 5,646 83,862 40 53.07 74.59 75 Manager Junior 43,264 3,625 9,856 204 56,950 27 36.04 50.65 51 Accountant Staff Accountant 57,217 4,692 13,428 270 75,607 36 47.85 67.24 68 Office 40,690 3,428 16,290 192 60,600 29 38.35 53.90 54 Administrator Legal Assistant 72,800 5,884 18,217 344 97,245 47 61.54 86.49 87 Special 104,000 104,000 50 65.82 92.50 93 Projects Consultant ." Based on estimated salaries and benefits effective July 1, 2013 ** Includes overhead costs using the same overhead billing rates determined in June 2001. EXHIBIT "D" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES YES YES AGGREGATE OCCURRENCE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED ASAN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIDED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DA Y ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVlDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVlDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMP ANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 EXHIBIT nEil SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and its affiliated entities (PAHC) have from time to time executed contracts, consulting agreements, funding agreements, regulatory agreements, promissory notes, deeds oftrust, and other documents and instruments (City Documents) to effectuate its mission of affordable housing development in Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, PAHC intends to execute City Documents for FISCAL YEARS 2012·2014 and wishes to do so in accordance with P AHC policy contained in its Bylaws; and WHEREAS, PAHC Bylaws allow a single officer (President, any Vice President, Secretary or Treasurer) to execute formal contracts of the corporation, promissory notes, deed of trust, mortgages and other evidences of indebtedness of the corporation and other corporate instruments or documents; and WHEREAS, PAHC wishes to utilize this policy for City Documents as well. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of Palo Alto Housing Corporation, PARC Management and Services Corporation, P AHC Properties Corporation, and P AHC Housing Services LLC resolve as follows: Anyone corporate officer, including the Executive Vice PresidentlExecutive Director in accordance with PARC Bylaws, may, without further resolution, and notwithstanding the requirements established by California Corporations Code Section 5214, execute any City Documents necessary and appropriate to effectuate the corporate mission and the purposes of the Documents. This is certified to be a true copy of the Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors by unanimous consent and remaining in full force and effect. ~~ Elizabeth Ratner, Secretary Palo Alto Housing Corporation And Its Affiliated Entities POLICY NUMBER: PHPK996726 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20181185 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - MORTGAGEE, ASSIGNEE, OR RECEIVER This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Palo Alto Designation of Premises: Department of Panning « Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA (If no entry appears above. information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) 1. WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule but only with respect to their liability as mortgagee, assignee. or receiver and arising out of the ownership. maintenance. or use of the premises by you and shown in the Schedule. 2. This insurance does not apply to structural alterations. new construction and demolition operations performed by or for that person or organization. CG 20 181185 Copyright. Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1984 DATE SUPPLEMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 04/01/2013 NAME OF INSURED: Palo Alto Housing Corporation Additional Descril2tion of Ol2erations/Remarks from Page 1 : Additional Information: / SUPP (05/04) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4058) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Contract for Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvements Title: Approval of a Contract with D & D Pipelines, Inc. in the Amount of $675,700 for Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvements, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06104 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with D & D Pipelines, Inc.(Attachment A) in the amount of $675,700 for the Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvements, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06104; and 2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with D & D Pipelines, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $67,570. Background In 2005, the property owners of Palo Alto voted to increase their monthly storm drainage fee to fund a set of seven high-priority storm drain-related capital improvement projects, including the connection of the storm drain system on Clara Drive to the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station. The storm drain system serving Clara Drive currently drains to Matadero Creek by gravity. There are three storm drain outfalls that discharge storm runoff captured from Clara Drive directly into Matadero Creek. These outfalls are fitted with flap gates that City of Palo Alto Page 2 prevent creek water from backing up into the storm drain system. When a high water level occurs in Matadero Creek, the flap gates close,preventing the storm drain from emptying and causing water to pond on the street.Street flooding occurs even during moderate storm events,with the extent of the ponding increasing as the creek level rises. Connecting the storm drain system on Clara Drive to the Matadero Pump Station will allow Clara Drive to drain regardless of the water level in the creek. The new storm drain system to be constructed will act as an overflow with runoff being conveyed through the new system to the pump station once the flap gates close at the outfall as the creek level rises. Discussion Project Description The work to be performed under this contract is the installation of 12-inch- diameter storm drain pipeline along Clara Drive between Louis Road and Colorado Avenue and along Colorado Avenue between Clara Drive and Greer Road (see Location Map, Attachment B). The new bypass storm drain line will connect directly to the existing storm drain at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Greer Road, which conveys runoff to the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station. Water, gas and wastewater mains and service laterals that are in conflict with the proposed 12-inch storm drain line will be relocated as part of this project as well. Residents will be notified prior to any disruptions to their utility services and limitations to their property access. Staff and the contractor will endeavor to minimize disruptions to neighborhood residents. Bid Process On August 27, 2013, a notice inviting formal bids (IFB)for the Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project was posted at City Hall and sent to 12 builder's exchanges and 21 contractors. The bidding period was twenty-one days. Bids were received from three contractors on September 17, 2013, as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment C). City of Palo Alto Page 3 Bid Name/Number Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06104/IFB # 151615 Proposed Length of Project 60 calendar days Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 21 Number of Bids Mailed to Builders’ Exchanges 12 Total Days to Respond to Bid 21 Pre-Bid Meeting?No Number of Company Attendees at Pre- Bid Meeting Not applicable Number of Bids Received 3 Bid Price Range $675,700 -$811,045 Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $675,700 submitted by D & D Pipelines, Inc. be accepted and that D & D Pipelines, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The low bid is 9 percent above the engineer’s estimate of $614,184.The change order amount of $67,570 (which equals 10 percent of the total contract) is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. Staff also contacted the listed references for D & D Pipelines, Inc.and found that they have performed satisfactorily on past construction projects for other clients. Project Coordination The Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project has been coordinated with other capital projects during the monthly Utilities/Public Works Departments street work coordination meetings and by use of the Geographic Information System-based project coordination program. This project does not conflict with any upcoming Public Works or Utilities department projects. A portion of the sanitary sewer main on Clara Drive needs to be removed and replaced at a revised depth because the sewer services that tie into this portion of the sewer main conflict with the proposed storm drain line. The work has also been coordinated City of Palo Alto Page 4 with other non-city utility agencies. Staff will also coordinate with residents around the project area. An introductory letter has been mailed to all local residents notifying them about the upcoming construction work. Flyers and door hangers will be distributed to residents around the project area before commencement of work and project information added to the website. Resource Impact Funding for the Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project is available in the Storm Drain Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06104. This project includes funding transfers of $106,656 to the General Fund for Street Cut Fees. Policy Implications The recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/ or minor alteration of existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. Courtesy Copies Storm Drain Oversight Committee Attachments: ·A -Construction Contract July 10 2012 (PDF) ·B -Location Map (PDF) ·C -Bid Summary (PDF)   Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1                            Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT                CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    Contract No. C14151615        City of Palo Alto    and    D & D Pipelines, Inc.      PROJECT  CLARA DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS   Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2                            Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT       CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT             TABLE OF CONTENTS      SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….. .................... 5  1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................  5  1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................  5  SECTION 2. THE PROJECT……………………………………………………………………………… .............................. 5  SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………. ......................... 5            3.1           List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………. ..... 5            3.2           Order of Precedence …………………………………………………………………………… ................ 6  SECTION 4. THE WORK ………………………………………………………………………………… .............................. 7  SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ………………………………………………………………………….. ............................. 7  SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION ………………………………………………………………….. .......................... 7  6.1 Time Is of Essence ........................................................................................ ……… 7  6.2 Commencement of Work .....................................................................................  7  6.3 Contract Time .......................................................................................................  7  6.4 Liquidated Damages .............................................................................................  7  6.4.1 Entitlement…………………………………………………………………………………………….   7  6.4.2 Daily Amount………………………………………………………………………………………….   8  6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy…………………………………………………………………………………..   8  6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………...     8  6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ........................................................................... … 8  SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………...  8  7.1 Contract Sum ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1  7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9  7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9  7.3.1 Self Performed Work………………………………………………………………………………… 9  7.3.2 Subcontractors…………………………………………………………………………………………. 9  SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ...................................................................................................  9  SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ...................................................................................................... 10  9.1 Hold Harmless…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10  9.2 Survival………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10  SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION .............................................................................................. 10  SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS .......................................................................................... 10    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3                            Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT  SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS .......................................................................... 11  SECTION 13. NOTICES .................................................................................................................... 11  13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11  13.2 Notice Recipients .................................................................................................   11  13.3 Change of Address ...............................................................................................  12  14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes ...........................................................................  12  14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ...............................................................................  12  14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes ……………………………………………………………………………….12  14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ……………………………………………………...........................13    14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13  14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13  14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13    14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ............................................................... …… 13  14.4.1 Direct Negotiation………………………………………………………………………… ………….13  14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes …………………………………………………………………   14  14.4.3 Mediation ………………………………………………………………………………………………….14  14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ……………………………………………………………………………………15    14.5 Non‐Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16  SECTION 15. DEFAULT ................................................................................................................... 16  15.1 Notice of Default ..................................................................................................  16  15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ................................................................................  16  SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................................................. 16  16.1 Remedies Upon Default .......................................................................................  16  16.1.1 Delete Certain Servic………………………………………………………...........................16  16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ……………………………………………………………………………. 16  16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ………………………………………………………….16  16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default ……………………………………..17  16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ………………………………………………………………….17  16.1.6 Additional Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………….17    16.2 Delays by Sureties ................................................................................................  17  16.3 Damages to City ...................................................................................................  17  16.3.1 For Contractor's Default …………………………………………………………………………..17  16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ………………………………………………………………………….17    16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .....................................................................  18  16.6 Termination Without Cause .................................................................................  18    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4                            Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT  16.6.1 Compensation ………………………………………………………………………………………….18  16.6.2 Subcontractors …………………………………………………………………………………………18    16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination .................................................................  19  SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................... 19  17.1 Contractor’s Remedies .........................................................................................  19  17.1.1 For Work Stoppage ………………………………………………………………………………….. 19  17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19    17.2 Damages to Contractor ........................................................................................  19  SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................................ 19  18.1 Financial Management and City Access .......................................................... ……. 19  18.2 Compliance with City Requests ........................................................................ …. 20  SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ............................................................................................. 20  SECTION 20. NUISANCE ................................................................................................................. 20  SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES ............................................................................................ 20  SECTION 22. WAIVER .................................................................................................................... 20  SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAW ..................................................................................................... 20  SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT ........................................................................................... 21  SECTION 25. SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT .......................................................................................... 21  SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES .................................................................................................. 21  SECTION 27. NON APPROPRIATION .............................................................................................. 21  SECTION 28. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS ........................................................................................ 21  SECTION 29. ATTORNEY FEES ........................................................................................................ 21  SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS ........................................................................................................ 22  SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY ........................................................................................................... 22            Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    5                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on October 7, 2013 (“Execution Date”) by and between the  CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and D & D PIPE LINES, INC.  ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:    R E C I T A L S:    A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of  California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the  State of California and the Charter of City.    B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California,  Contractor’s License Number 848484. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of  California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set  forth in this Construction Contract.    C. On August 27th,2013, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Clara Drive  Storm Drain Improvement Project (“Project”).  In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.    D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other  services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.    NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth  and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby  acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:    SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.    1.1 Recitals.    All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.    1.2 Definitions.    Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the  General Conditions.  If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and  in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.  SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.    The Project is the construction of the Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project ("Project").    SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.    3.1  List of Documents.  The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist  of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by  reference.       1) Change Orders    2) Field Change Orders          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    6                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    3) Contract    4) Project Plans and Drawings    5) Technical Specifications    6) Special Provisions  7)    Notice Inviting Bids  8)    Instructions to Bidders  9)    General Conditions  10) Bidding Addenda  11) Invitation for Bids    12) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit    13)   Reports listed in the Bidding Documents    14)   Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and                updated from time to time    15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005  and updated from time to time    16)  City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements    17)  City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations    18)  Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐  Qualification Checklist (if applicable)    19)  Performance and Payment Bonds    20)  Insurance Forms      3.2  Order of Precedence.    For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the  provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the  preceding section.  If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City  shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best  interests of the City.        Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    7                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    SECTION 4 THE WORK.    The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other  things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without  limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable  Code Requirements.    SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.    In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide  professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project.  The Project requires  that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of  the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project.    SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.  6.1 Time Is of Essence.    Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.    6.2 Commencement of Work.    Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.       6.3 Contract Time.    Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be  completed    not later than      .   within Sixty  calendar days (60) after the commencement date specified in City’s   Notice to Proceed.    6.4 Liquidated Damages.    6.4.1 Entitlement.    City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and  satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of  Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and  impracticable to ascertain.  Such damages may include, but are not limited to:  (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.  (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.  (iii) Extended disruption to public.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    8                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    6.4.2 Daily Amount.    City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual  damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the  entire Work within the Contract Time.  Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all  other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event  Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the  Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per  day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor  achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work.  The liquidated damages amount is  not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City  will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.    6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.    City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall  be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve  Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.    6.4.4 Other Remedies.    City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where  City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve  Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.    6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.    The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by  Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the  Contract Documents.  SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    1                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    7.1 Contract Sum.    Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the  Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Six Hundred And Seventy Five Thousand Seven Hundred  Dollars ($675,700).       [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates      .]                                    / /    / /          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    9                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    7.2 Full Compensation.    The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor  and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover  all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen  difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until  its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to  suspension or discontinuance of the Work.  The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change  Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the  Contract Documents.    7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.    The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving  Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by  City:  1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,   which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and   Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.    2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable   Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance   with this Section.    3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups   applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.    Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full  amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is  attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors  and Sub‐subcontractors, of every Tier.  When using this payment methodology, Contractor  Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be  computed as follows:    7.3.1 Markup Self‐Performed Work.    10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be  performed by Contractor with its own forces.    7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.    15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be  performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.        SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.    Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised  personnel.  All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a  manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in  providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.           Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    10                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.    9.1 Hold Harmless.    To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its  City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers  (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City,  from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to  any of, the following:  (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐ subcontractors, of any tier;  (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐ subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;  (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors, of  any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;  (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or  Sub‐subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and  (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with  the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐ subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.    However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses  resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee.  Contractor  shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision.  Nothing in the Contract  Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor  against City or any other Indemnitee.    9.2 Survival.    The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.    SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.    As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of  this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,  gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,  familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands  the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination  Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section  2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.    SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.    On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance  and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.   Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    11                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.    City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the  Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid.  Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign,  hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by  operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or  transfer without said consent shall be null and void.    The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of  Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor  is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of  Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than  fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.     SECTION 13 NOTICES.    13.1 Method of Notice.    All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in  writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:  (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;  (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and   addressed as hereinafter provided;   (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;   (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or   (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.     13.2 Notice Recipients.     All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City   shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be   addressed to City at:      To City:  City of Palo Alto     City Clerk     250 Hamilton Avenue     P.O. Box 10250     Palo Alto, CA 94303     Copy to:  City of Palo Alto     Public Works Administration     250 Hamilton Avenue     Palo Alto, CA 94301     Attn: Joe Teresi        Or        Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    12                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT      City of Palo Alto    Utilities Engineering    250 Hamilton Avenue    Palo Alto, CA 94301    Attn:             In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided  to the following:    Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office  250 Hamilton Avenue  P.O. Box 10250  Palo Alto, California 94303       All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.    All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:    D & D Pipelines, Inc.  629 Divisadero Street  San Francisco, Ca 94117  Attn: Dennis Mcelligott      13.3 Change of Address.    In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change  of address in writing.  Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any  individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.    SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.     14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.    Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section  14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial  court or jury.  All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set  forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive  recourse of Contractor and City for such  Contract Disputes.    14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.     14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes.    Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:  (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a  governmental agency;  (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to  any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors  of any tier;  (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.;  (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to  Contractor;  (v) Stop notices; or  (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel  performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    13                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.    Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action  filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not  be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the  right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes.  Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such  dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract  Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including,  without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final  determination until after Final Completion of the Work.    14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.    14.3.1 By Contractor.    Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written  response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the  General Conditions.  Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as  set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of  Contractor's Claim.  Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a  timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and  binding.  Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of  perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the  Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract  Sum and the Contract Time.  The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate  supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim.  Adequate supporting data for a  Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the  following:  (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the  Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the  Contract Time and  (ii) A detailed, event‐by‐event description of the impact of each event on  completion of Work.  Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute  involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following:   (a) A detailed cost breakdown and   (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and   other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for   submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.  14.3.2 By City.    City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time  following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute.   City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor.   A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or  circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the  damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.    14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.    The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution  Process in the sequence they appear below.  Each party shall participate fully and in good  faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall  be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the  process.    14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.    Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not  later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good        Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    14                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute.  Each party shall be  represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of  the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations,  and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to  City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed  settlement or resolution.  If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim  by a Subcontractor or Sub‐subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn  being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass‐Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor  or Sub‐Subcontractor shall also have a representative attend the negotiations, with the  same authority and knowledge as described above.  Upon completion of the meeting, if  the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or  any party may declare negotiations ended.  All discussions that occur during such  negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall  be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and  1152.    14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.    Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all  unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project,  subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract  Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion.  All Contract Disputes that  have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time  after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract  Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract  Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the  provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved  Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.    14.4.3 Mediation.    If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph  14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non‐binding mediation before a  mutually acceptable third party mediator.    .1 Qualifications of Mediator.  The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who  is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in  public works construction contract law and in mediating public works  construction disputes.  In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20)  hours of formal training in mediation skills.    .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator.  The party initiating  mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party  of its decision to mediate.  In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a  mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then  the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association  (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in  accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.    .3 Mediation Process.  The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City.   The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties.  The mediator  shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute  and recommendations for resolution.  All discussions that occur during the  mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation  shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code  Sections 1119 and 1152.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    15                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.    If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the  Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California  Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq.  The award of the arbitrator therein shall be  final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction.  Such  arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:    .1 Arbitration Initiation.  The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in  arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to  California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.    .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator.  The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties.  The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years  of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public  works construction disputes.  In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least  twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills.  In the event the parties  cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract  Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the  qualifications required herein.    .3 Hearing Days and Location.  Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of  City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator,  be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or  continuance.    .4 Hearing Delays.  Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good  cause shown.    .5 Recording Hearings.  All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a  certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and  Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.    .6 Limitation of Depositions.  The parties may conduct discovery in accordance  with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided,  however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following:    (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per  party.      Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of  permitted depositions.  An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for  purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an  expert.  Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in  accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including  initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as  evidence.    .7 Authority of the Arbitrator.  The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear  dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    16                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    .8 Waiver of Jury Trial.  Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a  jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding  arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.   Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors  who provide any portion of the Work.    14.5 Non‐Waiver.    Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise  any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the  rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by  Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without  limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests  for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting  documentation of Claims.    SECTION 15 DEFAULT.    15.1 Notice of Default.    In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to  perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any  provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the  manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.    15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.  Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under  the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require)  after receipt of written notice.  However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such  time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as  City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to  completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after  receipt of such written notice.  SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.    16.1 Remedies Upon Default.    If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth  above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,  without limitation, the following:    16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.    City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work,  reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.    16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.    City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or  portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost  thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related  thereto.    16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.    City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses  related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of  time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no        Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    17                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor  for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.    16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.    City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the  failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.  City’s election to  terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a  written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction  Contract.  Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately,  unless otherwise provided therein.    16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.    City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to  Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.    16.1.6 Additional Provisions.    All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in  addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.  Designation in the Contract  Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other  breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the  City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material.  City’s determination of  whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise  by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on  all parties.  No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other  rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such  termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and  Losses suffered by City.    16.2 Delays by Sureties.    Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the  performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:  (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure  full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;  (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;  (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably  delaying the Work;  (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;  (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or  (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the  Contract Time.    16.3 Damages to City.    16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.    City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of  Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.     16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.   In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City  shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the  Project.  If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be  deducted from the amounts withheld.  Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted,  the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project.  If the  Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the  difference and shall promptly remit same to City.        Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    18                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.    City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to  suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an  aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time.  The order shall be specifically identified as  a Suspension Order by City.  Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s  expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the  Work covered by the Suspension Order.  During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if  any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered  by the Suspension Order.  If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume  and continue with the Work.  A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the  Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension.    A Suspension Order  shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.    16.5 Termination Without Cause.    City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or  in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under  this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such  termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not  limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,  direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause.      16.5.1 Compensation.    Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from  Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the  following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work :    .1 For Work Performed.  The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion  of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination,  less sums previously paid to Contractor.    .2 For Close‐out Costs.  Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and  Sub‐subcontractors for:  (i) Demobilizing and  (ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including,  without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including  attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days  after receipt of the notice of termination.    .3 For Fabricated Items.  Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the  Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.    16.5.2 Subcontractors.      Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts  permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this  Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are  afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    19                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.    Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the  notice directs otherwise, do the following:  (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;  (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,  except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not  discontinued;  (iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the  notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are  outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,  payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of  the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or  modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine  necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to  terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;  (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions  thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms  reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,  that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and  (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already   in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in   transit thereto.  SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.    17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.    Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the  following:    17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.    The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any  Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of  an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of  government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable.  This  provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension  notice issued either for cause or for convenience.    17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment.    If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of  notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a  second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract.    17.2 Damages to Contractor.   In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided  for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above.  Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive  compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not  limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,  direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.  SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.    18.1 Financial Management and City Access.    Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary  for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally        Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    20                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants  during normal business  hours, may  inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports,  ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase  orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these  documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution  of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by  law.    18.2 Compliance with City Requests.    Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition  precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City  and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents.  City many  enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred  to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by  issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent  mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such  court, without the necessity of oral testimony.    SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.    Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’  of the other party.  City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or  its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.  SECTION 20 NUISANCE.    Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in  connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.  SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.    Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall  provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government  jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work.  Payment of all costs and expenses  for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation  shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set  forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.  SECTION 22 WAIVER.    A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be  deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition  contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.  SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.    This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of  California.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    21                 Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.    This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all  prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended  only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.  SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.    The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction  Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment  obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect  after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.  SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.          This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in  the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a  chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages.  The City  invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the  Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.    Or     The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the  California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code.   Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has  obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work  in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this  Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.  Copies of these rates may be obtained  at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto.  Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage  rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum.   Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1810, and 1813 of the Labor  Code.  SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.    This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto  Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the  event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time  within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds  for this Construction Contract are no longer available.  This section shall take precedence in the event of a  conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.   SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.    The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and  authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.  SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.    Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the  claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, 22  Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package                      Rev. July 2012  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT        the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its  reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action.  The prevailing party shall be  entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys  employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.  SECTION 30 COUNTERPARTS  This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,  constitute a single binding agreement.  SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY.    In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,  legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the   date and year first above written.             CITY OF PALO ALTO    ____________________________   Purchasing Manager   City Manager      APPROVED AS TO FORM:    ___________________________  Senior Asst. City Attorney    APPROVED:    ___________________________  Public Works Director      CONTRACTOR    D & D PIPELINES, INC.    By:___________________________    Name:_________________________    Title:________________________        STOCKTON PLACE MO RRIS D RIVE MADDUX DRIVE COLORADO AVENUE GREER ROAD LAWRENCE LANE COLORADO AVENUE CL ARA DRIVE SANDRA PLACE SYCAMORE DRIVE D LO UIS ROAD AVENUE CLARA DRIVERIVECLARA DRIVE LOUIS ROAD PIERS COURT B R I D G E W A Y 2898 2898 893 89 3 894 89 4 2928 2928 2946 29 46 898 89 8 2966 2966 2982 29 82 895 895 899 899 891 891 885 885 907 907 2975 2975 925 925 29112911 908 908 29012901 878 884 884 890 890 3064 3064 3104 2997 2997 2931 2931 29332933 31013101 3105 3105 3117 17 3110 3110 3120 3120876 3070 307 0 891 89 1 883 883 859 875 875 867 867 3105 3105 31033103 3102 3102 3065 3 065 927 92 7 925 925 915 915 30753075 920 920 910 910 3085 3085 3095 3095 921 921 931 931 927 927 30593059 912 912 906 906 918 918 924 924 942 942 936 936 930 930 954 954 931 931 2984 2984 937 937 947 947 919 919 913 913 943 943 948 948 3124 3 124 938 938 930 930 3108 3108 3116 3116 3113 3113 31193119 31253125 31313131 3132 3109 31013101 929 929 925 925 31 3125 3117 901 909 917 900 900 28972897 908 9082876 880 880 24 2879 287 9 909 909 915 915 921 921 924 924 916 916 949941 933 925 927 927 932 932 940 940 933 933 939 939 945 945 948 948 951 9 5 1 950 950 957 965 965 971 971 979973 993 993 983 983 962 962 958 958 957 957 9 6 3 969 910 910 914 914 924 924 930 930 936 936 2924 2924 2944 294 4 2914 2914 916 916 968 968 2964 296 4 3024 302 4 3032 3032 3040 3040 3048 3048 3056 305 3064 3 29792979 29632963 29472947 972 972 966 966 960 960 2972 2972 2950 2950 29652965 2945 2945 29252925 957 957 965 965 956 956 946 946 978 978 937 937 941 941 951 951 961 961 960 2928 2928 2970 2970 2960 2960 991 991 988 988 982 982 985 985 981 981 975 975 970 970 3016 3016 2931 2931 968 968 990 990 978 978 2995 2995 3100 310 0 SealePark CLARA DRIVE PROJECT AREA This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 172' ATTACHMENT B LOCATION MAP CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2013 City of Palo Alto rhada, 2013-09-11 14:08:21 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) Attachment C Ranking (Highest Bidder to Lowest Bidder)COMPANY BASE BID Engineer's Estimate City of Palo Alto $614,184.00 1 D & D Pipelines, Inc. $675,700.00 2 MH Pipelines, Inc..$769,675.00 3 Platinum Pipeline, Inc. $811,045.00 Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project Bid Summary - September 19, 2013 Project No.: SD-06104 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4078) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Purchase Order of Six Fully-Outfitted Police Patrol Cars Title: Approval of a Purchase Order with Priority One Public Safety Equipment in the Amount of $287,782.65 for the Purchase of Six Fully- Outfitted Police Patrol Cars From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order with Priority One Public Safety Equipment in the amount of $287,782.65 for the purchase of six fully outfitted Police patrol cars. Discussion The vehicle and equipment replacement policy described in City Policy and Procedures 4-1 (Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and Replacement), provides for the on-going replacement of City fleet vehicles and equipment. Replacements are scheduled using guidelines based on age, mileage accumulation, and obsolescence. Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement These purchases are being conducted with full consideration for the Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement report dated April 2010. The Fleet Review Committee (FRC) has reviewed all of the vehicles proposed for replacement and has authorized their replacement. The FRC) approved the replacement of these vehicles in accordance with the audit recommendations. The approval was based on:  An examination of each vehicle’s current usage;  An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs; City of Palo Alto Page 2  A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of each vehicle with others in the class; and  An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage reimbursement; pooling/sharing; the reassignment of another underutilized vehicle, or renting. Background The Vehicle and Equipment replacement policy (Policy 4-01) identifies that Police patrol vehicles shall be reviewed for replacement every 4-years or 85,000 miles. Each of the six patrol cars requesting to be replaced has exceeded the identified criteria for replacement. All six of the vehicles requested for replacement are now 7-years old and the current mileage ranges from 91,000 to 105,000. The city’s Police cars serve a critical function under emergency conditions and as a result, the wear on these vehicles is significantly more rigorous than under normal driving conditions. For many years Palo Alto, like the majority of public safety agencies, has purchased Ford Crown Victoria vehicles for police cars. Beginning in 2013, Ford is no longer building the police vehicles so a new model needed to be identified. Representatives from the Police and Public Works departments created a vehicle replacement team that completed an extensive evaluation of all possible options to replace the existing vehicles. The decision has been made to use the Chevrolet Caprice as the new police cars. The FRC determined that there are no alternatives to outright replacement of these Police cars. They are each used on-a-continuous daily basis, they are specifically outfitted for emergency response, and there are no similar, underutilized vehicles that would be appropriate to use as replacements for these vehicles. Bidding and Selection Process A Request for Quotation (RFQ) 151539 for six Chevrolet Caprice vehicles was sent to three specialty vendors on August 14, 2013 as well as posted on the city’s purchasing web page. There are specific vendor limitations on which companies are able to submit bids because of the amount of specialty equipment and vehicle outfitting needed on Police patrol cars. Bids were received from one qualified vendor on August 27, 2013. Staff has reviewed the bids submitted and recommends that Priority One Public Safety Equipment be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff has checked references supplied by the vendor for previous contracts and has found no significant complaints. This vendor is located locally and has experience in building police cars for many of the surrounding agencies in the bay area. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Resource Impact Funds for these vehicles are identified in the current year’s Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement CIP (VR-14000) Policy Implications Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing policy. Purchase of these vehicles supports Comprehensive Plan by removing older, more polluting vehicles from the roadways and replacing them with newer more efficient ones. Environmental Review The vehicles being supplied are in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and regulations. Accordingly, this purchase is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the CEQA guidelines (Section 15061). City of Palo Alto (ID # 4075) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Mitchell Park Construction Contract Bi-Monthly Report Title: Submittal of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Bi-Monthly Construction Contract Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation and Draft Motion: Draft Motion: I move that Council: 1)Accept this update on the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPL&CC) construction project; and 2)Direct staff to continue to submit bi-monthly reports to Council and to take related actions which Council may direct. Executive Summary The MPL&CC construction is approximately 96%complete (based on expenditures to Flintco) and it is anticipated that the three-building complex will be open to the public in late 2013. The estimated opening time frame has been changed from our earlier estimate of spring 2013 to late 2013 due to delays caused by the contractor and their subcontractors, the necessity to fully correct every deficiency, and to insure that the buildings are of the highest quality.Even the “late 2013” estimate is optimistic, and recent developments make it less likely to be possible, as explained below. The percentage completion has increased from 88%to 96%since the last report. Because of the delays, errors,omissions, and unacceptably slow pace of construction, the City issued a Notice to Flintco on May 2, 2013 (Attachment F)that it intends to initiate default proceedings unless specified actions are completed by designated milestones. If initiated, these proceedings would remove Flintco and replace it with a new general contractor to complete the project. The number of subcontractor personnel on site and the pace of the City of Palo Alto Page 2 project have improved since the May 2 Notice. However,schedule slippages for completion of key mechanical and electrical components have occurred.The City and its contractors are attempting to adjust the work sequencing to avoid further project completion delays.Staff is monitoring compliance with the milestone dates and the pace of construction very closely and will report to Council frequently in the coming weeks. As a follow-up to the City’s May 2, 2013 letter, subsequent letters were also sent reiterating previous statements. The City’s June 17, 2013 letter is also attached (Attachment G). Costs have increased above the bid amount primarily due to the performance of the City’s contractors. To date, a total increase (Construction Contract Change Orders)of $3,781,522 has been approved by the City, or approximately 16%above the base construction contract amount.The bid amount was approximately 24% below the City Engineer’s estimate and Council has authorized a maximum increase of 20% above the base contract amount in change orders. Thus,the project remains below budget, despite the unforeseen costs. Background At 56,000 square feet, the MPL&CC is the City's largest construction project in four decades. Inside the state-of-the-art library building, teens, children, and those just wanting a quiet space, will all have their own dedicated areas.The two-building Community Center complex will contain an expansive community room, kitchen, teen center, cafe,computer room and game room.The complex will be the City's model for an eco-friendly facility with extensive green roofs, solar water heating, night sky water cooling, photovoltaic panels, stormwater infiltration, and natural daylight utilization all wired with a state-of-the-art data feedback and control system. On September 12, 2011,Council authorized an increase in change order authority and a ceiling for the MPL&CC construction contract from 10% to 20% to cover unanticipated construction costs. Council also directed staff to provide Council with a monthly report (subsequently modified to bi-monthly)on change orders with Flintco, the general contractor.Council also requested the City Attorney to provide additional confidential briefings regarding potential claims against other responsible parties. Additionally, Council also directed staff to report on project milestones in the bi-monthly reports. Discussion Construction Progress On June 4, 2012, Council requested information on construction progress and set-backs since the last report and milestones that staff expects will be reached by the next report. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Since the last bi-monthly report,which was submitted to Council on August 5, 2013,several major milestones have been completed.Testing and Balancing (TAB) of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)systems has commenced. Carpeting has been completed and much of the system furniture (staff desks and cabinets) has been installed. The terrazzo floor in the Library has been completed and the granite stairway is underway. Parking lot paving has been completed.The attached “Schedule Milestones” page in Attachment E has been revised to show the remaining key milestones. The main outstanding challenge is fixing problems and finishing work above the sloped, high ceilings so that the ceiling tiles can be installed and final clean-up can occur.A recent associated setback is the need to install an unanticipated sprinkler system above these ceilings. This new system was necessitated by finding that the wood ceiling panels did not meet fire retardant specifications.This contractor error was in addition to a series of deficiencies in the above- ceiling work, all of which have combined to delay finishing the ceilings and prevent working beneath them. Other deficiencies and slowness in finishing the raised pedestal floors on the terraces, electrical work,and plumbing work have made it increasingly unlikely that we will be able to move City staff into the buildings by the end of October, or open the buildings to the public by the end of the calendar year, as hoped. Staff is working hard to minimize these delays. All of these problems were detected by the City’s building inspectors or construction manager, Turner Construction,and the contractor is contractually required to correct them. The City will pursue recovery of these costs from the contractor, either by way of withholding payment or through separate action. Sub-standard work will not be accepted.However,these corrections cause delays in the work of the next subcontractor and some could cause a delay in a critical path item,thus further delaying the project. City staff is proactively working with the general contractor and City consultants to avoid delays while not compromising quality. In addition, the City contracted with Big D Builders to perform work on an “as needed” basis to complete specific components of the work that Flintco is unable or unwilling to do.The City plans to pass the Big D costs on to Flintco Pacific. The maximum amount of the contract is $240,000, which is below the threshold for Council approval. An action will be brought to Council for approval should it become necessary to increase this contract. Big D Builders is the construction firm that recently completed the Palo Alto Art Center renovations and their work on this project was done on time and under budget. Compounding problems, Flintco has recently undergone some significant organizational changes. The President of the company has been replaced and a portion of the Flintco organization has been sold. In addition, several of the contractor’s key sub-contractors have City of Palo Alto Page 4 also gone out of business. The City has and will continue to meet with Flintco’s new President to discuss performance issues. The contract contains a liquidated damage provision for each day of contractor delay and the City expects to invoke this provision once the job is finally completed. Approved Construction Contract Change Orders To date, 50 change orders have been approved for a total amount of $3,781,522. This amount constitutes approximately 16%of the base construction contract amount. Since the last bi- monthly report, there have been two additional change orders issued. Council has authorized change orders up to 20% of the base contract amount;leaving about 4%remaining. A breakdown of the change orders and the key components of each are contained in Table 1 listed below with a brief description of each. Please recognize that change orders can include reductions and credits as well as new costs. You will see this, for example, reflected in Change Order #5 in Table 1 below. The shaded change orders have been issued since the last bi- monthly report. Table 1 Change Order Amount Change Order Summary 1 $41,725 Eight extra work items including the pruning of trees, clean- up of the old building, and removing conduit found during site clearing and grading. 2 $33,102 Four extra work items including the rerouting of a storm drain around tree roots and the addition of a new manhole that the drawings showed being present but wasn’t. 3 $215,501 10 extra work items including an adjustment needed due to tree root interference, an upgrade in wall insulation capability, and design coordination needed for steel installation. 4 $242,754 11 extra work items including the installation of dowels at additional locations, the installation of thicker glass railings to increase stability, increased gas transmission line coordination, and extra concrete water protection. 5 $4,436 24 extra work items including an extra light fixture cost, fire safety drawing coordination, and a variety of additional required supplies totaling $70,536 minus credit given for three of the 24 work items including spare fixtures no longer required and reimbursed City of Palo Alto dump fees totaling $66,100. City of Palo Alto Page 5 6 $25,123 Seven extra work items including additional gas main protection, curb strengthening, and deck support for the Building A green roof. 7 $74,304 19 extra work items including HVAC driven floor adjustments, electrical system adjustments, data cable rerouting, and a new load break cabinet totaling $109,965 minus credit given for two of the 19 work items including stones for the Arch provided by the artist and value engineering totaling $35,661. 8 $385,251 10 extra work items including additional fill, perforated metal panel ceiling work, various waterproofing, and conduit. 9 $195,706 18 extra work items including multiple curb installations, a basketball court slab, and an art sculpture foundation. 10 $78,514 13 extra work items including a Flintco field staff supplement, waterproofing, plumbing and electrical system alterations, and tree protection measures totaling $79,226 minus credit given for one of the 13 work items identified as plumbing fixture changes totaling $712. 11 $224,662 14 extra work items including beam strengthening, interior & exterior roof tank pipe supports, electric vehicle chargers, load break cabinet bollards, and additional steel. 12 $20,347 Seven extra work items including A/V work, electrical changes, and a roof access ladder. 13 $80,721 13 extra work items including metal stud framing, light fixtures, and miscellaneous electrical work. 14 $54,028 Five extra work items including a thickened roof edge, equipment curbs, a Building A ramp, signage support, and a book drop. 15 $176,586 12 extra work items including additional lighting, electrical work, soil for silva cells & planting areas, and HVAC work. 16 $53,256 Four extra work items including traffic signal modifications, construction recovery costs, and a tube steel base plate modification. 17 $278,710 Five extra work items including tube steel and supplemental exterior wall steel revisions. City of Palo Alto Page 6 18 $76,823 Seven extra work items including concrete floor sealer, wall short panels, leakage testing, pipe supports,and permit processing. 19 $36,526 Eight extra work items including building security, lighting, and electrical work. 20 $20,832 Seven extra work items including lighting and electrical work. 21 $122,071 Six extra work items including roof curbs, studs, and roof crickets. 22 $16,839 Six extra work items including duct, gutter, and ceiling work. 23 $122,472 Nine extra work items include occupancy changes, tube steel and the related work, and artwork preparation totaling $123,104 minus credit given for one of the nine work items for roof parapets, flashing, and crickets totaling $632. 24 $46,654 Three extra work items including night sky cooling tank repair work and parapet and roof details. 25 -$37,158 20 extra work items including glass changes and book drop and elevator improvements totaling $44,790 minus credit given for five of the 20 work items including deleted A/V work, geotextile fabric work, and storm drain/gas line cost savings totaling $81,948. 26 $28,056 Five extra work items including roof substrate revisions and curtain wall supports totaling $31,465 minus credit given for one of the five work items related to roof drain plumbing totaling $3,409. 27 $49,470 Eight extra work items including exhaust fan work, additional channels, and roof work. 28 $24,225 Nine extra work items including expansion joint work, kitchen equipment wiring, and roof and plumbing work. 29 $94,174 14 extra work items including exterior wall water proofing, bathroom work, plumbing work, and electrical work totaling $101,983 minus credit given for two of the 14 work items including a WAP reduction and book drop work totaling $7,809. 30 $32,331 Eight extra work items including power for signage and other outdoor expenditures. City of Palo Alto Page 7 31 $23,886 Eight extra work items including perimeter wall work, elevator shaft power and lighting, and electrical work. 32 $102,472 Five extra work items including demolition,reconstruction, and fire prevention work. 33 $73,172 10 extra work items including data, raised floor, electrical, and shelving work. 34 $37,090 Five extra work items including door, fire prevention, and signage work. 35 $59,002 10 extra work items including window shade, door, flooring, and electrical work. 36 $62,559 Seven extra work items including tile, landscaping, and electrical work. 37 $12, 446 Six extra work items including electrical and plumbing work. 38 $27,673 Six extra work items including basketball equipment, signage, and wall work totaling $27,789 minus credit given for one of the six work items for tree planting work adjustments totaling $116. 39 $48,234 Nine extra work items including a trash & bike enclosure, art backing, signage work, and framing work. 40 $112,459 10 extra items including hand excavation work, EV work, window work, and electrical work totaling $115,573 minus credit given for two of the 10 work items for lighting adjustments totaling $3,114. 41 $33,582 12 extra work items including column work, wall work, and electrical work totaling $35,574 minus credit given for two of the 12 work items for plumbing and ceiling adjustments totaling $1,992. 42 $73,796 15 extra work items including fencing and gate installation, AV work, and curbing totaling $88,558 minus credit given for two of the 15 work items for driveway and waterproofing adjustments totaling $14,762. 43 $47,849 12 extra work items including water system work, wood slat steel supports, and trellis work totaling $52,281 minus credit given for three of the 12 work items for granite bollards and accent stone, drain piping, and a system permit set totaling $4,432. 44 $30,299 Six extra work items including flooring work and curb work. City of Palo Alto Page 8 45 $83,960 Nine extra work items including flooring work, lighting work, ventilation work, kitchen work for ADA purposes, and metal planters. 46 $31,788 15 extra work items including landscaping work, plumbing work, steel work, electrical work, and ventilation work totaling $34,709 minus credit given for one of the 15 work items for flooring work totaling $2,921. 47 $29,389 20 extra work items including stonework, telecom cabling, exhaust fan work, painting, electrical work, and green roof work. 48 $16,811 Four extra work items including AC work, counter work, and electrical work. 49 $17,466 Nine extra work items including parking lot work, a drinking fountain, and electrical work. 50 $39,548 Eight extra work items including duct work, paving and concrete work, and electrical work. TOTAL $3,781,522 TOTAL CO’s 1-50 *For further information about the new change orders see the attached corresponding Contract Change Order Scopes of Work (Attachment A). Change order requests submitted by the contractor are typically bundled together and summarized in one single change order. On September 12, 2011,Council further directed staff to submit any change order request which exceeds $85,000 to Council for approval. Staff is interpreting this to mean an individual change order line item more than $85,000. One may note that over the course of a period of time,a number of on-site decisions are made, in order to not slow the project down, which can add up to more than $85,000 when compiled later. Bundled Change Order 11, for example, totals $224,662, but includes a series of change orders, none of which exceeds $85,000. Council has approved one change order to date (Change Order # 17)which contained line items exceeding $85,000. Related Council Directives for the Bi-Monthly Report Council further directed that staff report to Council on oversight activities. Therefore, attached is the most recent Library Bond Oversight Committee agenda (Attachment B)and Library Bond Oversight Committee minutes (Attachment C). On October 17, 2011, Council requested information on two other related topics and these are addressed below. City of Palo Alto Page 9 1)Expenditures for New Consultants The City Attorney’s Office has hired the following consultants to assist with the review of construction costs requested by Council. The table below shows the amount encumbered and the amount spent to date. Contract Amount Amount Expended ZFA Structural Engineers $25,000 $19,581 Legal Counsel (Jarvis Fay)$75,000 $74,969 Reidinger Consulting (Scheduling)$85,000 $72,327 Legal Counsel (Otis & Iriki)$455,000 $440,113 Legal Counsel (Ginn & Crosby, LLP)$35,000 $18,871 David Neagley $275,000 $1,624 Project Controls & Forensics $100,000 $0 2)Outstanding Change Orders Proposed by the Construction Contractor (Flintco) In addition to knowing the amount of the change orders approved to date by the City (above), Council members asked the value of the outstanding change orders proposed by Flintco but not yet approved or rejected. This information is contained in Attachment D. The first graph in Attachment D shows both Potential Change Orders (PCOs), which is an internal list compiled by the City’s construction manager of certain work items that could eventually result in extra work claims,and actual Change Order Requests (CORs),a subset of the PCOs, which have been submitted by Flintco to date. The latest bi-monthly report concerning all Library Projects (“Palo Alto Library Projects”) is included as Attachment E. Resource Impact There are no resource impacts associated with providing the bi-monthly reports to Council. The approved change orders are within the Capital Improvement Program Project (CIP)Budget PE- 09006 for the MPL&CC project. Policy Implications There are no policy implications in providing the bi-monthly reports to Council. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Environmental Review Providing bi-monthly reports on this topic to Council does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: ·A -MPL COs # 49-50 (PDF) ·B -LBOC Agenda_10-15-2013(PDF) ·C -LBOC Minutes_4-23-2013 (PDF) ·D -MPL Financial Charts_8-30-2013 (PDF) ·E -PAL Bi-Monthly Report July-August 2013 (PDF) ·F -City Notice to Flintco_5-2-2013 (PDF) ·G -City Follow-up Letter to Flintco_6-17-2013 (PDF) Agenda Library Bond Oversight Committee Quarterly Meeting Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7th Floor Conference Room 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Committee Members: Sandra Hirsh (Chair), Alice Smith (Vice-Chair), John Melton, Dena Mossar, James Schmidt Staff: Phil Bobel (Public Works), Brad Eggleston (Public Works), Debra Jacobs (Public Works), Richard Hackmann (Public Works), Monique leConge (Library), Joe Saccio (Administrative Services), Tarun Narayan (Administrative Services), Houman Boussina (City Auditor’s Office), Cara Silver (City Attorney’s Office) Others: ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 9, 2013 AGENDA REVIEW & REVISIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. DISCUSSION – Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Update a. Construction Progress and Schedule 2. DISCUSSION - Main Library Update a. Construction Progress and Schedule NEW BUSINESS 3. DISCUSSION - Draft Financial Report Summary from Administrative Services a. Expenditures to Date – Summary Spreadsheet 4. ACTION - Approval of Quarterly Report to Finance Committee 5. Next Steps a. Next Meeting – Tuesday, January 28, 2014 or another date? 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. Sign language interpreters will be provided upon request with 72 hours in advance notice. Meeting materials will be provided at the meeting. Visit www.cityofpaloalto.org or call (650) 617-3174 for more information. 1 Minutes Library Bond Oversight Committee Quarterly Meeting Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7th Floor Conference Room 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Committee Members Present: Sandra Hirsh (Chair), Alice Smith (Vice-Chair), John Melton, Dena Mossar Committee Members Absent: James Schmidt Staff: Phil Bobel (Public Works), Brad Eggleston (Public Works), Debra Jacobs (Public Works), Richard Hackmann (Public Works), Monique leConge (Library), Joe Saccio (Administrative Services), Tarun Narayan (Administrative Services), Jim Pelletier (City Auditor’s Office), Cara Silver (City Attorney’s Office) Others: ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 5, 2013  Approved as amended 4-0 o Amendment: fix typos AGENDA REVIEW & REVISIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. DISCUSSION – Construction Progress a. Mitchell Park Library & Community Center  Melton recommended going back and recalculating the percent complete  Pellentir asked to make sure that Change Orders (CO’s) are accounted for in the percent complete figure  Hackmann said staff has been working on refining the percent complete figure  Eggleston and Jacobs explained staff is continually working through issues related to the percent complete figure with Turner and Flintco  Mossar said that it is the LBOC’s job to ensure that there is enough money to complete the project and that the LBOC needs to know all outstanding 2 charges related to the project to determine the City’s vulnerability  Smith then asked for an explanation of the worst case scenario  Eggleston suggested that staff bring back more information on this at the next meeting  Smith encouraged far greater attorney involvement in all meetings between staff and Turner and/or Flintco  Melton encouraged staff to email information to the LBOC if completed earlier than the next meeting b. Temporary Main Library  Eggleston said that the Temporary Main Library bookshelves have arrived, the shelving has been installed, the office furniture and check out machines are in place, and Main will close on April 30th with Temporary Main opening May 3rd  leConge said that Temporary Main is very small, has very little shelving, reduced hours, and is meant to be an in-and-out or pick-up library 2. DISCUSSION – Design Progress a. Main Library  Eggleston said the design is done and the permits are ready  Eggleston said the project went out to bid in early March, bids were opened April 9th, and of the five pre-qualified contractors four submitted bids  Eggleston said the engineers estimate was $15.9 M and one bid was well below that and most bids were $2-3 M above that  Eggleston said that the low bidder did not submit to the City the additional, necessary paperwork and withdrew their bid  Eggleston said the City is working with the City Attorney’s Office on whether or not they can cash in their bid bond  Eggleston said the low bid now is now approximately $17.7 M with SJ Amoroso Construction Company  Eggleston said SJ Amoroso is a union contractor that does a lot of public sector work  Eggleston said the buffer between the costs and the bonds is narrowing but for reasons such as a new roof at the Main Library the City can dip into the infrastructure reserve  Mossar said that the extra infrastructure projects (like roofing at Downtown Library) may put the total library projects budget over the amount approved by the voters. We should know in advance how this would be handled.  Eggleston added that staff will recommend the City accept the SJ Amoroso bid and not re-bid the project o leConge agreed with this  leConge said the Palo Alto Library Foundation has achieved their $4 M fundraising goal 3 NEW BUSINESS 3. DISCUSSION - Update on Main Library Project a. Bidding and Construction Schedule  See 2A notes b. Preparation of Bond Issuance  Narayan gave an update on the status of the bond issuance  Narayan said staff will ask Council on May 6th for the authority to issue the remainder of the bonds  Narayan said if Council approves that request the bonds will go to market in June with the intent to close the bond issuance by the end of June 4. DISCUSSION - Draft Financial Report Summary from Administrative Services a. Expenditures to Date – Summary Spreadsheet  Narayan said there have been $560,000 in expenses since the last report  Narayan explained the additional detail he added to the financial report since the last meeting  Eggleston again explained additional expenses to the Main Library and that those can come from the General Fund if necessary because they were not included in the bond estimate  Pelletier said to update the figure for the next meeting on the Main Library and the reasons for the budget increases  Pelletier asked why pages five to 16 of the financial report were included o Narayan said those pages are provided because the LBOC asked for that level of detail on expenditures  Pelletier asked about the difference between the contract amount and what has been paid 5. ACTION - Approval of Quarterly Report to Finance Committee  Approved as amended 4-0 (moved by Mossar, seconded by Melton) o Amendment: the LBOC Chair will add a paragraph to the Finance Committee transmittal letter highlighting LBOC concerns about future costs o Smith also requested that language be added stating that the LBOC financial reports are not independently audited 6. Next Steps a. Next Meeting – Tuesday, July 23, 2013 or another date?  The July 23, 2013 meeting was moved to July 9, 2013 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 Co s t Percent Completion Mitchell Park Library Approved Change Orders (CO's) and Outstanding Potential Change Orders (PCO's) Approved CO's Outstanding PCO's Flintco COR's 10% Contingency 20% Contingency 4.19 (DT) 5.21 (DT) 4 (DT) $46.39 (Mitchell) $49.04 (Mitchell) $50 (Mitchell) $22.39 (Main) $20.1 (Main) $18 (Main) 1.35 (Other) 1.65 (Other) 4 (Other) Cu r r e n t P r o j e c t i o n En g i n e e r ' s E s t i m a t e Bo n d E l e c t i o n Es t i m a t e Dollars (Millions) Library Bond Fund Utilization Projections (August 2013) Mitchell Park Library Main Library Temporary Libraries & Bond Costs $76M $74.32M $76M $29.24 (Flintco) $6.62 (Turner) $6.02 (Group 4) $4.51 (Other) Palo Alto Library Projects Bi-Monthly Progress Report July/August 2013 Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Main Library Mitchell Park Main Entry Table of Contents I. Mitchell Park Library & Community Center  Status Report  Management Summary  Schedule Milestones II. Main Library  Status Report III. Financial Summary Mitchell Park Library & Community Center 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto The new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is a highly sustainable joint-use facility that will be a vibrant destination for civic, cultural, social, educational, and recreational activities. The new center, which will replace undersized and aged facilities, is made possible through Measure N and the strong partnership between the city and the community. During construction, temporary library and teen center facilities are available at the Cubberley Community Center. WEB CAM LINK: http://173.164.239.206/view/viewer_index.shtml July/August 2013 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION BEGAN: September 2010 ANTICIPATED OPENING: Late 2013 PROJECT TEAM OWNER: City of Palo Alto Public Works ARCHITECT: Group 4 Architecture GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Flintco Pacific, Inc. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: Turner Construction Company FOR MORE INFORMATION www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/pro jects/facilities/library/default.asp KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS  Carpeting and terrazzo flooring installation completed  Staff’s system furniture installation commenced  Parking lot paving completed  HVAC testing & balancing commenced UPCOMING ACTIVITIES  Finish ceiling tiles  Install furniture  Obtain temporary certificate of occupancy Basketball court is finished and NBA star Jeremy Lin and Mayor Scharff initiate it! Library Roofing Started July/August 2013 Mitchell Park Library Green Wall Photos Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Management Summary July/August 2013 Noteworthy Accomplishments  Carpeting and terrazzo flooring installation completed  Staff’s system furniture installation commenced  Parking lot paving completed  HVAC testing & balancing commenced Current Project Challenges:  Processing the high volume of change order requests and requests for information from contractor  The pace of work needs to pick up with more manpower assigned to critical path activities  Disputes over non-compliant work needs resolution Safety  Public Safety is a priority outside the fence. No incidents reported to date. Quality Control  City and Special Inspection Work: o Work needs to be ready when inspection is requested o Work should pass inspection the first time  Quality Control Observation Reports: o Open reports for above ceiling and under floor work need to be signed off o Remedial sliding glass doors work is in progress Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Schedule Milestones July/August 2013 Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Completion Plan Building Interior (Project Wide) City Target Date Begin Casework Installation 10/7 Interior Painting 10/11 Begin Functional Performance Testing 10/11 Elevator Final Inspection 10/14 Staff Moves In (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy)* 11/1 Open To Public (Certificate of Occupancy) Late 2013 Building Exterior (Project Wide) City Target Date Exterior Stone 10/11 Exterior Painting 10/18 *Inspections completed and a small number of punch list items remain. All fire safety requirements are met. Main Library 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto Exterior View July/August 2013 2011 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION BEGAN: June 2013 ANTICIPATED OPENING: Late 2014 PROJECT TEAM OWNER: City of Palo Alto Public Works ARCHITECT: Group 4 Architecture CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: Nova Partners FOR MORE INFORMATION www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/pro jects/facilities/library/default.asp KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS  Demolition work completed including asbestos abatement  Relocated three existing trees UPCOMING ACTIVITIES  Complete site utility installation  Complete structural upgrades  Commence geo-thermal wells  Ghjghjk’;k’;  The Palo Alto Main Library renovation and addition is in the final phase of design “Better Libraries for Palo Alto” projects, funded by the passage of Measure N by voters in 2008. The project incorporates upgrades to the historic building’s structural, electrical and mechanical systems while preserving the integrity of architect Edwards Durrell Stone’s iconic design. The new addition includes a program room and additional restrooms to extend the services of this heavily-used branch. The project targets LEED certification. MEASURE N ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE PROJECTED RESERVES 09010 Cubberley Temporary Library 645,000 619,687 25,313 09005 Downtown Library 4,000,000 5,212,000 4,191,782 1,020,218 09006 Mitchell Park Library & C.C.50,000,000 49,043,000 46,394,620 2,648,380 11000 Main Library 18,000,000 20,100,000 22,392,578 -2,292,578 11012 Art Center Temporary Library 500,000 536,509 -36,509 Bonding and Financing Costs 4,000,000 500,000 185,320 314,680 BONDED AMOUNT 76,000,000 76,000,000 74,320,496 1,679,504 Thru Aug 2013 PALO ALTO LIBRARIES BOND MEASURE N PROJECTS FINANCIAL SUMMARY BUDGET COSTS will take that into its consideration of Flintco's progress. The City is hopeful that the testing and inspection of the doors will permit these doors to be accepted, with the remaining doors to have all corrections completed and accepted by Flintco' s deadline of 9/30/2013. The City reserves its right to declare Flintco in default concerning its failure to install the sliding doors in accordance with its May 2, 2013 letter, and any additional time provided to Flintco to complete its work shall not be considered a waiver of the City's right to require compliance with all contract requirements. Please provide a copy of the purchase order for the replacement sliding doors, and indicate submittal and delivery dates. Please note that compliance with Title 24 (discussed below) is a further requirement for acceptance of these doors. 2. Title 24 -Flintco submitted a package of materials on 5/29113 targeted to demonstrate compliance with Title 24 for glazing. Our analysis finds that this package is nearly complete. Flintco is expected to submit all remaining required documentation as detailed in Attachment A. We understand that Flintco requires additional time in order to submit the documentation and we agree to provide additional time. Flintco has indicated it will submit all documentation required for Tide 24 glazing by 6/28/13. The City reserves its right to declare Flintco in default concerning its failure to provide all required Title 24 documentation in accordance with the May 2,2013 letter, and any additional time provided to Flintco to complete its work shall not be considered a waiver of the City's right to require. compliance with all contract requirements. 3. Replacement of Cabling in Buildings Band C -Not all ofthe work was completed by 5/30, but it is now complete. The City expects Flintco to complete all testing immediately. 4. ADA Corrections of walls -This work has been completed, except for the tiling. Flintco has indicated to the City that there is additional lead time required when ordering new tile. The City understands this and is agreeable to allow for extra time for the tiling work. Flintco has indicated it will complete all tiling by 7/19/13. 5. Waterproofing of Building A Shower Rooms -This work has been completed except for testing and tiling. As mentioned above, Flintco has indicated that there is additional lead time required for ordering new tile. The City understands this and is agreeable to allow for extra time for the tiling work and testing. Flintco has indicated it will complete all tiling and testing by 7/19/13. Category II and III Requirements With respect to Categories II and III in the City'S 5/2/13 letter, Flintco has provided a 6 week schedule and a one week staffing plan as a way of meeting the requirements for Plans to address these two areas of concerns. Flintco indicated that it would submit a new staffing plan each week. This has not occurred following the first week. The City expects Flintco to submit its staffing plan and results from the previous week as Flintco had agreed to do in response to the May 2,2013 letter. Page 2 of3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4013) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Reject Bids: Electrical Systems Upgrade at the Administration Building of the RWQCP Title: Rejections of Bids for the Administration Building Electrical Systems Upgrade Project at Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council reject all bids for the construction of the Administration Building Electrical Systems Upgrade Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (CIP WQ-80021). Executive Summary The Electrical Systems Upgrade project, which would provide emergency power and new electrical equipment for the Administration Building at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), was issued for bid, and two excessively high bids were received. The bids for the project should be rejected as the bid price of the project is not justifiable. The project will be evaluated for possible repackaging to attract more competitive bidding and to be more cost effective. Background On May 21, 2012, Council awarded a contract to DTN Engineers, Inc. (Staff Report #2761) to provide engineering services to design an electrical system to replace the existing system in the Administration Building of the RWQCP. The design has been completed. The plans and specifications were issued for bid on July 16, City of Palo Alto Page 2 2013. Discussion The project requires installation of high voltage electrical equipment. Industrial electrical contracting firms are most qualified to handle the project. A limited number of general contractors who have in-house electrical workers can also construct the project effectively. The bid documents attempted to attract the electrical contractors. However, none of the electrical contractors responded to the invitation for bid and only two general contractors submitted bids for the project. Staff contacted several electrical contractors who did not respond to the bid. All of the electrical contractors that staff contacted stated that the timing of the project was the reason for their decision not to respond. They explained that they were already committed to similar projects and did not have additional resources. The engineer’s estimate for the project is $1.5 million and is based on actual quotes from equipment manufacturers as well as historical labor cost for similar projects. The estimation method is traditional and widely used. The two bids are significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate. Staff believes that two major factors contributed to the cost difference. First, the lack of competition disadvantaged the project. Staff contacted other wastewater treatment facilities that have similar projects on-going and a comparison of the project costs confirmed that the bids on our project were high. The failure of the project to attract qualified electrical contractors is a major concern. If this project is to move forward, the RWQCP needs to find ways to attract more qualified bidders. It is possible that issuing the project for bid at a later date, when the electrical contractors are not as busy, would gain some potential bidders. Staff would need to maintain contact and communication with potential bidders to elicit interest in the project. Secondly, another factor of concern is related to specific requirements in the equipment specification and method of execution. In estimating the material costs, the consultant relied on manufacturers’ quotes. It appears that the quotes City of Palo Alto Page 3 did not account for the costs for certain specific requirements, which contributed to discrepancies in the material costs. The RWQCP would need to evaluate the cost benefits of some of the features and requirements. Normally, value engineering will not be performed on projects of this size. However, in this case, the project may benefit from value engineering in order to reduce cost. Project Description The work to be performed under the project is to relocate and install an existing generator, furnish and construct an electrical building above the flood level, furnish and install a new electrical load center, step-down transformer, motor control center (MCC), and provide a control system. Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number RWQCP Administration Building Systems Upgrade Project IFB #151059 Proposed Length of Project 13 months Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 21 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 2 Total Days to Respond to Bid 35 Pre-Bid Meeting Yes Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 11 Number of *Bids Received: 2 Base Bid Price Range From a low of $2,578,000 to a high of $2,814,000. *Bid summary provided in Attachment A. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted in accordance with the award criteria in the Invitation for Bid (IFB), and recommends that Council reject all bids. Staff will City of Palo Alto Page 4 evaluate how to repackage the project to attract more bidders and perform value engineering to reduce costs. If the project can be constructed in a cost effective manner, staff will return to Council for funding to redesign/repackage the project for rebid. Resource Impact Funds for the project are budgeted in the Wastewater Treatment Fund, Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021. Policy Implications Recommendation on this project does not represent a change in existing City policies. Environmental Review The recommended action is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, (a Class 3 exemption) which involves construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Attachments:  Attachment A: Bid Summary (PDF) Attachment A Bid Summary Administration Building Systems Upgrade Project IFB 151059 Engineer’s Estimate Anderson Pacific Engr. Blocka Construction Mobilization $35,000 $100,000 $100,000 Demobilization $20,000 $10,000 $20,000 Furnish & install MCC L $355,000 $500,000 $600,000 Furnish & install prefab building $170,000 $480,000 $500,000 Furnish & install LC 10 $170,000 $280,000 $300,000 Furnish & install 15 KV system $116,000 $300,000 $300,000 Furnish & install control system $96,000 $300,000 $300,000 Switch over operation $21,000 $70,000 $50,000 Differing site conditions $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Transport & install existing generator $5,000 $8,000 $5,000 All other work $470,000 $480,000 $589,000 Total $1,508,000 $2,578,000 $2,814,000 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3947) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: SAP Maintenance Contract Extension Title: Approval of a Three Year SAP Software Maintenance Contract in the Amount of $258,260.66 per year, Not To Exceed $774,781.98 for the Support and Maintenance of SAP, Including Industry-Specific Solution for Utilities (IS- U), SAP Enterprise Central Component (ECC 6.0), Customer Relationship Management System (CRM), Business Intelligence System (BI), Utilities Customer Electronic Services (UCES), and Business Software, Inc. (BSI) U.S. Payroll Tax From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council: Motion: Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached purchase order, extending for three years the software maintenance schedule (SAP Enterprise Support Schedule.pdf) with SAP Public Services Inc. in the amount not to exceed $774,781.98. The contract will be for calendar years 2013 to 2015. BACKGROUND The City’s history with SAP began in 2002, when the City selected SAP as its preferred vendor for an Enterprise Resource Planning system. The purpose was integrating various business processes within the City, which enabled Staff to move in the direction of Electronic Government. The SAP system has been running since 2003, supporting Accounting, Finance, Purchasing, Project Management, Plant Maintenance, Budgeting, Payroll, Human Resource Management, and Service Order Management. In 2009, the City completed a major upgrade and replaced the former utility billing system (Banner) with the implementation of the SAP Industry Solution Utilities (IS-U) module, Customer City of Palo Alto Page 2 Relationship Management, Utilities Customer Electronic Services (also known as My Utilities Account customer portal), and Business Intelligence systems. By supporting the critical business processes in Finance, Procurement, HR, and Utilities’ Meter Read – Billing – Payment - Collection, SAP has become an integral part of the City’s business continuity. Examples of the value generated by SAP include:  Manages and maintains a City budget of over half billion dollars  Issues 11,000 A/P checks, processes 2,200 purchases documents, and issues 36,000 payroll checks each year  Generates 370,000 utilities invoices and collects approx. $220M for 30,500 utilities accounts  Currently, 14,000 active customers are registered to use “My Utilities Account” for e-bills and online payments  Provides concise business information to support 38,000 incoming calls into the Utilities Customer Service Center  Interfaces with City Business Partners such as Wells Fargo, Check Free, JP Morgan (procurement card services), Green Waste (refuse), Hartford, and ICMA as well as to non-SAP City systems The original contract with SAP was signed in July 2002. In July 2007, a new five-year contact was entered into, which expired on December 31, 2012. We are requesting approval of a contract with SAP, which has provided services on an on-going basis, though the contract term has expired because of an oversight due to staff turnover in the SAP manager position. Although the contract extension was not processed in a timely manner, SAP has agreed to continue maintenance support. Recent process improvements in the IT department have been put in place to avoid similar lapses in the future DISCUSSION SAP is a highly complex system with processes integrated between various modules. SAP requires a high degree of specialized expertise to provide effective ongoing maintenance and support. The current SAP contract encompasses basic SAP maintenance and support of standard software. This includes, programming defect corrections (i.e. Service Packs), functionality upgrades, and legally mandated enhancements (i.e. HR/Payroll). City of Palo Alto Page 3 The extension of the SAP maintenance contract comes at a time when Staff is conducting an assessment of our current SAP environment, business processes, support resources needs, and developing a strategic plan for the Enterprise Resource Planning systems. The assessment is one of the approved FY 2014 projects. Until the full assessment report and Enterprise Resource Planning strategic plan is ready, staff recommends extending the contract with SAP for four years to maintain current maintenance and support levels. As in previous contracts, there is an early termination clause if required. RESOURCE IMPACT With the new on-going Information Technology funding structure, funds for this project will come from the Technology Internal Service Fund. Funds for this contract are available in the current 2014 budget. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Approval of these contracts is consistent with current City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: SAP Enterpirse Support Schedule (PDF)  SAP Software Maintenance PO# C14151181 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4032) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown Development CAP RFP Award Title: Approval of Contract for the Downtown Development CAP to Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners in the Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners (Attachment A) in the amount of $200,000 for the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 project. Background In 1986, the City of Palo Alto conducted a Downtown Study, which examined parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown area. As a result of the Study a downtown development cap policy (Downtown Development Cap) was adopted. This policy restricted future non- residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was in existence or approved in the CD area as of May 1986 (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.040 and Comprehensive Plan Program L-8). The 1986 study requires that City Staff monitor and submit an annual report to the City Council regarding development activity, vacancy rates and commercial lease rates in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations. The most recent City Council report, released on March 11, 2013, provided information relating to the 2011-12 time period. This report showed that the downtown area had fully recovered from the recession and that only 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains available (as of the end of 2012) before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet would be reached. Approximately 30,000 square feet of non-residential development has been approved since that time, such that the evaluation milestone has now been reached. The City Council, on November 5, 2012, instructed staff to develop a scope of work for this evaluation and for the PTC to review and provide input on the scope of work prior to a Request for Proposals (RFP) being released. The Scope of Work was reviewed by the PTC on January 9, 2013. An informational report was sent to Council on March 18, 2013. City of Palo Alto Page 2 As previously described to City Council, the Downtown Development Cap study will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 will focus on data collection and projection analysis. The specific tasks identified for the Phase 1 scope of work include the following: Phase 1: Data Collection and Projections Analysis A. Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Documents The selected consultant for the project will review the 1986 Downtown Study report and related materials, as well as subsequent monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations, and any other relevant documents. B. Existing Conditions Evaluation The selected consultant will be responsible for evaluating existing traffic and parking conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas. Existing level of service studies should be conducted for key intersections and roadway segments. In addition, the selected consultant should evaluate existing visitor (hourly) and permit parking conditions in the Downtown and surrounding areas. C. Projected Growth Impact Analysis Using the existing conditions report and an economic growth demand analysis as the foundation, the selected consultant should evaluate scenarios for potential development, and future level of service (LOS) of key intersections and roadway segments based on projected growth. In addition, future commercial and nearby residential parking conditions should also be evaluated based on growth scenarios. The parking analysis should be completed for Downtown visitor and permit parking, as well as street parking and “intrusion” in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The projected traffic and parking conditions should be based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. The Phase 1 RFP is contained in Attachment B. Transportation, planning and economic consultant services are required to complete this study in a timely manner, as the work effort is substantial and well beyond staff’s work program capabilities. The study should also benefit from a consultant team’s knowledge of similar studies, issues, and solutions in other communities. As noted above, this proposed study has been broken down into two phases, and the attached RFP focuses on the first phase. Phase 2: Policy Analysis City of Palo Alto Page 3 Although not the subject of this RFP, an RFP for a second phase of this study will be released subsequent to the completion of Phase 1. This scope of work for this second phase has not yet been completed, however it is expected that the effort will require a consultant team to make planning and transportation policy recommendations using the “Phase 1” findings, a more detailed economic analysis and community input. Therefore, consultants submitting proposals in response to the subject, Phase 1 RFP, must be qualified to submit a proposal for Phase 2 work in the future. Discussion The City received five proposals in response to the RFP solicitation for the Downtown Development Cap Study- Phase 1 project. These five firms were invited to participate in interviews and one selected for award of the contract consistent with the RFP. This staff report provides information needed by Council for approval of a contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners. The solicitation and selection process is outlined below. Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Downtown Development Cap Study- Phase 1 Proposed Length of Contract: Six months (with additional six month renewal option) Total Days to Respond to RFP: 30 days Pre-proposal Meeting Date: April 30, 2013 Number of Proposals Received: Four Proposals Received from: Location (City, State) Selected for oral interview? Dyett & Bhatia San Francisco, CA Yes RBF Consulting Marina, CA Yes Hexagon San Jose, CA Yes TKJM Pleasanton, CA Yes The proposals were judged by the following criteria: City of Palo Alto Page 4  Team experience and resources;  Project manager experience;  Understanding of local community;  Ability to complete Phase 2, and  Cost The City released an (RFP) for the design of the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 on April 22, 2013. A pre-bidders teleconference was held on April 30, 2013 to help provide background regarding the projects. Four proposals were received in response to the RFP. An evaluation committee consisting of Planning and Transportation staff and a member of the Planning & Transportation Commission reviewed the proposals and participated in the interview process. The four firms were invited to participate in oral interviews held on July 18, 2013. Of the four consultant teams, the interview panel selected Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners for the project, in that they demonstrated their ability to conduct a thorough data collection and growth projection analysis, as well as an extensive public outreach process that is necessary for this phase of the project. Staff informed Dyett & Bhatia of the panel’s selection in early August. Preparation of the contract documents and confirmation of funding sources for the study was completed in late September. The contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners is for a total amount of $200,000. Timeline Immediately upon execution of a contract, staff will meet with the consultant to initiate the scope of work described in the attachments. Phase 1 of the project includes extensive public input and creation of a Downtown Stakeholders Task Force. In conjunction with staff, Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners will organize and lead meetings of the Downtown Stakeholders Task Force and community workshop meetings. It is expected that initial meetings will be focused on presentation of the existing conditions report and projected growth conditions analysis described above. Check-in meetings and hearings with the Planning and Transportation Commission, City Council and the community will be programed soon after project initiation. It is expected that Phase 1 will be completed in six months. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 5 Funding for the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 project is included in the Fiscal Year 2014 Operating Budget. The 2014 Adopted Operating Budget included $250,000 in the General Fund for this study and a downtown parking study. The timeline for the downtown parking study was accelerated, and that study was completed and in Fiscal Year 2013. As a result, the entire $250,000 is available for the Downtown Development Cap Study in Fiscal Year 2014. With a $200,000 cost for Phase 1 of the study, there is $50,000 remaining for the second phase of this study.No additional funds are needed at this time. Staff expects that costs for completing the policy analysis in Phase 2 would not exceed $50,000. Policy Implications The requirement to conduct this evaluation is specified in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Program L-8: Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square feet, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area. In addition, other policies could be impacted as a result of this evaluation. This includes policies related to parking, traffic and land use (zoning) in the Downtown area. The 1986 study impacted policies in the Comprehensive Plan and text within the zoning ordinance. It is expected that this evaluation could result in revisions to both documents as well. The 1986 Downtown Study included a 12-point Public Parking Program that is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Many of these measures have been implemented since the 1986 study, while some have not. For example, point #4 states the City should “discourage parking specifically in surrounding residential neighborhoods.” Although new parking garages have increased Downtown parking supply since 1986, little has been done to limit business employees from parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required in order for the Council to approve the consultant contract as data collection by itself will not have an environmental effect. Therefore this phase of the study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. All proposed policy changes, however, will need to be fully reviewed per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The exact type of review will not be determined until the policy changes are proposed and associated impacts are identified. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 6  Attachment A: Contract with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners (PDF)  Attachment B: Downtown Development Cap RFP (PDF) based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shali not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. 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, shali not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-I", entitl",d "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-I "). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be su bject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. OUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have su fficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpermitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and 2 ------------Professio1l8l-Servjce~,~-­ Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENr BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyelt& Bhatia\C14149978 CONlRACT DEV CAP.doc all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSUL TANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive tennination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) ofthe CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION to. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. II is understood and agreed that in perfonning the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experiel)ce of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to'any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 2. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The su bconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Nelson\Nygaard 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA. 94105 (415)284-1544 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 250 I Ninth Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA, 94710 (510) 845-9190 The Henne Group 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 812 San Francisco, CA. 94105 (415)348-1700 4 Profes$ionai ServIces Rev. Nov" 1.2011 S:IASDIPURCH\SOLTCITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERSIPLANNINO· CHRISlCONTRAC'!'SIDy.tt &. Bh6lia\C14149918 CON'IRACr DEV CAP,doc CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Rajeev Bhatia as the Principal-in-Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution ofthe Services and Sophie Martin as the project manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threatto the adequate or timely completion ofthe Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City's project manager is Steven Turner, Planning & Community Environment Department, Planning Advanced Planning Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650)329-2155. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "lndemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,201 J S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver. of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. IS.I. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. IS.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratil1gs of A-:Vll or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in fu II force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. IS.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution ofthisAgreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insllfance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice ofthe cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insllfance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days ofthe CONSULTANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensurill,g that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term ofthis Agreement. 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CON'fRACTS\Dyelt & Bhatia\C 14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnificatio\1 provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be . obligated for the ftill and total amount of any damage, injury, or "loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance ofthe Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19 .2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of . the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY; but only in the event ofa substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other .data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension ortermination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspens ion or termination; provided, however, ifthis Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination ofthis Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto _________________ l'osLOffice_Box_L0250, _____ _ 6 Professional Services Rev. Nov, 1,2011 S:\ASO\PURCH'SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNING " CHRIs\CONfRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc Palo A!to, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the perfonnance ofthis Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer 'or employee of CITY; this provision willbe interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions ., .. , of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. Ifthe Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that term is defined by the Regulations ofthe Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because ofthe race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. 7 Professional Serviees Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH'SOLIClTA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRTS\CONTRACTS\Dyelt & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REOUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONS~LTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, rccycling and disposal requirements ofthe City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shaH be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in ""attordlmce with the City's EnVironmental Purchasing Policy including' but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shaH provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verifY that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions ofthe Charter ofthe City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at anytime within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion ofthe fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonab Ie costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 8 Professional Services Rev, Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLIClTATlONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions ofthis Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part'of this Agreement .. , 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section l798.81.5(d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security ofthe system or in the security ofthe Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. II II II II II II II 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 9 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLlCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACfS\Dyell & Bhalia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS City Manager t~'ffl< B4va Relv Bha110l1 (Sep 17, 21)13) RajeevBhatia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Principal/President Senior Ass!. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "C-I ": EXHIBIT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURClfISOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING" CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc TASK 1: EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE 01<' SERVICES Project Start-up, Review oCPrior Downtown Study and Related Materials & Community Engagement Plan Ob}ecI;ve: Kick-off the planning project, conduct reconnaissance, and establish specific dales for key milestone.~ and initial outreach activities. I-A Review Baekground Material. Prior to the kickoff meeting with staff, CITY shall provide the CONSULTANT with salient plans, programs and studies pertaining to tile Cap Study. The CONSULTANT team shall review these reports, including: the 1986 Downtown Study report and related l11alerjals~ monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan poHcjes, zoning regulations, recent development proposals, and other documents. I-B Kickoff Meeting with CITY Stuff (Team). CONSULTANT shan meet with CITY for kickoff working session, which shall inylude three principal components: • Review scope of work, identify data sources, clarii)' roles and responsibilities, and establish communication protoeol, • Review community outreach program, key groups to outreaeh, and key project milestones. • Brainstorm and discuss key questions and issues related to the Downtown Cap Study, based on staff knowledge and experience, and consultant team review of background material (Ta,k A). • Finalized Schedule/Milestones: Provide a finalized schedule with dates for milestones following the kickoff meeting. \-C Finalized Community Engagement Plall (CONSULTANT). Develop a Community Engagement Plan detailing who shaJJ be engaged and when, along with engagement strategies, recognizing that Phase I ofllie Downtown Cap Study is an analysis rather than policy-making phase. Following staff review, the Engagement Pl.n shall be finalized. Meeliogs Products • Kick-Olr Meeting with CITY • Finalized Scope of Work and Schedule • Community Engagement Plan TASK 2: Existing Conditions & Trends Evaluation Objective: Evaluate existing parking and trajfic conditions, and development trends to provide a baseline of understandingfor other known Issues that wi/I need to be considered in the planning process. 2·A Prepare GIS· Dotabase. Dased on information from the CITY and other sources, prepare a GiS database. At minimum, this datobase shall include: Professional Smices Rev. NO\', 1,20 II s:\AsmPlJRCH\SOLlCll' ATIONS\CLJRRHNT BUY HR-CM FOLDERSWLANNING ~ CHRTS\ooNTRACrS\Dycu & Bhatia\c1414997B CONTRACT DF-V CAP,doc • Existing (on the ground) land use in the Planning Area. This shall be based on information from CITY, County Assessor's office, and focused fieldwork. • Development built since 1986 • Approved and proposed development, and publie improvement projects • Transfer of development rights • Buildings with historic designations • Roadway and parking infrastructure 2-B Evaluate Development Trends: Infomlation from secondary sources, and the GIS database, development trends in Downtown since 1986 shall be characterized. These shall include factors such as land use changes by square feet (omce, retail, residential, ete.) and number of establishments (such as restaurants and stores). Trends shall be portrayed quantitatively as well as spatially/visually based on GIS analysis, so they can be correlated with parking analysis. 2-C Parking Evaluation: CITY has gathered an extensive amount of Downtown parking data over the past few years. On-street occupancy data for the entire peripheral study area (bounded by Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Alma Street and PaloAlto Avenue) is available from spring 2011. Some of the surveys also include parking occupancy in off-street facilities, including a breakdown of visitor and permit parking. Parking turnover data is currently being collected by CITY for the same study area. CONSULTANT shall include a small budget for necessary and complementary field surveys but shall primarily rely on the already collected data from the most recent, complete counts. All relevant CITY collected data shall be provided in GIS (or comparable) and table format for preparation of a detailed parking inventory database and related maps of all public on-street spaces and off-street parking facilities located within the study area. CONSULTANT may utilize any other related GIS layers and supplement with aerial images and existing land use information. The database and maps shall include the number of spaces and be categorized based on, among other items, regulations, facility type, geography and permits. Parking utilization r~tes and patterns shall then be analyzed to assess the capacity for the existing supply to meet current demand. The analysis shall: • Evaluate system-wide demand as well as subgroups such as· public parking lots, garages, permit spaces, and on-street spaces by block. • Tabulate data by user groups (hourly visitor parking and permit parking) to understand behaviors and trends among particular population subsets. • Chart the dynanlics of the supply and demand relationship throughout the day and throughout the study area by the different facility types and by user groups. Since the existing occupied and vacant commercial square footage is available for Downtown, the peak parking occupancy can be linked to the square footage in order to develop a current "shared" parking ratio for the area. Some commercial sites with privately owned parking may need to be excluded from this exercise if there is no capacity/occupancy data available for those sites. This task shall also include an identification of Downtown development over the past 10 years and estimated impacts ofthat development and trends over that timeframe, including the application of parking exemptions for transfer of development rights and other code provisions. 3 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\A.SD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BiJYER~CM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CON1RACT DEV CAP.doc In addition, CONSULTANT shall identifY non-conforming buildings (from a use and/or parking standpoint) that have converted to higher intensity office uses over the past 5 years. A definition shall be developed ofthe parking "intrusion," "saturation," "deficit," or other term and how that is best applied to the study area and surrounding neighborhoods. 2-D Traffic Evaluation: CONSULTANT shall evaluate existing traffic and multi-modal circulation conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas, with a focus on assessing the overall level of access to and from Downtown land uses. Existing traffic level of service (LOS) analysis shall be conducted in close collaboration with CITY planning and transportation stafffor key intersections and roadway segments. This task shall include: o Observations of existing circulation conditions with a particular emphasis on: o Motor vehicle queuing and delay factors relating to parking access (i.e, traffic delay related to motOJ'ists circulating in search of available parking, as well as observed traffic patterns related to unique parking-related factors such as the locations of specific lots and/or parking intrusion into adjacent areas). o Multi-modal circulation conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit uses, particularly focusing on ; delay. factors. and/or other circulation constraints potentially affected by motor vchiole parking locations and motor vehicle delay/queuing factors. o Review of existing traffic, pedestrian and bicycle volume count data and collection of new data at key locations. CONSULTANT shall augment existing data with new AM & PM Peak Period (7-9 am and 4-6 pm) turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian volume counts at up to eight intersections. o Traffic operations assessment: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS at up to 15 study intersections. o Multi-modal circulation assessment: Assessment of bicycle, pedestrian & transit travel patterns, delay factors, and circulation constraints relevant to downtown access and internal circulation. 2-E Prepare Working Papers: The analysis above shall be compiled in either one report, or up to three working papers: o Land Use and Development Trends o Parking and Traffic Evaluation 2-F Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting: A kickoff/check-in meeting with the PTC shall bc held. The timing of this meeting shall be determined in consultation with CITY. If held after completion of the working papers in Task 2-E, the working papers shall be presented to the Plarrning and Transportation Commission, issues and implications discussed. 2-G Stakeholder Task Force: The working papers shall be presented to the Stakeholder Task Force for discussion. Key issues and implications shall be discussed and used to guide the analysis. The specific timing of the stakeholder presentation shall be decided at a check-in review with the Planning and Transportation Commission. 2-R Focus Groups: CONSULTANT shall conduct a series of focus groups with specific interests, such as the Downtown North, University South, and Professorville neighborhoods; the Downtown Business Improvement District; and the Chamber of Commerce's Downtown Parking Committee. 4 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlClT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bha!ia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc ",' '., ,. Meetings Products 0 Planning and TranspOltation 0 Working Papers or combined report on Commission Meeting # I Land Use & Development Trends, and 0 Stakeholder Task Force Meeting #1 Parking & Traffic Evaluation Focus Groups Meetings 0 Stakeholder Meetings Task Force 0 Meeting Summary Memorandum 0 Focus Groups Meetings Summary TASK 3: Growth Projeetions & Implications Objective: Based on development trend~, zoning capacity, and developmentfensibility testingJorecast growth 'prospecls for Downtown based 'on 'reinOvaf 6/ cap, to enable evaluation of implications of cap removal. Analyze traffic, parking, and (optional) urbanform implications. Present resulls 10 the community, taskforce, and decision-makers to get direction for Phase 2. Conduct Development "Capacity" Analysis. Based on Ihe GIS database, CONSULTANT shall calculate available unused zoning capacity. This shall be based on sites with potential to change in Ihe coming decade based on certain metrics (building inlensity, improvement to land value ratio, historical designation, use, elC.) Existing development at the opporlunity siles shall be compared against potential floor area limits, and amount of capacity available, TDR "sending" capacity and other parameters shall be oUllined. Given thaI existing parameters of the CITY'S Zoning Code (for example, all parking ground level or above is counled in the floor area ratio) may result in a variety of oulcomes, assumptions shall be made based on recenl development trends. 3-A Conduct Market and Dcvelopment Feasibility Analysis: CONSULTANT shall work to develop a set of development projections (5, 10, and potentially 20-years) that assume continued use of transfer of development rights and other existing provisions but removal of the development cap. The formulation of future development scenarios shall be based on a detailed analysis of development capacity and feasibility in the Downtown based on market and financial considerations. Specifically, CONSULTANT shall evaluate the development feasibility of increased in-fill densification, consistent with existing code, based on the economic fundamentals facing developers, property owners, and tenants. This shall include both an analysis of market demand and supply trends for the land uses and tenants seeking to and currently a Ilowed to locate Downtown as well as the development feasibility of various building prototypes (e.g. higher density residential, office, and vertical mixed use). The development feasibility analysis shall take into account both the amount and type of vacant and/or underutilized property and the likely buy-out costs associated wHh existing uses. Specifically, CONSULTANT shall utilize development cash-flow pro-forma models to assess the financial feasibility of new or redevelopment under a variety of circumstances related to product types, parcel sizes, existing uses, and market trends. This analysis shall feed into the formulation of realistic development scenarios and, in turn, inform study projections related to parking, traffic, and other impacts of interest to the CITY. 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1.2011 S:\t\SD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRJS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& Bhalia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP. doc 3-B Conduct Traffic Analysis: CONSULTANT shall evaluate future LOS of key intersections and roadway segments based on the projected growth scenarios. The projected traffic conditions shall be based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. This task shall include: • Traffic Model. Review of traffic volume forecasts contained in CITY citywide traffic model. Forecasted 2020 Baseline traffic volume forecast (if available) Forecasted 2035 Baseline volume forecast • Trip Generation & Trip Assignment Calibration. Rcview of underlying trip generation rates and trip distribution/assignment assumptions contained in the citywide traffic model. Since Downtown land uses typically generate a different rate of vehicle traffic (and parking demand) than non-Downtown uses, detailed calibration of the model-based trip generation forecast may be needed to accurately forecast Downtown traffic growth. In addition, this review shan assess the extent to which current parking policies affect the trip distribution and assignment pattern for motor vehicles (i.e, path of travel for motorists when arriving in Downtown). • Future-year Traffic Forecasts. Preparation of updated traffic-volume forecasts at study intersections based on anticipated land use changes and calibrated trip generation rates for Downtown land uses. This shan be based on up to three land use scenarios (Future Baseline and two alternate growth' scenarios). • Traffic Operations. Assessment of anticipated changes to AM and PM Peak Hour traffic LOS at study intersections based on potential increased growth: Year 2035 Future Baseline LOS (based on calibrated downtown trip rates) -this scenario would be based on continuation of current policies under the growth cap Year 2035 LOS with Alternate Growth Scenarios -CONSULT ANT shall evaluate up to two (2) alternate growth scenarios. 3-C Bicycle, Pedestrian & Tr ansit Circulation: Assessment of anticipated changes to AM & PM Peak Hour bicycle, pedestrian & transit circulation patterns based on forecasted growth and future-year traffic conditions. This shan include a qualitative assessment of potential constraints to bicycle, pedestrian and transit circulation, and net effect on downtown access, 'due to increased traffic volumes andlor parking-related factors. 3-D Conduct Parking Analysis: CONSULTANT shall utilize the growth projections developed by the Team to analyze the potential parking demand from new development and changes of use expected in Downtown. In similar studies, projections using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) parking rates overstate demand. This may demonstrate that these projections are unrealistic for a mixed-use downtown environment like Palo Alto. In particular, mixed-use areas such as Downtown offer the opportunity to share parking spaces between various uses, thereby reducing the total number of spaces required compared to the same uses in stand-alone developments. This is a primary benefit with the CITY's proactive approach to build and provide public and shared parking facilities. CONSULTANT can therefore develop detailed projections of future demand based on a full analysis of supply, user demand characteristics, CITY regulations, and other market influences, drawing upon Urban Land Institute (ULI) methodologies. 6 Professional Services Rev.Nov.l.20!! S:\ASD\PURCH'lSOUCIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhlltill\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc The parking projected shall be completed for the Downtown visitor and permit pal"king, as well as street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The projected parking conditions shall be based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. This task shall also include analysis of: • Estimated parking demand required by increased growth under each scenario and the likely impact of the demand on available parking in adjacent residential neighborhoods. • The likely impact of parking reductions based on the proximity of new development to Caltrain and other transit, bicycling and walking facilities, based on surveys of existing employee ridership for Downtown businesses and Stanford. 3-E Three-dimensional Computer Model and Growth Depiction: CONSULTANT shall prepare a three-dimensional computer model showing all buildings in the Downtown core area ("cereal box" style, rather than fully articulated buildings). Information on development sites, growth forecasts and prevailing height limits of 50 feet shaH be used to portray new development, to provide three- dimensional visual representation of (no cap) growth patterns. 3-F {;ooduct an Opeu House!CominunityWorkshop: Conduct a cornmurutyworkshop session, open to all community members, to present findings of the analysis. This could be conducted as a formal workshop or a drop-in open house. The objectives are: • IlduCille the public 011 Downtown development issues; • Describe methodology for the analysis; present findings from the existing conditions and growth impacts analysis; • Engage community members in a dialogue about their vision for Downtown and theirconcems and priorities; and • IdentifY key issues for Phase 2. 3-G Stakeholders Task Force Meeting #1: At the second meeting of the Stakeholders Task Force, CONSULTANT shall present the findings from subtasks A through D, as well as the input received from the community at the open houselworkshop. Input received at Ihis meeting shall be summarized in a memorandum and incorporated into the presentations to decision-makers (snbtasks H and I). 'The specific timing of the smkeholder presentation shall be decided .t a check-in review with the Planning and Transportation Commission. 3-H Planning and Transportation Commis..ioo Meeting: CONSULT ANT shall present the results of the development capacity analysis, feasibility analysis, and trafficlparking analysis at one meeting of the ]'Ianoing and Transportation Conunission, and solicit feedback and recommendations for presentation to the City Council. 3-1 City Council Meeting: CONSULT ANf shall present the findings of the Development Cap Study in one meetlng with the Cjty Council, focusing on analysis results, community input, and identification of key issues and broad policy considerations for Phase 2 of the effort. I Meetings I prodncts ... 7 Proressjomd Sc:rvicc5' Rey, Nov" 1, Z<Hl S ,\ASDIPURCII\SOLlCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FO/.DllRSIPLANNlNtl-CHRISlCONTRACTSIIJ)'C1l & Bhali,ICI ~ 149918 CONTRACT DEY CAl',doc • SUlkeholders Task Foree Meeting #2 • Downto\\.," Development Capaeity Anolysis • Open House/Community Workshop • Markel and Development Fea,ibility • Planning & Transporlation Commission Analysis M, .. ting #2 • Traffie and Parking Analyses • City Council Meeting • Stakeholders Task Force Meeting Sumrnory Memorandum • 3D Compo Ie, Model TASK 4: Sdrveys on Parking Habits and Employment Density Objective: This work has Ihree pr/lICipal componenl.,: • Sireel inlercepl interviews conducted within the downtown district (approximately 400 completes, survey length~5 minute.'; ,. , . ".' • A telephone survey of businesses located with a sample af buildings within the downtawn district (number af completes for this together with item 3 below ranging .from 200 to 350, dependent an number of businesses located within the District; see detailed diScussion later) • Afollow-up in-person interview conducted with businesses ijCONSULTANT were not able to weate or conduct via telephone (survey length 5 minutes) This ta.,k .,hoJlld start concurrently with Task 2. Power Point slyle summary report of findings afthe two surveys shall be prepared. 4-A Finalize Study Design: CONSULTANT ,hall meet with CITY to determine the final specifications of all phases of Ihe research. All phases of the research shall be conducted simullaneously, but may be conducted one aRer the other if necessary. 4-ll Street luwrcept: Prepare Sampling Plan and 5-Minute Survey Instrument. After thc initial planning meeting with the CITY, CONSULTANT shall prepare a sampling plan for the initial street intercept interviews. The sampling plan shall contain approximately four l2-hour Monday-Friday shifts (8 AM - B PM), with teams of two interviewers working each shii1.. CONSULTANT slaffshall help to design the survey instrument. It is estimated that this shalI take no more thall 5 minules for each interview to administer in the field. 4-C Street Intercept: Hire ontl Train Interviewen: CONSULTANTshal1 hire and train an interviewing corps c.pable of going to selected locations and conducting on-the-street interviews. All interviewers shall be trained specifically on procedUres as to how to approach potential respondents, and how best to engage them. 'Illey shall also be trained about the specific purpose of this project, as well as the specific questionnaire to be used for this study . .......................... ~-------------•............................• --~~~.~~.---•. -.......................................................................... - 8 Professional Serviws Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S;IASDIl'URCH\SOIJCITA T10NSlCURRENT UUYllR·CM FOJDERSII'IANNING • n1R\SICONTRACTSID)"U It Dh.IimC 14149978 CONTRACT DEV (,AP.doc 4-D Street Intercept: Conduet Interviews: Once CONSULTANT's interviewers have been hired and trained, a schedule shall be developed according to the sampling plan, and interviewers shall be sent to the chosen locations to conduct interviews. After each shift, interviewers shall bring the completed questionnaires back to CONSULTANT's offices, and the completed questionnaires shall be sorted and batched for data entry. A total of400 interviews shall be completed althe conclusion of this phase of the study. 4-D Street Intercept: Data Entry: After the questionnaires have been sorted and batched, they shall be key-entered using CONSULTANT's data entry system. Each questionnaire shall be completely entered TWICE by two different persons. In this way, mistakes that may be made by the first person shall be picked up and corrected by the second person. 4-E Street Intercept: Preparation of Final Dataset: After all questionnaires have been key-entered and verified, a final dataset and data map shall be prepared and delivered to the CITY in either EXCEL or SPSS. 4-F Street Intercept: Tabulation of Results, Conduct Statistical Analyses of Results, Prepare PowerPoint Summary Report of Findings, Present Findings: Once the dataset has been edited and cleaned, the results shall be tabulated into a banner cross-tabular report, and 'statistical analyses of the survey responses shall be conducted. A final PowerPointreport shall be prepared, and a presentation of results shall be made to the CITY. 4-G Business Study: Develop Sampling Plan and 5-Minute Survey Instrument: CONSULTANT shall meeting with CITY, to develop a random sampling plan of office buildings within the business district. Buildings in which the only commercial tenants are restaurants and retail tenants would not be sampled. The goal shall be to assess the number of workers in entire buildings in order to determine ratio of workers to building area with confidence The target number of interviews to complete shall depend on the CITY providing CONSULTANT with a reasonable estimate of the number of businesses in the district. CONSULTANT shall obtain this number from the CITY, and it is small enough, CONSULTANT may be able to complete as few as 200 interviews and have the results be accurate to within + 5% at the 95% level of confidence. If CONSULT ANT is not able to obtain a reasonable estimate from the CITY, or ifthe number of estimated businesses within the district is large enough (4,000 or more) CONSULTANT will need to complete between 350-370 interviews to achieve the same level of statistical significance. To assure that CONSULTANT is representing different types oftenants, buildings shall be classified into three size categories -small, medium, and large (the definition of which to be decided in this initial meeting), and a stratified sample shall be developed based on the approximate number of each type of building within the district. CONSULTANT shall design the survey instrument. It is estimated that this shall take no more than 5 minutes to administer in the field. 4-H Business Study: Purchasing and Loading of Telephone Sample: Based on the buildings that have been sampled, CONSULTANT shall purchase a telephone listing of all businesses located in these. CITY Does not expect that this shall be a complete listing, or that all businesses within each building shall be part of this sample. At minimum 70% of qualifYing businesses shall be contained in the sample. 9 Professional. Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERS\PLANNrNG -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Dyetl & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEY CA P,doc 4-1 Business Study: Hire and Train Interviewers: CONSULTANT shall hire and train an interviewing corps capable of conducting telephone interviews with business respondents. All interviewers shall be trained specifically on procedures as to how to best assure that respondents cooperate, and how best to engage them. They shall also be trained about the specific purpose of this project, as well as the specific questionnaire to be used for this study. 4-J Business Study: Conduet Telephone Interviews. Once CONSUL TANT's interviewers have been hired and trained, a schedule shall be developed so that interviews can be conducted during business hours Monday -Friday. Approximately 75% of the interviews CONSULTANT needs to complete shall be completed by telephonc. [fupon screening CONSULTANT determines that a business is not located in the indicated building or any other of the sampled building, CONSULTANT shall not interview that business. 4-K Business Study: Conduct In-Person Interviews of Businesses within Selected Buildings. After several attempts have been made to all businesses in the telephone sample, CONSULTANT's interviewers shall go to the selected businesses in the district and compile a list of businesses in the selected buildings that are not part of the telephone sample. Once this list is compiled, interviewers shall attempt to interview someone in each of these businesses, as well as businesses in which the CONSULTANT has not been able to complete an interview via telephone. 4-L Business Study: Data Entry: After the questionnaires have been sorted and batched, they shall be key-entered using CONSULTANT's data entry system. Each questionnaire shall be completely entered twice by two different persons, for the purpose of catching data input errors. The dataset shall then be merged with the results of the telephone business survey. 4-M Business Study: Preparation afFinal Dataset. After all questionnaires have been key-entered and verified, a final dataset and data map shall be prepared and delivered to the CITY in either EXCEL or SPSS. 4-N Business Study: Tabulation of Results, Conduct Statistical Analyses of Results, Prepare PowerPoint Summary Report of Findings, Present Findings. Once the dataset has been edited and cleaned, the results shall be tabulated into a banner crosstabular report, and statistical analyses of the survey responses shall be conducted. A final PowerPoint report shall be prepared, and a presentation of results shall be made to the CITY. 4-0 Assessment of Building Employment Intensity: CONSULT ANT shall use information on workers and correspond this with floor area information for specific buildings in the GIS database based on information provided by the CITY or the County Assessor's Office to determine average floor area per employee, as well as potentially variation by building size or nature of business, to the extent this information is avaHable. Meetings Prodncts • Staff Meeting on Survey Design • Powerpoint Report on Street [ntercept • One Presentation on Findings • Powerpoint Report on Business Study • Printing: CONSULTANT shall provide one hard copy and one electronic copy (including in native file formats) of all products. Printing of additional copies shall be additional services. [0 ------------------------ Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:'lASD\PURCH\sOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM fOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP,doc • Meeting Attendance. Meeting attendance shall be as specified in the work tasks. Additional meeting attendance shall be additional services. • Consolidated Comments and Direction. CITY staff shall provide a single set of consolidated comments on review drafts of all documents. A single iteration of each product; correciion of CONSULTANT's errors shall not constitute additional services. 11 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PIANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACf DEY CAP.doe EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the tenn of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Task 1: Start-up, review of prior materials and Community engagement plan-start: Week 0; end: Week 4; Review background materials-4 weeks Draft Community Engagement Plan-3 weeks Task 2: Completion No. of DayslWeeks FromNTP 4 weeks Existing conditions and trends evaluation-start: Week 2; end: Week 10; Existing conditions, land use and development, ·8 weeks traffic evaluation working papers-8 weeks Task 3: Growth projections and implications-start: Week 4; end: Week 24; Traffic and parking analysis: 12 weeks Market and developmentfeasibility analysis: 14 weeks Downtown development capacity analysis: 16 weeks 3D computer model: 17 weeks Task 4: Surveys on parking habits and employment density-start: Week 3; end: Week 12; Draft survey, parking habits: 7 weeks Draft survey, employment density: 7 weeks 12 20 weeks 9 weeks Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRFNT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhalia\C14149978' CONTRACT DEV CAP.doe 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 calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-I 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 $200,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. 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 ofthe tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $200,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE Task I (Start Up, Review & Commun ity Engagement Plan) Task 2 (Existing Condition & Trends Evaluations) Task 3 (Growth Projections) Task 4 (Surveys on Parking Habits & Employment Density) Task 5 (Stakeholders Task Meetings) Task 6 (Focus Groups Meetings) Task 7 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT $8,978.00 $41,672.00 $80,895.00 $33,130.00 $8,430.00 $7,740.00 " ______ -----'CPlanning & transRortation Commission, ____________________ _ 18 Protessional Services Rev Nov. 1,2011 S:\A.SD\PURCH\SOUCITA TlONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNlNG· CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & BhaLia\C 14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc City Council Meetings) Task (Community Workshop Open House Meetings) Sub-total Basic Services Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses Maximum Total Compensation REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $7,570.00 $9,690.00 $198,105.00 $1,895.00 $200,000.00 The administrative, overhead, secreiarial time or secretarial o\,'ertime,· 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. 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 oftravel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses sha II be accompanied by appropriate backup infonnation. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,895.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall prov ide 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-I. 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 19 Profe~sional Services RevNov, 1,2011 S:\h.SD\PURCIDSOUCITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING -CHRlS\C0l'lTRACfS\Dyett& Bhatia\C14 1 49978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc EXHIBIT "C-I" HOL~YRATESCHEDULE Hourly Task] 'Task 2 TaskS Task 4 8\:;13-. Meetings Rate TOTAL Start Up, Review of Existing Surveys on PiCJJ7J'ling& Prior PlJI'king !Materials, & Conditions Growth Stakeholders Focus Transportation & Trends Projections Habits and 0 Task Force (2) Groups (4) Commissi.on! Communiry Evaluation Employment City Council (4J Engagement Denslt;y Pian Dyelt & Bhatia Principal, Rajeev $ 200 2,400 4,000 3,600 1,800 11,800 2,400 2,400 2,400 Bhatia Associate Principal, $ 175 -1,400 1,400 · 2,800 · -- Vivian Kahn Senior Associate, S 135 2,160 5,400 6.480 2,430 16,470 :2,700 4,320 2,160 Sophie Martin GIS Specialist S 100 -5,000 5,000 -10.000 · -· PlannerlUriJan S !Designer 100 -1,200 10,000 · 11.200 400 · · Pmject Associate $ 65 260 780 1,235 · 2,275 260 260 390 Direct Costs· Travel, Printing, 100 100 368 20 588 100 100 100 Mailing Sub-Total 4,920 17,880 28,1183 4,250 55,133 5,860 7,080 5,050 fl'/elwnc"<ygaard . Principal V $ 197 788 7,092 9,062 394 17,336 -. · · PrincipollV S 180 720 1,800 3,600 · 6.120 720 360 720 APP $ 125 1,000 6,750 10,750 250 18,750 250 250 250 Associale II $ 100 . 1,200 2,800 100 4,100 · · · I Intern $ 50 -1,200 . · 1,200 · · · I Direct Cost 5,750 16 5,750 50 50 I Sub-Totall 2.,508 23,792 26,212 760 53,272 l,020 660 970 ~i< and l'lamiing Systems 01 $ 250 1,000 -10,000 · 11,000 . 1,000 · 1,000 ,Vice $ President 200 400 . 12,000 · 12,400 400 · 400 • 18 S:'.ASD\PURCIfISOLICITATIONSIC1JRRENT llUYER-CM FOLDERSIPI..ANNlNG • CHRISICONTRACTSlDycn & Bhati,\CI4149978 CON'!'RACT DBV CAP.doc TOTAL Co1ffllf1JJ1ity Workshop! Open House (1) 1.600 20.600 -2.800 2.,160 27,810 800 10,8()O 800 12.,400 1,560 4,745 200 1,088 7,120 $ 80,243 · 17,336 720 8,640 250 19,750 · 4,100 · 1,200 50 5,900 1,020 $ 56,926 1,000 14,000 400 13,600 Professional SCIVlce5 Rev~ov. 1. ZOU iResearch $ 115 --4,600 -4,600 ----4,600 lInalvst - iEmployee [yp~IV $ 100.00 ---------0 I Direet Cost 150 150 150 150 150 600 I Sub-Totall 1,550 -26';;00 18,150 .l,5S0 1,5S0 1,5S0 $ 32,800 pc HenDe Group lS,120 28,120 $ lS,lW ~A1.FEE. ./ 8,978 41,672 80,1195 33,130 1'4,65~ , '.8;430 r ': : ····W40 I····' , ']",JU 1'9',6~ <C',; f!i8~llJS .,," I Direct costs in the project budget include reimbursabJe expenses. inclulh.ng but no1 Jimited 10: air or .auto travel, hotel, parking, car Itmtal.. meals during oul"f-tQ"\.1;D travel, printirig. mailing, and other similar expemeS', shall be im·"tIicerl at no mark-up I CONSULTk shall. have the ability to reallocate budget betv.oeeo variou~ consuJring tem:D. members and between tasks. provhled the overall project budget does not change. 19 SIASDIPURCiOLlCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIPU\NNING -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\lJyon & Bb2!iaIC 14149978 CQ'ITRACT DEV CAF.doc I ProfusslcnaJ. Se:nices RI:V Nov. J,2011 EXHIBIT "D" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINT AlN lNSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BEWW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VI~ OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS INTlIESTA TE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED BELOW, MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES YES YES OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTQRY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODlL Y INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL liABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAM AGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL,ANDFIRELEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBlNED, . BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,00°1°00. $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILllLIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODlL Y INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FUU FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT lHEENTIRETERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRmED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACfOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITIEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTORMUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. ------------------------- 18 Proressional Services Rev Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLIClTATIONS\CURRENT DUYER·CM FOLDERS\PlANNING· CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& BhHlia\CI4149978 CONTRACf DEY CAP,doc D. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE 1HAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER TIlE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY IUGHTS OF TIlE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT TIllS ENDORSEMENT, AND TIlE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE TIlE TOTAL LIABILITY OF TIlE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON·PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, TIlE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THENON·PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WIUTTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 19 Professional Services RevNov.i,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT DUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNrNG -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\DyeU & Bhlltia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc Planning & Community Environment Department Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 149978 for Professional Services Downtown Development Cap Evaluation Pre-proposal Meeting 2:30 p.m. April 30, 2013 RFP submittal deadline: 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 21, 2013 Contract Administrator: Chris Anastole (Email address) chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO PURCHASING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 250 HAMILTON AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 329-2271 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 149978 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TITLE: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CAP EVALUATION 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide professional services for the evaluation of existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The selected consultant must work closely with the City’s planning, transportation and economic development staff during the process, and must make presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as well as various community groups as needed. The required services and performance conditions are described in the Scope of Work (or Services). 2. ATTACHMENTS The attachments below are included with this Request for Proposals (RFP) for your review and submittal (see asterisk): Attachment A – Proposer’s Information Form* Attachment B – Scope of Work/Services Attachment C – Sample Agreement for Professional Services Attachment D – Sample Table, Qualifications of Firm Relative to City’s Needs Attachment E – Cost Proposal Format Attachment F – Insurance Requirement The items identified with an asterisk (*) shall be filled out, signed by the appropriate representative of the company and returned with submittal. 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS 3.1 Pre-proposal Conference A pre-proposal teleconference will be held on, Tuesday, June 30, 2013 at 2:30 P.M. The call in number is (605) 475-4800. The Access Code is 707751* All prospective Proposers are strongly encouraged to call. 3.2 Examination of Proposal Documents The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they: 1 3.2.1 Have carefully read and fully understand the information that was provided by the City to serve as the basis for submission of this proposal. 3.2.2 Have the capability to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the proposal being submitted. 3.2.3 Represent that all information contained in the proposal is true and correct. 3.2.4 Did not, in any way, collude, conspire to agree, directly or indirectly, with any person, firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal. 3.2.5 Acknowledge that the City has the right to make any inquiry it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information supplied by Proposer, and Proposer hereby grants the City permission to make these inquiries, and to provide any and all related documentation in a timely manner. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on grounds that Proposer was not fully informed to any fact or condition. 3.3 Addenda/Clarifications Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP must be put in writing and received by the City no later than 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 07, 2013. Correspondence shall be e-mailed to Chris Anastole, Contract Administrator, at chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org. Responses from the City will be communicated in writing to all recipients of this RFP. Inquiries received after the date and time stated will not be accepted and will be returned to senders without response. All addenda shall become a part of this RFP and shall be acknowledged on the Proposer’s Form. The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions, interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives. 3.4 Submission of Proposals All proposals shall be submitted to: City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue, Mail Stop MB Palo Alto, CA 94301 2 Proposals must be delivered no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 2013. All proposals received after that time will be returned to the Proposer unopened. The Proposer shall submit 6 copies of its proposal in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted above, bearing the Proposer’s name and address clearly marked, “RFP NO. 149978 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CAP EVALUATION.” The use of double- sided paper with a minimum 30% post-consumer recycled content is strongly encouraged. Please do not submit proposals in binders. 3.4 Withdrawal of Proposals A Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the expiration of the time for submission of proposals as provided in the RFP by delivering a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the Proposer. 3.5 Rights of the City of Palo Alto This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The City reserves the right to:  Make the selection based on its sole discretion;  Reject any and all proposals;  Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals;  Postpone opening for its own convenience;  Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process;  Approve or disapprove the use of particular subconsultants;  Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers;  Accept other than the lowest offer;  Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals and/or  Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the City. An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Proposer. 4. PROPOSED TENTATIVE TIMELINE The tentative RFP timeline is as follows: RFP Issued April 22, 2013 Pre-Proposal Meeting 2:30 P.M. Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3 Deadline for questions, clarifications 1:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 7, 2013 Proposals Due 3:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 21, 2013 Finalist Identified Week of May 27, 2013 Consultant Interviews Week of June 3, 2013 Consultant selection and contract preparation Week of June 10, 2013 Contract awarded Week of June 24,2013 Work commences July 2013 5. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED (to be submitted in this order only) These instructions outline the guidelines governing the format and content of the proposal and the approach to be used in its development and presentation. The intent of the RFP is to encourage responses that clearly communicate the Proposer’s understanding of the City’s requirements and its approach to successfully provide the products and/or services on time and within budget. Only that information which is essential to an understanding and evaluation of the proposal should be submitted. Items not specifically and explicitly related to the RFP and proposal, e.g. brochures, marketing material, etc. will not be considered in the evaluation. All proposals shall address the following items in the order listed below and shall be numbered 1 through 8 in the proposal document. 5.1 Chapter 1 – Proposal Summary This Chapter shall discuss the highlights, key features and distinguishing points of the Proposal. A separate sheet shall include a list of individuals and contacts for this Proposal and how to communicate with them. Limit this Chapter to a total of three (3) pages including the separate sheet. 5.2 Chapter 2 – Profile on the Proposing Firm(s) This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Prime Proposer’s firm size as well as the proposed local organization structure. Include a discussion of the Prime Proposer firm’s financial stability, capacity and resources. Include all other firms participating in the Proposal, including similar information about the firms. Additionally, this section shall include a listing of any lawsuit or litigation and the result of that action resulting form (a) any public project undertaken by the Proposer or by its subcontractors where litigation is still pending or has occurred within the last five years or (b) any type of project where claims or settlements were paid by the consultant or its insurers within the last five years. 5.3 Chapter 3 – Qualifications of the Firm 4 This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Proposer’s and sub- Proposer’s qualifications and previous experience on similar or related projects and demonstrate your team’s understanding of the Palo Alto community and Downtown business operations (5 Page Max). Provide in a table format (see Sample Table, Attachment D) descriptions of pertinent project experience with other public municipalities and private sector that includes a summary of the work performed, the total project cost, the percentage of work the firm was responsible for, the period over which the work was completed, and the name, title, and phone number of client’s to be contacted for references. Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project. Provide a Statement of Qualifications that highlights the team’s experience in conduct of transportation (traffic) and parking analyses, planning analysis, and economic evaluations related to these issues. This experience should include completed work related to evaluating the impacts of existing and projected development conditions. Special attention should be given to the firm’s experience in balancing commercial district needs with quality of life issues in adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition, the team’s experience related to zoning code review, and preparation or revisions to comprehensive plans, as well as its general planning experience should also be detailed. Finally, any experience in analyzing development thresholds should be included. Include recent project reference and project cost information. (3 Page Max) This chapter shall include information regarding any relationships with firms and/or individuals who may submit proposals in response to the RFPs being developed. 5.4 Chapter 4 – Work Plan or Proposal This Chapter shall present a well-conceived service plan. Include a full description of major tasks and subtasks. This section of the proposal shall establish that the Proposer understands the City’s objectives and work requirements and Proposer’s ability to satisfy those objectives and requirements. Succinctly describe the proposed approach for addressing the required services and the firm’s ability to meet the City’s schedule, outlining the approach that would be undertaken in providing the requested services. Detail the approach (task-by-task) and steps your team would take to complete the scope of work discussed within this request for proposals. 5.5 Chapter 5 – Proposed Innovations (Optional) 5 The Proposer may also suggest technical or procedural innovations that have been used successfully on other engagements and which may provide the City with better service delivery. In this Chapter discuss any ideas, innovative approaches, or specific new concepts included in the Proposal that would provide benefit to the City. 5.6 Chapter 6 – Project Staffing This Chapter shall discuss how the Proposer would propose to staff this project. Key project team members shall be identified by name, title and specific responsibilities on the project. Key personnel will be an important factor considered by the review committee. Changes in key personnel may be cause for rejection of the proposal. Include a flow chart that highlights the internal team’s reporting structure and the relation of team members and subconsultants. Highlight the Project Manager’s experience and qualifications and Quality Assurance programs to be used as part of the project. (2 Page Max) Include the resumes of the Project Principal and Project Manager (2 Page Max) 5.7 Chapter 7 – Proposal Exceptions This Chapter shall discuss any exceptions or requested changes that Proposer has to the City’s RFP conditions, requirements and sample contract. If there are no exceptions noted, it is assumed the Proposer will accept all conditions and requirements identified in the Attachment C – “Sample Agreement for Services.” Items not excepted will not be open to later negotiation. 5.8 Chapter 8 – Proposal Costs Sheet and Rates (Optional to provide in separate sealed envelope) The fee information is relevant to a determination of whether the fee is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided. Provision of this information assists the City in determining the firm’s understanding of the project, and provides staff with tools to negotiate the cost, provide in a table (See Table, Attachment E). Consultant shall provide the following information  Direct labor rates for proposed staff;  Overhead rate and breakdown of overhead elements; 6  Subconsultant billing rates and mark-up percentage for ODC’s (other direct costs); and identify all reimbursable expenses.  Most recent complete financial instrument that would establish Proposer’s ability to complete the obligations of the contract resulting from this solicitation. (optional) This Chapter shall include the proposed costs to provide the services desired. Include any other cost and price information, plus a not-to-exceed amount, that would be contained in a potential agreement with the City. The hourly rates may be used for pricing the cost of additional services outlined in the Scope of Work. PLEASE NOTE: The City of Palo Alto does not pay for services before it receives them. Therefore, do not propose contract terms that call for upfront payments or deposits. 6. CONTRACT TYPE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT It is anticipated that the agreement resulting from this solicitation, if awarded, will be a not-to-exceed budget per task form of contract. A Sample Agreement of Services is provided as Attachment C. The method of payment to the successful Proposer shall be on a per task basis with a maximum “not to exceed” fee as set by the Proposer in the proposal or as negotiated between the Proposer and the City as being the maximum cost to perform all work. This figure shall include direct costs and overhead, such as, but limited to, transportation, communications, subsistence and materials and any subcontracted items of work. Progress payments will be based on a percentage of project completed. Proposers shall be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including Insurance Requirements in Attachment F. If a Proposer desires to take exception to the Agreement, Proposer shall provide the following information in Chapter 7 of their submittal package. Please include the following:  Proposer shall clearly identify each proposed change to the Agreement, including all relevant Attachments.  Proposer shall furnish the reasons for, as well as specific recommendations, for alternative language. The above factors will be taken into account in evaluating proposals. Proposals that take substantial exceptions to the proposed Agreement may be determined by the City, at its sole discretion, to be unacceptable and no longer considered for award. Insurance Requirements 7 The selected Proposer(s), at Proposer’s sole cost and expense and for the full term of the Agreement or any extension thereof, shall obtain and maintain, at a minimum, all of the insurance requirements outlined in Attachment F. All policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to the approval of the Risk Manager of the City of Palo Alto as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the Risk Manager. The selected Proposer agrees to provide the City with a copy of said policies, certificates and/or endorsement upon award of contract. 7. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS City staff will evaluate the proposals provided based on the following criteria: 7.1 Quality and completeness of proposal; 7.2 Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution, goods and/or services to be provided by the Proposer; 7.3 Proposers experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to the project, the engagements of similar scope and complexity; 7.4 Cost to the city; 7.5 Proposer’s financial stability; 7.6 Proposer’s ability to perform the work within the time specified; 7.7 Proposer’s prior record of performance with city or others; 7.8 Proposer’s ability to provide future maintenance, repairs parts and/or services; and 7.9 Proposer’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including city council policies), guidelines and orders governing prior or existing contracts performed by the contractor. The selection committee will make a recommendation to the awarding authority. The acceptance of the proposal will be evidenced by written Notice of Award from the City’s Purchasing/Contract Administration Division to the successful Proposer. 8. ORAL INTERVIEWS Proposers may be required to participate in an oral interview. The oral interview will be a panel comprised of members of the selection committee. Proposers may only ask questions that are intended to clarify the questions that they are being asked to respond. Each Proposer’s time slot for oral interviews will be determined randomly. Proposers who are selected shall make every effort to attend. If representatives of the City experience difficulty on the part of any Proposer in scheduling a time for the oral interview, it may result in disqualification from further consideration. 8 9. PUBLIC NATURE OF MATERIALS Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the City of Palo Alto. At such time as the Administrative Services Department recommends to form to the City Manager or to the City Council, as applicable, all proposals received in response to this RFP becomes a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal which are defined by the Proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary”. The City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if they are not plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. Any proposal which contains language purporting to render all or significant portions of the proposal “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” shall be regarded as non-responsive. Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City of Palo Alto may not accept or approve that the information that a Proposer submits is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary,” the City shall provide the Proposer who submitted the information with reasonable notice to allow the Proposer to seek protection from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction. 9 10. COLLUSION By submitting a proposal, each Proposer represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest of or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the Proposer has not directly induced or solicited any other person to submit a sham proposal or any other person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the Proposer has not in any manner sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal. 11. DISQUALIFICATION Factors such as, but not limited to, any of the following may be considered just cause to disqualify a proposal without further consideration: 11.1 Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among Proposers in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal; 11.2 Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the evaluation team; 11.3 Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between Proposer and the City; 11.4 Evidence of incorrect information submitted as part of the proposal; 11.5 Evidence of Proposer’s inability to successfully complete the responsibilities and obligation of the proposal; and 11.6 Proposer’s default under any previous agreement with the City, which results in termination of the Agreement. 12. NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL A proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of these RFP instructions and specifications. Any alteration, omission, addition, variance, or limitation of, from or to a proposal may be sufficient grounds for non- acceptance of the proposal, at the sole discretion of the City. 13. GRATUITIES No person shall offer, give or agree to give any City employee any gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with the award of contract by the city. No city employee shall solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from any other person a gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with a city contract. 14. FIRMS OR PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL 10 11 In order to avoid any conflict of interest or perception of a conflict or interest, Proposer(s) selected to provide professional services under this RFP will be subject to the following requirements: 14.1 The Proposer(s) who works on the procurement will be precluded from submitting proposals or bids as a prime contractor or subcontractor in the ultimate procurement. 14.2 The Proposer(s) may not have interest in any potential Proposer for the ultimate procurement. ~ End of Section ~ Attachment A Proposer’s Information Form PROPOSER (please print): Name: __________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Telephone: _______________________ Fax: ______________________________ Contact person, title, email, telephone and fax number: __________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Proposer, if selected, intends to carry on the business as (check one):  Individual  Joint Venture  Partnership  Corporation When incorporated? ______________ In what state? _______________ When authorized to do business in California? _______  Other (explain):____________________________________________________ ADDENDA To assure that all Proposers have received each addendum, check the appropriate box(es) below. Failure to acknowledge receipt of an addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in the Proposal: Addendum number(s) received: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; Or, _____ _____No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial). PROPOSER’S SIGNATURE No proposal shall be accepted which has not been signed in ink in the appropriate space below: City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 By signing below, the submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they have investigated all aspects of the RFP, that they are aware of the applicable facts pertaining to the RFP process, its procedures and requirements, and they have read and understand the RFP. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on the grounds that the Proposer was not fully informed as to any fact or condition. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Attachment A – Proposer Information continued… 1. If Proposer is INDIVIDUAL, sign here Date:______________ _____________________________________ Proposer’s Signature _____________________________________ Proposer’s typed name and title 2. If Proposer is PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE; at least two (2) Partners shall sign here: ________________________________________________ Partnership or Joint Venture Name (type or print) Date:______________ _____________________________________ Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature Date:______________ _____________________________________ Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature 3. If Proposer is a CORPORATION, the duly authorized officer shall sign as follows: The undersigned certify that he/she is respectively: _________________________________ and ___________________________ Signature Title Of the corporation named below; that they are designated to sign the Proposal Cost Form by resolution (attach a certified copy, with corporate seal, if applicable, notarized as to its authenticity or Secretary’s certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the below named CORPORATION, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said CORPORATION. ______________________________________ Corporation Name (type or print) By:______________________________________ Date: _________________ Title:__________________________________________ Attachment B – Scope Purpose: The City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals from qualified and experienced transportation and planning consultant firms to evaluate existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The overall evaluation must also contain a sound economic analysis focused on growth demands related to various downtown land uses. The analysis should be done within the context of the existing development cap (Downtown Development Cap) in the Commercial Downtown (CD) area of Palo Alto, with a particular emphasis on growth in Downtown and associated impacts on parking and traffic. In 1986, the City adopted the Downtown Development Cap, primarily due to traffic and parking concerns, along with incentives for future development and redevelopment. These policies were applied to the CD area and restricted future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was in existence or approved in May 1986. Residential development was purposely excluded from the development to encourage people in order to encourage future residents to live in close proximity to jobs. CD development regulations were to be reevaluated when new, non-residential development reached 235,000 square feet. This evaluation milestone has recently been reached with the submittal of several development applications. A Parking Assessment District (PAD) was also established prior to the 1986 study and remains in effect today, though it has been expanded during the interim. This RFP is for first phase of the Downtown Development Cap evaluation, primarily focused on gathering data, and evaluating existing and projected conditions. In the future, an RFP for the “second phase” of this study will be released, to seek transportation and planning (Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, etc.) policy recommendations using the “Phase 1” findings as the foundation. Background: As the result of a 1986 Downtown Study, the Downtown Area was rezoned to Commercial Downtown (CD). This rezoning created Floor Area Ratios (FARs) and other zoning regulations that were generally more restrictive than the previous zoning, especially as it related to commercial properties adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In addition to the new zoning regulations, a CD development cap policy (Downtown Development Cap) was adopted. This policy restricted future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet above what was in existence or approved in the CD area as of May 1986. CD development regulations were to be reevaluated when new development reached 235,000 square feet. Residential development was purposely excluded from the development to encourage people in order to encourage future residents to live in close proximity to jobs. There were a number of other specific policies related to growth in the CD area as well. The measures that resulted from the 1986 Downtown Study are attached to this RFP. Citywide growth limits, and growth limits in other districts were also established at that time. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 The 1986 Downtown Study required that City Staff monitor and submit an annual report to the City Council regarding development activity, vacancy rates and commercial lease rates in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations. The most recent City Council report (Attachment 2), released on March 11, 2013, provided information related to the 2011-12 time period. This report showed that the downtown area had fully recovered from the recession and that only 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains available (as of the end of 2012) before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet would be reached. Some developments have been approved since that time, such that the evaluation milestone has now been reached. Parking Parking intrusion into adjacent residential neighborhoods and parking permit supply are both major concerns. These concerns are not new, but there has been an increasing amount of attention focused on parking impacts with the improving economy. Parking was a key focus of the 1986 study. For example, as a result of the study, a parking policy was adopted that specified that new development should not increase the parking deficit beyond the 1986 deficit. Since that time parking garages have been built which have reduced the deficit, though concerns remain. These impacts may be exacerbated by zoning code assumptions which may not be consistent with modern planning and transportation engineering practices, such as the number of employees assumed on a per square foot basis in tech companies, particularly “start-ups.” Staff has also recently initiated a study of potential parking garage feasibility on five sites in the downtown area, which should inform the Downtown Development Cap study as well. A Downtown Parking Assessment District was first formed in 1978, and has been subsequently restructured several times. The Downtown Parking Assessment District, which is financially supported by downtown property owners via bond financing, paid for the construction of several downtown garages. Maintenance and operation costs of garages are funded through permit fees. Bonds financing restrictions, however, limit the way in which these garages can be utilized. After the formation of assessment district and the preparation of the 1986 Downtown Study, the zoning code was amended to allow several “exemptions” to parking requirements, including a 1:1 FAR exemption, 200 square foot minor parking exemption and a “Transfer of Development Rights” program, which allows square footage bonuses and parking exemptions to be transferred to other properties in certain cases. Traffic Traffic is another concern. Several policies were adopted in the 1986 plan, and numerous transportation improvements have been implemented in the CD and surrounding areas since that time. Transportation improvements include enhancements to the automobile, bicycle and pedestrian networks. In addition, the City has required Transportation Demand Management policies for a few recent downtown developments and businesses. The proximity of Downtown and Stanford to the Palo Alto Downtown Caltrain station and other transit services, along with the transportation initiatives of several firms and Stanford have contributed to the Downtown Caltrain station having the highest ridership City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 at any Caltrain station other than at the San Francisco terminus. In addition, the City of Palo Alto has a top-rated bicycle network, and continues to adopt policies and programs and to enhance facilities to improve this network. Nonetheless, traffic congestion remains a major concern in the area, and is one of the primary aspects of the Downtown Development Cap evaluation and subsequent recommendations. Planning and Zoning In addition to parking and traffic policies, there are several planning related policies that are tied to the Downtown Development Cap. For example, a Ground Floor Combining District was created within the CD area, which encourages pedestrian uses, and limits business to retail eating and drinking uses. Office uses, which can typically attract higher rents, are allowed on upper floors and at the perimeter of the CD area. CD zoning also encourages seismic and historic upgrades to buildings by allowing property owners who make these improvements to expand beyond normal FAR limitations and/or to add floor area without providing parking. The property owners may also transfer (sell) those development rights to another property in the CD area. The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation and Land Use elements. Currently the document refers to and bases several policies on the 1986 Downtown Study. In addition, there are several ongoing efforts related to parking management, including the parking garage study and consideration of several other parking programs such as attendant parking and residential permit parking, all of which will be under study simultaneous with the Downtown Cap study. Finally, some potential proposed developments would be located just outside the CD area (“Peripheral Impact Area” on the map). Although these developments are not directly related to the original Downtown Development Cap, traffic and parking related to these developments may impact the Downtown area and should be addressed or referenced as well. Scope of Work: The City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals from qualified and well-experienced transportation and planning firms to evaluate existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The selected consultant must work closely with the City’s planning, transportation and economic development staff during the process, and must make presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as well as various community groups as needed. This RFP is for the first phase of a study that will contain two phases. An RFP for the “second phase” will be sent out at a future date. This “Phase 1” proposal should include the following components: 1. Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Documents The selected consultant for the project will review the 1986 Downtown Study report and related materials, as well as subsequent monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations, and any other relevant documents Given the City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, particular importance should be paid to Comprehensive Plan policies, and recent Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 discussions on the various Plan elements. A thorough review of the 1986 Downtown Study and associated environmental documents is also critical, as it provides the context for many of the adopted Comp Plan policies. 2. Existing Conditions Evaluation The selected consultant will be responsible for evaluating existing traffic and parking conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas. Existing level of service studies should be conducted for key intersections and roadway segments. The selected consultant should work closely with the planning and transportation staff during the existing conditions process to ensure the correct intersections and roadway segments are be evaluated. In addition, the selected consultant should evaluate existing visitor (hourly) and permit parking conditions in the Downtown and surrounding areas. At a minimum, studies should include:  Existing traffic counts and level of service for identified intersections.  Existing on-street and off-street parking spaces, capacity and occupancy, based on staff’s continuing efforts and adjusted as needed to reflect the needs of the Downtown Development Cap Study.  Identification of downtown development over the past 10 years and estimated impacts of that development and trends over that timeframe, including the application of parking exemptions for transfer of development rights and other code provisions.  Identification of non-conforming buildings (from a use and/or parking standpoint) that have converted to higher intensity office uses over the past 5 years.  A definition of the parking “intrusion,” “saturation,” “deficit,” or other term and how that is best applied to the study area and surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Projected Growth Impact Analysis Using the existing conditions report as the foundation, the selected consultant should evaluate scenarios for potential development, and future level of service (LOS) of key intersections and roadway segments based on projected growth. In addition, future commercial and nearby residential parking conditions should also be evaluated based on growth scenarios. The parking analysis should be completed for the Downtown visitor and permit parking, as well as street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The projected traffic and parking conditions should be based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. At a minimum, studies should include:  A five-year and ten-year scenario of potential ranges of development, assuming the continued use of transfer of development rights and other existing provisions.  Estimated changes to levels of service at key intersections based on potential increased growth.  Estimated parking demand required by increased growth under each scenario and the likely impact of the demand on available parking in residential neighborhoods.  The likely impact of parking reductions based on the proximity of new development to Caltrain and other transit, bicycling and walking facilities, based on surveys of existing employee ridership for Downtown businesses and Stanford. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Public Outreach and Participation It is expected that Phase 1 of the Downtown Development Cap study will be the focus of a series of public meetings over a 6-month period. It is also expected that the public participation process will be guided by the formation and periodic meeting of a Downtown Cap Stakeholders Task Force. Public outreach may include, at a minimum:  Periodic meetings with the Downtown Cap Stakeholder Task Force. This group would be comprised of downtown neighborhood representatives, downtown property owners, downtown business owners, and other interested individuals or organizations. Others may be included as recommended by the City Council. It is expected that there would be 11-15 committee members and they would meet approximately 3 times during the first phase of this study.  1-2 Larger community meetings with the broad Downtown community, including businesses, residents, and others.  Meetings or focus groups with specific interests, such as the Downtown North, University South, and Professorville neighborhoods, the Downtown Business Improvement District, and/or the Chamber of Commerce’s Downtown Parking Committee.  At least 1-2 meetings with the Planning and Transportation Commission.  At least 1-2 meetings with the City Council. The proposal should outline a suggested proposal for public involvement, including the Downtown Cap Stakeholder Task Force process, but staff expects that a minimum of three (3) Downtown Cap Stakeholder Committee meetings, and 1-2 Planning and Transportation Commission and/or Council meetings should be included, as well at least 1 general community meeting and early and regular consultation with the interest groups outlined above. An early scoping meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission should be used to refine the desired public outreach approach. Phase 2: Policy Analysis Although not the subject of this RFP, an RFP for a second phase of this study will be released subsequent to the completion of Phase 1. This scope of work for this second phase has not yet been completed, however it is expected that the effort will require a consultant team to make planning and transportation policy recommendations using the “Phase 1” findings, an economic analysis and community input. Therefore, consultants submitting proposals in response to the subject, Phase 1 RFP, must be qualified to submit a proposal for Phase 2 work in the future. Pricing on Proposals should be honored for up to 4 months to allow the city an opportunity to complete the award of a consultant agreement through the City Council. EXHIBITS TO THE SCOPE: EXHIBIT A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary EXHIBIT B: Map of Downtown Commercial (CD) District and Peripheral Study Area EXHIBIT C: List of Approved Non-Residential Projects (1986-2012) City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 EXHIBIT D: Parking Deficit from 09/01/1986 to 08/21/2013 EXHIBIT E: Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category EXHIBIT F: Downtown Monitoring Report for 2011-12 EXHIBIT G: Map of Study Area ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT Attachment C – Sample Agreement CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this day of , , (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and , a , located at ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT OR The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit “B” unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. 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 Dollars ($ ). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Dollars ($ ).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. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign as the to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is , Department, Division, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: . The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double- sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.  Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Attachment D SAMPLE TABLE FORMAT QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM RELATIVE TO CITY’S NEEDS Project Name Client Description of work performed Total Project Cost Percentage of work firm as responsible for Period work was completed Client contact information* Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: *Include name, title and phone number. Attachment E SAMPLE COST PROPOSAL FORMAT – RFP (The City is looking for a submittal in this format – content should match cost for scope of services required) Scope Labor Categories (e.g., Consultant, Sr. Consultant, etc.) Est. Hours Hourly Rate Extended Rate $ $ $ $ Task 1 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ Task 2 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ Task 3 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK 3 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED (TASKS 1 – 3) $ $ City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Attachment “F” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Rev. 11/07 City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY Attachment “F” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Rev. 11/07 City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986) The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study: 1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites adjacent to residential zones. 2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches 235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions. 3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or less. 4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non- residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking. 5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions, reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit. 6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service. 7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations. 8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites. 9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be necessary. 10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking. 11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. 12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways which cross pedestrian walkways. 13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area. 14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of minimum lot sizes in the new CD district. Page 1 CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/12 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non-Residential Floor Area 520 Ramona Street A CDCGFP 11/20/84 - 400 +400 220 University Avenue CDCGFP 2/5/87 - 65 +65 151 Homer Avenue CDSP 3/17/88 - - -9,750 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP 5/5/88 - - -713 247-275 Alma Street CDNP 8/4/88 - - +1,150 700 Emerson Street CDSP 9/15/88 - - +4,000 431 Florence Street CDCP 9/15/88 - 2,500 +2,500 156 University Avenue CDCGFP 12/15/88 - 4,958 +4,958 401 Florence Street CDCP 3/2/89 - 2,407 +2,407 619 Cowper Street CDCP 5/6/89 - - +2,208 250 University Avenue PC-3872 5/15/89 11,000B 300 +20,300 550 University Avenue CDCP 6/1/89 - - -371 Page 2 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non-Residential Floor Area 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 5/3/90 2,491C 2,491 +2,491 305 Lytton Avenue CDCP 9/28/90 - 200 +200 550 Lytton AvenueDE CDCP 10/22/90 - - +4,845 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 5/21/91 9,000 475 +9,475 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/24/92 - 404 +404 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP 4/15/93 - 432 +432 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueE CDCP 9/21/93 - - +2,064 201 University Avenue CDCGFP 11/18/93 - 2,450 +2,450 Page 3 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/3/94 - 180 +180 245 Lytton Avenue CDCP 7/21/94 - - -21,320 400 Emerson StreetEF PC-4238 9/19/94 - 200 +4,715 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP 1/5/95 - 26 +26 420 Emerson Street CDCP 3/16/95 - 125 +125 340 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/6/95 - - -402 281 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/20/95 - - -2,500 456 University Avenue CDCGFP 5/18/95 - 7,486 +7,486 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP 7/11/95 - 134 +134 725/753 Alma Street PC-4283 7/17/95 - - -1,038 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP 7/18/95 - 177 +177 483 University Avenue G PC-4296 10/2/95 3,467C 2,789 +7,289 424 University Avenue CDCGFP 9/21/95 - 2,803 +2,803 Page 4 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 901/909 Alma Street E,F PC-4389 8/1/96 - - +4,425 171 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 9/19/96 - 1,853 +1,853 401 High Street CD-C(P) 10/3/96 - 350 +350 430 Kipling Street D,H CD-C(P) 10/22/96 - 200 +1,412 460-476 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 3/20/97 - 1,775 +1,775 400 Emerson Street D PC-4238 3/21/97 - - +2,227 275 Alma Street CD-N(P) 7/8/97 - 200 +3,207 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 7/14/97 8,420C 689 +17,815 411 High Street H CDCP 12/18/97 - 2,771 +2,771 530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852 705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93 Page 5 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945 701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434 723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400 880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312 539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500 270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642 901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063 800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799 335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J +5,249 382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194 102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515 Page 6 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290 564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475 278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137 265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151 340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360 524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345 630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437 668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940 661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0 335-355 Alma CDCP 8/11 9,700 - 49,863 Totals 1986-2012 44,078 93,931 223,219 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.” As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning Page 7 D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area. Page 1 CD PARKING DEFICIT FROM 9/1/86 to 8/31/2012 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 1986 deficit 1,601 520 Ramona StreetA CDCGFP +400 2 0 0 +2 1,603 220 University Avenue CDCGFP +65 0 0 0 0 1,603 151 Homer Avenue CDSP -9,750 0 11 0 -50 1,553 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP -713 0 0 0 -3 1,550 247-275 Alma Street CDNP +1,150 5 5 0 0 1,550 700 Emerson Street CDSP +4,000 16 16 0 0 1,550 431 Florence St CDCP +2,500 10 0 10 +10 1,560 Page 2 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 156 University Avenue CDCGFP +4,958 20 0 20 +20 1,580 401 Florence Street CDCP +2,407 10 0 10 +10 1,590 619 Cowper Street CDCP +2,208 9 9 0 0 1,590 250 University Avenue PC-3872 +20,300 103 131B 0 -28 1,562 550 University Avenue CDCP -371 0 0 0 -1 1,561 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 +2,491 10 0 10 +10 1,571 520 Webster StreetC PC-3499 0 0 163 0 -163 1,408 305 Lytton Ave CDCP +200 1 0 1 +1 1,409 550 Lytton Avenue CDCP +4,845 19 19 0 0 1,409 Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -96 1,313 Page 3 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 +9,475 38 0 2 +38 1,351 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP +404 2 0 2 +2 1,353 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP +432 2 0 2 +2 1,355 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueD CDCP +2,064 8 0 0 +8 1,363 201 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,450 10 0 10 +10 1,373 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP +180 1 0 1 +1 1,374 245 Lytton Ave CDCP -21,320 90 149 0 -59 1,315 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +4,715 18 5 1 +14 1,329 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP +26 0 0 0 0 1,329 Page 4 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 420 Emerson Street CDCP +125 1 0 1 +1 1,336 340 University Avenue CDCGFP -402 0 0 0 -2 1,334 281 University Avenue CDCGFP -2,500 0 0 0 -10 1,324 456 University Avenue CDCGFP +7,486 30 0 30 +30 1,354 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP +134 1 0 1 +1 1,355 725-753 Alma Street PC-4283 -1,038 7 7 0 -11 1,344 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP +177 1 0 1 +1 1,345 483 University Avenue PC-4296 +7,289 29 -2E 11 +31 1,376 424 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11 +11 1,387 901/909 Alma PC-4389 +4,425 18 18 0 0 1,387 Page 5 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT StreetD 171 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,853 7 0 7 +7 1,394 401 High Street CDCP +350 1 0 1 +1 1,395 430 Kipling Street CDCP +1,412 5 -4E 1 +10 1,405 460/476 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,775 7 0 7 +7 1,412 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +2,227 9 0 0 +9 1,421 275 Alma StreetF CDNP +3,207 0 0 1 +1 1,422 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 +17,815 74 50 3 +27 1,449 411 High Street CDCP +2,771 0 -4E 11 +15 1,464 530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475 Page 6 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10,913 44 3E 35 +41 1527 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527 528 High St PF 0 0 138 G 0 -138 1389 445 Bryant PF 0 0 575 G 0 -575 814 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2 +4 818 701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 819 723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 819 880 / 884 Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 816 Page 7 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 826 270 University Ave CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11 +11 837 SUBTOTAL 86-02 106,930 672 1297 236 -764 837 901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0 -1 836 800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 773 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 773 335 University AveI CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 773 Page 8 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 382 University Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 774 102 University Ave CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 774 310 University Ave CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 804 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 804 564 University Ave CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 814 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 808 265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 860 278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 861 340 University CDCP -1,360 861 524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 884 Page 9 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 886 668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 906 661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 906 Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -32 874 180 Hamilton Avenue CDCP 0 0 0 5 +5 879 355 Alma Street CDCP +49,863 166 144 22 +22 901 TOTAL 223,219 1,077 1,816 350 676 901 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.”) As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. Page 10 E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003 H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area. Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category Use Category Area (October 1986) Area (October 2012) Area Change, percentage 1. Offices 1,100,000 1,400,000 27% % 2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00% 3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33% 4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00% 5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67% 6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86% 7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00% 8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67% 9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33% 10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00% 11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67% 12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00% 13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 14. Warehousing & Distribution 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00% 16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00% 18. Single Family Residential 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 19. Vacant & Under Construction 150,000 50,000 -66.66% 20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0 21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33% Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52% ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct residential uses, religious institutions, vacant & for sale and vacant & under construction.) 3,125,000 3,350,000 (Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet) * The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000 square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3462) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/11/2013 March 11, 2013 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 3462) Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012 Subject: Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Executive Summary The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth in the commercial downtown area (CD-C and CD-C(GF)(P)zones) and office and retail vacancy rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-December of 2012, there was a 2.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 1.6 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 49,860 square feet of space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square footage. An additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development can be accommodated before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Background Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district. Staff regularly has tracked vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district resulting from approved development to comply with the Comprehensive Plan programs and to determine the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code included an exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate exceeds 5%. In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. The ordinance also eliminated an exception process triggered when the GF vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during the annual monitoring. A map of the districts subject to the amendments was included in the Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the City’s website. March 11, 2013 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 3462) Staff completed field visits for this 2011-2012 monitoring period in mid-December 2012. Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone from January 1987 through August 31, 2012 and has specific data on vacancy information and rental rates through December 2012. Discussion The economic conditions of the Palo Alto downtown area are continuing to improve since last year. Currently there is a 2.8 percent vacancy within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 1.6 percent overall vacancy in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable drop of 2 percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is close to the 2006-2007 period vacancy rate, before the economic downturn. The retail rental rates ranged from $3.00 to $6.50 per square foot based on the location, and office rental rates ranged from $4.00 to $7.00 per square foot during this reporting period. Office rental rates have increased marginally from last year and retail rental rates have remained steady through the 2011-2012 monitoring period. The following table shows the approximate total vacant square foot and percentage of vacancy from 2006. TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto Year Total CD-C Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C Vacancy Total CD-C (GF) (P) Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C (GF) (P) Vacancy 2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94 2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21 2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99 2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91 2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8 2011-2012 52,368 1.6 15,550 2.8 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department. Non-Residential Development Activity The 1986 Downtown Study (and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance) incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area above the total floor area existing in 1986, and provided for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development reaches 235,000 square feet. Since 1986, a total of 223,210 square feet of non-residential floor March 11, 2013 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 3462) area has been added in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately 34,650 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing projects such as 524 Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012, approximately 49,860 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one major project, 335-355 Alma Street. Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Staff notes that the 135 Hamilton Avenue project was recently approved (though parking issues haven’t been resolved), which would increase the total by approximately 20,000 square feet, to about 245,000 square feet, in excess of the re-evaluation threshold. Staff has developed a scope of work for the new Development Cap Study and will initiate work in the next couple of months. TABLE 2: Total Non-Residential SQFT Added in Downtown Palo Alto since 2006. Year Total Non-Residential SQFT Added in CD-C Total Non-Residential SQFT Left to Reach the Re-evaluation Limit* 2006-2007 195 129,055 2007-2008 7,480 121,575 2008-2009 25,280 96, 295 2009-2010 21,150 75, 145 2010-2011 13,500 61,645 2011-2012 49,860* 11,790 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department *Projects filed as of August 2012. Below is a list of significant projects in the downtown CD-C zone area that added more than 5,000 square feet since 2006.  325 Lytton Ave--17,515 square feet  310 University Ave--7,481 square feet  265 Lytton Ave—21,151 square feet  524 Hamilton Avenue—9,345 square feet  355 Alma Street—49,860 square feet Demonstrating Special Public Benefits The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, eleven projects in the March 11, 2013 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 3462) Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a finding of public benefit. Six of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 66,915 square feet. The total changes in square footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment C. The remaining five projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential floor areas. All of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in-lieu of providing parking. Only one project; 355 Alma Street, in this current cycle added square feet demonstrating public benefit and provided in-lieu fees for parking. Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524 Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona, used close to 5000 square feet of Transfer Development Rights (TDR) square footage. This year’s only approved project, 335-355 Alma Street, did not add any square feet in this category. These projects are shown in the fifth column of Attachment C. Parking Inventory The 1986 Downtown Study set performance measures that established that new commercial development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that was existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces. This base “deficit” number was determined by counting the number of commercially bound vehicles (employees, customers, etc.) parked in residential neighborhoods. Increases or reductions to the deficit are determined by comparing the total number of commercial parking spaces constructed in the downtown area with the amount of new commercial square footage constructed. In general, for every 250 square feet of commercial development, an additional parking space should be constructed. There are certain projects that qualify for exemptions to parking requirements, which add to the deficit. Conversely, parking improvements that are independent of development reduce the deficit. As noted above, certain projects are exempt from providing parking or a portion thereof, which increases the deficit. The City tracks these exemptions, and at the end of the 2003 monitoring period, the City determined a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be undertaken when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions reaches a cumulative 450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions is 350 parking spaces. In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures located at 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street. This added a total of 713 net new parking spaces. Other improvements that have occurred since 1986 include a 2-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage and significant restriping of on-street parking spaces by the City’s Transportation Division. Per the methodology prescribed in the 1986 downtown study, the total cumulative parking deficit has been “reduced” from 1,601 in 1986 to 901 in 2012. Attachment D is a chart that details the CD March 11, 2013 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 3462) (Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Although defined as a deficit reduction, there is a general understanding that commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods has increased since that time. Staff believes that the parking intrusion is not accurately depicted in Attachment D, as it likely doesn’t include factors such as a) increased employee density downtown, b) conversions of existing retail or underused office space to more intensive office uses, c) conversions of prior residential hotel uses to true hotel uses, and d) parking in neighborhoods from areas other than the downtown business, such as for Caltrain commuters, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and/or Stanford. A better estimate of parking intrusion will be developed as part of the Downtown Development Cap Study. Recently, staff has been directed by City Council to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate the possibility of construction of additional public parking structures in and around the Downtown area, and to consider expansion of existing parking capacity through the use of attendant parking at existing structures. In addition, City Council directed staff to conduct a re- evaluation of the 1986 Downtown Development Cap Study. This study examined parking, traffic and land use conditions of the Downtown area and restricting future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet in the Downtown CD-C zone area. The proposed re-evaluation study will also include analysis of existing and projected traffic, parking capacity, and the impacts from application of parking exemptions under transfer of development rights and other code provisions. Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. There is approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C (GF) (P) zoning district after the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009. Staff surveyed downtown CD-C (GF) (P) zoned areas to assess vacancy in the second week of December 2012. Staff also consulted local real-estate agents and other databases and compiled a list of only five properties in the CD-C (GF) (P) area, which met the requirements for vacancy. The total vacancy amounted to 15,550 square feet. TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District. (As of December 14, 2012) Address Vacant Square Feet 575 High 4,437 174 University 2,300 March 11, 2013 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 3462) 355 University 3,694 429-447 University 3,300 436-440 University 1,818 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 2.8 percent this year; 2 percent less than previous year’s vacancy rate. FIGURE1. Vacancy Rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) Zones Since 2006 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District The entire CD area contains approximately 3,850,000 gross square feet of floor area, including approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2 area. About 525,000 square March 11, 2013 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 3462) feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and not available for occupancy. Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is approximately 3,325,000 square feet. Staff conducted a field survey in mid-December 2012 and communicated with local real estate agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring cycle there was a total vacancy of 52,368 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 1.6 percent compared to 2.0 percent in last year’s monitoring report. The overall CD-C vacancy rate has reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 5 percent. Table 4 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, researches of different real estate websites and responses received from local downtown real estate agents. TABLE 4: Vacant Property Listings for Rest of Commercial Downtown (CD). (As of December 14, 2012)) Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P) District Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet 526 Bryant CD-C (GF)(P) 5,753 542 Emerson CD-C(GF) (P) 1,850 385 Forest CD-C (GF)(P) 2,038 201-225 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P) 8,660 205 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P) 9,857 437 Lytton CD-C (P) 1,204 550 Lytton CD-C (P) 2,662 355 University CD-C (GF)(P) 4,795 CD – Commercial Downtown, (C) – Commercial, GF – Ground Floor Combining District, P - Pedestrian Overlay March 11, 2013 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 3462) Trends in Use Composition The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle about 48,360 square feet of new non-residential use was added through the 355 Alma Street project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted to higher-intensity commercial uses such as office, retail, eating/ drinking and housing has increased, while the total floor area in lower-intensity commercial uses like manufacturing, warehousing and business services has decreased (see Attachment E). Retail Rents Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last year’s monitoring report. According to the data gathered during December 2012 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space are generally ranging from $3.00 to $6.00 per square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial services and taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and away from University Avenue. Retail rental rates on core downtown University Avenue goes up to $5.00 to $6.50. For some vacant properties outside the downtown core, rental rates are lower and listed as negotiable. Office Rents Based on the information gathered from commercial real estate agents listing properties for lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller buildings further from University Avenue) are ranging from $3.75 to $7.00 per square foot triple net, more or less similar to last year’s monitoring cycle. Timeline This is an annual report. Resource Impact This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have positive impacts on the City’s property and sales tax receipts. Policy Implications This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14, 1986. Environmental Review This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review. March 11, 2013 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 3462) Courtesy Copies: Planning and Transportation Commission Architectural Review Board Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Board of Realtors Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association Downtown North Neighborhood Association Professorville Neighborhood University Park Neighborhood Association Attachments:  : Attachment A: Downtown Study Summary (PDF)  : Attachment B: Map of Downtown CD(C) District (PDF)  : Attachment C: Non-Residential Square Footage (PDF)  : Attachment D: Parking Changes (PDF)  : Attachment E: Changes by Land Use Category (PDF) text texttext Downtown ParkingAssessment District Professorville Historic District RamonaStreetHistoricDistrict PF PC-1992 OR CS CC R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 RM-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1(10000) R-1(10000)PF R-2 PC-2967PC-3266 PF PFPF RM-15 PF CN R-1 PC-3902 PC-3707 PC-4283 PF RT-35 PC-4389 CS CS PC-4465 CS CD-C(P) R-1(10000) RM-30 AMF(MUO) DHS R-2 CD-S(P)AMF PC-4612 R-1 PF CC PF 4426 CC RM-30 PF PF CD-N(1)(P) RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PC-2130 PFCD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-C(P) CD-C(P) CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PC-3007 PC-3974 PF PF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4238 PC-4195 RM-15 RMD(NP) RM-40 PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40 CD-C (P) CD-C (P) PFAMF DHS DHS PF PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD(NP) RMD(NP) RM-30 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 R-2 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PF PC-4052PF PC- 2545 R-2 RM-40 PC-2145 RM-30 PC-2968 PC-3995 R-2 PF R-1 R-1 PC-3753 PC-4782 CS RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 PC-4779 RM-30 CD-C(P) PC-2649 PC-4296 RM-15 PC-4173 PC-4436 PC-3437 RM-15 RM-30PC-4048 PC- 2836 PC-2152 PF R-1 R-2 RM-15 RM-30 R-1(10000) PC-3571 PF R-2 RM-30 R-2 R-2 RM-15 R R-1 CommuniGarden Palo AltoMedicalFoundation CityHall DowntownLibrary SeniorCenter FireSta.No.1 AddisonElementarySchool Children'sLibrary Palo AltoHigh School MainLibrary CulturalCenter HooverHospital JuniorMuseumandZoo WalterHaysElementarySchool Fire StationNo. 3 Elizabeth GambleGarden Center Lucie SternCenter ElPaloAltoPark El CaminoPark LyttonPlaza Cogswell Plaza ScottPark KelloggPark RinconadaPark JohnsonPark HopkinsPark EleanorPardeePark BowlingGreen WilliamsPark Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Somerset Place Martin Avenue Tevis Place Kirby Place Center Drive Pitman Avenue Arcadia Place Pitman Avenue Kings Lane Linco ln Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue nte r D rive U n West C rescent Drive Hamilton Avenue Ashby Drive Island D rive Dana Avenue n t D r i ve Southwood Drive E d g e w o o d Drive Newell Road Louisa Court De Soto Da Waverley StreetPoe Street Palo Alto Avenue Kipling Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 Cowper Street Tasso Street PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Webster Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Everett Court Byron Street Middlefield Ro ad Middlefield Road Fulton Street Seneca Street Fife Avenue Guinda Street Hamilton Avenue Forest Avenue Forest Avenue Fulton Street PaloAl to Av e nue Lytton Avenue Palo A l t o A venue Seneca Street Hale Street Forest Court University Avenue Hamilton Court Hamilton Avenue Hale Street C h a u cer Street Pal o Alto A Street M Ma Palm S University Avenue E m b a r c ade r o R o a d Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Lincoln Avenue Melville Avenue Fulton Street Byron Street Middlefield Road Melville Aven ue Cowper Street Webster Street Coleridge Avenue Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Hopkins Avenue Harriet Street Harriet Street Community Lane Wilson Street Lincoln Avenue Regent Place Kent Place Lowell Avenue Middlefield Road Em b a rc a d er o Roa d Tennyson Avenue Byron Street Fulton Street Guinda Street Harker Avenue Ceda r Street Hopkins Avenue Pine Street Newell Road Parkinson Avenue Seale Avenue Mark Twain StNewell Road No P Walter H ays D rive Walnut Drive Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Sharon Court Newell Road Erstwild Court Newell Place High StreetHomer Avenue Channing Avenue Alma Street Lane A West Lane 8 West Addison Avenue Emerson Street Ramona Street High StreetLane B West Emerson Street Lincoln Avenue Waverley Street Gilman Street Bryant Street Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Waverley Street Kingsley Avenue Lane B East Ramona Street Addison Avenue Lane D West Scott Street Bryant StreetLane D East Lincoln Avenue Kingsley Avenue Lane 59 East Addison Avenue Kipling Street Channing Avenue Cowper Street Hamilton Avenue Tasso Street University Avenue Webster Street Lane 39 Webster Street Lane 56 (Private) Byron Street Forest Avenue Whitman Court Lincoln Avenue Kellogg Avenue Melville Avenue Kingsley Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Cowper Street Middlefield Road Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Cowper Street Churchill Avenue Tasso Street Kingsley Avenue Byron Street Guinda Street Fulton Street Homer Avenue Guinda Street Boyce Avenue Addiso n Avenue Channing Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Waverley Street Bry Waverley Street nue Cowper Street gton Avenue Seale Avenue Tasso Street Tennyson Avenue Cowper Street Santa Rita Avenue Webster StreetEmbarcadero R o a d Kellogg Avenue Melville Avenue Alma Street MariposaA Coleridge Avenue venue Churchill Avenue Emerson Street Q uarry R oad Mitchell Lane Palm Drive (Stanford) Alma StreetEl Camino Real Hawthorne Avenue High Street Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue High Street El C a m ino Real Alma Street Hamilton AvenueUniversity Avenue Wells Avenue Emerson Street Ramona Street Emerson Street PaloAltoAvenue Bryant Street Ramona Street Lane 15 East Bryant Court Forest Avenue Lane 5 East Urban Lane Bryant Street Paulsen Lane Lane 12 West Enc ina A v e n u e Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Lane 6 East Centennial Walk Lane 11 West Lane 21 Florence Street Lane 20 East Lane 20 West Kipling Street Lane 30 WOODLAND AVE CONCORDLEXINGTON T PL CLELAND CT WOODLAND CREEK DR DR CAMBRIDGE AVE HARVARD AVE LN ALMA ST CORNELL AVE ALTO LN AVE EL CAMINO REAL CREEK RD PARK SHERWOOD WAVERLEY ST BURGESS RD E. CLAREMONT CREEK PL EAST DR PL MANOR LINFIELD WILLOW WY WO OD SHER WA VERLEY PLCLAREMONT WY CREEK RD DR WY E. CREEK DR WAVE RLEY DR ST PL WILLOW PARKING LAUREL S T WILLOW RDCT W AVERLEY KENT PL ST BAYWOOD LINFIELD DR HOMEWOOD PL RN AVE AVE CLOVER LN CO This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Primary Study Area (CD Zones) City Jurisdictional Limits Parking Assessment Districts Zone Designation Boundaries abc Zone Designation Labels Peripheral Study Area 0'780' Pa l o A l t o D o w n t o w n an d Su r r o u n d i n g N e i g h b o r h o o d s CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2013 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2013-03-11 17:32:47CD Peripheral Study Area--Aaron (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4056) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Phase III of Tech Enhancements for Blueprint Title: Approval of Amendment Number Two to Contract S13149314 with TruePoint Solutions, LLC in the Amount of $495,000, to Provide Deployment and Transition Support for Accela Citizen Access and Future Blueprint Enhancements, for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $652,800 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council move to authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment Number Two with TruePoint Solutions, LLC (TruePoint) to extend the existing contract three additional years and amend it in the amount of $495,000, resulting in a total contract amount not to exceed $652,800. Executive Summary Staff requests approval of the Council to extend the term of, and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract with TruePoint. TruePoint acts as a conduit between Accela and subject matter experts from appropriate city departments in order to efficiently and effectively roll out Accela products for tracking and billing of planning and building permits. The requested contract amendment applies to continuing implementation of the Blueprint process for which Citizen Access is the next step. The extension is for a three-year period to allow the possibility of support for the City’s expected subsequent steps of Electronic Document Management, Mobile Applications, Electronic Document Review, Open Data Initiatives, and Fire Permitting. Background On September 6, 2011, the Council approved staff recommendations to implement the City of Palo Alto Page 2 Development Center “Blueprint” project to streamline and modernize the City’s permit process, focusing on improving customer satisfaction and inter-departmental efficiency. As directed by the Council, staff has focused on the implementation and transition to the coordinated permit system design, restructuring of the organization, technology upgrades, and performance measurements. On December 5, 2011, (Staff Report 2364) the Council approved a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO 5134) for implementation of the Blueprint process plan for the Development Center, including appropriations of $935,600 for technology enhancements and a projection for an additional $802,401 for technology enhancements in Fiscal Year 2013. In Fiscal Year 2013, these funds, totaling $1.7 million, were incorporated into Capital Improvement Project (CIP) TE-12001 for Development Center Blueprint Tech Enhancements. Accela provides the City with software licensing, software maintenance, and training for the tracking and billing of planning and building permits. TruePoint acts as a conduit between the Accela software applications and subject matter experts from various city divisions to roll out and optimize the use of the software. Discussion Two of the goals of the CIP are to provide citizen access to permitting information and to ensure that geographic information system (GIS) data passes bi-directionally in a seamless manner between the Accela products and our City GIS system (currently Geodesy). The Development Center is currently using Velocity Hall for citizen facing functionality, but will upgrade to Accela’s Citizen Access for improved service. Accela is providing licensing, maintenance, and some training for citizen access software. Implementing Citizen Access will allow citizens to inquire about and submit records online. Initially, Citizen Access will allow the public to view information about permits, get status reports on their plan check and inspection process, allow for the submittal of a limited number of permits on line, and scheduling some inspections. Going forward the system will be more robust and accommodate a larger cross section of permits, inspections, and eventually electronic plan submittals. The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the support of Blueprint enhancements, sending copies of the RFP to at least seven firms. TruePoint was the only company to respond. Since the City already has a contract with TruePoint to support other Accela applications, Council is being requested to authorize a contract extension to include this additional work. Under the contract extension, TruePoint will assist the City and its consultants through the City of Palo Alto Page 3 transitions, provide technical and user support in the office and in the field, provide reporting data, and serve as a knowledge liaison between users, Accela, and City staff and consultants. Resource Impact The requested TruePoint contract extension is fully funded by the Development Center Blueprint Technology Enhancement CIP Project (TE-12001). This CIP project has a total budget of $1.7 million, of which $500,000 has been expended or committed to date, leaving $1.2 million for the completion of the project. With this addition of $495,000 for services from TruePoint, $705,000 will remain for the other components of the project. There is adequate budget in the project to support the contract amendment with TruePoint, therefore no additional funding is needed. This request does not include any costs for the software upgrade to Accela Citizen Access since it is already funded and available through the City’s contract with Accela. Attachments:  Attachment A: Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and TruePoint (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 7, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Nomination of Council Member Gail Price to Seek Appointment as the Northwest Cities Group 2 Representative to the VTA Board of Directors MOTION The City Council nominates Council Member Gail Price to the appointment as the Northwest County Cities Group 2 representative to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and directs the Mayor to send the attached letter to the Board of Directors, notifying them of such nomination. BACKGROUND Council Member Price has been a member of the VTA Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for four years and served as its Chair in 2013 and its Vice Chair in 2012. Additionally, she was a member of the City of Palo Alto’s Rail Committee for two years. Council Member Price has professional and personal colleagues in planning and transportation agencies throughout the Bay Area. Council Member Price has a considerable experience in transportation, land use and city planning, including over 25 years, as both a City Planner and Transportation Planner She will ably represent the interests of all of the cities in our group. The City of Palo Alto strongly urges the Northwest County Cities Group (City of Los Altos, Town of Los Altos Hills, City of Mountain View and City of Palo Alto) to elect Councilmember Price to the VTA Board of Directors as the group’s representative. The Group 2 election for this appointment will take place in November 2013. ATTACHMENTS:  : VTA GROUP2 OCTOBER 2013 (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4151) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: City Finances Summary Title: FY 2013 Reappropriations Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Fiscal Year 2013 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2014 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013 reappropriations as outlined in this report to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2014. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Each year, unexpended funds from the prior fiscal year are requested to be carried over to the current fiscal year for projects which were not completed due to various timing and/or demand issues, or other strategic purposes. A summary of the projects proposed to be carried forward to Fiscal Year 2014 from Fiscal Year 2013 was presented to and preliminarily approved by the Finance Committee on September 17, 2013. At that meeting, the Committee directed that the reappropriations be forwarded to the full City Council for approval. The attached reappropriation requests include a recommendation to carry forward $79,000 to hire consultants for a Police Utilization Study. The Committee questioned the Police Department’s capacity to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) in Fiscal Year 2014. Therefore, the Committee directed staff to include major projects under way or scheduled in the Police Department which may conflict with the issuance of the RFP. It should be noted that the City Manager’s Office plans to issue the RFP in October and that a contract is scheduled to be awarded by the end of the calendar year. FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION At the September 17, 2013 Finance Committee meeting, the Committee reviewed the Fiscal Year 2013 reappropriations requested to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2014 (Staff Report City of Palo Alto Page 2 #4023 – Attachment A to this report). The Staff Report included reappropriation recommendations totaling $2.9 million ($556,000 in the General Fund and $2.3 million in other funds) for projects which were not completed due to various timing and/or demand issues, or other strategic purposes. The Finance Committee had questions about the recommendation to reappropriate $79,000 for the Police Utilization Study. The Committee directed staff to report back to the City Council, at the time the reappropriations will be forwarded for approval, to describe major projects under way or scheduled which may conflict with the issuance of a Request for Proposal regarding the Police Utilization Study. Attachment B identifies the title, description, and estimated completion date of the project (if determined). It should be noted that the City Manager’s Office plans to issue the RFP in October and that a contract is scheduled to be awarded by the end of the calendar year. The Finance Committee approved by a unanimous vote that the report be forwarded to the City Council for approval. RESOURCE IMPACT The approval of this report will result in $556,000 in the General Fund and $2.3 million in other funds being carried forward to Fiscal Year 2014 from Fiscal Year 2013 for projects which were not completed in Fiscal Year 2013. These projects had been approved by the City Council in Fiscal Year 2013, and approval of the recommendations included in this report will allow for funds previously appropriated to be made available for expenditure in Fiscal Year 2014. Preliminary FY 13 unaudited financials indicate that the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) will be set in accordance with the City Council approved policy. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with Adopted City Council policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The action recommended is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A: Reappropriation Memo FC (PDF)  Attachment B- Major Police Department Projects (DOCX)  Attachment C - Minutes from FC Meeting (DOC) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4023) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/17/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2013 Reappropriations Title: Approval of Fiscal Year 2013 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2014 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Finance Committee preliminarily approve the Fiscal Year 2013 reappropriations to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2014 and direct staff to forward the Finance Committee’s recommendation to the City Council. Executive Summary Each year, unexpended funds from the prior fiscal year are requested to be carried over to the current fiscal year for projects which were not completed due to various timing and/or demand issues, or other strategic purposes. In order for these funds to be available for expenditure in the current fiscal year, City Council approval is required. This report provides the Finance Committee with an overview of proposed reappropriation requests and seeks preliminary approval for these reappropriations to be forwarded to the City Council for approval. Staff will return to the Finance Committee and then the City Council later in the year when the annual financial audit is complete for final confirmation of these reappropriation requests as part of the final Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Ordinance Amendment recommendations. 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 these encumbrances. However, each year there are a small number of important projects the City carries forward into the next year with unencumbered funds. The reappropriation process is used for these projects, which are City of Palo Alto Page 2 generally one-time needs. Although the Municipal Code also requires that the Council provide final approval as part of approval of the final amendments to the Budget Ordinance once the accounting books are closed, the Council may provide a preliminary approval at this time to allow the reappropriations to move forward. The preliminary approval allows the Administration to move forward with projects which may need funding in the first part of the fiscal year. The Municipal Code also states that unless amended by Council, the appropriations of capital improvement funds for project expenditures shall continue in full force and effect until the purpose for which each was made has been accomplished or abandoned. The purpose of any capital appropriation is deemed abandoned if two years pass without any expenditure from the appropriation. Discussion As noted above, the Municipal Code provides that the City Council may preliminarily approve reappropriations, with final City Council approval as part of the approval of the annual year-end closing budget ordinance. The year-end closing ordinance is scheduled to be presented to the Finance Committee in November 2013 when the annual financial audit is complete with final approval by the City Council. Attachment A identifies those reappropriation requests that staff recommends for preliminary approval, including any capital projects that have had no expenditures within the last two years. The projects for which reappropriations are recommended can generally be categorized as follows:  Operating Projects where FY 2013 workload resulted in delays: These projects were delayed due to competing workload demands, staffing issues, or other unanticipated delays. Examples of projects in this category include Office of Emergency Services (Emergency Management Training Support and Critical Protected Assets Inventory), Development Blueprint Process, and the Police Utilization Study.  Capital Projects where funds have not been expended for two years: A limited number of capital projects have not had funds expended for two years, however staff still intends to complete these projects. There are numerous reasons for not completing these items in 2013 and the need for carrying funds into 2014, including workload constraints, the desire to align the completion of projects with other capital projects occurring in FY 2014, and difficulties in locating materials. In some instances funds are recommended to be carried forward to ensure funds are in place for critical anticipated equipment replacement needs.  Projects that were strategically deferred in Fiscal Year 2013: Certain projects (Innovation Contingency Account and Mitchell Park Library Collections) were not expended in Fiscal Year 2013 for strategic purposes. The Innovation Contingency was not expended in order to provide funds for this purpose in FY 2014, as FY 2014 Innovation Contingency Funds were programmed for the Library Virtual Branch Capital Project. For Mitchell Park, funds were purposefully not spent in order to align the acquisition of library material with the current construction schedule City of Palo Alto Page 3 to ensure the most up-to-date library materials are purchased for the community.  Funds available due to lower than anticipated resident demand: In the Electric and Storm Drainage Funds, reappropriations are recommended for projects that were not utilized fully in Fiscal Year 2013 due to lower citizen interest. In the Storm Drainage Operating Fund, a rebate program available to the public since 2008, and in the Electric Fund a multi-year energy efficiency loan program that provides zero interest loans to Palo Alto commercial and residential customers, have not yet generated sufficient demand to expend all allocated resources.  Management and Professional Development funds: A number of City employees, as part of their compensation plan, are eligible for certain self-improvement activities. These funds are available to certain employees for civic and professional association memberships, conference participation and travel, educational programs, certain tuition costs, and professional and trade journal subscriptions, and are recommended to be carried over to Fiscal Year 2014 to improve and supplement the job and professional skills of employees. As part of the FY 2014 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments, the Administration intends to bring forward a recommendation to move these funds to a non-departmental appropriation for citywide training opportunities. Resource Impact The requested items have been previously reviewed and approved by City Council as part of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget process. Staff has determined that sufficient funds exist to allow for the approval of the attached Fiscal Year 2013 reappropriations list (Attachment A). For Fiscal Year 2014, staff recommends $0.6 million in carryover funds in the General Fund, and $2.3 million across all other funds. Preliminary FY 2013 unaudited financials indicate that the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) will be set in accordance with the City Council approved policy. 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: Reappropriations Summary (PDF) 2013 Reappropriations General Fund Department Reappropriation Amount Reappropriation Justification Various 84,659 Unused Management and Professional Development funds Non-Departmental 100,000 Innovation Contingency: The Innovation Contingency is set annually at $100,000 and is available for unanticipated innovative, or technological enhancements which will enhance City operations. The 2014 Adopted Operating Budget assumed that the entire 2014 allocation would be utilized fund Library Virtual Branch project. This reappropriation of unused 2013 funds will allow for additional innovation efforts in FY 2014. Library 149,524 Mitchell Park Library collections: The City received a gift from the Palo Alto Library Foundation for this purpose, however usage is being delayed in order to provide customers with the most current publications and productions when the Library opens. Office of Emergency Services 60,000 Critical Protected Assets Inventory & GIS (HAZUS):In accordance with federal guidelines, this project will identify, catalogue, prioritize, and protect critical infrastructure and key resources to support local readiness, prevention, mitigation, and response efforts. This project will integrate infrastruture information and GIS technology in an accessible tool for emergency responders, enhance incident command capabilities, support the development of site-specific protective programs, and improve the ability to plan for and manage special events. The project was delayed in Fiscal Year 2013 due to staffing constraints and workload prioritization, however it is anticipated that it will completed in Fiscal Year 2014. Office of Emergency Services 40,000 Emergency Management Training Support: This project will improve the training level of employees designated as Emergency Operations Center staff necessary for compliance with the National Incident Management System. It will also train city employees to respond to an all- hazards threat matrix of risks that may occur within city facilities. Training efforts experienced delays in Fiscal Year 2013 due to staffing constraints and workload prioritization, however the training is now anticipated to be completed in Fiscal Year 2014. Planning and Community Environment 43,000 Development Blueprint Process: $70,000 was originally allocated in FY 2013 for organizational improvements, including coaching and training. Due to high level of change and workload, all of the planned training was not able to be accomplished in FY 2013, and is now anticipated to be completed in FY 2014. Police 78,799 Police Utilization Study: In FY 2013, $80k was allocated for the department to hire a consultant to conduct a utilization study of overall police operations, however the study was not completed due to competing workload demands. Staff anticipates the Request for Proposals for this project will be completed in FY 2014. Total General Fund Reappropriations 555,982$ Attachment: A 1of 4 9/10/2013 2013 Reappropriations Fund Reappropriation Amount Reappropriation Justification Capital Projects Fund 59,768 Security System Improvements CIP Project:This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This project will upgrade the camera system and card access system located at the Municipal Services Center. The project was delayed in Fiscal Year 2013 due to workload constraints, and the anticipated workload for Fiscal Year 2014 should allow for the completion of this project. Capital Projects Fund 50,000 Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck Improvement:This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. The project will allow for the replacement of all the recycled plastic tiles in the Wilkie Way Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge, including any necessary repairs to the wood decking underneath the tiles. The project was delayed due to difficulty in locating suitable replacement tiles, however staff has recently selected an acceptable replacement product which should allow for the completion of this project in Fiscal Year 2014. Capital Projects Fund 257,985 Downtown Tree Gates CIP Project:This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This ongoing project is used to purchase tree gates on an "as needed" basis when new or replaced sidewalks are constructed. Numerous workload issues have resulted in the project being placed on hold. The project is anticipated to commence again as needed and concurrent with sidewalk work in Fiscal Year 2014. Wastewater Treatment 161,673 System Flow Meters: This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This project provides funding to replace plant flow meters which are used for regulatory reporting and billing partner agencies. No plant flow meters were replaced in Fiscal Year 2013, and the reappropriation is proposed to ensure funds are in place should a flow meter fail in Fiscal Year 2014. Capital Projects Fund 364,472 Palo Alto Traffic Signal Central System: This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This grant-funded project includes replacement of traffic signal controllers at signalized intersections and upgrades to the City's traffic signal central system, and allows for controller upgrades at 35 of the City's 99 signals. The project has been delayed as Caltrans has not released an Authorization to Proceed for the project, which is necessary for the City to encumber the funds into a contract. It is anticipated that this will occur in Fiscal Year 2014. CIP Fund 100,000 Scott Park Improvements CIP Project: This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. The project will provide upgrades and renovations for safety and accessibility improvements at Scott Park. The project was not completed in Fiscal Year 2013 due to public outreach and additional requests for amenities outside the original project scope. Staff will be taking a revised park design and Park Improvement Ordinance to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council in Fiscal Year 2014. Other Funds 2of 4 9/10/2013 2013 Reappropriations Fund Reappropriation Amount Reappropriation Justification Capital Projects Fund 50,000 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Netting CIP Project:This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This project will install necessary netting to prevent soccer balls from going over the fence and damaging vehicles in the adjacent parking lot at the Palo Alto Golf Course. The project was deferred so that it could occur simultaneously with the upcoming synthetic turf replacement at the course. Heavy trucks will be required to install the netting and addressing both projects at once will avoid damage to the synthetic turf and reduce course closures due to repair. Capital Projects Fund 65,000 Sarah Wallis Park Improvements CIP Project:This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This project will provide upgrades and renovations for safety and accessibility improvements at Sarah Wallis Park. The project was not completed in FY 2013 due to staffing limitations, however a reduced number of projects planned in Fiscal Year 2014 will allow Parks staff to complete this project in the upcoming year. Gas Fund 520,764 Directional Boring Equipment CIP Project: This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This reappropriation will allow for the purchase two new directional boring machines for gas, water, and waste water crew to install services and mains. The project was not completed in Fiscal Year 2013 due to staffing shortages in the Public Works Department, and is anticipated to be completed in Fiscal Year 2014. Gas Fund 36,419 Polythylene Fusion Equipment CIP Project:This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. This project will allow for the purchase of a new polythylene (PE) fusion machine. The new equipment will replace existing equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. The replacement did not occur in Fiscal Year 2013 as staff worked to utilize existing equipment as long as possible. Staff has determined that this replacement cannot be delayed again and must be replaced in Fiscal Year 2014. Electric Supply 300,000 Energy Efficiency Loan Program: The City Council previously approved a multi-year energy efficiency loan program to be funded from the Electric Special Projects reserve. This program was to be used for four years (2011 through 2014) to provide zero interest loans to commercial and residential customers in Palo Alto. Information Technology 100,000 Storage Area Network (SAN) Solution: The SAN solution will allow for future Cloud deployments, disaster recovery, back-up, and failover. Server equipment replacement was put on hold in FY 13 in order to develop a data center strategy, and essential equipment is failing. This project is now anticipated to be completed in Fiscal Year 2014. Other Funds 3of 4 9/10/2013 2013 Reappropriations Fund Reappropriation Amount Reappropriation Amount Information Technology 95,694 SAP Continuous Improvement CIP Project: This reappropriation is proposed to prevent a lapse in funding. Staff received a number of SAP recommendations from an internal audit in December 2011. While a number of the audit recommendations have been addressed and completed, two remain. These remaining recommendations will be addressed in Fiscal Year 2014. Information Technology 75,000 Fire Mobile Data Computers (MDCs):This project will replace 15 of 27 fire mobile data computers in accordance with the City's replacement schedule and to ensure that up-to-date equipment is available for emergency response activities. The project experienced delays in Fiscal Year 2013 as the Fire Departement evaluated potential products. The project is anticipated to be completed in Fiscal Year 2014. Various 8,627 Unused Management and Professional Development funds:Utilities Administration: $5,000, Information Technology, $3,627 Storm Drainage- Operating 38,869 Innovative Storm Drain Fund: Funds were originally earmarked in the approved 2005 Storm Drainage Fee property owner ballot measure for Storm Drainage Improvements. The funds have been utilized since 2008 to fund a rebate program offering financial incentives to residents/businesses for the installation of measures that reduce stormwater runoff. As the program has not yet generated sufficient demand to spend all of the funds, remaining funds will be utilized for a storm drain improvement project in the Southgate neighborhood. Per the terms of the 2005 Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure approved by Palo Alto property owners, these funds must be carried over to be utilized for Innovative Storm Drainage Improvements. Total Other Funds Reappropriations 2,284,271$ Total- All Reappropriations 2,840,252$ Other Funds 4of 4 9/10/2013 Page 1 of 3 Major Police Department Projects Project Name Description Estimated Completion Date Dual Factor Authentication Dual-Factor authentication provides additional security for authorized users attempting to access sensitive or restricted information. Dual-factor authentication will be a requirement for all law enforcement personnel to access information through the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2013. There are a number of solutions including security tokens and biometrics that the Department worked with IT to select the most effective solution. October 2013 Rifle Deployment Authorization Expansion The Department currently has authorized the use of tactical rifles by a specialized trained group of officers. These officers must qualify on an annual basis and attend special training which includes guidelines for deploying the rifle. The Department is expanding the program to include all officers. November 2013 Crime Analysis Software Crime analysis software is an important tool in preventing crime. Crime analysis software aggregates historical data and uses advanced mathematics and computer modeling to generate predictions of where and when future crime may occur. A number of law enforcement agencies have deployed this tool and achieved measurable reductions in crime. December 2013 Department Operations Website Development and deployment of an online platform for shared workspace, intelligence sharing, and department information. December 2013 Mobile Audio/Video (MAV) Equipment Replacement Complete replacement of MAV equipment deployed in all of the Police Department’s patrol cars. This system provides video evidence for court cases, complaint investigations, supervisor review, and officer training. December 2013 Staff Scheduling Software The Department will be implementing a department-wide cloud-based staff scheduling software to include the complex demands of 24/7 operations, multiple patrol teams, and staffing rules. December 2013 Attachment: B Page 2 of 3 Project Name Description Estimated Completion Date Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS), and Field Based Reporting (FBR) systems The CAD, RMS, and FBR systems coordinate response to Police and Fire Department calls for service, as well as to document employee-initiated activity. These systems are also used to input, retain, and retrieve information that is used for operational analysis, and to comply with regulatory reporting requirements for crime and emergency medical service incidents. The existing systems are twelve years old, have exceeded their expected service life, and are lacking features and functionality now available in contemporary public safety systems. The City is partnering with Mountain View and Los Altos to deliver a comprehensive tri-cities system. Spring 2014 (CAD) Fall 2014 (RMS/FBR) New Patrol Cars The Department began the replacement of the its entire patrol fleet with a new vehicle model in FY 2013. March 2014 TASERs Electronic Control Devices (ECDs), also known as Tasers, have been utilized by the police department since 2007. The Tasers are a critical component for officers in the category of less lethal force options when dealing with a variety of circumstances. The primary reasons for the use of Tasers is to reduce officer and suspect injuries, reduce litigation by injured suspects, and reduce the use of deadly force situations. The Department’s Tasers have outlived the manufacturer’s warranty. Based on the results of a Department needs assessment and review of current Taser technology, the Department will either replace the current Taser inventory with new units of the model the Department is currently using or upgrade to the newest Taser device March 2014 Recruitment/ Officer Vacancies and Succession Planning The Department is continuing a resource intensive effort to restore staffing to authorized levels as well as a strategic plan for future transitions and retirements by updating its succession and strategic planning efforts. On-going Active Shooter Response Protocol The Department is involved in a County-wide effort to review and update Active Shooter response protocols. TBD Page 3 of 3 Project Name Description Estimated Completion Date Field Training Officer Software Currently, the Field Training Officer (FTO) Program of the Police Department documents all aspects of a new officer’s training performance with hard copy personnel record. For each new police officer, the FTO is responsible for completing roughly 72 Daily Observation Reports (DORs), nine bi-weekly performance evaluations, and one final evaluation. Staff will evaluate software which manages all personnel and training files for the FTO program. This is specifically designed and customized software based on the California Peace Officers Standards in Training (POST) Field Training guidelines. TBD Public Safety Building Public Safety Senior Command Staff play a key role in the on-going design and planning of the Public Safety Building. TBD Tri-City Fiber Ring The Department is evaluating options, in conjunction with Mountain View and Los Altos, to extend Fiber to those communities to support the Tri-Cities CAD/RMS initiative and increase disaster resilience. TBD Upgrades to Radio Infrastructure The City in partnership with other cities and the County is replacing radio infrastructure and constructing a more inter-operable radio network to ensure reliable and effective telecommunications infrastructure. TBD FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 1 of 3 Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2. Approval of Fiscal Year 2013 Re-Appropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2014. Walter Rossmann, Director of Office of Management and Budget, reported Staff requested the Finance Committee (Committee) recommend to the Council to carry forward funds for various projects. There were various reasons for re-appropriation requests including delays in and sequencing of projects. Staff requested approval to carry forward Management and Professional Development funds across various departments in order to fund training in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. During the mid-year Budget process, Staff would present a plan to appropriate those funds. Approximately $600,000 in the General Fund and $2.3 million in all funds were proposed to be carried forward. In FY 2012 the Council approved carrying forward approximately $1 million in the General Fund and approximately $9 million in all funds. Council Member Schmid asked if operating transfers in and operating transfers out were part of the re-appropriations. Mr. Rossmann explained that the re-appropriated funds were not reflected in the Budget as adopted by the Council. They were funds from the FY 2013 Budget that Staff requested be carried forward to the FY 2014 Budget. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the re-appropriated funds would be included in the FY 2014 Budget as operating transfers in. Mr. Rossmann stated the funds would not be indicated as a transfer. The funds would be placed in the specific funds in which they were originally budgeted. It was not a transfer of funds, but a re-appropriation of funds from one fiscal year to the next. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the funds were re-appropriated because the funds were not spent in FY 2013. Mr. Rossmann answered yes. Attachment: C DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 2 of 3 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Draft Excerpt Minutes 9/17/2013 Chair Burt inquired whether re-appropriated funds moved from the expense side of the FY 2013 Budget to the expense side of the FY 2014 Budget. Mr. Rossmann explained that the funds were not shown as an expenditure because they had not been expended. Technically, unspent funds moved to the unrestricted ending fund balance, and then carried forward for the same purpose in the next fiscal year. When the funds were spent, then they would be shown as an expenditure. Council Member Schmid inquired whether re-appropriated funds would be shown on the revenue side for FY 2014 as an operating transfer in. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, reported that the first quarter report would have a line item for re-appropriations. The specific expenditures would be shown in the specific department categories. Chair Burt asked if re-appropriated funds would move over on both the revenue and expense sides to the FY 2014 Budget. Mr. Rossmann replied yes. Chair Burt noted the Police Utilization Study was carried over because of competing work demands, and inquired about the cause of and a solution for the competition. Mr. Perez indicated the Police Department had a significant amount of vacancies which caused difficulties with completing the study. Management Staff suggested the study be included as a re-appropriation so it could be included in the work plan in FY 2014. Chair Burt understood the study had not been initiated. Mr. Perez agreed. Chair Burt inquired about the date for releasing a bid and completing the study. Mr. Perez indicated a bid could be released in three to four months depending on the amount of time needed to complete the scope of services. Ian Hagerman, Senior Management Analyst, reported a Request for Proposal (RFP) had not been drafted. The Police Department was interested in performing the study, but the priority for the study was lower than two larger, more significant projects. DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 3 of 3 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Draft Excerpt Minutes 9/17/2013 Chair Burt suggested the study would not occur in FY 2014. Mr. Hagerman did not expect the project to be completed in FY 2014, but hoped it would be initiated in FY 2014. Chair Burt asked if the study would be initiated once the two larger projects were completed. Mr. Hagerman stated it was possible to begin the project once one of the larger projects was completed; however, it would be difficult. Chair Burt asked which department initiated the study. Mr. Perez responded that the City Manager's Office directed Staff to perform the study. Chair Burt could accept the timeline for initiating and completing the study; however, he requested a report on the timelines and actions needed for the three major projects. Mr. Hagerman noted other Police Department projects included replacement of mobile audio and video in police cars, outfitting of seven new police cruisers, replacement of TASERs, and investigation of body cameras. A number of significant technology projects needed to be prioritized in the context of the study. Chair Burt agreed that the various technology improvements were important; however, the Council should see the list of competing projects and priorities in order to understand that the study was not forgotten. Mr. Hagerman suggested Staff include a schedule of projects and timelines when the item was presented to the Council. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013 Re- appropriations to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2014. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4081) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Edgewood Plaza SEIR, Final Map and PC Amendment Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of (1) a Resolution Certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; (2) an Ordinance Amendin g Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Approve an Amendment to Planned Community (PC-5150) Mixed use Project to Allow Reconstruction of One of Two Historic Eichler Retail Buildings (Building 1); and 3) Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide Two Commercial Parcels Into Eleven Parcels to Include a Commercial Parcel with a Public Park and Ten Single Family Properties, for a 3.58 Acre Site Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza Mixed Use Project). * Quasi-Judicial From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council (1) approve the Resolution (Attachment A), certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) adopt an Ordinance (Attachment B), approving the amendment to the Planned Community (PC) project to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, where installation of replicas of the original detailed wood window frames and contribution of $94,200 towards a fund for the future historic rehabilitation of a public building would serve as the two PC public benefits, and (3) approve the Final Map. Executive Summary The applicant, Sand Hill Property Company, is requesting a Planned Community Zoning Amendment to allow reconstruction of one of two historically significant retail buildings with all new materials. Council approved the Edgewood Plaza PC on March 19, 2012, allowing redevelopment of the historic, three-building shopping center, including the relocation and rehabilitation of a historic building, ten new single family homes and a new 0.20 acre park. Council concurrently approved an EIR and a Tentative Map to subdivide the property into one City of Palo Alto Page 2 commercial parcel, which would include the 0.2-acre park, and ten residential, fee simple lots. The two historically significant retail buildings were to be preserved as a primary PC public benefit: Building #2 was to be rehabilitated in place, while Building #1 was to be disassembled, relocated on site and rehabilitated. However, the applicant demolished Building #1 without notifying or receiving approval from the City, resulting in an order to stop construction. On March 4, 2013, the City Council authorized the applicant to proceed with the construction of the grocery store, the remaining historic building (Building #2), and six of the ten homes. Because the Final EIR certified for the original project assumed both historic buildings would be rehabilitated, a Supplemental EIR was prepared to address the fact that Building #1 must be rebuilt with all new materials. On August 21, 2013, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) has recommended that City Council certify the SEIR and approve the PC Zoning Amendment. At its hearing on September 25, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended by a vote of 5-1-2 that the City Council certify the Final SEIR and approve the PC amendment. Background The project scope required submittal and review of a separate Planned Community Rezoning Amendment application, because the project is not considered a minor change to a previously approved Planned Community development plan. If it were considered as a minor change, the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board would have been allowed to review and recommend the changes to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant proposes to reconstruct Building #1 using new materials rather that rehabilitate the building demolished during the construction process. The applicant is not proposing any other changes to the project. Planned Community Rezoning PC districts follow a unique set of procedures, standards, and findings, which are described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Typically, the first step in the PC process is PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule, and initiation of the rezoning. This application is different in that (1) it is a revision to a PC project the Council recently approved, (2) the application does not require initiation, and (3) the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review was not included in this PC review process due to the scope of the amendment; rather, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) has considered the project and has provided a recommendation to Council. Because the only proposed change to the PC development plan is the construction materials of Building #1, and all other components of the PC remain the same, the amendment was not brought to the ARB. However, the ARB subcommittee has been consulted on a periodic basis for minor façade changes in the ARB’s purview throughout the construction process. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The approval of the amended PC is still subject to the three PC findings, that: (a) the site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; and (b) development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district; and (c) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. Project History Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph Eichler/Eichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of Jones and Emmons. The center was originally built with the existing grocery building (1957), two retail buildings (1958), an office building that formerly housed the office of Eichler Homes (1959), and a gas station (1957). The office building and gas station sites are not part of the shopping center or this project. Edgewood Plaza is not listed on The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. This site is not on the City’s historic resources inventory but, because it has been deemed eligible for both registers, it is considered a historic resource. The site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) rezoning approved by the City Council on March 19, 2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center, including the relocation of one of three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new 9,000 square foot park. Two of the existing commercial buildings, Buildings #1 and #2 were deemed historic resources and approved for rehabilitation. Building #3, the former Lucky market building, currently occupied by Fresh Market, is not considered a historic resource. Building #1 was to be disassembled, relocated on the site and rehabilitated. Building #2 was to be rehabilitated in place. A tentative map was also approved to subdivide the property into one commercial lot, including a public park, and ten single family lots. The primary public benefits for the Edgewood Plaza project consisted of 1) the preservation of historic resources, 2) the construction and operation of the grocery store, 3) the creation of a 0.20 acre park containing a display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements, and 4) the installation of three electric vehicle chargers. City of Palo Alto Page 4 A Final EIR was prepared and certified by the City Council on March 19, 2012, to provide environmental clearance for the rezoning, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document analyzed the historic resources and the project’s potential impact on those resources. Buildings #1 and #2 were deemed to have retained integrity of design and would have been eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. Because the site had been determined to be eligible for both the NRHP and CRHR, per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the site would have qualified for the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under Criterion 3 and 4. The certification of the EIR was based on the assumption that historic impacts for the relocation of Building #1 would be mitigated to a less than significant impact because the building would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (Standards). The rehabilitation was to include retention of the character defining features of the building, such as the wood window frames, glulam beams, concrete block wall, cornice and wood paneling. City Council Hearing on March 4, 2013 In September 2012, a stop work order was issued because the historic building (Building #1) that was to be disassembled and reconstructed onsite was illegally demolished. The project was taken to a City Council hearing on March 4, 2013 (continued from February 11, 2013) to request direction on how to move forward on the project given the demolition. The City Council authorized the continued construction of the grocery store, the remaining historic (Building #2), six of the homes and other onsite and offsite improvements. The City Council also authorized the City’s hiring of Carey & Company, the historic consulting firm that the performed the peer review on the original EIR for the City, to review plans and monitor construction to ensure that Building #2 complies with the PC zoning and all mitigation measures, including the Standards. The monitoring has included multiple walk-throughs and special focus has been placed on the preservation of the building’s signature glulam beams. To date, the applicant has completed the grocery store building, and installation of various parking lot improvements including the electric charging stations. The rehabilitation of Building #2 is in process and has been done to the satisfaction of the City’s historic consultant. Following the March Council hearing, staff received multiple emails supporting the continued construction of the project. The City Council motion specifically included the following:  Allow preparation of Supplemental EIR;  Return to Council with SEIR and amendment to the PC Zoning following HRB and PTC hearings;  Prohibit construction of Building #1 until SEIR certified and PC Amendment approved;  Allow continued construction of Building #3 (grocery store);  Allow rehabilitation of Building #2 with monitoring by City’s historic consultant;  Allow offsite improvements; City of Palo Alto Page 5  Allow installation of historic sign and other related work;  Allow construction of six homes, with the two units behind Building #2 stayed pending PC Amendment; and  Request for staff to return with a recommendation on a fine based on the amount of savings likely to be achieved from moving forward with housing construction. Board and Commission Review HRB Review Following the release of the Supplemental EIR, a Historic Resources Board hearing was held on August 21, 2013 to receive HRB feedback on the Supplemental EIR and the proposal to rebuild Building #1 with all new materials. The shopping center, now more than 50 years old, has been deemed a historic resource even though it is not on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the Palo Alto Historic Inventor. The HRB had reviewed the original project and EIR. A copy of the staff report and minutes of the August 21st hearing are attached for the Council’s review. The staff report can also be found at the following link: http://goo.gl/tN7OKG. During the hearing, one member of the public spoke regarding the project, suggesting that Building #1 not be rebuilt and that the housing site be replaced with dedicated parkland. The HRB voted unanimously to recommend that City Council certify the Supplemental EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The HRB also voted unanimously to approve the amendment to the PC Zoning to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, specifying that the replacement materials must follow the materials approved for use in Building #2 and a plaque must be installed on the building recognizing that it is a replica in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. The HRB believed that this was the most appropriate response to the loss of the historic structure. The HRB’s recommendation included staff’s recommendation that a historic consultant be hired to monitor the construction of Building #1, to ensure that it will be similar to the originally approved Building #1. The HRB determined that the project could be supported because the proposed replacement meets the original intent to retain the retail building environment. PTC Review On September 25, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council certify of Final SEIR and approve the PC Zoning Amendment, on a 4-1-2. The PTC recommended that the installation of custom made wood windows that replicate the original windows in Building #1 and #2 be identified as a public benefit, because the windows bring the design closer to the original buildings. The PTC also recommended that the applicant be City of Palo Alto Page 6 required to contribute $94,200 to a fund for the future rehabilitation of a City owned historic building as the second public benefit. The PTC’s motion also included that, if a survey of residents along West Bayshore Road shows support for the construction of the West Bayshore Road sidewalk, then a contribution to the sidewalk project should be considered. As directed, a survey has been sent out to area residents. The results of the survey will be presented to the City Council at the October 7th hearing. The Commissioners were generally supportive of allowing the project to continue and expressed appreciation for the applicant taking responsibility for the demolition. One member of the public spoke at the PTC hearing. The speaker, a 46-year resident on Wildwood Lane, stated that she was thrilled that the project was originally approved, happy about Fresh Market opening, and that she and her neighbors are enthusiastically in favor of the project continuing. Roger Kohler, vice chair of the HRB, noted that the HRB unanimously supported the project as proposed and felt it was the best solution. The PTC’s primary focus during the discussion was the topic of penalties and public benefits. The PTC acknowledged that this project is different from other PC requests, in that the project is no longer controversial but that the City’s response to the violation of the PC is very important and is needed to discourage future violations. In addition to debating the appropriate penalty dollar amount, the PTC also debated whether the penalty should be applied to a future historic rehabilitation of a public building or to the construction of a sidewalk on West Bayshore Road to benefit the neighborhood to the north. The initial recommendation was to apply the penalty towards a historic rehabilitation fund. However, the PTC’s motion also included that the sidewalk project be considered if the neighborhood supported it. The September 25, 2013 PTC staff reports, without attachments and meeting minutes are attached. The entire PTC staff report can also be found on the City’s website at the following link: http://goo.gl/u0ddiQ. Discussion The resolution for the Final Supplemental EIR (Attachment A) and the Ordinance for the Planned Community Rezoning (Attachment B) are attached. Key issues discussed below are: (1) the Final SEIR and historic impacts and (2) Penalty and Planned Community Public Benefits. Final SEIR and Historic Impacts A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was originally published and posted on February 1, 2013 and sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day period, from February 1 to March 4, 2013. A Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was published, posted and mailed announcing that the document was available for a 45- day comment period from May 17 through July 20, 2013. Copies of the Draft SEIR and Final City of Palo Alto Page 7 SEIR were provided to the HRB, PTC and City Council at the beginning of the circulation period. The document concluded that the revised project would result in two new significant impacts: 1) Significant Impact to the historic resources specific to Building #1 after implementation of mitigation measures and 2) Significant Cumulative Historic Resources Impact. The SEIR, prepared by David J. Powers and Associates, was found acceptable by both the HRB and PTC. The Final SEIR would have included formal responses to all comments received during the public comment period. Since no comments were received regarding the SEIR, a Final SEIR was prepared confirming that no comments were received. The Final SEIR was circulated for public review on September 5, 2013 and was available to the public a minimum of ten days prior to the EIR certification hearing. The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, including source documents, additional background information, and the PTC, HRB, and ARB reports for review dates mentioned above are available on the City’s website at http://goo.gl/PjnreG. Images of project plans are also available with the staff report online, as a link on the PTC September 11, 2013 PTC meeting agenda at http://goo.gl/u0ddiQ. SEIR Contents Because the complete loss of Building #1 has been deemed a substantial change to the project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the SEIR was prepared to address the changes needed to comply with State law. This SEIR is focused only on the new significant historic impact created by the change to the proposal, the loss of Building #1 and the replacement construction in the same location with new materials. The original Final EIR included a mitigation measure (MMCR-2.3) that required compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level for both Buildings #1 and #2. Loss of Building #1’s materials prevents the application of the mitigation measure and the Standards of Rehabilitation. The other two mitigation measures to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level included the preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (MM CR-2.1) and creation of a display illustrating the history of Edgewood Plaza (MM CR-2.2) are still applicable. The HABS survey was completed and has been used to facilitate the preparation of the SEIR and the project implementation. The SEIR concluded that there would be a new significant impact to historic resources due to the loss of Building #1. Because there was a complete loss of materials, only the Secretary of Interior’s Reconstruction approach for potential mitigation is applicable to address impacts to the site’s historic resources. The Reconstruction guidelines have typically been used in very selective situations, such as reconstruction of a historic museum, where there is a clear public benefit (usually educational). The guidelines include requirements such as preservation of any remaining historic materials and construction of only the original design. The complete list of Guidelines and Standards for Reconstruction are provided on pages 19-22 of the Draft SEIR. City of Palo Alto Page 8 However, application of the guidelines cannot reduce the demolition to a less than significant level, because none of the historic fabric would be retained. Because the proposed Building #1 is substantially consistent with the originally approved design and in the same location, the SEIR concludes that there would not be an impact to the character of Building #2. To address the new impact caused by the loss of Building #1, mitigation measure CR-2.3 has been amended. The mitigation measure as originally written still applies to Building #2. CR-2.3 now states: A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previous approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building #1 will be wood- framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment. In addition, staff proposes that the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company, review and monitor the construction of Building #1, similar to what was required for Building #2. As noted above, application of the revised mitigation measure will not reduce the level of significance because none of the original building has been retained. The SEIR also concluded that there is a significant impact to Cumulative Cultural Resources, in that the loss of Building #1 combined with the recently approved demolition of the Edward Durrell Stone Building Complex (1959), a significant example of a mid-century building, at the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) campus (as part of the SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project approved in July 2011) has created a cumulatively considerable impact to mid-century modern buildings by prominent architects. The loss of Building #1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex will therefore be a significant impact. As noted, the Final SEIR, together with the Draft SEIR, is considered the CEQA clearance document for the amended project. No new environmental impacts were identified following the release of the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR confirmed that no comments were received for the Draft SEIR and no changes have been made. Because there are significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the City Council must adopt overriding considerations in order to certify the SEIR. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Overriding considerations have been provided in the CEQA Resolution in Attachment A for the Council’s review and action. Reconstruction versus Retention/Rehabilitation of Building #1 Building #1 was originally approved to be dismantled and rebuilt to accommodate the redevelopment, and would have retained the character defining features, such as the turn- down roof, glue laminated or glulam beams, concrete masonry unit (cmu) block walls, and redwood siding. The walls were defined as a “kit of parts” to be reorganized to maintain the historic character of the buildings, while allowing the modernization of the building to accommodate a successful retail environment. The applicant proposes a complete reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, but in the same location and configuration as previously approved by Council. All other components of the previously approved PC project, including the ten residences and park, would remain the same as approved by Council. Building #1 is proposed to be substantially similar to the originally approved design, which was based on the “kit of parts” concept that would ensure the building would retain the character defining features of the Eichler aesthetic: the block walls, the storefront glass, redwood siding and the glulam beams. The building would still include a new roof screen to hide roof-mounted equipment. The modifications include minor changes to the proportions of each element to accommodate modern tenants and requirements of the Building Code. These minor modifications have been carefully reviewed and found acceptable by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner. Similar modifications to Building #2 have been reviewed and approved by the City, also with consultation by the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company. The applicant will also be required to install a plaque, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, identifying the building as a reconstruction in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. Staff is also recommending that Carey & Company be retained to monitor the building permit process and construction for Building #1. This will also be critical for the installation of the window frames, discussed below. Storefront Windows Given that the proposal is for reconstruction, replication of the original storefront window system is now possible. The original approval allowed installation of simpler wood window frames. Building #1 can now be rebuilt in a design significantly closer to its original appearance than the altered building that was demolished. The original wood window frames of both Eichler buildings were a more complex design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass, which gave the windows a streamlined, modern look. Because one storefront at the rear of Building #2 was preserved intact since 1957, the City and the applicant’s historic consultant is able to use that storefront as a model to guide the City of Palo Alto Page 10 reconstruction of Buildings #2 and #1 to better approximate its original 1957 design. The reconstruction of Building #1 with the custom made windows would provide a much more historically correct design than was found in the building that was demolished, and more correct than the version originally approved. Working closely with the City’s historic consultant, the applicant now has custom-made replicas for the rehabilitation of Building #2, and will do the same for Building #1, should the amendment be approved. Although the loss of a historic building cannot be mitigated, the historic accuracy of the replacement structure would be increased with the installation of these more complex window frames. Staff has determined that, because the storefront glass system was a large part of the original design, this requirement provides a significant historic benefit to the project. This addition, in some ways, will result in a building that is more similar to the original design, although constructed of all new materials. This historic enhancement will also improve the historic integrity of the remaining historic building, Building #2. Public Benefits and Penalties As part of the original PC rezoning, the applicant proposed to provide the following public benefits to satisfy the second PC finding: 1) preservation of a historically significant Eichler designed shopping center, 2) an approximately 20,600 sq. ft. grocery store, 3) an approximately 0.20 acre park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements, and 4) three electric vehicle car chargers. The applicant will still be able to provide the second, third and fourth public benefits. However, due to the demolition of Building 1, the character of the preservation benefit will need to be modified. The applicant is also requesting that the City weigh his unexpected costs during the consideration of penalties and public benefits. The applicant has had to increase his cost by over $200,000 for complications regarding the traffic signal modification and the electric vehicle chargers. Additional costs have also included the cost of the preparation of the SEIR ($43,000) and the construction monitoring and plan review by the historic consultant ($15,000). Because the applicant is proposing a PC amendment, the City can consider whether additional public benefits should be required to compensate for the benefits lost by the demolition of Building #1. The installation of a storefront window system on Buildings #1 and #2 that replicates the original wood window frames of the original Eichler design can be considered a public benefit. The window frames feature a more complex, three-dimensional design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass. The cost for installing the new frames will be over $250,000. The installation of the new frames on Building City of Palo Alto Page 11 #2 has begun and it was anticipated that construction would be completed in late September. The City’s consultant has been carefully reviewing the entire process. Although Building #1 has been lost, the project continues to provide the public benefit of the preservation (or re-creation) of a historic design, preservation of the historic Building #2, a public park, a grocery store and the rehabilitation of a public sign. Construction of Building #1 will result in a project that more closely resembles the original center than it would without the building. Possible Public Benefits West Bayshore Road Sidewalk During the original public hearings for this project, there were requests to require the construction of sidewalks along the site’s West Bayshore Road frontage. Sidewalks were not required because West Bayshore Road to the north of the site does not have sidewalks and this portion of West Bayshore Road frontage is not designed for pedestrian activity. However, in response to the request by area residents, the City has incorporated the construction of sidewalks on West Bayshore Road as a future project in the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (adopted July 2012). Staff has consulted both with Transportation and Public Works staff regarding the feasibility of the construction of sidewalks. The cost estimate for construction of sidewalk on one side of West Bayshore from the project site to the City limits for a length of approximately 1,600 feet, excluding drainage cost, is approximately $144,000. The City Council could require the applicant to contribute towards the work to be completed by the City as part of its Capital Improvement Program, as a public benefit. This option would directly benefit this neighborhood. However, the construction of sidewalks in this area would result in the loss of approximately 10 potential parking spaces. The parking spaces are not official spaces but areas in the unfinished dirt edge that are large enough to accommodate vehicles. Historic Rehabilitation Contribution As an alternative, the applicant could make a contribution to the restoration of a publicly owned, historic resource in Palo Alto. For example, the applicant could contribute funding towards improvements of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Depot, which is the second busiest station for the Caltrain system. The Streamline Modern style station is designated as a Category 1 resource on the City’s historic inventory and is also on the National Registry of Historic Places. This is just one example; there are other publicly owned buildings in Palo Alto that could also benefit from rehabilitation funds. If appropriate, these funds could be stored in a reserve account, and be made available for use toward a specific project when directed by the Council. This public benefit is appropriate because the proceeds would be for historic rehabilitation in exchange for the loss of a historic resource. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Penalties Because this is a PC and one of the primary community benefits has been removed, the Council has some discretion in determining the best approach for assessing penalties. While at a minimum the penalty should serve as a deterrent to future violations, the penalties could also provide a vehicle for additional public benefits. The approaches include consideration of possible savings by the applicant by being allowed to continue the project, use of the City’s existing penalty system, and typical practices by other cities. City Council had directed staff to provide them with recommendations regarding penalties for the demolition of Building #1. Council specifically requested that staff make a recommendation of the fine based on the amount of the savings likely to be achieved by the developer from moving forward with the construction of the housing. The applicant has not yet received building permit because a Final Map has not been issued and has not been able to begin construction. The Final Map cannot be approved until the SEIR is certified for the revised project. However, the applicant has stated that the ability to move forward with the review of the building permit for the homes has allowed the loan financing to proceed. The cost of capital or interest “savings” is approximately $52,800 because work was allowed for the 6 months following Council’s March 4th authorization to continue. Accordingly, using this methodology a penalty of $52,800 would be appropriate. The Municipal Code allows the City to fine applicants for a variety of code violations, based on the type of infraction. Palo Alto’s standard administrative penalty for violating a building permit condition is $500. A daily fine can be levied in situations where the applicant has the ability to correct the violation. In this situation, a daily fine is not applicable as there is no feasible method for correcting the violation. In addition, a one-time penalty of $500 is grossly inadequate for the subject violation. An alternate method, which has been used by other cities, is to charge double or triple the building permit fee for code violations. The building permit fee is based on the valuation of the construction cost and the scope of work for all trades (i.e. lighting, plumbing, etc.). The building permit fee for the shell that was charged for Building 1 was $9,443.17, or about 1.5 percent for a valuation of $600,000. The City could use this rationale to fine the applicant $9,443.17 (or double) for the illegal demolition. Additionally, given the special circumstance of the demolition of an historic structure, an additional fine may be warranted. There is a specific fine of $1,000 authorized in the City Code for demolition of a downtown historic structure. If a similar fine were added to the building permit fee, a total of $10,443.17 could be assessed. According to the applicant, the cost of the construction is approximately 25-30% higher, or between $150,000 and $180,000 (based on the original valuation), than expected. This excludes site construction and the additional cost due to the custom made windows. The cost of the custom made windows will add approximately $162,000 to the total construction cost of City of Palo Alto Page 13 Building #1. This also excludes the cost of the electrical vehicle charging stations and the traffic signal modifications discussed above. If the building permit fee were to be evaluated again, the valuation would be $912,000 or $942,000. If the cost of the revised building permit fee was to be used as a penalty, then a possible fine would be between $13,680 (double the fee) and $28,260 and (triple the fee). As an alternative, the City could charge a percentage of the construction cost of the project because of the significant loss. If ten percent is used, the fine can be between $91,200 and $94,200. Although typical practice would be to charge double or triple the building permit fee and the cost of the project has increased significantly, given that a significant structure has been lost and a required public benefit can no longer be provided, the higher amount would be appropriate. The PTC recommended the $94,200 penalty amount as an appropriate penalty. In addition, the PTC recommended that the penalty be applied towards a city historic fund to help compensate for the loss of the resource. As an alternative, if there is neighborhood support, the PTC is requesting that the Council also consider applying the penalty to the Bayshore Road sidewalk improvements. Staff has consulted with various cities regarding their approaches for implementing penalties for the illegal demolition of historic resources. Cities consulted included Berkeley, San Jose, Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Los Gatos. Those cities do not have ordinances that identify specific penalty fees for illegal demolition. (As a side note, staff will continue its research and will likely recommend a separate fine for demolition of historic buildings in connection with the Administrative Penalty update.) The City of Pasadena requires an automatic construction delay of 6 months for illegal demolitions. As discussed above, those cities have required payment of double to triple the building permit fees as a penalty. The applicant has and will continue to incur costs associated with the delay due to the demolition. The costs include the preparation of the SEIR, hiring of the historic consultant and the fees for the PC Amendment. Final Map The purpose of the final map is to subdivide the subject into one commercial parcel, which would include the 0.20 acre park, and ten residential fee simple lots. The Final Map and the Ordinance for the original PC Zoning and Tentative Map have been provided for the Council’s information. Staff of the Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the Final Map (Attachment D) and have determined that it is consistent with the approved Tentative Map. The map is consistent with the approved Tentative Map site layout, which was designed to meet the requirements of both the original Planned Community Zoning and the proposed Amendment. The map also satisfies all approval conditions for the Tentative Map, including the preparation of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Park Maintenance Agreement, and Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement. The City Attorney, Public Works Department and Community Services Department have reviewed the agreements and concur. According to City of Palo Alto Page 14 the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council must therefore approve the Final Map if it complies with the approved Tentative Map. Resource Impact The project’s addition of 10 residential units, along with its creation of 38,400 square feet of retail space to the existing shopping center, would yield the City additional annual revenues in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes, estimated in the range of $100,000 to $150,000. One-time revenues would include impact fees of approximately $1.6 million and documentary Transfer Fees of approximately $0.07 million. On the expenditure side, the project’s residential portion will create additional demand for City services, but these should be offset by the required development impact fees. Environmental Review A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact report (Final SEIR) was prepared for the project, with a focus on impacts to historic resources, as discussed above. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review between May 17 and July 20, 2013. The Final EIR was circulated on September 5, 2013, confirming that no comments were received by the comment end date. CEQA requires that Final SEIR be circulated a minimum of ten days prior to actions by the decision making body, which is the City Council. Copies of the Draft and Final SEIR have previously been distributed to the City Council. The Draft and Final SEIR, as well as the original Final EIR, Draft EIR, and First Amendment are also available online on the City’s website: http://goo.gl/PjnreG. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)  Attachment B: Ordinance (Exhibits include location map and original Ordinance) (PDF)  Attachment C: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment D: Historic Resources Board Staff Report (without attachments) and Minutes dated August 21, 2013 (PDF)  Attachment E: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (without attachments) and Draft Minutes (PDF)  Attachment F: Applicant's Development Schedule Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Applicant's Cost Savings Letter (PDF)  Attachment H: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (PDF)  Attachment I: Public Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment J: Project Plans (Council Members Only) (TXT) NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 1 Resolution No _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Edgewood Plaza Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Introduction and Certification. (a) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”), in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.), and Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.). All statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph. These findings are made relative to the conclusions of the City of Palo Alto Edgewood Plaza Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030) (the “Final SEIR”), which includes the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”). The Final SEIR addresses the environmental impacts of the implementation of the Edgewood Plaza Project (the “Project”, as further defined in Section 2(b) below) and is incorporated herein by reference. These findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. (b) Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program described below, which is the responsibility of the City. (c) The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Project. Sand Hill Property Company is the Project applicant. (d) The City exercised its independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code section 20182.1(c), in retaining the independent consulting firm David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (“Powers & Associates”) to prepare the Final SEIR, and Powers & Associates prepared the Final SEIR under the supervision and at the direction of the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment. (e) The City, through Powers & Associates, initially prepared the Draft SEIR and circulated it for review by responsible and trustee agencies and the public and submitted it to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, for a comment period which ran from May 1, through July 20, 2013. As noted above, the Final SEIR includes the Draft SEIR. No comments were received and no changes were made in the Final SEIR. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 2 (f) The City’s Planning and Transportation Committee has reviewed the Final SEIR and a draft of these findings and has provided its recommendations to the City Council regarding certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council has independently reviewed the Final SEIR and has considered the Planning and Transportation Committee’s recommendations in making these findings. (g) Based upon review and consideration of the information contained therein, the City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has considered evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth below, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2. (h) Section 6 of the Final SEIR shows all revisions which the Final SEIR made to the Draft SEIR. All references to the Draft SEIR in these findings include references to all revisions to the Draft SEIR made in the Final SEIR. Having reviewed this section and the Final SEIR as a whole, the City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that no significant new information has been added to the Final SEIR so as to warrant recirculation of all or a portion of the Draft SEIR. Likewise, the City Council has considered all public comments and other information submitted into the record since publication of the Final SEIR, and further finds that none of that additional information constitutes significant new information requiring recirculation of the Final SEIR. SECTION 2. Project Information. The following Project information is supplied to provide context for the discussion and findings that follow, but is intended as a summary and not a replacement for the information contained in the Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, or Project approvals. (a) Project Objectives The Project Objectives of the Project applicant are set forth in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference. (b) Project Description The proposed Project is an amendment to the approved project that consisted of the renovation of three existing commercial buildings at the Edgewood Shopping Center containing approximately 38,400 square feet of retail uses, and the redevelopment of the northern portion of the site with ten single-family residences and an approximately 10,000 square-foot park. The amendment would be to allow the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building #1) in the already approved location and configuration. Building #1 was approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 3 was demolished instead. A conceptual site plan of the proposed Project is shown on Figure 4. A breakdown of the proposed development areas and building square footage are shown in Table 2.3-1. Conceptual elevations of the commercial buildings are shown on Figures 5-10, and conceptual residential elevations are shown on Figure 11. (All references to figures and tables are to those appearing in the Draft SEIR, as modified where applicable in the Final SEIR.) A complete description of the Project as proposed by the Project applicant is set forth in Section 2.3 of the Draft SEIR, as modified in the Final SEIR. (c) Required Approvals The approvals required by the City as lead agency for implementation of the Project include: A. Planned Community Zoning B. Final Subdivision Map C. Tree Removal Permits SECTION 3. Record of Proceedings. (a) For purposes of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), and these findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project includes, but is not limited to, the following documents: (1) The Final SEIR, which consists of the Edgewood Plaza Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, published and circulated for public review and comment by the City from May 17 through July 20, 2013 (the “Draft SEIR”), and the Edgewood Plaza Project Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report, published and made available on September 5, 2013, and all appendices, reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials related thereto; (2) All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the preparation of the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR, including but not limited to public notices for all public workshops held to seek public comments and input on the Project and the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability; (3) All written and oral communications submitted by agencies or interested members of the general public during the public review period for the Draft EIR, NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 4 including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held on the Project approvals; (4) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (5) All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; (6) All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City of Palo Alto and consultants with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s actions on the Project, including all staff reports and attachments to all staff reports for all public meetings held by the City; (7) Minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and/or public hearings held by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Project; (8) Matters of common knowledge to the City of Palo Alto, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local laws and regulations; (9) Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and (10) Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). (b) The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the Director of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301. (c) Copies of all of the above-referenced documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City of Palo Alto’s decision on the Project is based, are and have been available upon request at the offices of the Planning and Community Environment Department, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301, and other locations in the City of Palo Alto. (d) The City of Palo Alto has relied upon all of the documents, materials, and evidence listed above in reaching its decision on the Project. (e) The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the above- referenced documents, materials, and evidence constitute substantial evidence (as that term is defined by section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines) to support each of the findings contained herein. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 5 SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project that it has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of these findings to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. (b) The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that adoption of the MMRP will ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. SECTION 5. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR documented that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated through the adoption and implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with mitigation measures to mitigate them to the extent feasible, are listed below as referenced in the Draft SEIR. 3.1 Cultural Resources Impact CR: Demolition of Building 1 represents a substantial adverse alteration of the physical characteristics of a historical resource and a change in the significant of the resource. Reconstruction of the proposed replacement building would not reduce the adverse impacts to the physical characteristics of the former building that conveyed its historical significance and eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.1.3 of the Draft SEIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures CR-2.2 and CR-2.3. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 6 Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building 2 and reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact by: (i) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (ii) requiring that the distinctive and defining architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings #1, including windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the reconstruction of Building #1, subject to verification by qualified professionals that work on these resources is completed in conformance with applicable federal standards; and (iii) requiring review and approval of the final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings by the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department; thereby ensuring that this Impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. However, these measures would not fully mitigate this Impact to a less-than-significant level. d) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR- 2.2 and 2.3 would lessen the Project’s impacts on the described historical resources by reconstructing Building #1 as originally approved and documenting the significant historical characteristics of Buildings #1. However, the reconstruction of Building #1 would not result in reversing the demolition, and therefore this reconstruction would still result in a significant impact to historic resources. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 7 e) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below. Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts f) Impact Cumulative Impact: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically significant under federal, state and City of Palo Alto criteria. The demolition of Building #1 and reconstruction with all new materials would result in a significant impact to cumulative cultural resources. As with all historic structures of a particular design or time period, there are a finite number of representative structures that exist. Of the two Eichler commercial buildings within the City of Palo Alto deemed historically significant, one has now been demolished. As a result, Building #2 is the only remaining representative Eichler commercial building within Palo Alto. As discussed in the Edgewood Plaza Final EIR, the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) project would result in the loss of the Stone Building Complex, which was designed by E.D. Stone and constructed in 1959. The SUMC project has been identified as resulting in a significant cumulative historic resources impact due to the small body of E.D. Stone’s work in Palo Alto that retains sufficient integrity to be eligible as historic resources. The Stone Building Complex and Building #1 are of a similar time period, both represent a modern design aesthetic, and both are significant examples of their respective architects. Therefore, the loss of Building 1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex is a cumulatively considerable impact relative to mid-century modern buildings by prominent architects in Palo Alto. g) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.1.3 of the Draft SEIR. h) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures CR-2.2 and CR-2.3. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 8 components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building 2 and reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. i) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact by: (i) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (ii) requiring that the distinctive and defining architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings #1, including windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the reconstruction of Building #1, subject to verification by qualified professionals that work on these resources is completed in conformance with applicable federal standards; and (iii) requiring review and approval of the final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings by the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department; thereby ensuring that this Impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. However, these measures would not fully mitigate this Impact to a less-than-significant level. j) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR- 2.2 and 2.3 would lessen the Project’s impacts on the described historical resources by reconstructing Building #1 as originally approved and documenting the significant historical characteristics of Buildings #1. However, the reconstruction of Building #1 would not result in reversing the demolition, and therefore this reconstruction would still result in a significant impact to cumulative historic resources. k) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 9 SECTION 6. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant impacts. Under CEQA, "feasibility" includes "desirability" to the extent that it is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, and an alternative may be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to adequately promote the project applicant's and/or the lead agency's primary underlying goals and objectives for the project. Thus, a lead agency may reject an alternative, even if it would avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant environmental effects of the project, if it finds that the alternative's failure to adequately achieve the objectives for the project, or other specific and identifiable considerations, make the alternative infeasible. The City Council certifies that the Final SEIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives. As described below, the City Council has decided to approve the Project as proposed, and to reject the remainder of the alternatives, as summarized below. Sections 2.3 of the Draft SEIR set forth the Project applicant’s objectives for the Project. That list is incorporated herein by reference. In light of the applicant’s objectives for the Project, and given that the Project is expected to result in certain significant environmental effects even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified above, the City hereby makes the following findings with respect to whether one or more of the alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR could feasibly accomplish most of the goals and objectives for the Project and substantially lessen or avoid one or more of its potentially significant effects. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative – Current Conditions Scenario is discussed at Section 7.2 of the Draft SEIR. The No Project – Current Conditions Scenario is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the Project objectives, as explained in Sections 7.3.2, 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 of the Draft SEIR. Building Design Alternative The Building Design Alternative is discussed in Section 7.4.1 of the Draft SEIR. The Building Design Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve most NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 10 of the Project objectives, as explained in Sections 7.4.3, 7.4.4 and 7.5 of the Draft SEIR. SECTION 7. Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, this City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the Project. The City finds that: (i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to less- than-significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR and approved and adopted by these Findings; (ii) the City’s approval of the Project will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or avoid the remaining significant environmental effects. The significant effects that have not been mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are therefore considered significant and unavoidable are identified in Section 6 above. Despite these potentially significant impacts, it is the City’s considered judgment that the benefits offered by the Project outweigh the potentially adverse effects of these significant impacts. The substantial evidence supporting the following described benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings and in the record of proceedings. The benefits of the Project which the City Council finds serve as “overriding considerations” justifying its approval include the following: (1) Rehabilitation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 in a design significantly closer to its original appearance with the inclusion of custom made windows in the original design, with narrow full height frames and projecting moldings. Rehabilitation of the original historic monument sign for the shopping center. (2) Redevelopment and rehabilitation of a high-quality shopping and commercial area on the Edgewood Plaza site that will serve the community, including the provision of a new grocery store for the local neighborhood, in a manner that reflects the mid- century aesthetic and design of the existing buildings and surrounding Duveneck/ Saint Francis (Edgewood and Green Gables) neighborhood. Reconstruction of Building #1 will enable a complete restoration of the shopping center. (3) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building. The commercial property owner shall ensure the continued use of the 20,600 sq. ft. building as a grocery store for the life of the Project; NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 11 (4) Provision of 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements in perpetuity. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner and shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses. The Applicant shall provide an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements in the Park. (5) Payment to the City of $94,200 to be used for the restoration of a publicly owned or accessible historic resource. (6) Subject to support by the immediate neighborhood, Applicant shall construct a sidewalk along west side of West Bayshore from Channing to the Palo Alto city border. (7) Provision of two Level 2 Electric Vehicle chargers and one Level 2 Electric Vehicle charger. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 12 EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM EDGEWOOD PLAZA PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198/13PLN-00197 State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 CITY OF PALO ALTO JULY 2013 NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 13 P R E F A C E Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project. This Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented. The previously approved project included three mitigation measures to reduce impacts to historic resources on the site. Mitigation Measure (MM) MM CR-2.1, completion of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of Building 1 and Building 2 has been completed and is not referenced further. MM CR-2.2, creation of a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, will be completed prior to approval of final occupancy and is included below. The third mitigation measure, MM CR-2.3 is included in its entirety, and has been revised to reflect the demolition of Building 1 and proposed changes in the project. The changes affect the reconstruction of Building 1 only. No changes have been made to the approved mitigation for rehabilitation of Building 2. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131134 14 MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198/13PLN-00197, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Cultural Resources Impact: Demolition of Building 1 represents a substantial adverse alteration of the physical characteristics of a historical resource and a change in the significant of the resource. Reconstruction of the proposed replacement building would not reduce the adverse impacts to the physical characteristics of the former building that conveyed its historical significance and eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places [Significant Impact] MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building 2 and reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. (Significant Impact After the Implementation of Mitigation Measures) Project applicant and consulting historic preservation architect. All measures will be required as part of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Historic Resources Plan Prior to the start of demolition and construction, as specified. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 1 Ordinance No.________ Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance 5150 (amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [The Zoning Map] to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue [Edgewood Plaza] to PC Planned Community Zone (PC 5150)) to Allow the Reconstruction of Building #1 with All New Materials. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. (a) On April 9, 2012, the City Council granted Planned Community (PC) Zoning Ordinance 5150 (“Project”) to permit the redevelopment of the property commonly known as the Edgewood Shopping Center located at 2080 Channing Avenue (the “Subject Property”). A copy of Ordinance 5150 is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference. As part of that PC, the applicant Sand Hill Property Company (Applicant) was required to rehabilitate Building 1, identified as a historic resource, in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. (b) In September 2012, the Applicant without permission of the City, demolished Building 1 rendering reconstruction infeasible. The City immediately put a Stop Work Order on the remaining portion of the Project. Subsequently, the City permitted certain aspects of the Project to move forward. (c) On February 26, 2013, the Applicant applied to the City for an amendment to Planned Community Zoning (PC) 5150 to substitute the reconstruction of Building 1 for the rehabilitation of Building 1 to accommodate the uses set forth below. (d) The Historic Resources Board, at its meeting of August 21, 2013, reviewed the Project and recommended the City Council approve the amendment with associated draft conditions of approval ‘Exhibit B.’ (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held September 11, 2013, reviewed, considered, and recommended certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the Planned Community, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned Community zone for the proposed project depicted on ‘Exhibit A,’ (the “Project”), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance. Draft conditions of project approval “Exhibit B” attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 2 (f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from the PTC and the HRB, approved conditions of approval attached as Exhibit B hereto, and found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that the findings made in Ordinance 5150 justifying the granting of Planned Community 5150 still apply to the Subject Property in that the Project will incorporate the modified community benefits described in Section (3)(f) hereof. SECTION 2. Ordinance 5150 amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended as follows: The project is as depicted on the Development Plans dated February 2, 2012 and amended in Development Plans dated September 11, 2013, incorporated by reference, including the following new component: (a) Reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials in the originally approved location and configuration. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of Ordinance 5150, including any exhibits and conditions, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Section 4 of Ordinance 5150 is amended to additionally require compliance with (i) the February 29, 2012 Development Plans as amended on September 11, 2013, (ii) the conditions of project approval attached as Exhibit B, and (iii) any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090). In addition, Sections (f) and (g) shall be amended as follows: (f) Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts. NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 3 (1) Rehabilitation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 in a design significantly closer to its original appearance with the inclusion of custom made windows in the original design, with narrow full height frames and projecting moldings. Rehabilitation of the original historic monument sign for the shopping center. (2) Redevelopment and rehabilitation of a high-quality shopping and commercial area on the Edgewood Plaza site that will serve the community, including the provision of a new grocery store for the local neighborhood, in a manner that reflects the mid-century aesthetic and design of the existing buildings and surrounding Duveneck/Saint Francis (Edgewood and Green Gables) neighborhood. Reconstruction of Building #1 will enable a complete restoration of the shopping center. (3) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building. The commercial property owner shall ensure the continued use of the 20,600 sq. ft. building as a grocery store for the life of the Project; (4) Provision of 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements in perpetuity. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner and shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses. The Applicant shall provide an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements in the Park. (5) Payment to the City of $94,200 to be used for the restoration of a publicly owned or accessible historic resource. (6) Subject to support by the immediate neighborhood, Applicant shall construct a sidewalk along west side of West Bayshore from Channing to the Palo Alto city border. (7) Provision of two Level 2 Electric Vehicle chargers and one Level 2 Electric Vehicle charger. (g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 4 Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 12 months following adoption of the PC zone, or by October 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional year. SECTION 4. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council certified the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its meeting of October7, 2013. SECTION 5. The plans referenced consist of plans titled “Edgewood Shopping Center” prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated September 11, 2013. // // // // // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 5 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney __________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 7 Exhibit B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2080 Channing Avenue – Edgewood Plaza/ File No. 13PLN-00197 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Planning and Transportation Divisions 1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and materials received on March 22, 2012 and as modified in plans received on September 11, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division. 3. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs and roof mounted equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to submittal of the building permit. 4. All conditions required in PC-5150, including mitigation measures, are still applicable unless specifically amended by the document. 5. Prior to the submittal of a building permit application, a historic consultant shall be hired by the City and paid for the applicant to review the building permit submittal and construction of Building #1 to confirm compliance with this approval and mitigation requirements of the project’s Supplement Environmental Impact Report. 6. Building #1 shall be constructed of materials that were approved for use in Building #2 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department. 7. A plaque identifying Building #1 as a reconstructed building shall be installed on Building #1 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department. 8. Storefront glass shall not be obstructed by shelves or storage and shall remain primarily open to permit public viewing of interior of store, except as allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The Director may permit display of store’s merchandise or NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 8 other window display in his or her discretion provided it shall not impact the neighborhood serving retail environment. EIR Mitigation Measures 9. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. 10. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. 11. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood- framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. 12. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. 13. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE NOT YET APPROVED 131001 jb 0131135 9 SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. 14. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. Ordinance No. 5150 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC-1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC-5l50) for the Renovation of the Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of the Retail Structures, Construction ofTen New Single-Family Homes, and Creation of a 0.20 Acre Park The Council ofthe City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Sand Hill Property Company, (''the Applicant") applied on June 1,2010 to the City for approval of (1) a rezoning application (the "Project") for a new Planned Community (PC) district for a property located at 2080 Channing Avenue (the "Subject Property") to accommodate the uses set forth below and (2) a Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 site into one commercial lot, including a 0.20 acre park, dedicated to the City with public access easements and maintained by the commercial property owner, and ten single family residential lots. (b) The Tentative Map plan set, dated February 15, 2012, and last revised on March 19, 2012 includes information on the existing parcels, onsite conditions, and the layout of the proposed new lots. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). (c) , The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its meeting of April 27, 2011, acted favorably on the applicant's request for initiation of the Planned Community Zone process for the establishment of Planned Community Zone District No. PC-5150. (d) The Architectural Review Board, at its meeting of February 2, 2012, reviewed the Project design and recommended the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.' (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held February 29,2012, reviewed, considered, and recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the Planned Community and Tentative Map and this ordinance, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned Community zone for the proposed project depicted on 'Exhibit A,' (the "Project"), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to 120313 dm 0120529 1 · '\ ':\ I allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance and recommended approval of the Tentative Map. Draft conditions of project approval "Exhibit B" attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. (f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from the PTC and the ARB, and found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4 )( c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies, and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from Planned Community (PC- 1643) to "PC Planned Community Zone 5150". SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the "Project") comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and a mixed use development, depicted on the Development Plans dated February 2, 2012, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Renovation of an existing 37,965 sq. ft. shopping center, including relocation and renovation of the 10,000 sq. ft. retail building, renovation of the 7,800 sq. ft. retail building in place, and renovation of the 20,600 sq. ft. building in place for use as a grocery store, deletion of the outer parking lots and expansion of the remaining parking lot, and associated site improvements (b) Construction of ten detached residential units on fee simple lots along Channing Avenue, including five surface parking stalls and ten two-car garages. ( c) Construction of a 0.20 acre park at the comer of Channing Avenue and St. Francis Drive. The park shall include public access easement so that it would be a public 120313 dm 0120529 2 park to be maintained by the commercial property owner in perpetuity. There shall not be any use of the park for the purposes of the retail tenants. (d) A Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 acre site into eleven parcels. The first parcel (2.73 acres) would contain the existing grocery building, the other two retail buildings ("Buildings 1 and 2") and the new 0.20 acre park. The park would include a public access easement allowing use as a public park, and would be maintained by the owner of the commercial parcel. The remaining ten parcels (ranging from 3,376 to 4,026 sq. ft.) would be created for the ten residences. Private easements would be provided for the driveways and walkways. SECTION 4. The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated February 29,2012, and any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090), shall be subject to the following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B". (a) as follows: Permitted, Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)): (1) Ten residential units; (2) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores); (3) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in services); (4) Personal Services; (5) Neighborhood Business Services; (6) Financial Services (excluding drive-up services); (7) A 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements; (8) Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. Conditionally Permitted Uses: (1) Small tutoring center or afterschool program center; 120313 dm 0120529 3 (2) Limited commercial recreation; (3) Farmer's Markets or similar. (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: (1) The 20,600 sq. ft. building shall be primarily used for grocery uses only; (2) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; (3) No administrative office use shall be permitted within the development; (4) The "Retail" space as identified on the Development Plan shall be occupied by retail uses, personal service uses, eating and drinking services or customer serving financial services only, except where a conditional use permit is required in accordance with 4(a). (c) Development Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) Zone District (p AMC Chapter 18.38) and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: 120313 dm0120529 In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in P AMC §§18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management Plan ("TDM") Program shall be developed for the Project in accordance with PAMC § 18.52.050( d) for employees of the Project. The TDM plan shall include bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation functions. The TDM plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits for the site and shall include, at a minimum, offer for parking cash out, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. The TDM program will include monitoring reports, which shall be submitted to the Director not later than two years after building occupancy and again not later than five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications. 4 (e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) -(c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC §18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance. (f) Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provlSlons of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts. (1) Preservation and renovation of an existing historically significant shopping center developed by Eichler Homes, eligible for federal, state and local historic registries; (2) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building; (3) Provision of a 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements, in perpetuity. (Land is dedicated for the ten units, plus an additional 5,000 sq. ft., where an in-lieu fee could also be proposed. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner.) The park shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses. (4) Provision of three (3) electrical vehicle (EY) charging stations installed onsite, subject to final City approval. The applicant shall incur all costs of the installation. (g) Development Schedule: 120313 dm 0120529 The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not 5 \ j \ ) to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 24 months following adoption of the PC zone, or by March 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional year. (h) No building permit shall be approved (other than for model homes with no more than one model home per plan type) for residential development prior to submittal to the Director of a lease agreement or other legally binding commitment from a grocery operator to occupy 20,600 square feet in the Grocery Building. The Lease Agreement shall require that Occupancy of the grocery store shall occur not later than 15 months after the issuance of the first building permit for the Grocery Building or 15 months after issuance of the first building permit for the residential development (other than a model home). Final inspection and occupancy shall be allowed for not more than 5 homes (including model homes) prior to final inspection and occupancy approval for the grocery store. Bonding or other financial security may be considered in lieu of these requirements only upon review and approval by the City Council as an amendment to this PC ordinance. SECTION 5. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Neighborhood Commercial and the zoning designation is Planned Community (PC) District. The proposed development of the commercial and residential mixed use development is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, particularly including: (1) Policy L-l - Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2) Policy L-4 -Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities; (3) Policy L-9 -Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to 120313 dm 0120529 6 \ j create opportunities for new mixed use development; and (4) Policy B-27 -Support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto's four Neighborhood Commercial Centers. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site can accommodate the proposed subdivision, as it is currently vacant, flat, and absent any significant vegetation. The lots conform to the width, depth, and area requirements of this Planned Community Zoning District. The design of the mixed use, commercial and residential buildings require Architectural Review approval. The proposed development was recommended for approval by the City Council from the Architectural Review Board on February 2,2012. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would be consistent with the site development regulations of this Planned Community Zoning District and would not affect the location of the existing property lines at the perimeter of the site. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as the site is currently fully developed with a vacant commercial development. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted certifying that there will be no significant unmitigated environmental impacts. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel for a commercial and residential mixed use development will not cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has 120313 dm 0120529 7 \ ) acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with adequate emergency vehicle access and any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed developments. SECTION 6. Indenmification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice SECTION 7. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three (3) years following the approval of building occupancy by the City and every three (3) years thereafter, the applicant shall request that the City review the project to assure that conditions of approval and public benefits remain in effect as provided in the original approval. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe, the Director of Planning and Community Environment will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions. SECTION 8. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council certified theEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its meeting of March 19,2012. SECTION 9. The plans referenced consist of plans titled "Edgewood Shopping Center" prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated February 15,2012. SECTION 10. 120313 dm0120529 8 ExhibitB RECOMMENDED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2080 Channing Avenue -Edgewood Plaza! File No. 10PLN-00198 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Planning and Transportation Divisions 1. The plans submitted to obtain all pemlits through the Building Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and materials received on March 22,2012, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division. 3. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs and roof mounted equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to submittal of the building permit. 4. A subsequent Architectural Review Permit shall be required for the relocated sign and other new signs related to this project. 5. The project shall be subject to applicable Development Impact Fees, which would be due prior to issuance of the building permit. The applicable impact fees would be calculated based upon the fee structure in place at the time of building permit submittal. 6. The developer shall submit and implement a Transportation Demand Management program to the satisfaction of the Planning and Community Environment Director. 7. Sheet T-1_Tree Protection-it's Part ofthe Plan (http://www.city.palo- alto. ca. us/arb/planning forms.html). Complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked. 8. Applicant shall file a tree removal permit for the trees planned for removal. 9. The entire Tree Preservation Report approved by staff, shall be printed on Sheet T-1 and/or T-2 (all sheets). A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T -1 and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. 10. Maintenance: All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-200l or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. \ ) 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval, specifying exact species, numbers and location of all plant materials. 12. The planting palette shall be modified as follows: • Specify Elegant Tristania, replacing the Tristaniopis laurina. • Do not use Liquidambars in small areas or planters. The species forms multiple leaders and hardscape damaging root system. Replace with other fall color species such as, Sour Gum, Shumard Oak or similar. • All trees should be 24" box size as a minimum. • Justify the use of century plant, in both large spatial area needed and safety from the potentially lethal spear-like foliage. Or, select another species better suited for these populated areas. 13. All parking lot median islands that are ~ccupied with trees, shrubs and ground covers and surrounded by raised curb shall specify: • Materials, concrete or asphalt on grade • Specify discontinuous curb (planned breaks in the curb every 3 vehicle spaces) in all formed curb lengths. Intent to drain or capture water runoff, allow capacity spillover and plant/soil filtration of water runoff. 14. Screening of all above ground utilities is required, especially around water check valves and backflow preventers near the sidewalks and property lines .. Creative use of shrubbery and species encouraged. 15. Other conditions of approval that are site and landscape related will be provided for submittal of the building permits. 16. The parking lot median islands shall incorporate discontinuous curbs (planned eight inch breaks in the curb every three vehicle spaces) to allow for filtration of water runoff. 17. Prior to the submittal of abuilding permit, the applicant shall submit documentation demonstrating that all noise producing equipment proposed for the project shall meet the City's Noise Ordinance requirement. 18. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the ten single-family residences shall include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so that two cars may be parked inside at all times. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney for approval prior to approval of the Final Map. 19. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties) from against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 20. Lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting residential property line. Lighting fixtures shall not exceed a height of 15 feet in the parking lot. 21. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit application, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee and obtain feedback and/or approval on the following items: • Final landscaping plan • Street furniture • Trellis details 22. All property line fences shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code 23. Integral color shall be used for the stucco. 24. The lighting shall be corrected so that the photometric plans show that light will not spill beyond the residential property line 25. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the ten single-family residences shall include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so that two cars may be parked inside at all times. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney for approval prior to approval of the Final Map. 26. No restrictions shall be placed on the commercial or residential surface parking spaces that will prevent park users from using those spaces. 27. The rehabilitation of the proposed sign shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board for their recommendation. 28. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (P AMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21. 13.020[c]). 29. A Below Market Rate agreement shall be executed prior to City Council Action on the Final Map and recorded concurrently with the subdivision agreement and map. 30. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map, the applicant shall execute and record a Park Maintenance Agreement for the proposed public park to the satisfaction of the Director of the Community Services Department. Sustainability Requirements 31. The project is required to comply with P AMC 16.14 for green building. Building permit plans shall include compliance with the Greenpoint Rated Checklist -as locally amended - for the residential portion of the project and the California Green Building Code Checklist- as locally amended -for the nonresidential portion of the project. These requirements incorporate minimum standards for landscape water efficiency (note that the installation of a dedicated irrigation meter for all landscape with an approved backflow prevention device will be required) and energy performance among other things. For more information visit www.cityofpaloalto.orglgreenbuilding. 32. The project is required to comply with P AMC 16.12.030 for recycled water infrastructure. Building permit plans shall include the on-site infrastructure necessary to connect the site's irrigation system to the city's recycled water supply when it becomes available. Plans shall demonstrate that recycled water will be used when available, and include consideration for plants that are recycled water tolerant Transportation Division 33. A Transportation Demand Management plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Plamling Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition to the annual report, the project applicant and/or Edgewood Plaza owner will conduct a parking monitoring program for a minimum of six months after full occupancy of the retail portion of the Edgewood Plaza site, or as directed by the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Community Environment. The monitoring program will record the number of parked vehicles during the anticipated peak times of 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If parking demand is found to exceed parking supply, one or more of the following strategies will be employed as a part of the project's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program t9 limit parking spillover: • Offer parking cash-out (financial payment) to employees who forego their parking space on-site and get to work by carpooling, bicycling, walking, or taking transit; and/or • Increase use ofTDM measures (such as facilitating a carpool matching service for employees on site). The hours ofloading shall be consistent with the Municipal Code. The need for traffic calming, including the installation of speed humps on Channing Avenue, shall be evaluated by the City approximately a year after occupancy. 34. One level 3 electric vehicle charging station and two level 2 electric charging stations shall be provided on site. 35. Bicycle racks must be installed to the satisfaction ofthe Transportation Division. The project shall include four double loaded bike racks (8 bike capacity) within 50 feet of the main entrance of the Grocery Store. The rack closest to the pedestrian ramp must be located with at least 5 feet of clear landing area from the ADA accessible ramp connecting to the parking lot pedestrian path. 36. Parking stalls closest to St. Francis Drive that are 15'6" in depth must have a low curb and at least two feet of clear overhang. 37. The project shall include raised islands and median striping enhancements at intersection of West BayshorelEmbarcadero intersection 0Vest Bayshore right-tum only). 38. The project shall include off-site crosswalk and curb ramp improvements at intersection of st. Francis / Channing. 39. Signing and striping modifications per mitigation measure identified on Embarcadero between st. Francis and Wildwood shall be included. 40. Bicycle improvements are recommended along West Bayshore including share the road signage and pavement markings. 41. A left turn sign shall be installed on West Bayshore Road, north of Channing subject to the review of the Transportation Division. 42. Modify the traffic signal on Embarcadero Road at Saint Francis Drive to provide left turn signal phasing from Embarcadero Road to Saint Francis Drive. 43. Preserve the vehicular access between the project site and the adjacent gas station site at the existing site connection, with no net loss of vehicle parking spaces on the shopping center site. Building Division 44. Architectural Comments: On sheet Al.O, Project Data: list the following information on the plans for all the (N) and (E) structures: • Building Occupancy Group: • Type of Construction: • Number of Stories: • Building Area: • Sprinklered: (YIN) 45. On sheet AI.O, Conceptual Site Plan: provide a revised site plan showing the proposed lot line adjustments to be made for this project. Currently, this project is located on two legal parcels and the proposed residential units #3 & 4 both straddle the current lot line and is not allowed. Show on the revised Site Plan the lots lines that divides the ten (10) residential units into separate parcels. 46. On sheet AI.O, Project Data: provide an allowable area analysis for the (E) Grocery Building as it appears that it can no longer take advantage ofthe three (3) sides open for area increase. In addition, provide the allowable area calculations for Retail Buildings 1 & 2. Show if the buildings are to be considered as parts of one building on the lot or multiple buildings on one lot with assumed property lines between the buildings. If the latter is the case, then clearly show on the Site Plan the location ofthe assumed property line. 47. Structural Comments: A geotechnical report is required for the construction of the new location of the relocated Commercial building. 48. General Comment: The completed plan submittal package should be sent to an approved Outside Plan Check Consultant for plan review. 49. Additional accessible parking spaces are required due to the total number of required parking spaces. At least 6 are required when there are 151 to 200 parking stalls. Show location of dispersed accessible parking spaces and provide the accessible path of travel to the building located such that those persons with disabilities are not compelled to walk or wheel behind parked cars other than their own. CBC 1129B.4.3,'CBC 1129B.l 50. Based on the scope of work for this project the City of Palo Alto has the option to require the applicant to utilize a third party plan check firm to conduct the building code plan review. A list of plan check agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City of Palo Alto Building plan check fees are reduced by 35% when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized. 51. The Building Permit Plans shall be prepared by a licensed architect. When the plans are submitted for a building permit, be sure to include the full scope of work including all site development, disabled access and exiting for the entire site, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical work associated with the proposed project. The plans shall include the allowable floor area and entire building area calculations on the project data sheet and where there are multiple occupancies, provide unity calculations for either separated or non-separated uses. ErR Mitigation Measures 52. MM CR-2.1: Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level III documentation of the exterior of Buildings 1 and 2 and their setting shall be prepared by the applicant and project consultants prior to the relocation of Building 1 and remodeling of Building 2. Following the HABS guidelines, this documentation shall include: • Sketch plan of the existing site and reproduction of original drawings. • Up to 12 large-format photographs (4 by 5 inches) of exterior view. • A written summary of project site's history. • Transmittal of one set of documents to the City's Historic Resources Planner and to a relevant local historical society, library or repository. • . The documentation shall be filed by the applicant prior to the start of construction 53. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. 54. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniq~es of Buildings I and 2 including windows, frames and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the relocation and reconstruction of Building 1 and the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the building'S original design and applicable Secretary of Interior's Standards/or Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5,6, 7, and 9. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings will be reviewed and approved by the Director and Historic Resources Planner ofthe City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. 55. Air Quality MM AQ-1.1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction on the project site to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCRD. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 56. Biological Resources MM BIO-1.I: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the proposed project shall implement the following measures: • Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 -August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated. • If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub. • Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, • parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. 57. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-l.l: Considering the property will be redeveloped and that potentially regulated soils may be encountered during site preparation activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared to reduce or eliminate exposure risk to human health and the environment. The SMP shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials if encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto prior to commencing construction activities. 58. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-l.2: Each contractor working at the site shall prepare a health and safety plan (HSP) that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site operations that includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. 59. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-l.3: At the time Building 1 is moved, soil and groundwater samples, and/or soil vapor samples, if appropriate, shall be obtained from under 2125 Saint Francis Drive (the former Moon Cleaners) to ensure that soil exceeding the applicable levels for tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its breakdown products is not present within five feet of the ground surface. PCE-affected soil shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, in conformance with procedures in the soil management plan (MM HAZ-l) prior to paving the area. Contaminated soil will be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. An excavation base confirmation sample will be collected and analyzed to document sufficient soils removal. Documentation of removal ofPCE-affected soil shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto and appropriate oversight agencies prior to installation of pavement in the parking lot area. " ) 60. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.4: Excavated soils will be characterized prior to off-site disposal or reuse on-site. Appropriate soil characterization, storage, transportation, and disposal procedures shall be followed. Contaminated soils shall be disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with all appropriate local, state, and federal regulations, in accordance with its characteristics. 61. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.5: The applicant shall prepare a contingency plan prior to the beginning of the project construction that will address any previously unknown sumps, hydraulic hoists, or tanks that may be present in the area of work. 62. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.1: In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs andlor lead-based paint on the structures proposed for renovation. The surVeys shall be completed prior to work beginning on these structures. 63. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.2: A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos- containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building relocation or renovation that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. 64. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.3: During renovation activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. 65. Hydrology and Water QualityMM HYDRO-1.1: Construction of the proposed project on site will comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Ordinance, including elevation of habitable spaces above anticipated flood levels, as listed in the Municipal Code, Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations. All project plans must show the base flood elevations on all applicable elevations, sections, and details, and must comply with all other requirements as listed in the ordinance. 66. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-1.2: Construction of the proposed project on site will comply with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for flood hazard areas. 67. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-2.1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The following erosion and sediment control measures, based upon Best Management Practices recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall be included in the project to reduce potential construction-related water quality impacts. Many of these measures are the same as or similar to measures required to reduce air quality impacts. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. • Stormwater inlet protection will be installed around storm drain inlets to keep sediment • and other debris out of the stormwater drainage system. • All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary. • Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities will be suspended during periods of high winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 miles per hour). • Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or covered. • All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials will be covered and all trucks will be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas adjacent to the construction sites will be swept daily with water sweepers. • Vegetation in disturbed areas will be replanted as quickly as possible. 68. Hydrology and Water QualityMM HYDRO-2.2: Post-Construction Mitigation: The following mitigation measures, and City of Palo Alto requirements, are included in the proposed project to ensure compliance with NPDES permit requirements to reduce postconstruction water quality impacts: • All onsite trash enclosures shall have roofs. • Storm runoff from the site shall be treated prior to discharge to the City of Palo Alto stormwater system. (Treatment mayor may not include the use of mechanical devices.) • An annual post-construction maintenance agreement shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. • The commercial development shall implenlent regular maintenance activities (i.e., litter control and maintaining on-site drainage facilities) to prevent soil and litter from accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff. • Landscape maintenance shall employ minimal pesticide use, including landscape maintenance techniques listed in the Fact Sheet on Landscape Maintenance Techniques for Pest Reduction prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 69. MM NOISE-I. I : Sound-rated windows, doors, and exterior wall assemblies will be used in residential building construction to reduce interior noise from outdoor sources to the 45 dB DNL and Lmax 50/55 dB criteria. Specific details and sound insulation ratings shall be determined during the design phase, when the final site, grading and floor plans, and exterior elevations have been determined. An acoustical consultant shall review drawings during the design phase and finalize appropriate noise control treatments, which will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 70. Noise MM NOI-1.2: Dual pane windows and doors with equal glass thicknesses can have resonances that result in audible tones indoors. Acoustical test reports of all sound rated windows and doors shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant, and compared with traffic noise spectrums, prior to approval. 71. Noise MM NOI-1.3: Since windows will have to be closed to maintain the interior noise goals, ''ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment," even with windows closed, shall be included in the project (i.e., windows shall not be relied upon for ventilation). 72. Noise MM NOI-l.4: Overall outdoor noise in yards is expected to be between DNL 60 and 65 dBA, based on a combination oflocal and distant transportation sources. Since the proposed residences would include private fenced yards, six foot tall noise barriers shall be incorporated where plans currently show walls or fences separating private yards from the adjacent roadways. Barriers should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps, and a minimum surface density of three pounds per square foot. 73. Noise MM NOI-l.5: Residential mechanical equipment shall be selected and located to meet the property line limits in the City's Noise Ordinance. If determined to be necessary during the design phase and the acoustical review described in MM NOISE-I. 1 , additional measures may consist of equipment barriers andlor enclosures. 74. Noise MM NOI-2.l: Measures shall be included in the renovation of the commercial buildings to reduce noise impacts at nearby residences, in conformance with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. These measures would be finalized during the design phase and acoustical analysis (as described in Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-I. 1), submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. These measures could include: • Solid noise barriers along the north and east sides (the eastern wall extending south alongside delivery trucks) of the loading dock, combined with a shed roof. These barriers would reduce the estimated noise levels from unloading activities to the allowable limits in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. • The roof and walls shall be lined with a sound absorbing material (for example, perforated metal panels, such as Kinetics KNP, or a spray on material, such as Pyrok Acoustement 40, applied to a thickness of 1-112"). 75. MM NOISE-2.2: Trucks entering and leaving the site must pass close to a residential property line. As they do, they are likely to exceed the noise ordinance limits. Although it . may not be feasible to completely eliminate this noise, the following measures would reduce this impact: • Limit deliveries to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) • Communicate to vendors that their drivers will be operating close to residences, so they limit noise (e.g., avoid excess idling, high engine speeds, un-necessary backing, etc.) • Provide a full disclosure statement to the owners of residential Lots #9 and #10 to make them aware that trucks entering and leaving the site may generate noise levels in excess of the Noise Ordinance limits. This disclosure would be incorporated by the project applicant into the deeds for these residential properties. 76. MM NOISE-3.1: Mechanical equipment shall be selected, designed, and located so as to minimize impacts on adjacent and nearby residential uses. This can be accomplished by locating noise generating equipment away from residential uses or by providing acoustical shielding. Preliminary estimates suggest that solid rooftop screens or noise barriers will be needed. An acoustical specialist will review the mechanical equipment plans prior to construction to confirm that the City's Noise Ordinance would be met at the residential property line. These plans will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 77. Transportation MM TRANS-I. 1 : Because of signal spacing considerations, a traffic signal is not recommended at this intersection. To mitigate this impact, the proposed project will restripe Embarcadero Road to create a left tum receiving lane. As part of the project left tum lane improvements at the Embarcadero Road/Saint Francis Drive intersection, a left turn receiving area will be built at Wildwood Lane. This will facilitate outbound left turns and reduce left tum delay, which would reduce the project impact to a less than significant level. 78. Avoidance Measures a. Biological Resources CONDITION BIO-2.1: A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) will be prepared for trees to be preserved and protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. The TPR incorporate the following measures, safeguards and information: • The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, etc.) that may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground impacts. • The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, P AMC 8.10.030 and the City's Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglenvironment/urban _ canopy. asp. • To avoid improvements that maybe detrimental to the health of the trees the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation, planting or potted plants is consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester. b. Biological Resources CONDITION BIO-2.2: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of one or more public street trees. Publicly owned trees are growing in the right- of-way along Saint Francis Drive, Channing Avenue, and West Bayshore Road. Provide mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new frontage should be provided maximum streets cape design and materials to include the following elements: • Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources. • Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.). • Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large tree. c. Noise CONDITION NOI-4.1: The following mitigation measures are included in the project to further reduce construction noise impacts on neighboring properties: • Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; • Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; • Route construction related traffic to and from the site via designated truck routes and avoid residential streets where possible; • Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; • Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; • Shield adjacent sensitive uses from stationary equipment with individual noise barriers or partial acoustical enclosures; • Temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences (minimum 8 feet in height) and/or acoustical blankets could be erected, if necessary, along affected property boundaries facing the construction site. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected; • Locate staging areas and construction material storage areas as far away as possible from adjacent sensitive land uses; • Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause ofthe noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule; • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices (including construction hours, construction schedule, and noise coordinator) are completed. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater 79. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 80. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 81. The applicant shall submit a completed separate water-gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheets for each commercial tenant space or residential unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 82. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. All water meters shall be in the public right-of-way (sidewalk or planting strip). All WGW utility services shall be from Saint Francis Drive or Channing Avenue. 83. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing or new water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaultslbases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 84. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recyc;led water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 85. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 86. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 87. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 88. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: • The pump(s) be limited to a total I 00 GPM capacity or less. • The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at least 20' from the City clean out. • The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 89. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 90. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section ofthe Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of- way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. 91. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant's expense. 92. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 93. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. 94. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 95. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 96. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPP A backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPP A shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter, within 5' of the property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. The applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for all backflows. 97. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5' of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 98. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location(s) on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. The gas meters shall be located above ground on private property against the building as close to Saint Francis or Channing as possible. 99. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 100. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WOW utilties procedures before any new utility services are installed. 101. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 102. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department as-built drawings of the installation of water and wastewater utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in accordance with: • Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies). • As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format. • As-built drawings in .tiff format. • Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features. Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perform the survey work. The accuracy for all survey data shall be +/-1cm. 103. Survey data to be collected (what'S applicable): • Collect horizontal and vertical data for: • Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and depth) • Stom1 drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth) • Water valves (cover and stern elevations) 104. Collect horizontal data only for: • Service or lateral connection points at the main • Fire hydrants • Water meters • Sanitary sewer cleanout boxes 105. Use CPAU WGW Engineering's "feature codes" for naming convention available from CPAU WGW Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 566-4501. All drawings and survey data shall be on the California State Plane Coordinate System -Zone 3 in units of feet. The horizontal datum shall be the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) and the vertical datum shall be based on Bestor 93. Fire Department \ Y 106. Applicant shall follow all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR. 107. Fire Department recommends a contingency plan be put in place to deal with any previously undiscovered soil contamination, sumps, hydraulic hoists or tanks that may be present in the area of work. The plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Public Works Engineering lOS. Flood Zone: The proposed improvements are located within Special Flood Hazard Areas AH 11.9 & AH 12.2. Please make sure the submitted plans accurately reflect the flood zone designation. Accordingly, the proposed construction must meet all of the City's and Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for construction within a flood zone, such as: the finished bottom floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE); the crawl space (ifused) must have flood vents; and all construction materials and equipment below the BFE must be water-resistant. Garage slabs can be below the BFE, but the garage will then need flood vents. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our website for more information. The plans must show the BFE on all applicable elevations, sections and details; must include a calculation of the required amount of flood vents; must include the flood vents on the elevations and foundation plan; must note all materials below the BFE as water-resistant; and must include the Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. Please note that FEMA recently (May 2009) changed the vertical datum of the flood zones. You must use the new vertical datum (NA VDSS) on plans submitted for a building permit. 109. Substantial Improvement: The existing structures are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. If the construction cost of the improvements (remodeling and/or addition) is greater than 50% of the depreciated existing value of the structure, then the improvements will be classified as a "substantial improvement" and the existing structure and all new construction will be required to meet the City's Flood Hazard Regulations. In particular, the finished first floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE). If the project is a "substantial improvement", then upon submittal for a building permit, the applicant must provide a copy of the FEMA Elevation Certificate showing that the existing finished first floor is at or above the BFE or, if the floor is below the BFE, the plans must show the floor being raised. The plans must include: • The Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form • The BFE on sections, elevations and details • Flood vents, if there is a crawl space • A table calculating the flood vents required and provided • If the crawl space is sub grade, meaning that the bottom of the crawl space is below the adjacent exterior grade on all four sides of the house, then it must be filled in until it is either no longer sub grade or until it is 18" from the floor framing (to meet the minimum CBC requirement) • If the crawl space is still sub grade after filling, then include a sump, pump and outlet pipe to pump flood waters out • The garage slab can be below the BFE, but the garage will then need to be flood vented separately from the house • Notes that all materials and equipment below the BFE are water-resistant 110. Public Works will prepare a flood zone screening form, including a "substantial improvement" screening form, at the Development Center when plans are submitted for a building permit. In order to determine if your project is a "substantial improvement" prior to submitting for a building permit, you can have a preliminary screening performed by Public Works' staff at the Development Center. 111. Conceptual Grading, Drainage, C.3 and SWPPP Plan: To verify the project adequately addresses grading, drainage and surface water infiltration, the applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to the final ARB submittal. The plan must demonstrate that site runoff is conveyed to the nearest adequate municipal storm drain system and that drainage is not increased onto, nor blocked from, neighboring properties. The plan must also include a conceptual storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including the permanent best management practices (BMP's) to protect storm water quality and control runoff per the C.3 provisions of the Grading Ordinance (see C.3 below). Resources and handouts are available from PWE, including "Planning Your Land Development Project". The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 112. Subdivision Maps: A Tentative Map and a Final Map are required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit an application for a major subdivision with the Planning Division. Public Works' Major Subdivision -Tentative Map checklist must accompany the Tentative Map and the Major Subdivision -Final Map checklist must accompany the Final Map. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the maps. A digital copy of the Final Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NA VD 1988 for vertical survey controls. 113. Improvement Plans: The applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Public Works Engineering, Water/GaslWastewater and Electric Utilities Engineering, Planning, and Transportation Divisions and the Fire Department to determine what on-site and off-site \ ) public improvements will be required. The off-site improvements required by Public Works Engineering will include at minimum: replacement of the sidewalk, curb & gutter along the frontages of the site; the installation of curb ramps and street trees; and the resurfacing of the street (2" grind & overlay) along the project frontages. Improvement plans must be completed, approved and signed prior to the Final Map going to City Council for approval. 114. Subdivision Improvement Agreement: A subdivision improvement agreement is required to secure compliance with the conditions of approval and security of the onsite and off site public improvements. The agreement must be finalized and signed prior to the Final Map going to City Council for approval. 115. Bonds: The developer shall post bonds to guarantee the completion of the onsite and offsite public improvements. The applicant must submit a construction cost estimate for the onsite and offsite public improvements. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments after reviewing the plans and the estimate. The bonds must be submitted prior to the Final Map going to City Council for approval. 116. Developer's Project Manager: The subdivision includes significant complexity involving coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with Planning, Public Works and Utility Department staff. Public Works will have regular communication with the Project Manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction. Prior to Final ARB Submittal 117. Flood Zone: The applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Public Works Engineering Division to verify compliance with the FEMA flood zone construction requirements regarding all new construction as well as remodeling of existing retail buildings. Grading & BuildingSubmittal 118. Grading & Excavation Permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit is required for the project. A grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on each grading permit plan sheet: "This grading permit will only authorize general grading and installation of the storm drain system. Other building and utilityinlprovements are shown for reference information only and are subject to a separate building permit approval." No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprints. 119. Storm Drains: The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area may be unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant may be required to provide stonn water detention on-site to lessen the project's impact on city stonn drains. The applicant's engineer shall provide stonn drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 120. C3: This project shall comply with the stonn water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge pennit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on stonn water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect stonn water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent stonn water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a "water quality stonn" specified in P AMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal stonn drain system. In addition, the applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 121. UPDATE: New regulations regarding third-party certifications of stonn water treatment designs and installations went into effect 211 0111. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third-party reviewer that the design of the project complies with the requirements of P AMC Chapter 16.11. Prior to issuance of an occupancy pennit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third-party reviewer that the project's permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were constructed or installed in accordance with the approved plans. A list of qualified third-party reviewers is available at: http://www.scvurppp- w2k.comlconsultants.htm 122. Revision: Additional, new stonn water treatment requirements will go into effect on December 1,2011. These new requirements will not apply if a development application (ARB) receives final discretionary approval before December 1,2011. 123. Survey Datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NAVD 1988 for vertical survey controls throughout the design process. 124. Final Drainage Plan: The plans shall include a final drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional. This plan shall show proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal stoml drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 125. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant must apply for coverage under the State ·Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOl) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOl and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. 126. Impervious Surface Area: The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. For non- residential properties, a Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering and on the division's website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglpublic-works/eng-documents.html 127. Work in the Right-of-Way: The off-site public improvement plans must note that any work that is to be conducted in the public right-of-way must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 128. Street Trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way or state that there are none. Include street tree protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation within 10 feet of a street tree, must be approved by Public Warks' arborist. This approval shall appear on the plans. Prior to Demolition & Construction 129. Temporary Encroachment Permit: The contractor may be required to obtain a temporary encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to occupy the right-of-way andlor to provide traffic control to perform the demolition. 130. Street Work Permit: A Permit for Construction in the Public Street ("street work permit") must be obtained by the general contractor or all subcontractors performing work in the public right-of-way. All construction within the right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to the standard specifications and details of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 131. Logistics Plan: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public and including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors' parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. Typically, the construction logistics plan is required for and attached to an encroachment permit or a street work permit. 132. Storm Drain Logo: The applicant is required to paint "No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek" in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. The applicant is required to install thermoplastic logos adjacent to all off-site storm drain inlets that are located in the public right-of-way and affected by the project. The thermoplastic logos may be obtained from the Public Works Inspector. 133. Record Drawings: At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as- built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. The digital files shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NA VD 1988 for vertical survey controls. In addition, a digital copy of any project parcel map, subdivision map, or certificate-of-compliance shall also be provided. All files should be delivered in AutoCad fOIDlat. 134. Building Permit Sign-Off: The Public Works Inspector shall sign-off the building permit. Activities that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: 1) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain improvements, 3) all post- construction storm water pollution control measures, 4) entering into and recording a maintenance agreement for the C.3 measures, and 5) submittal of as-built record drawings for improvements in the public right-of-way. Utilities Electrical Engineering General 135. This proj ect requires the installation of padmount transformers for both the new residential development and the rehabilitation of the existing retail buildings. The present transformer serving the site shall be removed by CPAU. Proposed locations for the transformers shall be incorporated on the site plan and submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. 136. The existing main breaker serving the facility, located in CPAU manhole 1637, shall be removed. The new switchgear location shall be incorporated on the site plan and submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. 137. Easements for the pad mounted transformers and clearances in the front and around the transformer shall be as per City's requirements. 138. All the existing equipments/vaults and utility lines (on-site) shall be removed or relocated at applicant's expense prior to construction. 139. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 140. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. The Following Shall Be Submitted/or Electrical Permit Submittals 141. . A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 142. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 143. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. ) 144. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 145. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 146. A public utility easement shall be required for the padmount transformers. 147. Location ofthe electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 148. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 149. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 150. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary temlinals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 151. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 152. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 153. Applicant shall submit well-pump specifications. Specifications to include pump type, HP, voltage, starting current, efficiency, single-phase or three-phase. Also include reduced starting method. 154. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. During Construction 155. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 156. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 112 -inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer's expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 157. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 158. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 159. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 160. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 161. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer • \ ) Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 162. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 163. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Public Works Department Water Quality Control PlantiEnvironmental Compliance Division 164. P AMC 16.09.032(B)(17) Covered Parking: Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system. 165. PAMC 16.09.106(e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities: New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run- off from the area. 166. P AMC 16.09.032 Loading Docks with Chemicals: Connections to the storm drain shall not be permitted for loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled. 167. Loading dock drains may be connected to the sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the superintendent is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. 168. PAMC 16.09.106(d)(4) Loading Docks without Chemicals: Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if a valve or equivalent device is provided, which remains closed except when it is raining. 169. Undesignated Retail Space~ P AMC 16.09 -Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. 170. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: PAMC Section 16.09.103(a) Grease Interceptors for Food Service Facilities 171. A grease interceptor shall be installed with a minimum capacity of750 gallons. The grease interceptor must be sized in accordance with Appendix H ofthe Uniform Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted with the plans. 172. PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Covered Dumpsters for Food Service Facilities: After January 1, 1996, new buildings constructed to house food service facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed beneath dumpsters serving food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal device. 173. PAMC 16.09.103(e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals: The installation ofa garbage grinder at any food service facility is prohibited after January 1,2003. The kitchen cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to the sanitary sewer. 174. PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food Service Facilities: Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer. 175. At the former Moon Cleaners location, the current appropriate level that will be used to define the extent of soil removal and as the comparison criteria for the confirmation sample for PCE is the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 0.70 mg/kg for commerciallindustrialland use listed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in Screeningfor Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Table A, Interim Final November 2007, revised May 2008). This ESL for sites where Groundwater is Current or Potential Source of Drinking Water would be conservatively applied. Characterization and removal of any contaminated soil will be undertaken in coordination with appropriate oversight agencies and that coordination will be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Environment and the Palo Alto Fire Department. 176. The final underground utility plan will be reviewed by a qualified California professional geologist or professional civil engineer, the Palo Alto Fire Department, Utilities Department, and Department of Public Works to determine whether the extension of underground utilities (in a joint trench or separate water lines, sewer lines, storm drains, electrical conduit, etc.) could provide a conduit for PCE soil gas intrusion from the former Moon Cleaners location. In the event utility lines extend through areas near the former Moon Cleaners site and a possibility of soil vapor intrusion remains, appropriate engineering controls will be implemented to reduce possible soil vapor migration through trench backfill and utility conduits. These engineering controls may include placement of low-permeability backfill "plugs" at intervals in the on-site utility trenches or other measures. Measures to be employed will be approved by the Palo Alto Fire Department, the Utilities Department and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. o C ITY OF P LO ALT Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: August21,2013 (HRB) Historic Resources Board Elena Lee Senior Planner Historic Resources Board StaffRe ort Department: Planning and Community Environment 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-001971: Review of a request by Sand Hill Property Company for an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning (pC- 5150) for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to allow for the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Buildi ng I). Building 1 was approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but was demolished instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project has been published and the public comment period began May 17 and ended July 20,2013. A Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing for the project has been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2013. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review the proposed revised project and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and provide feedback to staff, th~ Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and City CounciL BACKGROUND Project History Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph EichlerlEichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of Jones and Emmons. The center was originally built with the existing grocery building (1957), two retail builclings (1958), an office building that fonnedy housed the office of Eichler Homes (I 959), and a gas station (1957). The office building and gas station sites are not part of the subject shopping center. Edgewood Plaza is not listed on The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)~ the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), nor on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Although this site is not on the City's inventory, because it has been deemed eligible for both registers, it is considered a historic resource. Accordingly, staff is requesting the HRB's input on this change to the project and the SEIR because it is about the historic resource. As the center is not on the City's Historic Inventory, the HRB is not required by the City's Municipal Code to make a formal recommendation to the ARB. However, given the historic importance of the site, the HRJ3's comments will be important and helpful during the entitlement process. Page 1 The site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) rezoning approved by the City Council on March 9, 2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center, including the relocation of one of three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new 9,000 square foot park. Two of the existing commercial buildings, Buildings # 1 and #2 have been deemed historic resources. Building 3, the fornler market building, currently occupied by Fresh Market, is not considered a historic resource. Building # 1 was approved to be disassembled, relocated on site and rehabilitated. Building #2 was approved to be rehabilitated in place. The primary public benefits for the Edgewood Plaza project consist of 1) the preservation of historic resources and 2) the construction and operation of the grocery store. An Environnlental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council to provide environmental clearance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the rezoning. The EIR was certified by the City Council based on the assumption that historic impacts for the relocation of Building #1 wouldbe mitigated to a less than significant impact because the building would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. This was consistent with the HRB' s recommendation at the October 19, 2011 hearing for the original project. Specifically, the character defining features of the building, such as the wood window frames, glu-lam beams, concrete block wall, cornice and wood paneling, would be retained. In September 2012, a stop work order was issued because the historic building (Building #1) that was to be disassembled and reconstructed onsite was illegally demolished.. On March 4, 2013, the City Council authorized the continued construction of the grocery store, the remaining historic (Building #2), six of the homes and other onsite and offsite improvements. The City Council also authorized staff to hire Carey & Company, the historic consulting finn that the perfonned the peer review on the original EIR for the City, to review plans and monitor construction to ensure that Building #2 comply with the PC zoning and all mitigation measures, 'including the Secretary of Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation. The monitoring has included multiple walk throughs and special focus has been placed in the preservation of the building's signature glu-lam beams. To date, the applicant has completed the grocery store building, various parking lot improvements and installation of the electric charging stations. The rehabilitation of Building #2 is in process. DISCUSSION Building #1 Building # 1 was originally approved to be dismantled and rebuilt to accommodate the redevelopment. As discussed above, the building would be reconstructed and rehabilitated according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The building would have retained the character defining features, such as the tum-down roof, glue laminated or glu-lam beams, cmu block walls, and redwood siding. The walls have been defined as a "kit of parts" that are proposed to be reorganized to maintain the historic character of the buildings, while allowing the modernization of the building to accommodate a successful retail environment. As of September of2012, the building was demolished and the materials were disposed of, making it not possible to comply with the original approval. The applicant is now requesting the City to allow complete reconstruction of Building # 1 with all Page 2 new materials. All other components of the project, including the ten residences and park, would remain the same. Under the revised project, the building would be constructed with all new materials in the approved location. The building would be substantially consistent with the originally approved design with a few minor modifications. The most important modification is the City's requirement to replicate the original storefront window system. The original approval approved installation of new much simpler wood framed windows. Like Building #2, the original window frames in Building # 1 had been replaced over the years with similar but simpler wood frames. The replacement wood window frames were flat and did not include the projecting moldings. This modification allows Building #1 to be rebuilt in a design significantly closer to its original appearance than the altered building that was illegally demolished. The original wood window frames of both Eichler buildings were a more complex design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass which gave the windows a streamline modeme look. Because one storefront at the rear of Building #2 was preserved' intact since' 1957, the City and the applicant's historic consultant will be able to use that storefront as a model in the reconstruction of Buildings #2 and # 1, if approved, to its original 1957 design. The rebuilding of Building #1 will provide a much more historic design of the building than was provided in the building that was demolished and even compared to the version if the building was preserved and rehabilitated as originally approved. The applicant has agreed to install these more complex window frames for both Buildings #1 and #2. Working closely with the City's historic consultant, the applicant has custom made replicas for the rehabilitation of Buiiding #2 and will do the same for Building #1 should the amendment be approved. Building # 1 is proposed to be substantially similar to the originally approved design, which was based on the "kit of parts" concept that would ensure that the building would retain the character defining features of the Eichler aesthetic. The "kit of parts" consist of the block walls, the storefront glass, redwood siding and the glu-Iam beams. The building would still include a new roof screen to hide roof mounted equipment. The modifications include moving around of the "parts" and modifications of the proportions of each element to accommodate modem tenants and requirements of the Building Code. As illustrated in the elevations shown on plan set pages A3.2 and A3.3 (Attachment D), the new building would consist of the same types of materials in a different configuration. These minor modifications have been carefully reviewed and found acceptable by the City's Historic Preservation Plaluler. Similar modifications to Building #2 have been reviewed and approved by the City, also with consultation by the City's historic consultant, Carey & Company. Although the loss of a historic building cannot be mitigated, the historic accuracy of the replacement structure would be increased with the installation of the more complex window frames. Staff has determined that because the storefront glass system was a large part of the original design, this requirement provides a significant historic benefit to the project. HISTORIC RESOURCES AND SEIR A Final ErR was certified by the City Council, following positive recommendations by the HRB, the PlalIDing and Transportation Commission (P&TC) , and the Architectural Review Board. The original Final ErR analyzed the historic resources and the proj ect' s potential impact on those Page 3 resources. Four reports regarding the project's historic resources were prepared for the project's Eut An initial report was prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., the applicant's consultant, with a peer review prepared by Carey & Company. <Buildings 1 and 2 were deemed to have retained integrity of design, despite some nlinor exterior alterations over the past fifty years. Both buildings would be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 3, Architecture, as a rare example of commercial development by the noted partnership of Eichler Homes and Jones & Emmons. Because the site has been determined to be eligible for both the NRHP and CRHR, per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the site would qualify for the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under Criterion 3 and 4. Because the complete loss of Building # 1 has been deemed a substantial change to the proj ect, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), a Supplemental to the EIR (SEIR) has been prepared to address the changes needed to comply with State law. The supplement contains the information needed to address the change. This SEIR is focused only on the new significant historic impact created by the change to the proposal, the loss of Building # 1 and the replacement construction in the same location of new materials. The original Final EIR included a mitigation measure (MMCR-2.3) that required compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level for both Buildings #1 and #2. Loss of Building #1 's materials has made application of the mitigation measure and the Standards of Rehabilitation not possible. The other two mitigation measures to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level included the preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (MM CR-2.1) and creation of ad is play illustrating the history of Edgewood Plaza (MM CR-2.2) are still applicable. The HABS survey was completed and has been used to facilitate the preparation of the SEIR and the project implementation. The applicant is working on the design of the historic display. The City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), states that the Historic Resources Board is responsible for making recommendations to the Director ofPlmming and Community Environment and City Council on projects that could impact sites listed in the City's Historic Inventory. Although this site is not on the City's inventory, because it has been deemed a historic resource, staff is requesting the HRB' s input on the historic component of this project. The HRB's comments will be important and helpful to the P&TC and City Council during the upcoming project reviews. The SEIR was prepared to address the historic impact of Building # 1 and circulated on May 17, 2013 for the required 45-day period. The Notice of Availability and SEIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse and made available for public review at City Hall and the City's website (http://goo.gl/PinreG). Additionally, the notices were emailed to interested parties. The end of the circulation period was originally July 1,2013 but had been extended to July 20th. Copies of the SEIR were provided to the HRB, P&TC and City Council at the beginning of the circulation period. No public comments have been received. The document concluded that the revised project would result in two new significant impacts: 1) Significant Impact to the historic resources specific to Building #1 after implementation of mitigation measures and 2) Significant Cumulative Historic Resources Impact. Page 4 The SEIR concluded that there would be a new significant impact to historic resources due to the loss of Building # 1. The Secretary of Interi9r has established four treatments or guidelines to address the preservation of historic resources: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction. Because there was a complete loss of materials, only the Reconstruction approach is applicable to address impacts to historic resources. The Reconstruction guidelines have typically been used in very selective sitl1ations, such as reconstruction of historic museum, where there is a clear public benefit (usually educational). The guidelines include requirements such as preservation of any remaining historic materials and construction of only the original design. The complete list of Guidelines and Standards for Reconstruction are provided on pages 19-22 of the SEIR. However, application of the guidelines cannot reduce the demolition to a less than significant level because none of the historic fabric would be retained. The SEIR also analyzed the potential impact to the remaining historic building, Building #2. Because the proposed Building # 1 is substantially consistent with the originally approved design and in the same location, it was determined that there would not be an impact to the character of Building #2. To address the new impact caused by the loss of Building #1, mitigation measure CR-2.3 has been amended. The mitigation measure as originally written still applies to Building #2. CR-2.3 now states: A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previous approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building #1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment. In addition, staff is also proposing to have the City's historic consultant, Carey & Company, to review and monitor the construction of Building # 1 sinlilar to what was required for Building #2. As noted above, application of the revised mitigation measure will not reduce the level of significance because none of the original building has been retained. The SEIR also concluded that there is a significant impact to Cumulative Cultural Resources, in that the loss of Building #1 combined with the recently approved demolition of the Edward Durrell Stone Building Complex (1959) at the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) campus (as part of the SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project approved in July 2011) has created a cumulatively considerable impact to mid- century modem buildings by prominent architects. The Stone Building Complex represents a significant example of the modem design Aesthetic and of a significant architect. The loss of Building # 1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex will therefore be a significant inlpact. Alternatives have been set forth and evaluated in the SEIR to allow the City Council and recommending bodies to consider ways to nlinimize the significance of the impacts to historic Page 5 resources. Two alternatives were analyzed in the SEIR: (1) No Project and (2) Building Design. The No Project alternative would be a project without a new Building #1. Because the original building no longer exists, this would not avoid or reduce the historic impact due to the loss. However, the project objectives of creating a new mixed use project with three retail buildings would not be met. The second alternative, Building Design Alternative, would allow for a new building to be constructed in its new location with new materials. However, the building would be constructed in a manner that duplicates the original 1957 design. This nlay result in a more historically accurate representation, but would still be a new building. Therefore it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The alternative would also not meet the project objectives because it would not allow the changes originally proposed by the applicant to make the building more suitable for a viable retail building. RECOMMENDED REVIEW ITEMS FOR THE HRB 1. Review and comment on the adequacy of the analysis for the loss of Building # 1 and the proposal to reconstruct the building as originally approved with all new materials, and 2. Review and provide a recommendation on the change to the project which would allow the construction of Building # 1 with all new materials. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As described above, a SEIR has been prepared for the project. The SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act to address changes to the project that occurred after the certification of the or~ginal Final EIR for the original project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review on May 17,2013 through July 20,2013. A Final EIR will be prepared to respond to comments received from the public, the HRB, P&TC and City Council. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the Final EIR be circulated for a minimum often days. Upon completion of the circulation period, the EIR must be certified and accepted by the decision making body before a decision can be made on the application the EIR was prepared for. In this case, the City Council must certify this EIR before taking a final action on the proj ect. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachrrlent B: Approved CEQA Resolution Attachment C: Edgewood Plaza Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Previously provided and available online, including the original FEIR at http://goo.gl!Pj m'cG) Attachment D: Project Plans* (Commissioners & Libraries only) Page 6 COURTESY COPIES John Tze, Ho Holdings No.1 LLC Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner @- Reviewed by: Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager Page 7 Historic Resources Board 1 Draft Minutes 2 August 21, 2013 3 Excerpt 4 5 6 7 8 1. 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand Hill Property 9 Company for an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning (PC-5150) for the 10 Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to allow for the reconstruction of 11 one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). Building 1 was approved 12 to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but 13 was demolished instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared 14 for the project has been published and the public comment period began May 17 and 15 ended July 20, 2013. A Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing for 16 the project has been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2013. 17 18 Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is 2080 Channing Avenue. Request, review of a 19 request by Sand Hill Property Company for an amendment to the Planned Community 20 Zoning (PC-5150) for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed-use project to allow 21 for the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). 22 Building 1 was approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary 23 public benefits, but was demolished instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact 24 Report (EIR) prepared for the project has been published and the public comment period 25 began May 17th and ended July 20, 2013. A Planning and Transportation Commission 26 (PTC) public hearing for the project has been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 27 2013. Planning staff have a staff report for us. 28 29 Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Yes, good morning Board Members. Steven 30 Turner, Advance Planning Manager. I’d like to introduce Elena Lee a Senior Planner in 31 the Planning Division who will be giving the staff report this morning. 32 33 Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you. The purpose of today’s hearing is to request 34 Historic Resources Board (HRB) feedback on the adequacy of a Supplemental EIR that 35 was prepared for the project and the proposal to approve the rebuilding of Building 1 in 36 its originally approved location with all new materials. Although the shopping center has 37 not been identified on any historic inventories because it was deemed eligible for both the 38 State and Federal register staff is requesting the Board’s recommendation regarding the 39 proposed project. This site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) Zoning that 40 was approved last year that allowed the rehabilitation of the existing shopping center, 41 three building shopping center, and the construction of 10 new single family residential 42 units as well as a small park. The project included the relocation and renovation of one 43 of the two retail buildings that were deemed historic and rehabilitation of the other 44 historic building and renovation of the grocery building, which is now occupied by Fresh 45 Market and was deemed not historic. A final Environmental Impact Report was certified 46 to provide environmental clearance on the assumption that both historic buildings would 1 be rehabilitated per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and 2 therefore would not create any significant unavoidable impacts. 3 4 In September 2012 a stop work order was issued because one of the two historic 5 buildings, Building 1 that was supposed to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite was 6 demolished. Council authorized the continued construction of the project in March of 7 2013 that included construction of, continued construction of Building 2, which was still, 8 which was not demolished and so application of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for 9 Rehabilitation would still be possible. The Council also authorized construction on the 10 four homes. Since the authorization of Council the applicant has requested an 11 amendment to the Planned Community Zoning that would allow the rebuilding of 12 Building 1 with all new materials. As part of the oversight staff has also retained Carey 13 and Company, the City’s historic consultant for the Environmental Impact Report for the 14 original project to review all the building permit plans related to Building 2 as well as to 15 provide onsite monitoring to make sure that there’s full compliance with the project. 16 17 The, as I stated, the applicant is now requesting ability to move forward with the project 18 and the proposal would be to build it where it was approved and substantially consistent 19 with its originally approved elevation, but with all new materials. The applicant has 20 made minor modifications to the elevations to better address modern tenant’s needs. 21 These changes have been reviewed both by staff including Historic Preservation Planner 22 as well as the City’s historic consultant and accordingly the Supplemental EIR was also 23 prepared for the project that would address that change to the project, which would be 24 that Building 1 would be constructed with all new materials; however, the Rehabilitation 25 Standards are no longer applicable so analysis was done using the Reconstruction 26 Standards. However, because all the building materials have been removed and it’s no 27 longer available and because there is no remnant of the historic materials, the EIR 28 assumes that there are significant unavoidable impacts because the building, the historic 29 resources is no longer available and accordingly the EIR assumes significant unavoidable 30 impacts for historic resources as well as cumulative impacts because this is the loss of yet 31 another historic building in the City. 32 33 So staff is requesting feedback from the HRB, comments regarding the adequacy of the 34 Supplemental EIR and its analysis of the historic resources and again because the only 35 change to the project was the historic building this EIR focused on the historic resources. 36 Staff would also like to bring attention to one significant addition to the project. The City 37 required application of the original constructed windows, which included narrow full 38 height projecting moldings. During the analysis, during the construction process staff, it 39 was discovered that one of the storefront windows in Building 2 were the original 40 windows. So we were able to require that that be preserved again under the auspices of 41 the City’s historic consultant and use that to basically replicate those original windows. 42 The applicant has agreed to do that with Building 2 and if Building 1 is approved then the 43 same thing would occur on Building 1. Staff is also proposing to retain Carey and 44 Company to also monitor the construction and review of Building 1 should this be 45 approved. 46 1 So the custom made windows I think, we believe will help create a building that is 2 significantly closer to its original appearance than what would have been required under 3 the original project which required installation of wood windows but not the original 4 moldings. So staff’s assessment is that this will significantly enhance the historic quality 5 of the building and this is already going to be occurring with Building 2. So basically 6 because of the amount of storefront glass that exists on Building 1 we believe that this 7 really does add to the project. And as stated earlier the whole project including the 8 Supplemental EIR will be going back to the Planning and Transportation Commission on 9 September 11th for their analysis and a recommendation. Then the whole project will 10 return to the City Council for their final decision. As part of that decision there will be a 11 discussion on the requirement for public benefits and any other changes that the City 12 Council or any of the boards or commission would like to see on this project. 13 14 The applicant is available here today as well as Nora Monette and Shannon George of the 15 City’s Environmental Impact Report Consultant. This concludes staff report. Oh, also 16 want to bring your attention to an e-mail that was sent to the Board yesterday and is 17 available at places today, which is from one of the neighbors of the project. And she’s 18 just in that e-mail, yes, stating that she fully supports the project and would like to see the 19 project progress. Other than that particular comment staff has received some questions 20 and feedback from neighbors regarding concern about the project, most of it just asking 21 what’s going on and also stating their support for the project because they just want to see 22 the project continue. Other than that staff has not received any other comments regarding 23 the EIR in particular. This concludes staff’s report. 24 25 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. For members of the public I just want to announce our 26 normal process for this hearing, after the staff recommendation that Planner Lee just 27 mentioned then there’d be applicant presentation 10 minutes presentation, then Historic 28 Resources Board questions of the applicant or staff, then public comment. I do have one 29 comment card from members of the public. Applicant closing comments, three minutes, 30 close the public hearing, and then any Motions or recommendations by the Board and 31 then a final vote. So moving ahead, applicant presentation; I’d like to invite the applicant 32 to, and please state your name for our recorded message. Thank you. 33 34 John Tze, Sand Hill Property Company: Good morning, my name is John Tze with Sand 35 Hill Property Company at 203 Redwood Shores Parkway in Redwood City. Thank you 36 for seeing me this morning. I know it’s early. 37 38 And Board Member Bunnenberg just to clarify, we did change the historic sign so there is 39 no metal element on that wing carrying the… yes, that’s correct. It is wood painted. So 40 going right back to the way the original sign was. Correct. So just confirming that. 41 42 We’re continuously working with the neighbors, meeting with them regularly, keeping 43 them updated with what’s happening with the project. Everybody seems to be very 44 pleased with the way Fresh Market has opened and the condition of Fresh Market 45 bringing it back to the way it was originally designed or at least as close as we could. 46 The second building, the historic building that’s undergoing the renovation is progressing 1 as well. The detailing on the wood storefront frames is actually being hand installed right 2 now as we speak and the windows should be going in next week. And I’m sorry, I was 3 saying the second building, Building 2, that is being renovated in places is progressing 4 quite well. The detailing on the wood framing is being installed right now and the 5 windows themselves will be installed next week and so that building should be pretty 6 much closed up and starting the plaster and painting within the next few weeks and you’ll 7 see significantly how our proposed Building 1 will look since it has very similar Eichler 8 characteristics, paint colors, and so forth. So there doesn’t have to be too much 9 imagination in what Building 1 will be. 10 11 We continue to work very closely with Carey and Company keeping them apprised of 12 every detail, every little change that tenants are requiring, such as an ATM for Chase 13 Bank, additional lighting for the ATM required by the banking authorities, things like 14 that. We continue to work with staff and Carey and Company and by the way the, I 15 wanted to express my appreciation for the staff report. The planning report seemed very 16 thorough and I’m very appreciative of everybody’s time on this. One little detail is 17 although it was quite a surprise to us, but we take full responsibility, I do, not all the 18 demolished materials was removed from the site. And so a lot of the old glulam beams 19 from Building 1 are actually still on site, but I don’t think that really makes any 20 difference. I will be available for any questions and be very happy to answer anything or 21 make clarification as needed. Thank you very much. 22 23 Chair Bernstein: And thank you John. First of all I’d like to make a disclosure that I have 24 actually visited the site. I bought some eggs there, so. 25 26 Board Member Bower: Yeah, I had the opportunity to visit the site yesterday as well, 27 looked at Building 2 in preparation for this meeting. 28 29 Board Member Bunnenberg: I also visited the site. I shopped at the Fresh Market. I 30 looked at Building 2 as much as possible and of course saw that there are supports up for 31 Building 1 it appeared. So that I made a site visit. 32 33 Chair Bernstein: Alright, then moving ahead on our schedule of events Historic 34 Resources Board questions of the applicant or staff. Yeah, David? 35 36 Board Member Bower: Quick question; the glass in Building 1 I assume now will be 37 insulated glass? 38 39 Mr. Tze: That’s correct. It’ll be the same glass that’s in the grocery building and going 40 into Building 2. 41 42 Board Member Bower: Yeah, ok. It’s not significant, just a question of interest. 43 44 Chair Bernstein: Beth. 45 46 Board Member Bunnenberg: Actually I kind of have a line of questioning and then 1 actually to ask for Mr. Tze’s help as well. Because this historic, loss of historic fabric is 2 really a very serious matter I had some questions about it. In the drawings that we were 3 provided on A33Y, there is a small statement that the existing wood panel and this is on 4 Building 1 should be carefully removed and stored. Can you tell me if that statement also 5 got onto the construction drawings, which of course are much more detailed? 6 7 Mr. Tze: Yes, that is actually excerpted from the permit, construction permit drawing set. 8 9 Board Member Bunnenberg: So that that and it included the glulam beams and also that 10 one referred to redwood that was vertically grooved. Was any of that material still left or 11 did Building 2 have any of that vertically grooved redwood? 12 13 Mr. Tze: Yes, a lot of that material is left. Working with Dennis Backlund we thoroughly 14 investigated Building 2’s condition before we started work on it a few months ago and 15 discovered what panels were original. We were very surprised with a lot of our 16 discovery, but those panels that were deemed to be original have been protected, 17 carefully removed, and placed into a safekeeping trailer or storage container on site for 18 reference. So (interrupted) 19 20 Board Member Bunnenberg: For reference and you also will be using them for Building 1 21 for the, where the vertically grooved was indicated. 22 23 Mr. Tze: That’s correct. It’s the (interrupted) 24 25 Board Member Bunnenberg: So it’s your model, it’s your sample, the pieces you have 26 (interrupted) 27 28 Mr. Tze: That’s correct. 29 30 Board Member Bunnenberg: Are the models to make sure that you’re doing that. Thank 31 you very much. I also noted that there was some mention of raptor nests and whether 32 there were any archeological finds. And sometimes some of that is just word that’s put in 33 in this kind of thing. Did you find any raptor nests? No. 34 35 Mr. Tze: No, not that we’re aware of; no archeological (interrupted) 36 37 Board Member Bunnenberg: And no archeological (interrupted) 38 39 Mr. Tze: Artifacts of significance (interrupted) 40 41 Board Member Bunnenberg: Things. 42 43 Mr. Tze: No. 44 45 Board Member Bunnenberg: Ok, because I had been asked that question by a member of 1 the public. So my question to you is: this is a very serious matter and have you 2 suggestions as a person who’s been through it as to how we as a Board and a City could 3 avoid this kind of thing? Is it a matter of training? Is it a matter of highlighting on the 4 construction plans? Is it a matter of very stiff regulations and penalties? What do you 5 see and how do you see the monitoring as having gone? 6 7 Mr. Tze: That actually goes to the heart of how this occurred and Former Planning 8 Director Curtis Williams and I had numerous conversations of this, about that exact topic: 9 how to, how this, why this occurred and how to prevent it from happening again. The 10 solution I feel personally is the monitoring of Carey and Company or somebody who 11 understands construction, the practical implications of what you are hoping to find when 12 you start construction, what you do find, and somebody who has the judgment and 13 expertise to be able to guide you through that as you find inevitable surprises through the 14 construction process. So the monitoring of Carey and Company in this case or any 15 historic consultant who has construction background has been instrumental in guiding us 16 through the rehabilitation of Building 2. Dennis Backlund’s assistance or oversight 17 during the discovery of what Building 2 is was very key. 18 19 I would say stepping back our biggest mistake was investigating the grocery building 20 condition and realizing that yeah, it doesn’t meet historic standards, but not thoroughly 21 investigating the construction condition of the two historic buildings before this whole 22 process and EIR and everything was started a year or two ago. And so that wasn’t a 23 historic issue that was just simply a construction miss. When you’re renovating 24 something you should try to understand it thoroughly before you start. But I think just 25 that oversight and having somebody act as the bridge on the construction site and 26 understanding the entitlement process is key. 27 28 Board Member Bunnenberg: And was the historic documentation done? Photographs 29 and so forth were supposed to have been taken. Was that done? 30 31 Mr. Tze: Yes, the conditions require us to have survey and all of that was done. I 32 personally was checking off every line item as we progressed. 33 34 Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you very much. 35 36 Chair Bernstein: Other Board Members? David? 37 38 Board Member Bower: Just a little follow up on that. So I was out there yesterday. I 39 looked at the building Number 2 and there’s effectively no building there. I mean 40 Eichler’s didn’t have a lot. They were very streamlined designs. So they’re a beam, 41 prominent architectural features would be the beams, the Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) 42 block walls, the siding, and the glass walls. Now when this project came to our Board the 43 first time I wondered how Building 1 was going to be moved because I’m pretty sure the 44 cinder block walls had no grout. Is that what you found? 45 46 Mr. Tze: Yeah, we found in our investigation of the grocery building, which we thought 1 would be in the best condition of the three buildings simply because of its height and its 2 structural requirements at the time it was built would be in the best condition, but during 3 construction even the walls we thought we would save turned out not to be reusable and 4 no walls in the grocery building are original. And similarly from a practical standpoint 5 we never thought we would be able to actually pick up and move one of the historic 6 masonry walls and that was just kind of a practical issue that we had vetted with the 7 historians early on. But yes, we found that they weren’t to any kind of structural code of 8 today. 9 10 Board Member Bower: Sure I watched the grocery building be reconstructed and so when 11 this project came to us initially I thought well what you’ll be doing on that Building 1 is 12 moving the roof, because that’s really the only part of the structure that you could 13 actually pick up and move. You could’ve picked up the beams with it, but the posts that 14 support the beams probably don’t have, I’m guessing didn’t have adequate connections, 15 maybe they weren’t even, they might have been redwood, which is a typical material that 16 Eichler used, so what we’ve lost in, where I’m going with this is what we’ve lost in this 17 particular situation is the glass storefronts frames, some of the siding which you have 18 saved, if I understood your comment to Beth. So in effect we have not lost a lot of a 19 building because there wasn’t a lot of the building to lose initially. So I understand 20 we’ve lost the roof, I understand the protection of historic fabric, but there wasn’t a lot of 21 it here so I think what I saw yesterday onsite is that you can reproduce this building and 22 make it look just like the old one even though it’s not the old one. And that’s I guess 23 why we’re here today. Is that an adequate statement? 24 25 Mr. Tze: We are reproducing the original 50’s building to meet current code and so the 26 plans that you have are actually the construction documents, the permit drawings, but you 27 cannot have a 12 inch thick roof anymore because there was no insulation in those roofs. 28 And so now you see that roof is about 22 inches. You have the overhanging roof lines at 29 the same distance, six feet. You have the turn down roofs where they were original. The 30 posts actually, this is just simply a post and beam construction, the posts were actually 31 four inch steel columns, tubular columns, just type, but structurally they weren’t 32 embedded into the ground properly. Their buckets up, holding up the glulam beams 33 weren’t quite adequate today. 34 35 What we found in the roof of Building 1 and Building 2, if you notice in Building 2 very 36 little of the roof is actually store original and many of the glulam beams had to be 37 replaced as well because they failed. 38 39 Board Member Bower: Sure. 40 41 Mr. Tze: Even before we purchased the property in 2005 the roof had pretty much failed 42 in both these buildings. They weren’t properly sloped anymore. We, every time it rained 43 we had to go up there and wash off the rainwater and so that settling rainwater over the 44 years had basically dry rotted large portions of the roof all the way through the glulam 45 beams. And so one of the conditions that we found was, coming to your point, we 46 actually weren’t able to salvage any of the roof because and that’s something that our 1 historic consultant and we and the structural engineer reviewed, you could actually put a 2 pencil into the glulam beam in points. And so our structural engineer pretty much 3 insisted you can’t use any of these glulam beams. Maybe we can go out and test them 4 and try to salvage a few, but he wasn’t very comfortable using any of the glulam beams 5 because we had to meet a new building construction structural requirements of today. 6 7 On top the glulam beams if you understand construction, that’s why Carey and Company 8 has been very good. On top of the glulam beams you had purlins going back and forth 9 and then on top of the purlins, these are the roughly 2 by 8 inch or 2 by 10 inch purlins 10 that built on top of the glulam beams in perpendicular direction to the beams and then on 11 top of that you had basically just plywood. And on top of the plywood was basically just 12 a little tar and gravel type of roof to keep water out. Well when the plywood rotted there 13 was not really not much of any roof to save because the purlins were also damaged. It 14 just kind of made its way all the way through. 15 16 In our discovery phase of Building 1 before Carey and Company go involved the wood 17 slatted walls that you’re mentioning, most of those weren’t original. They looked exactly 18 the same and we couldn’t even tell, but somebody at some point had to replace them and 19 used plywood and just adhered little one by quarter inch strips to the plywood. And so if 20 you were very careful you could see little nails and so it wasn’t actually the lathed 21 grooved slats that were original. And we found that in almost all the way around the 22 building. So as far as what really we could move we could’ve moved the whole building 23 theoretically, but then we would have had to replace everything. 24 25 Board Member Bower: Yeah, so where I was going with this is I thought this was going 26 to be a very difficult process. When I first heard it doesn’t surprise me that you’re back 27 here with this situation and that’s maybe a little more destructive testing earlier in the 28 process would’ve given you a better understanding of existing conditions and so maybe 29 we wouldn’t have to be here. Anyway I just wanted to make that (interrupted) 30 31 Mr. Tze: Yeah. 32 33 Chair Bernstein: Other Board Members, questions for the applicant or staff? Michael. 34 35 Board Member Makinen: Thank you Chair Bernstein. What do you have in the way of 36 evidence of the original look of Building 1 as far as photographs or drawings that you 37 could use to guide you in the reconstruction of that building? 38 39 Mr. Tze: Oh we photographed both buildings thoroughly with hundreds of photographs 40 and beyond that we did a HABS survey. Our architect took those photos. Beyond that 41 we hired a historic consultant to do the HABS survey, which were additional 42 photographs. The architectural construction drawings that you have copies of that were 43 inserted into this revised package of yours were based on the historic buildings that were 44 there. it was, everything was available when these drawings were produced. 45 46 Board Member Makinen: Thank you. 1 2 Mr. Tze: And beyond that of course we have materials from Building 2 stored. 3 4 Chair Bernstein: Ok. Yeah, Elena on the staff report it says “Recommended review items 5 for the HRB: review and comment on the adequacy of the analysis of the loss.” I assume 6 that’s the adequacy of the Supplemental EIR? 7 8 Ms. Lee: Yes it is. 9 10 Chair Bernstein: And also then “Comment on the proposal to reconstruct the building as 11 originally approved with all new materials,” and “Review and provide a recommendation 12 on the change to the project, which would allow the construction of Building 1 with all 13 new materials.” Any other items that you’d like the HRB to review? 14 15 Ms. Lee: No, that’s pretty much all of what staff is requesting feedback on. You know 16 it’s primarily the project is the Supplemental EIR and the amendment to the Planned 17 Community Zoning. 18 19 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. 20 21 Mr. Turner: Staff might direct the Board specifically to the Supplemental Environmental 22 Impact Report (SEIR), which I believe that you, were, was previously distributed to you. 23 One of the tasks that the HRB often preforms is a discussion about the project’s 24 consistency with the Secretary Standards and a discussion and analysis of this project’s 25 consistency with the Standards are contained within the SEIR and I believe it begins on 26 Page 16. Just for your reference, you have probably looked at this already, but just 27 wanted to direct you and the public to the discussion within the SEIR. So finding, if the 28 Board finds that the SEIR is adequate I think you would also be finding that the 29 reconstruction of Building 1 would be consistent with the Standards as well. 30 31 As Elena mentioned I think previously the overall there is still a significant impact that 32 cannot be mitigated even though the SEIR does recommend mitigations it cannot reduce 33 the impacts to a less than significant level. And so therefore Council would have to adopt 34 essentially a statement of overriding considerations with the Supplemental EIR at one of 35 their future reviews. 36 37 Ms. Lee: Staff also wants to point out that the original SEIR was distributed to the Board 38 in May, but the entire document including the original Environmental Impact Report are 39 all available online on the City’s website. 40 41 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Ok, if there are no more questions for the applicant or staff 42 we will move to members of the public. I have one card from Herb Borock. Herb 43 welcome, if you could state your name for our recorded documents? Thanks. 44 45 Herb Borock: Good morning Chair Bernstein and Board Members. My name’s Herb 1 Borock. I hesitated even coming here this morning because the behavior of City 2 Manager and the City Council on this project indicate to me that they don’t think we have 3 a Historic Resources Board and since you’re not relevant anymore maybe the best 4 recommendation you can make is that you dissolve the Board, Council dissolves the 5 Board. Now I realize it may be in the City Council’s interest to continue to have a 6 Historic Resources Board, an Architectural Review Board (ARB), and a Planning and 7 Transportation Commission so they can appoint warm bodies to each of the boards and 8 commissions who will then vote in favor of development projects and disregard the 9 zoning code in the same way that the Council and the Manager do. 10 11 On this particular project to go to Board Member Bunnenberg’s question there has to be a 12 price to pay for the action that was taken. The staff report indicates that a stop work 13 order was issued in September of last year, almost a year ago. In fact, the staff permitted 14 the developer to continue working on the grocery store. So that’s not a stop work order. 15 And they didn’t bring the issue to the Council until six months later when the grocery 16 store was about to be opened. So that doesn’t show any interest in doing anything about 17 what had happened. 18 19 I suspect that the building that was demolished was only demolished after the developer 20 and his consultant figured out that if they couldn’t rebuild it it would still be a very 21 profitable project. So the simplest thing to do is to make a recommendation that the 22 building not be rebuilt. Ideally since it’s a Planned Community Zone what the Council 23 should have done, would have withdrawn the approval for the residential units and turned 24 it into dedicated parkland or else to just rezone it to Neighborhood Commercial. 25 26 You’re being asked to make a determination about restoring a building or so on. That’s 27 not what the Secretary of the Interior Standards talk about. You can restore something 28 that still exists otherwise what you’re doing is replicating. And replicating something 29 violates the Interior, Secretary of the Interior Standards. So doing anything that even 30 looks like or is another Building 1 violates the Secretary of the Interior Standards. So 31 therefore you can’t do anything with the building if you’re a Historic Resources Board, 32 but if the Council doesn’t care what you’re doing and the staff doesn’t care what you’re 33 doing, why are you bothering to still exist? Why? Because it’s in the Municipal Code. 34 35 In regard to the report I’ve already mentioned the loose language in terms of the stop 36 work order. Also if I am reading this correctly on page 5 the paragraph at the top of the 37 page last sentence it starts off saying “Because the proposed Building 1 is substantially 38 consistent with the originally approved design.” I think that means Building 2, but if 39 we’ve had a staff write that and all of you have read it maybe you understand better than I 40 do. 41 42 In regard to which staff is here today it seems to be a pattern that whenever there’s some 43 sort of loose recommendation regarding historic resources Dennis Backlund disappears 44 who is the Historic Planner for the City. This is not the first project on which this has 45 happened. What you have essentially is the City Council has made clear what 46 development it wants approved here and its pretending to seek your recommendation. In 1 fact if you look at the staff reports for this entire calendar year they no longer start off by 2 asking boards and commissions for a recommendation. They instead say “Well, provide 3 feedback to the staff.” That’s not what the Municipal Code says about boards and 4 commissions. It says you are an advisory body to the City Council. You are not a 5 sounding board to City staff. 6 7 So this project is sort of a poster child for figuring out whether or not it’s appropriate to 8 have a Historic Resources Board anymore. You eventually you may have a majority of 9 you whose job it is to approve projects that this developer or this consultant bring you, 10 but if you think there’s a role for the HRB it certainly isn’t at this stage in the process, 11 which is almost a year after the building was demolished. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Bernstein: Thank you Herb. Any other members of the public like to speak to us? 14 Ok, seeing none we’ll move back to our process. Next will be applicant closing 15 comments. Three minutes if you’d like to add any more words? Ok, seeing none for 16 that. Next is to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Board for Motions and 17 recommendations or comments. 18 19 I do have one question about looking at the Standards for Rehabilitation and staff correct 20 me if this is correct that even buildings that are considered to be reconstructions or 21 replications does the standards of differentiation and compatibility still apply? 22 23 Ms. Lee: The guidelines for reconstruction that would apply to the project basically talks 24 about preserving any possible historic materials and doing accurate depiction. I think 25 there’s more emphasis on accurate depiction of what was gone, basically to replicate 26 exactly what was gone. The rehabilitation standard talks about differentiation materials, 27 but the reconstruction standards do not. 28 29 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. David. 30 31 Board Member Bower: So I’d like to make a comment and be interested in other Board 32 Members response to this. I just attended a California Environmental Quality Act 33 (CEQA) conference and went through a very thorough analysis of what CEQA requires 34 and what happens when, first of all CEQA requires that all steps be taken to mitigate 35 damage of historic fabric. Well, I think it’s pretty clear from the consultants review and 36 the engineers’ analysis of what the little historic fabric that this building contained that it 37 was not possible to renovate it, it would have to be replaced. And under the CEQA 38 guidelines that cannot, that mitigation measure cannot be met and so replacing the 39 damaged parts of the building is within a CEQA guideline and it is not, does not 40 challenge the CEQA requirements. So this particular hearing while in a difference 41 circumstance is in effect a verification of what the City’s consultants and owner’s 42 consultants would have told us if the building hadn’t been damaged or destroyed prior to 43 this hearing. So I think this is where we were going to come to inevitably and so I’m not 44 sure about the reproduction, exact reproduction of historic fabric, but I think we’re not as 45 a public speaker just suggested, we’re not here for window dressing. We’re following the 46 CEQA guidelines and that they have this specific, this kind of analysis is not only part of 1 the CEQA process but is a really, is condoned, it’s not the right word, but it would be 2 accepted as part of the CEQA process. 3 4 So I think that as a Board what we’re doing here is we are acknowledging what I thought 5 was inevitable when it first came, this project first came to us and that we’re trying to 6 make the best of a situation that for a variety of reasons we didn’t anticipate, but we’re 7 now having to deal with. So… Also the other thing is in any project in the City of Palo 8 Alto every structure has its own permit. Stopping work on Building 1 would not have 9 required that work be stopped on the market or Building 2 because those are separate, in 10 the eyes of City planners those are separate buildings and they have their own process 11 and they have their own reviews and they have their own inspections. While all three 12 buildings are part of this project proposal, losing one building doesn’t disqualify the 13 entire project to move forward. 14 15 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Go ahead. 16 17 Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to just comment and this is just a general 18 comment. So now that this building no longer exists and there was a question of its 19 historic real value to begin with and I do believe that relocating it would have been next 20 to impossible. Any building that’s that old and probably had initial flaws to the original 21 design anyway and doesn’t comply to the current codes, excuse me, now that building no 22 longer exists. So is the best solution to rebuild it as closely as possible to what it was or 23 is this an opportunity to do something, I don’t know. I mean I know this is probably 24 going back in time and I’m new to the committee and I’m new to this project so when I 25 look at this and I see what’s on this paper I’m not sure that that’s the best solution for 26 Palo Alto. I’m not sure that that’s the best building that we can build in that spot. I mean 27 it is a nod to Eichler. It is a nod also to mid-century modern, which I think is very 28 popular right now especially among younger people and it’s a design that I think does 29 have merit and value in the historic history of American architecture, but I’m not sure 30 that this is a prize winning example of architecture that belongs in Palo Alto. 31 32 I mean I’m hoping I’m not stepping on anyone’s toes, but also what I see another thing 33 that bothers me is just the amount of the height of the shroud that hides the air 34 conditioning unit is a third of the height, of the overall height of the building. Two-thirds 35 is the building and one-third is this box that is necessary I guess because we do have to 36 make sure that the building has the adequate mechanical features that it needs, but it’s 37 such a design impact. It’s such a, it has so much height and it’s just a box that’s there and 38 it is visible, it’s very visible and I know that it’s not original to the original building 39 because the original building didn’t require that feature, but if we can at least look at that 40 I think that’s something worth looking at. 41 42 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I just want to make a comment. I was actually thinking 43 similar thoughts that Board Member Wimmer just mentioned about what else could be 44 there for a building and that’s why I asked the question about the differentiation. Is there 45 a structure there that would be completely different than replicating the building that was 46 there in style? And one of my thoughts about that is that could be interesting from an 1 architectural design point of view, but would that distract then from the historical quality 2 of the existing buildings that are qualified or deemed possible for historic registration and 3 I think that’s probably the most important thing about any existing historical qualities is 4 that whatever is there does it district from the quality of what’s there historically? So I 5 thought about the same question. There’s an opportunity to do something that is 6 compatible yet differentiation. But we’re looking at something right now, the applicant is 7 asking for reconstruction. Beth, go ahead. 8 9 Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you for bringing up the question of the cumulative 10 effects of the loss of these mid-century modern buildings. I think one thing that we had 11 not talked about was the fact that here is this building lost and to put in something new 12 would definitely change the whole atmosphere I feel of the shopping center and the fact 13 that we’ve also are losing the Edward Durell Stone Building out at Stanford and the 14 hospital complex so that unless I’m missing one I think that the main library is the only 15 Edward Durell Stone Building that’s left so that there’s a definite loss of this kind of 16 thing. And in that we’re seeing a real resurgence in the Eichlers it feels to me like the 17 important thing would be to maintain the look of the shopping center and if necessary put 18 a little plaque up to the effect that this is a reconstruction of what was there, but I would 19 seriously worry about putting a modern, different, total different building there. 20 21 Chair Bernstein: David. 22 23 Board Member Bower: So I think the staff report on Page 6 the first paragraph really 24 captures why we’re here today. We’re not really here to look at a building and whether 25 or not the trim around the windows matches. It’s the fact that this particular Eichler 26 development was the first retail development that Eichler did and maybe the only one. 27 Isn’t that right? It’s the only one. And so the purpose of this project was to retain the 28 three building retail interaction and moving this Building 1 allowed for a more efficient 29 use of this space. And we’ve lost the building itself, but by recreating the building, 30 rebuilding it we won’t lose the what I think is the most important historic aspect and 31 that’s the retail environment. So putting another type of building there basically ends that 32 as a historic objective and I think that that’s really what we’re analyzing today. 33 34 And I’m sorry we lost the hospital. Durell Stone is a significant architect. This building 35 is no longer considered historic because they had to take down the canopies outside. We 36 still have it until the earthquake takes it away from us, which I think is inevitable. So we 37 have a problem in Palo Alto retaining any building that’s old and doesn’t have some kind 38 of protection downtown. None of the residential buildings that were built say before the 39 Second World War I think will survive in this building because of the land value 40 pressure. That’s something we ought to do as a Board. We ought to figure out a way to 41 get those buildings, but today we’re here to look at the Eichler retail development out at 42 Embarcadero and I think that approving this is the way we keep that development intact. 43 44 Chair Bernstein: Pat. 45 46 Board Member DiCicco: I feel actually very strongly in agreement with David and Beth 1 because we still are retaining something that is the only thing that existed at this time 2 being a retail center constructed in the postmodern and even though there is the 3 development of ten houses it is far, far better than the development of 25 house and 4 basically eliminating what was the core of this property granted it has a lot of mitigation 5 that it is new and I agree a plaque or something to identify that this has been replicated as 6 close as we can to the original to get the feel of what this property really was and the 7 signage and so on and so forth. So it is what it is and I think that’s the best solution. 8 9 Chair Bernstein: Michael. 10 11 Board Member Makinen: So I generally agree with everything I’ve heard here. I will 12 point out the fact that the integrity of the shopping center is what we’re really interested 13 in preserving and there are seven aspects of historic integrity and association and the 14 context are the important ones right here that we try to maintain the fact that we do have a 15 shopping center that is unique, it is mid-century, the only mid-century shopping center 16 that was ever built, and to put something entirely different would I believe result in loss 17 of total integrity that we have for that site. So I’m in favor of the reconstruction. 18 19 Chair Bernstein: Staff, Steven. If the Board does make a Motion and it gets passed to 20 recommend the reconstruction process for this there are findings that are, are findings 21 needed to support any Motion? 22 23 Mr. Turner: Well I believe there are two requests and recommendations by staff as noted 24 on Page 6. Number one is to review and comment on the adequacy of the analysis of the 25 loss of Building 1 and the proposal to reconstruct the building as originally approved with 26 all new materials. That’s essentially the information that’s contained within the SEIR 27 and on Page 16 there is a detailed environmental analysis that talks about the consistency 28 of the reconstruction project with those standards. So by finding that the Board chooses 29 to do so, making a finding that the SEIR seems to adequate analyze the reconstruction 30 that you would be essentially agreeing with the Secretary’s Standards analysis within that 31 document. And then second of all, the second item for review and recommendation to 32 the reconstruction project itself, those were the project plans that were contained within 33 your packet and you can make comments on that as well. 34 35 I think staff might recommend separate Motions and votes on each one. I know Board 36 Member Wimmer as a new Board Member may not have had the opportunity to review 37 the SEIR since that was distributed previously, so if she chooses she may abstain on that 38 particular action, but can certainly make a recommendation on the second item on the 39 reconstruction plans themselves. 40 41 Ms. Lee: Chair if I may I also wanted to point out that the reconstruction standards do 42 require that, do identify a need for a plaque to identify that the building is not a historic 43 building and it’s a recreation. So that will be a requirement for this as well as the 44 applicant is still working on providing a plaque for the park that provides the historic 45 context of this project. 46 1 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Are we approaching a Motion? Go ahead, yeah. Roger. 2 3 Vice-Chair Kohler: I guess I thought I’d make one last comment. I’ve worked on several 4 Eichlers, homes and they are very susceptible to rot and things like that because they are 5 all wood. And so I think that the fact that the one building is maintaining and being 6 refurbished and the other building sounds like just was barely standing on its own by 7 itself. The other thing if you look at the site plans the aerial photos of the arrangement of 8 the three buildings on the site I think that was one of the downturns of this, the popularity 9 of the shopping center in that it became it was so close and tight knit that you couldn’t, 10 when you drove by you actually couldn’t see all the buildings. And so I think its 11 perception as a shopping center sort of went down as time went on and the fact that the 12 building that’s was being relocated is now is actually being moved will make the 13 visibility of the shopping center much more friendly and will invite more people into it 14 then it had in the past. 15 16 You know because my office isn’t far from there and we used to go get pizza there at 17 lunch, but just finding the pizza place which was around the back on the other side of the 18 building that’s actually being moved was difficult to locate. So I think the arrangement 19 of this shopping center has I think contributed a lot to its demise. Not totally, but I think 20 it’s just visually not very friendly to get into. So I think moving the building is actually 21 going to be a good thing. So, ok. 22 23 Chair Bernstein: Beth. 24 25 Board Member Bunnenberg: Well I think I would respectfully disagree with Board 26 Member Kohler. I was thoroughly disappointed when this building, when the agreement 27 of the Board was to move this building because I thought the arcade was an important 28 part of it. my only hope is that some of the retention of those woodland beams and the 29 fact that there is a visual way through even from the Saint Francis side keeps a little bit of 30 that feeling, but for the Secretary of Interior Standards I didn’t really approve, I didn’t 31 feel that moving the building was a great thing for the site. 32 33 Chair Bernstein: For the benefit of the next review process staff is asking us to make two 34 recommendations or consider making two recommendations. The first is review and 35 comment on the adequacy of the Supplemental EIR; any recommendations or a proposed 36 Motion for that item? 37 38 Board Member Bower: I would move that the SEIR as the staff has requested is adequate 39 and I think it’s, you want to know that it, you want us to say it’s adequate and that it 40 addresses the issues, correct. 41 42 Ms. Lee: Yes and also that you’re recommending that if the City Council should certify 43 the Supplemental EIR that would be the technical (interrupted) 44 45 MOTION 46 1 Board Member Bower: So my Motion is that we approve the SEIR and that we encourage 2 the Council to certify the SEIR. 3 4 Chair Bernstein: Do I have a second? 5 6 Board Member Bunnenberg: Do we want to mention the Secretary of Interior Standards 7 in the Motion? 8 9 Chair Bernstein: I think it’s in the SEIR 10 11 Board Member Bunnenberg: Is that sufficient to have it there? 12 13 Mr. Turner: I think it’s sufficient in that the Secretary Standards are described in detail 14 within the SEIR. 15 16 SECOND, VOTE 17 18 Chair Bernstein: Ok, do we have a second for the Motion? Ok it’s been seconded, Any 19 discussion on this particular Motion before we bring it to a vote? All in favor say aye 20 (Aye). That passes unanimously. 21 22 MOTION PASSED (7-0) 23 24 Chair Bernstein: Next item, review and provide recommendation on the change to the 25 project, which would allow the construction of Building 1 with all new materials; Any 26 discussion or recommendation or Motion toward that direction? Pat your light’s on. We 27 need your light on. 28 29 MOTION 30 31 Board Member DiCicco: I would recommend that we approve reconstruction of Building 32 1 in the planned site and to meet the Secretary Standards ensure that a placard is affixed 33 to the building and construction will follow the approval of the materials already used in 34 Building 2. 35 36 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 37 38 Board Member Bunnenberg: And do we including monitoring in that? Oh, I’d like to see 39 it called out. Would you accept that addition? 40 41 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT INCORPORATED 42 43 Board Member DiCicco: And to include in this recommendation that the monitoring at 44 every step of the way continue as recommended in the staff report. 45 46 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 1 2 Board Member Bower: Could I make one other friendly amendment/recommendation? 3 That we say in this Motion that we feel as a Board that replacing this building meets the 4 original intent of the proposal, which is to retain the retail, the retail environment, 5 building environment. 6 7 Chair Bernstein: Was that agreeable to the maker of the Motion? 8 9 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT INCORPORATED 10 11 Board Member DiCicco: Yes, well stated. 12 13 Chair Bernstein: Ok. 14 15 SECOND 16 17 Board Member Bower: I’ll second that Motion then. 18 19 Chair Bernstein: Ok, it’s been Moved and seconded, Any discussion on this? I have a 20 just a quick comment. I think this is the right direction to go. We’ve discussed the 21 option of, we discussed the possibility of no building, no project. We’ve discussed or at 22 least mentioned the idea that there could be an alternative design. So my thought about 23 this is that having a reconstruction and it’ll be publicly noted through a plaque process 24 that I think having the three buildings there that have this certain feel is a higher benefit 25 than if there are only two buildings there that have this feeling and not have a building 26 that competes with the character that Mr. Eichler tried to achieve on this. That’s why I’ll 27 be in support of the Motion. 28 29 Anymore discussion before we bring it to a vote? Staff do you need anything else from 30 us on this Motion? 31 32 Ms. Lee: No, that’s it. Thank you. 33 34 VOTE Motion by Bower and seconded by DiCicco 35 36 Chair Bernstein: Ok. All in favor say aye (Aye). Passes unanimously. Good. Ok, thank 37 you very much, the applicant thank you so much for your presentation, and staff thank 38 you for your regard on this. 39 40 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 41 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4076) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/25/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Edgewood Plaza PC Amendment Title: 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand Hill Property Company for (1) the certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Overriding Considerations, and (2) an amendment to Planned Community (PC-5150), Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project, to allow reconstruction of one of two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report public comment period began May 17 and ended July 20, 2013. From: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment PLANNING COMMISSION PURVIEW The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is requested to review the Edgewood Shopping Center Mixed Use Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the attached draft Resolution (Attachment A) and amended Planned Community (PC) ordinance (Attachment B) and forward its recommendation to Council regarding the SEIR and proposed Amendment to Planned Community PC-5150. The applicant is proposing the amendment to this PC Zoning because one of the historic retail buildings proposed to be rehabilitated was demolished during the construction process. The project scope required submittal and review of a separate Planned Community Rezone application, because the project is not considered a minor change to a previously approved Planned Community development plan. If it were considered as a minor change, the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board would be allowed to review and recommend the changes to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Attachment A identifies the proposed construction of Building #1 using new materials and a schedule for estimated completion of the project. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Planned Community Rezoning PC districts follow a unique set of procedures, standards, and findings, which are described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Typically, the first step in the PC process is Commission review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule, and initiation of the rezoning. This application is different in that (1) the Council previously approved a development plan, a development program statement, a schedule, and a PC ordinance for the previous version of the project. The proposed project is a modification of a recent Council approved PC. (2) The application does not require initiation, and (3) the Architectural Review Board (ARB) is not part of this PC review process due to the scope of this amendment; rather, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) has considered the project and has provided a recommendation to Council. Because the only proposed change to the PC development plan is the construction materials of Building #1, and all other components of the PC remain the same, the amendment was not brought to the ARB. However, the ARB subcommittee has been consulted on a periodic basis for minor façade changes in the ARB’s purview throughout the construction process. The approval of the amended PC is still subject to the three PC findings, that: (a) the site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; and (b) development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district; and (c) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council: 1) approve the Resolution (Attachment A) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed and available on the City’s website); and 2) adopt an Ordinance (Attachment B) approving the amendment to the Planned Community project to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials. City of Palo Alto Page 3 BACKGROUND Project Description Planned Community (PC) application 13PLN-00198 submitted on February 6, 2013 requested the rebuilding of Building #1 with all new materials. The applicant is not proposing any other changes to the project. The site area of the PC is 156,175 sq. ft. and is currently developed with two retail buildings having a combined 28,400 sq. ft. non-residential floor area. Building #1 (at 10,000 sq. ft.) would be relocated towards the southeast of the property, such that the nearest street facing wall would be set back approximately 15 feet from the Saint Francis Drive property line (approximately 20 feet from the back of the sidewalk). Building #1 would be reconstructed as originally approved by Council in March 2012. The building would feature the character defining features, such as the turn-down roof, glulam beams and redwood siding. The building would also include a new metal mechanical enclosure on the roof to screen roof- mounted equipment. Building #1 is to be rebuilt in substantial conformance to the elevations approved in March 2012. A Final Map is also pending Council review and action. This PC amendment was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) at the August 21, 2013 public hearing. A summary of the HRB hearing is provided below. The master sign program, grocery store signage and re-facing of the historic monument sign were reviewed and approved by both the ARB and HRB accordingly. Project History Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph Eichler/Eichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of Jones and Emmons. The center was originally built with the existing grocery building (1957), two retail buildings (1958), an office building that formerly housed the office of Eichler Homes (1959), and a gas station (1957). The office building and gas station sites are not part of the subject shopping center. Edgewood Plaza is not listed on The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Although this site is not on the City’s inventory, because it has been deemed eligible for both registers, it is considered a historic resource. The site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) rezoning approved by the City Council on March 19, 2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center, including the relocation of one of three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new 9,000 square foot park. Two of the existing commercial buildings, Buildings #1 and #2 have been deemed historic resources and proposed for rehabilitation. Building #3, the former market building, currently occupied by Fresh Market, is not considered a historic resource. Building #1 was approved to be disassembled, relocated on site and rehabilitated. Building #2 was approved to be rehabilitated in place. A tentative map was also approved to subdivide the City of Palo Alto Page 4 property into one commercial lot, including the public park, and ten single family lots. The primary public benefits for the Edgewood Plaza project consisted of 1) the preservation of historic resources, 2) the construction and operation of the grocery store and 3) 0.20 acre park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council in March 2012, to provide environmental clearance for the rezoning, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Final EIR for the original project was certified by the City Council, following positive recommendations by the HRB, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the Architectural Review Board. The original Final EIR analyzed the historic resources and the project’s potential impact on those resources. Four reports regarding the project’s historic resources were prepared for the project’s EIR. An initial report was prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., the applicant’s consultant, with a peer review prepared by Carey & Company. Buildings 1 and 2 were deemed to have retained integrity of design, despite some minor exterior alterations over the past fifty years. Both buildings would have been eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 3, Architecture, as a rare example of commercial development by the noted partnership of Eichler Homes and Jones & Emmons. Because the site had been determined to be eligible for both the NRHP and CRHR, per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the site would have qualified for the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under Criterion 3 and 4. The Council’s March 19, 2012 certification of the EIR based on the assumption that historic impacts for the relocation of Building #1 would be mitigated to a less than significant impact because the building would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (Standards). This was consistent with the HRB’s recommendation at the October 19, 2011 hearing for the original project. The rehabilitation included retention of the character defining features of the building, such as the wood window frames, glulam beams, concrete block wall, cornice and wood paneling. In September 2012, a stop work order was issued because the historic building (Building #1) that was to be disassembled and reconstructed onsite was illegally demolished. On March 4, 2013, the City Council authorized the continued construction of the grocery store, the remaining historic (Building #2), six of the homes and other onsite and offsite improvements. The City Council also authorized the hiring of Carey & Company, the historic consulting firm that the performed the peer review on the original EIR for the City, to review plans and monitor construction to ensure that Building #2 comply with the PC zoning and all mitigation measures, including the Standards. The monitoring has included multiple walk-throughs and special focus has been placed in the preservation of the building’s signature glulam beams. To date, the applicant has completed the grocery store building, various parking lot improvements and installation of the electric charging stations. The rehabilitation of Building #2 is in process. Following the Council hearing, staff has received multiple emails supporting the continued City of Palo Alto Page 5 construction of the project. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW Following the release of the Supplemental EIR, a HRB hearing was held on August 21, 2013 to receive HRB feedback on the Supplemental EIR and rebuilding of Building #1 with all new materials. The shopping center, now more than 50 years old, has been deemed a historic resource even though it is not on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the Palo Alto Historic Inventor. The HRB had reviewed the original project and EIR. During the hearing, one member of the public spoke regarding the project, recommending that Building #1 not be rebuilt and that the housing approved with the project be replaced with dedicated parkland. The HRB voted unanimously to recommend that City Council certify the Supplemental EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The HRB also voted unanimously to approve the amendment to the PC Zoning to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, specifying that the replacement materials must follow the materials approved for use in Building #2 and a plaque must be installed on the building recognizing that it is a replica in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. The HRB’s recommendation included staff’s recommendation that a historic consultant be hired to monitor the construction of Building #1, to ensure that it will be similar to the originally approved Building #1. The HRB determined that the project can be supported because the proposed replacement meets the original intent to retain the retail building environment. KEY ISSUES Reconstruction versus Retention of Building #1 Building #1 was originally approved to be dismantled and rebuilt to accommodate the redevelopment, and would have retained the character defining features, such as the turn- down roof, glue laminated or glulam beams, concrete masonry unit (cmu) block walls, and redwood siding. The walls were defined as a “kit of parts” to be reorganized to maintain the historic character of the buildings, while allowing the modernization of the building to accommodate a successful retail environment. As of September of 2012, the building was demolished and the materials were disposed of, making it not possible to comply with the original approval. The applicant proposes a complete reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, but in the same location as previously approved by Council. All other components of the previously approved PC project, including the ten residences and park, would remain the same as City of Palo Alto Page 6 approved by Council. The building would be substantially consistent with the originally approved design, with a few minor modifications. Building #1 is proposed to be substantially similar to the originally approved design, which was based on the “kit of parts” concept that would ensure the building would retain the character defining features of the Eichler aesthetic. The “kit of parts” consist of the block walls, the storefront glass, redwood siding and the glulam beams. The building would still include a new roof screen to hide roof mounted equipment. The modifications include moving around of the “parts” and modifications of the proportions of each element to accommodate modern tenants and requirements of the Building Code. As illustrated in the elevations shown on plan set pages A3.2 and A3.3 (Attachment D), the new building would consist of the same types of materials in a different configuration. These minor modifications have been carefully reviewed and found acceptable by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner. Similar modifications to Building #2 have been reviewed and approved by the City, also with consultation by the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company. The applicant will also be required to install a plaque, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, identifying the building as a reconstruction in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. Staff is also recommending that Carey & Company be retained to monitor the building permit process and construction for Building #1. This will also be critical for the installation of the window frames. Storefront Windows The original Council approved PC plan included the installation of new, much simpler wood framed windows. Like Building #2, the original window frames in Building #1 had been replaced over the years with similar, but simpler, wood frames. The approved replacement wood window frames were flat and did not include the projecting moldings. Given that the revised project allows for modifications, replication of the original storefront window system is now possible. Building #1 can now be rebuilt in a design significantly closer to its original appearance than the altered building that was illegally demolished. The original wood window frames of both Eichler buildings were a more complex design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass which gave the windows a streamline modern look. Because one storefront at the rear of Building #2 was preserved intact since 1957, the City and the applicant’s historic consultant will be able to use that storefront as a model in the reconstruction of Buildings #2 and #1 to its original 1957 design. The rebuilding of Building #1 will provide a much more historically correct design than was found in the building that was demolished, and more correct than the version the Council had approved. The applicant has agreed to install these more complex window frames for both Buildings #1 and #2. Working closely with the City’s historic consultant, the applicant now has custom-made City of Palo Alto Page 7 replicas for the rehabilitation of Building #2, and will do the same for Building #1, should the amendment be approved. Although the loss of a historic building cannot be mitigated, the historic accuracy of the replacement structure would be increased with the installation of these more complex window frames. Staff has determined that because the storefront glass system was a large part of the original design, this requirement provides a significant historic benefit to the project. This addition, in some ways, will result in a building that is more similar to the original design, although constructed of all new materials. This historic enhancement will improve the historic integrity of the remaining historic building, Building #2. Public Benefits Original Public Benefits As part of the original PC rezoning, the applicant proposed to provide the following public benefits to satisfy the second PC finding: 1) preservation of a historically significant Eichler designed shopping center, 2) an approximately 20,600 sq. ft. grocery store, 3) an approximately 0.20 acre park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements, and 4) three electric vehicle car chargers Applicant’s Proposed New Public Benefits The applicant will still be able to provide most of the public benefits. However, due to the demolition of Building 1, the character of the preservation benefit will need to be modified. The applicant is also intending on completing the rehabilitation of Building #2 in late September and staff believes that the rehabilitation will conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards and be a good example of mid-century architecture. The City’s historic consultant, Charlie Duncan of Carey & Company, indicated that he has been satisfied with the process and work so far. The applicant has also stated that he would request that the City consider the addition of the three car chargers and the traffic signal upgrade at St. Francis and Embarcadero also be considered public benefits because although those were City requirements, technical modifications have increased the cost significantly. Per the applicant, those items will cost over $200,000. Because the applicant is proposing an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning, the City can consider whether additional public benefits should be required to compensate for the benefits lost by the demolition of Building #1. As noted earlier in this report, the applicant is proposing that the installation of a storefront window system on Buildings #1 and #2 that replicates the original wood window frames of the original Eichler design be considered a public benefit. The window frames feature a more complex three dimensional design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass. The cost for installing the City of Palo Alto Page 8 new frames will be over $250,000, excluding the cost required for monitoring by the City’s historic consultant. The installation of the new frames on Building #2 has begun and construction is anticipated to be completed in late September. The City’s consultant has been carefully reviewing the entire process. Although Building #1 has been lost, the project continues to provide the public benefit of the preservation (or recreation) of a historic design, a public park, a grocery store and the rehabilitation of a public sign. Construction of Building #1 will result in a project that more closely resembles the original center than it would without the building. Possible Public Benefits West Bayshore Road Sidewalk During the original public hearings for this project, there were requests to require the construction of sidewalks along West Bayshore Road. Sidewalks were not been required because West Bayshore Road to the north of the site does not have sidewalks and this portion of West Bayshore Road frontage is not designed for pedestrian activity. Construction of sidewalks to the north of the site would have been beyond the scope of the project. However, in response to neighbor comments, the City has incorporated the construction of sidewalks on West Bayshore Road as a future project in the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (adopted July 2012). Staff has consulted both with Transportation and Public Works staff regarding the feasibility of the construction of sidewalks. The cost estimate for construction of sidewalk on one side of West Bayshore from the project site to the City limits, excluding drainage cost, is approximately $144,000. The City could require the applicant contribute towards the work to be completed by the City as part of its Capital Improvement Program as a public benefit. Historic Rehabilitation Contribution As an alternative, the applicant could make a contribution to the restoration of a publicly owned, historic resource in Palo Alto. For example, the applicant could contribute funding towards improvements of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Depot, which is the second busiest station for the Caltrain system. The Streamline Modern style station is designated as Category 1 on the City’s historic inventory and is also on the National Registry of Historic Places. This is just one example; however, there are other publicly owned buildings in Palo Alto that could also benefit from rehabilitation funds. If appropriate, these funds could be stored in a reserve account, and be made available when directed by the Council. Penalties City of Palo Alto Page 9 City Council also asked staff to provide them with recommendations regarding penalties for the demolition of Building #1. The consideration of penalties should be weighed when determining the cost and benefit of additional required public benefits. The Municipal Code allows the City to fine applicants for a variety of code violations, based on the type of infraction. A common practice among various municipalities is to charge double to triple the building permit fee for code violations. Although the demolition of historic buildings without permits happens rarely, the application of double or triple the building permit fee has been used. The building permit fee is based on the valuation of the construction cost and the scope of work for all trades (i.e. lighting, plumbing, etc.). The building permit fee for the shell that was charged for Building 1 was $9443.17, or about 1.5 percent for a valuation of $600,000. Accordingly, the City could use this rationale to fine the applicant an additional $9,443.17 for the illegal demolition. Additionally, given the special circumstance of the demolition of an historic structure, an additional fine may be warranted. There is a specific fine of $1,000 authorized in the City Code for demolition of a downtown historic structure. If a similar fine were added to the building permit fee, a total of $10,443.17 could be assessed. According to the applicant, the cost of the construction is approximately 25-30% higher, or between $150,000 and $180,000 (based on the original valuation), than expected due to the poor condition of the building materials. This excludes site construction and the additional cost due to the custom made windows. The cost of the custom made windows will add approximately $162,000 to the total construction cost. This also excludes the cost of the electrical vehicle charging stations and the traffic signal modifications discussed above. If the building permit fee were to be evaluated, the valuation would be $912,000 or $942,000. If the cost of the building permit fee was used as a penalty, then a possible fine would be between $13,680 and $28,260. As an alternative, the City could charge a percentage of the construction cost of the project. If ten percent is used, the fine can be between $91,200 and $94,200. Staff has consulted with various cities regarding their approaches for implementing penalties for the illegal demolition of historic resources. Cities consulted included Berkeley, San Jose, Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Los Gatos. Those cities do not have ordinances that identify specific penalty fees for illegal demolition. However, as discussed above, those cities have required payment of double to triple of the building permit fees as a penalty. The applicant has and will continue to incur substantial costs associated with the delay due to the demolition. The costs include the preparation of the Supplemental EIR, hiring of the historic consultant and the fees for the PC Amendment. While it does not appear that the City’s existing penalty structure adequately compensates the community for loss of a historic resource, nevertheless, the City Council may ultimately determine additional compensation is warranted upon review of the amended PC Zoning. Final SEIR and Environmental Impacts City of Palo Alto Page 10 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was originally published and posted on February 1, 2013 and sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day period, from February 1 to March 4, 2013. A Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was published, posted and mailed announcing that the document was available for a 45- day comment period from May 17 through July 20, 2013. Copies of the SEIR were provided to the HRB, P&TC and City Council at the beginning of the circulation period. The document concluded that the revised project would result in two new significant impacts: 1) Significant Impact to the historic resources specific to Building #1 after implementation of mitigation measures and 2) Significant Cumulative Historic Resources Impact. The Supplemental EIR was prepared by David J. Powers and Associates, an environmental consulting firm. The Draft SEIR was the subject of a HRB hearing on August 21, 2013. The HRB found the SEIR adequate and recommended that it be certified by the City Council. The Final SEIR would have included formal responses to all comments received during the public comment period. Since no comments were received regarding the SEIR, a Final SEIR was prepared confirming that no comments were received. The Final SEIR was circulated for public review on September 5, 2013 and will be available to the public a minimum of ten days prior to the EIR certification hearing. The SEIR and project have been tentatively scheduled for an October 2013 City Council hearing, pending the outcome of this PTC hearing. The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, including source documents, additional background information, and the PTC, HRB, and ARB reports for review dates mentioned above are available on the City’s website at http://goo.gl/PjnreG. Images of project plans are also available with the staff report online, as a link on the PTC September 11, 2013 PTC meeting agenda. SEIR Contents Because the complete loss of Building #1 has been deemed a substantial change to the project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Supplement to the EIR (SEIR) was prepared to address the changes needed to comply with State law. The supplement contains the information needed to address the change. This SEIR is focused only on the new significant historic impact created by the change to the proposal, the loss of Building #1 and the replacement construction in the same location of new materials. The original Final EIR included a mitigation measure (MMCR-2.3) that required compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level for both Buildings #1 and #2. Loss of Building #1’s materials has made application of the mitigation measure and the Standards of Rehabilitation not possible. The other two mitigation measures to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level included the preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (MM CR-2.1) and creation of a display illustrating the history of Edgewood Plaza (MM CR-2.2) are still applicable. The HABS survey was completed and has been used to facilitate the preparation of the SEIR and the project implementation. The applicant is working on the design of the historic display. City of Palo Alto Page 11 The SEIR concluded that there would be a new significant impact to historic resources due to the loss of Building #1. The Secretary of Interior has established four treatments or guidelines to address the preservation of historic resources: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction. Because there was a complete loss of materials, only the Reconstruction approach is applicable to address impacts to historic resources. The Reconstruction guidelines have typically been used in very selective situations, such as reconstruction of historic museum, where there is a clear public benefit (usually educational). The guidelines include requirements such as preservation of any remaining historic materials and construction of only the original design. The complete list of Guidelines and Standards for Reconstruction are provided on pages 19-22 of the SEIR. However, application of the guidelines cannot reduce the demolition to a less than significant level because none of the historic fabric would be retained. The SEIR also analyzed the potential impact to the remaining historic building, Building #2. Because the proposed Building #1 is substantially consistent with the originally approved design and in the same location, it was determined that there would not be an impact to the character of Building #2. To address the new impact caused by the loss of Building #1, mitigation measure CR-2.3 has been amended. The mitigation measure as originally written still applies to Building #2. CR-2.3 now states: A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previous approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building #1 will be wood- framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment. In addition, staff is also proposing to have the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company, to review and monitor the construction of Building #1 similar to what was required for Building #2. As noted above, application of the revised mitigation measure will not reduce the level of significance because none of the original building has been retained. The SEIR also concluded that there is a significant impact to Cumulative Cultural Resources, in that the loss of Building #1 combined with the recently approved demolition of the Edward Durrell Stone Building Complex (1959) at the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) campus (as part of the SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project approved in July 2011) has created a cumulatively City of Palo Alto Page 12 considerable impact to mid-century modern buildings by prominent architects. The Stone Building Complex represents a significant example of the modern design Aesthetic and of a significant architect. The loss of Building #1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex will therefore be a significant impact. Alternatives have been set forth and evaluated in the SEIR to allow the City Council and recommending bodies to consider ways to minimize the significance of the impacts to historic resources. Two alternatives were analyzed in the SEIR: (1) No Project and (2) Building Design. The No Project alternative would be a project without a new Building #1. Because the original building no longer exists, this would not avoid or reduce the historic impact due to the loss. However, the project objectives of creating a new mixed use project with three retail buildings would not be met. The second alternative, Building Design Alternative, would allow for a new building to be constructed in its new location with new materials. However, the building would be constructed in a manner that duplicates the original 1957 design. This may result in a more historically accurate representation, but would still be a new building. Therefore it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The alternative would also not meet the project objectives because it would not allow the changes originally proposed by the applicant to make the building more suitable for a viable retail building. As noted, the Final SEIR, together with the Draft SEIR, is considered the CEQA clearance document for the amended project. No new environmental impacts were identified following the release of the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR confirmed that no comments were received for the Draft SEIR and no changes have been made. Certification of Final SEIR Based on the analysis provided in the Final SEIR, consultation with various professional consultants and the recommendation by the HRB, staff recommends that the PTC recommend that the Council find that the demolition of Building #1 is significant, but that Statement of Overriding Considerations be made to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials. The reconstruction of Building #1 will result in a building that is compatible to the original and will be more similar to the original building than the approved rehabilitation due to the installation of the more detailed window frames. RESOURCE IMPACT City of Palo Alto Page 13 The applicant has already paid impact fees for the original PC rezoning, which included park, community center and library fees for the project. The redeveloped project site is expected to result in a significant increase in property taxes. The applicant estimates that the project would result in annual sales tax revenue from retail activity of approximately $1,050,000 and annual property tax revenue of approximately $350,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed amendment to the PC zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial and associated policies. A table of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is included as Attachment E. NEXT STEPS After the Planning and Transportation Commission makes a recommendation regarding the Final SEIR and the PC amendment, the project has been tentatively scheduled for a City Council hearing on October 2013. Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Edgewood Plaza CEQA Resolution (PDF)  Attachment B: Ordinance for Edgewood Plaza PC Amendment (DOCX)  Attachment C: Approved Ordinance 5150 for Edgewood Plaza (PDF)  Attachment D: Final SEIR Edgewood Plaza Project (PDF)  Attachment E: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (DOCX)  Attachment F: Applicant's Development Schedule (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 2 3 Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Meeting 4 6:00 PM, Council Chambers 5 6 7 Public Hearing 8 9 1. 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand Hill Property Company for review 10 and recommendation of: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and (2) an amendment 11 to the Planned Community Zoning (PC-5150) for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to 12 allow for the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). Building 1 was 13 approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but was demolished 14 instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project has been published and the 15 public comment period began May 17 and ended July 20, 2013. *Quasi-Judicial 16 Item 1 continued from September 11, 2013 17 18 Chair Michael: So moving ahead let’s open the public hearing. The first item is, relates to 2080 19 Channing Avenue, which is a quasi-judicial matter. And it’s a review of a request by Sand Hill 20 Property Company for our review and recommendation of (1) the certification of the final 21 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and (2) an amendment to the Planned Community (PC) 22 zoning for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed-use project to allow for the 23 reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings, which was inadvertently 24 demolished. 25 26 Now this is a quasi-judicial item, which leads me to ask my fellow Commissioners if anyone has 27 a disclosure to make regarding ex-parte communications with the applicant. Before I do that 28 let me just note for the Commission and those present what our policy is on ex-parte 29 communications and that is that each Commissioner who has had such contact with the 30 applicant, which communication outside of this public meeting would make a verbal disclosure 31 on the record of any relevant information that was, which transpired in that communication or 32 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES – EXCERPT City of Palo Alto Page 2 our policy permits the Commissioner to make a very brief written summary of the discussion 1 and make that available to the public. And we allow either mode of disclosure, but the verbal 2 disclosure is sort of required, the written disclosure would be optional if necessary to clarify. So 3 with that does anybody have any disclosures to make with respect to this matter? 4 5 Ok. There are none. So let’s begin this with the report from staff. 6 7 Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair; Elena Lee, Senior Planner with the Planning 8 Division. So the purpose of today’s hearing is to review the Edgewood Plaza PC amendment. 9 Specifically staff is requesting Commission’s recommendation to the City Council on the 10 adequacy of the final supplemental EIR that was prepared for the subject project and the 11 Planned Community zoning amendment to approve the rebuilding of Building 1 with all new 12 materials. All other components of the project are to remain the same. 13 14 The subject was the site of a PC zoning to allow rehabilitation of an existing shopping center 15 and the development of ten new residential units including a small park. The project included 16 the relocation and renovation of one of the two retail buildings including Building 1 that was 17 deemed historic and renovation of the other historic building, Building 2, and renovation of the 18 grocery building that was not deemed historic. A final Environmental Impact Report was 19 certified to provide environmental clearance, which assumed that all historic resources would be 20 rehabilitated and therefore not create any significant impacts. The public benefit of the project 21 were the preservation of the shopping center, two historic buildings, provision of a grocery 22 store, electrical vehicle chargers, and a small park. The historic monument sign on the site was 23 also to be rehabilitated and protected. 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 3 In September 2012 a stop work order was issued because a historic building, Building 1, which 1 was originally required to be relocated onsite and rehabilitated was to be rebuilt. It was 2 demolished illegally. City Council authorized the continued construction of the project on March 3 4, 2113, with the exception of the reconstruction of the demolished Building 1 and for the 4 homes. Since the authorization of Council the applicant has completed a renovation of the 5 grocery building and Fresh Market has occupied the site and has opened for business. Although 6 Building 1 will no longer be historic the project is able to provide most of the required public 7 benefits especially the revitalization of a shopping center, the grocery store, the park, and the 8 electrical vehicle chargers. 9 10 So staff has also retained Carey Company the City’s historic consultant for the original EIR to 11 review building permit plans and monitor construction of Building 2, the remaining historic 12 building. Because the original FEIR assumed both buildings would be retained, the demolition 13 of Building 1 would require new environmental clearance. A supplemental EIR in accordance 14 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared for the revised project. The 15 document was circulated for public review on May 17th for a 45 day circulation period. To date 16 staff has not received any comments about the project, accordingly staff has prepared a final 17 supplemental Environmental Impact Report confirming that no comments were received and no 18 changes were made to SEIR. That document has been released and circulated for at least 10 19 days. 20 21 Staff is requesting Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) comments on the adequacy 22 of the supplemental EIR and proposal to reconstruct Building 1. Staff would like to bring 23 attention to one significant addition to the project; the City has required the applicant to 24 replicate the original storefront window system, which is a distinct style that includes narrow full 25 City of Palo Alto Page 4 height projecting moldings. This required custom made windows that staff believes will help 1 create a building that is significantly closer to its original appearance than would have been 2 required for the original approval. The applicant has agreed to install these windows in Building 3 2 and will be required to do the same if Building 1 is approved to be reconstructed. Given the 4 amount of storefront glass that would exist in Building 1, this represents a significant 5 contribution to the Eichler character of the building. 6 7 The other key component that staff would request Commission’s recommendation on would be 8 the topic of public benefits. The loss of Building 1 removed the project’s ability to preserve one 9 of the two historic buildings, which was one of the primary public benefits. The applicant is 10 requesting that the addition of the custom windows as well as other site improvements, which 11 cost over $250,000 for both Buildings 1 and 2 be considered as public benefits. Staff has 12 included in the staff report two potential public benefits for the Commission’s consideration. 13 One would be funding towards construction of sidewalks along West Bayshore Road as 14 requested by some of the area residents and discussed at previous Commission hearings or 15 funding towards a restoration of a publicly owned historic resource, such as the University 16 Avenue Caltrain Station to be later determined by Council. 17 18 Because a historic resource was lost, staff recommends that a new public benefit be for historic 19 preservation. Although the City does have a system in place for issuing fines for building 20 infractions such as illegal demolition the key issue for this project is a public benefit because of 21 the laws of historic building. Identification of an appropriate public benefit potentially provides 22 a bigger benefit to the City while allowing the City to clearly state that the provision of public 23 benefits is important to the City and cannot be ignored. Staff has also identified a range of 24 City of Palo Alto Page 5 what the amount should be based on the City’s established fine and typical practices by other 1 cities. 2 3 Copies of the August 21st Historic Resources Board (HRB) staff report and draft excerpt minutes 4 have been provided at places and is also available to the public. Vice-Chair Roger Kohler is in 5 attendance tonight to represent the HRB. At the August 21st hearing the HRB unanimously 6 voted to recommend that Council certify the SEIR and also approve the PC amendment. Also 7 available tonight is the City’s Historic Consultant, Charlie Duncan, and Environmental Consultant 8 Nora Monette and Shannon George of David J. Powers & Associates. They’re available to 9 answer questions. This concludes staff’s report. Oh, and also the applicant John Tze is also in 10 attendance to answer questions. Thank you. 11 12 Chair Michael: Would the representative of the applicant have a statement that you would like 13 to add to the staff report? 14 15 John Tze, Sand Hill Property Company: Good evening, my name is John Tze, Sand Hill Property 16 Company at 203 Redwood Shores Parkway in Redwood City. Thank you for taking the time 17 Chairman and Members of the Commission. I apologize to have to bring this project back to 18 you. Many of you have seen this over the years and it’s unfortunate that I have to take your 19 time to do this. I think the staff report was very thorough. I imagine some of you may be 20 wondering what exactly happened and so if I may take a minute I’ll just walk you through in my 21 own words what I think may be in the back of some of your minds as everybody asks. 22 23 Over the course of the project entitlements and once we’ve got approvals we rarely walked the 24 site with our consultants and one of those are the historic consultant that we had hired. This 25 City of Palo Alto Page 6 walk included myself, my construction team, which is my project manager and contractors and 1 so after getting the consultant’s recommendations or opinions I was like the neighbors 2 surprised when I heard from the neighbors that the building came down. I think my 3 construction team and I take responsibility as they are my team, came to their own reasoning 4 and jumped the gun. That’s essentially what happened. I don’t think there’s no mal intent. I 5 think it was just an error on my team’s part and we’re trying to rectify it. 6 7 When we were made aware of a possible way to make the buildings more historically significant 8 by rebuilding the storefronts, the wood storefronts with much more detail we opted to go ahead 9 and do that to try to make amends for our mistake. I’ll be available for questions and basically 10 that’s I think what happened. Thank you. 11 12 Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Do we have any speaker cards? Are there any 13 members of the public who have indicated, ok we have… Oh. So you can bring up the speaker 14 card and in the meantime does anybody from the Commission want to ask a question of the 15 applicant? Vice-Chair Keller. 16 17 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much and I appreciate your apology. It’s an unfortunate 18 situation. I’m wondering are there some comments in the staff report about the expenditure 19 that you put in in terms of improving the windows beyond what, for the building that is 20 remaining to make them, is that correct? To make them more conducent with the original 21 style? 22 23 Mr. Tze: Yes. I think there are figures that are provided Elena as to what it cost to rather than 24 taken off the shelf wood storefront have we had actually had a team of carpenters out there 25 City of Palo Alto Page 7 building it onsite. And so that cost for both buildings was about a quarter of a million dollars. 1 So Building 1 is a little bit larger than the building that we’re just finishing up and about to 2 paint. So if you maybe break it up 55/45 percent of that $250,000. 3 4 Vice-Chair Keller: And I’m wondering, you know more about this than I do, so I’m wondering 5 whether the life of the building that you’re building from scratch in terms of being built with 6 modern materials and modern insulation, modern wiring to code and all that kind of stuff 7 without having to rebuild it whether that would have a value of the fact that it’s in some sense 8 new construction as opposed to having to retrofit the existing building? 9 10 Mr. Tze: Well we’ve just gone through a rehabilitation of Building 2, the one that you might see 11 right next to the Fresh Market and very little bit was actually salvageable. In fact under the 12 guidance of Charlie Duncan we and the architects and structural engineers agreed what should 13 and should not be kept as far as even the large glulam beams. A new, the original building I 14 can’t tell you exactly what kind of age buildings are designed, but what I’ve heard from 15 architects and engineers is generally the use of those buildings may not have been designed for 16 more than 30 to 50 or 60 years. 17 18 And so what we discovered in the building that was illegally demolished is to our surprise not 19 much of the material was actually original of the observable façade. When we peeled that 20 away and showed our consultants we were actually surprised by how little original material 21 there was. And what original material there was a lot of it was found objectionable by our 22 structural engineer from simply you could actually put a pencil into the glulam beams that were 23 supposed to be reused. And so he didn’t want to reuse any of those. So anyway a new 24 City of Palo Alto Page 8 building should have a life of at least 50 years. It is still a wood structure building, but 1 obviously to current seismic code, current Title 24 green building requirements, etcetera. 2 3 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. 4 5 Chair Michael: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Commissioner King. 6 7 Commissioner King: I will ask there’s also reference to technical modifications that have 8 increased the cost to the traffic signal upgrade and the three car chargers. Can you address 9 that and I ask you and may ask staff as well do we have verification of the funds expended? 10 11 Mr. Tze: Sure. The staff does not have verification, but I can provide that. Maybe it was 12 mischaracterized as technical upgrades, but the traffic signal was maybe estimated by some 13 staff members to be a certain dollar amount and it turns out it’s not, it’s quite a bit more. So 14 the $200,000 is basically what the replacement traffic signal. That’s not the intersection work 15 or roadwork, just the electric signals section. And three car charger and the affiliated power 16 that Commissioner Keller very well knows about. In our case we saved a lot of money on the 17 chargers themselves because actually a provider called Blink provided the actual level two and 18 level three chargers, but we just had to put the infrastructure in for them. And so that’s where 19 the $200,000 came from, but it’s not a technical difference. It was basically maybe an 20 inaccurate estimate by some people early on. 21 22 Commissioner King: And so is your argument that you relied upon those numbers in your initial 23 (interrupted) 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Mr. Tze: No. 1 2 Commissioner King: Oh? 3 4 Mr. Tze: No, I’m not arguing that. 5 6 Commissioner King: Ok, so I’m just a little… so if in fact the request is to, I guess it appears 7 here that you’re requesting that we might consider that a public benefit, the expenses incurred 8 on that for the chargers and the traffic signal. 9 10 Mr. Tze: The expense was just to quantify what it cost. That was what was asked of me, but 11 my opinion is the chargers, in my view is a benefit to the public. Putting that revised traffic 12 signal in along with the restriping will be a benefit. It wasn’t a requirement by Transportation, 13 but it was more, it’s inconvenient making a left hand turn going westbound onto St. Francis. 14 I’ve experienced it, I’m sure you all have because the exiting traffic is sometimes moving at 50 15 miles per hour toward you. 16 17 Commissioner King: Yes. 18 19 Mr. Tze: And so it was suggested that we replace that. And all I’m saying is an estimate by a 20 staff member at the time was very low compared to what it really cost, but I’m not saying that 21 that’s a, I’m not trying to make an exorbatant case for that being a public benefit. 22 23 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Commissioner King: Ok, but those expenses were a discretion on your part is your… the change 1 to the traffic signal and the car chargers were a discretion on your part and not part of the 2 original requirements for the project? 3 4 Mr. Tze: I don’t think they’re discretionary. I think they were part of the project conditions of 5 approval. 6 7 Commissioner King: Ok. Great. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Michael: So I just had one question of staff and that is it appears that there’s no dispute 10 about the fact and I think that that’s all for you. 11 12 Mr. Tze: Thank you. 13 14 Chair Michael: So thanks very much. But there isn’t any dispute about the fact that Building 1 15 was demolished illegally and for which we’ve received an apology from the applicant; however, 16 the question is what, what are the consequences of that? And under the applicable provisions 17 of the City code when there’s a, I suppose this is analogous to a building permit violation or a 18 zoning code violation, but in fact this is a Planned Community zone, which was granted in 19 exchange for in part because of the public benefit that would be provided as a result of 20 proceeding with this project and the public benefit here had multiple elements, one of which 21 was the preservation of the historic structure that was illegally demolished. So do we have any 22 guidance to give the Commission in terms of one, what our purview is as a Commission and 23 what are the applicable standards for a penalty or remedy for the illegal demolition of this 24 building in the Planned Community zone, which abrogates part of the public benefit? 25 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, thank you Chair. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant 2 City Attorney. There are two issues here. One is the penalty procedure and there is a penalty 3 for demolishing a building in violation of the building permit and other entitlements. And 4 unfortunately our penalty structure is very low in connection with that. And so the information 5 in the staff report shows that it’s about $5,000 for a penalty. And so I think that staff thought 6 and at the City Council hearing when this issue came up the first time around the sense was 7 that that penalty was really not sufficient. Now because this is a PC it is possible to try to 8 satisfy the or assess an appropriate penalty through the PC process and it is also appropriate in 9 the PC process too because the one of the primary community benefits in this case was the 10 historic demolition or was the historic retention of this building it is appropriate to come up with 11 a substitute for that community benefit. So there are two issues in front of the Commission at 12 this point; one is whether the penalty is appropriate and second whether the community benefit 13 is appropriate at this point. 14 15 Chair Michael: Ok, thank you very much. And we have one speaker card. Let’s open up to 16 that. 17 18 Vice-Chair Keller: The speaker is Gayle Olson and by the way after this, after we hear from the 19 public the applicant will be allowed to speak later. Thank you. 20 21 Gayle Olson: Good evening and thank you. I’m Gayle Olson. I live at 715 Wildwood Lane, 22 which is right around the corner from the shopping center. I’ve lived there with my husband 23 for 46 years. Needless to say we have been through many difficulties with the Edgewood 24 Shopping Center over these years. We’ve attended numerous meetings to plan what to do 25 City of Palo Alto Page 12 about the shopping center. So when this was finally approved I was thrilled, the neighborhood 1 was thrilled, and when the Fresh Market opened it was a glorious day. So I’m here to speak in 2 favor of moving forward with this project and getting the rest of the shopping center 3 completed. There will be additional services, there’ll be shops, hopefully a restaurant with 4 some pizza parlors and that sort of thing. The neighbors are all enthusiastic. We have elderly 5 people in the neighborhood who are not able to drive anymore so this is a benefit for them. So 6 I would urge you to move forward and approve the project. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Michael: Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers from the public? Seeing 9 none… oh, do we have a representative from the HRB here this evening? And would you like to 10 elaborate on any of the issues that are presented here based on your hearing? 11 12 Roger Kohler, Vice-Chair HRB: Yes, Good evening. I’m Roger Kohler, Vice-Chair of the Historic 13 Resources Board. We reviewed this project a couple weeks ago and we also reviewed it of 14 course when it first came through. We found that the, there was some suggestion during the 15 meeting that instead of rebuilding the structure was to do an entirely different looking structure 16 because there was thought that this was not, you shouldn’t be duplicating because it’s not a 17 historic structure. But we all felt unanimously that the proposed program would be far more 18 appropriate and would continue the feel and the look of the historic shopping center over 19 having a totally different looking building there. 20 21 The truth is that having worked on a lot of homes myself and things that refurbishing historic 22 homes there’s a lot of existing structure that’s there and everything, but in the end it looks 23 brand new because it’s all been new paint and fixed up and it looks very good. So I think in the 24 end this building, I think from the inside as well it’ll be obvious that this is a new structure. 25 City of Palo Alto Page 13 From the exterior I think it’ll fit in and look like the old, the existing building that is there. The 1 building is also being refurbished is also going to look brand new as well because it’s being 2 refurbished from top to bottom. So that was our feeling and that was one of the few 3 discussions we had about the structure. Other than that we approved of the project as it was 4 presented. 5 6 Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Does anybody on the Commission have questions of, 7 excuse me, I didn’t get your name. 8 9 Mr. Kohler: Roger Kohler. 10 11 Chair Michael: Of Roger Kohler? Vice-Chair Keller? Ok. Commissioner King. 12 13 Commissioner King: Yes, thank you Mr. Kohler. So I, and this, you may decline to answer 14 these, but you’ve had history of probably doing hundreds of new construction and remodels in 15 the City of Palo Alto. So do you have any rough guess of what the applicant might have saved 16 in costs by tearing down the property and being able to build without having to remodel? 17 18 Mr. Kohler: Well the building was, this building was being moved because it was the part of the 19 reason the shopping center failed in a lot of the opinion of the Board Members was the random 20 orientation of those two structures. When you drove in you saw the one unit and the other was 21 around the corner. So once you, like today when you walk into even Safeway parking lot in 22 Mountain View you can see all the structures and you get an obvious oh yeah, there’s that store 23 and there’s that store, but on Edgewood Market when you pulled into the Lucky Store the other 24 unit was behind the other one store so you weren’t always aware that it was there. I mean my 25 City of Palo Alto Page 14 office is on Colorado and I used to go there to get pizza for lunch all the time, but I think the 1 arrangement of it is, is going to make the whole shopping center work a great deal better. I’m 2 not sure I’m answering your question. 3 4 Commissioner King: My more question is (interrupted) 5 6 Mr. Kohler: In the end I don’t, I think yeah they might be saving some money, but because 7 they were moving the building anyway I think some of that cost is somewhat negligible. But 8 (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner King: Ok, and the reason I asked the question is that I think in my mind one of 11 the primary things we want to move forward with is to ensure that we do not provide incentives 12 and that we actually provide a disincentive for people to break terms of the development 13 agreement such that there could be an argument made oh if the applicant would save X, pick a 14 number, half a million dollars in costs by tearing down the building and starting from scratch 15 versus rehabilitating the existing building then it makes sense to have some penalties or public 16 benefits that are commensurate with the savings. 17 18 Mr. Kohler: I suppose you’re, there’s a project on University Avenue where they sort of just 19 dismantled the whole house and are going to do things different than were on the approved 20 plans, but fortunately when they dismantled the home they kept a very good record of all the 21 little pieces of the siding and everything so the reassembled building is looking very close to the 22 original because a good part of the materials are still being used although a lot of the actual 23 structure is new. So I would say that the preferred option and that’s why we don’t since the 24 late mid-eighties or so we do more new homes than remodeling’s in my little business in part 25 City of Palo Alto Page 15 because a lot of the older homes just are really failing. The foundations are no good and with 1 the new zoning ordinance and everything it’s just usually easier to do a new home. 2 3 In this case I think they might have saved some money. I wouldn’t say it’s dramatic myself 4 because they, I mean it’s just construction. Maybe there’s, if they had been able to keep all of 5 the glulam beams the cost of the glulam beams might have been some dimension, but I don’t, I 6 just don’t think it’s that much myself. 7 8 Commissioner King: Thank you. 9 10 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 11 12 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. Did the HRB consider at all whether or not there should be any 13 penalties applied to the applicant in this project or was that not within the purview of the HRB? 14 15 Mr. Kohler: I might defer that to Steven. I don’t actually remember that we talked about 16 anything like that. We don’t normally get into that kind of discussion. 17 18 Ms. Lee: If I may, that was not a question that was brought to the HRB. The HRB’s role and 19 what we requested of them specifically was on the EIR and the historic resource impact of the 20 project. 21 22 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. And in terms of the historic resources impact of the project I 23 understand that because the building was demolished and was being rebuilt that that is a 24 City of Palo Alto Page 16 significant but unavoidable impact. Is that right of the project, the destruction of the building 1 and rebuilding of it, is that right? 2 3 Mr. Kohler: I’m not exactly sure. It’s basically an impact. The building is being rebuilt. Now 4 the impact on the shopping center itself is probably going to be negligible because it’s all going 5 to look like the original structure. That was one of the reasons why we weren’t in favor of 6 doing a total and different looking building so you’d have two older looking buildings and 7 suddenly this new structure. So if that’s what you’re asking. I’m seeing other people here 8 [have something to say]. 9 10 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. Yes? 11 12 Aaron Aknin, Interim Director – Planning: I was just going to note that EIR related questions 13 you could probably ask staff because we may be able to answer those. 14 15 Vice-Chair Keller: Great, thank you very much. Thank you Rodger. 16 17 Mr. Kohler: I’m not good at answering EIR questions. 18 19 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah just I’m not sure if you’ll be able to speak to this or staff, but is 22 there any precedent for this situation? I mean in your experience or on maybe any of the 23 current members of the HRB’s experience have you ever been in a situation where (interrupted) 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Lee: In consulting with multiple staff members this is the first time something like this has 1 happened in the City, especially for a PC project. We’ve had situations where historic buildings 2 were demolished, but in one case in the downtown the materials were preserved and so they 3 were able to reconstruct, but in this case none of the building remains in order to allow 4 reconstruction. Staff also surveyed cities around the Bay Area to see if this has happened and 5 this is a very rare occurrence. 6 7 Mr. Kohler: I guess I can chime in. I guess next year begins my 20th year as a HRB Member so 8 when I walk down University there’s a whole number of buildings we’ve looked at and over 9 town and I don’t think we’ve ever encountered where we’ve approved the reworking of a 10 historic structure to have it torn down. So. 11 12 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 13 14 Chair Michael: So now we’ll come back to the Commission and as we’ve done in the past first if 15 there’s a round of any questions to clarify the matter and then we’ll have sort of comments 16 perhaps based on a Motion. Ok, and then we’ll have the opportunity for the applicant to make 17 a final statement. So to the Commission for any questions that you have about the matter. 18 Commissioner Panelli. 19 20 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a question for staff on actually the slide 21 that’s up there right now, Slide 8. There are a couple ideas for additional public benefits, one 22 being a contribution toward the West Bayshore sidewalk improvement the other being toward 23 restoration of a historic building. Does staff have a recommendation of what the size of that 24 contribution should be? 25 City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 Ms. Lee: That’s been a difficult question for staff. We’ve looked at the penalty structure that we 2 have in the City, which is fairly low amounts as shown in the staff report. And when we 3 surveyed other cities for destruction or demolition of historic buildings or some impact on 4 historic structures most of that has been doubling to tripling of the fees, which again is shown 5 in the staff report as what that range could be. As an alternative staff has said you could also 6 just apply a percentage based on the valuation and staff has also raised the valuation because 7 we understand that there’s significant costs incurred in the project as part of this. So that’s 8 something that we’re really looking to the Commission to provide, but we do have a range in 9 there. It would be between $10,000 up to $942,000. 10 11 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. I guess let me phrase it differently then, the question. How much 12 for example is the, what’s the total budget required for the West Bayshore sidewalk 13 improvement? 14 15 Ms. Lee: It’s estimated right now to be about $144,000. 16 17 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. And the contribution towards restoration of a historic building, I’m 18 assuming that’s for a future unknown so you really, you’d have to just pick a number and hope 19 that it satisfies whatever future project. 20 21 Ms. Lee: That’s correct. 22 23 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. Can you remind me what the total square footage of this building is? 24 I know it’s in the staff report, but I, is it? 25 City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 Ms. Lee: It is about 10,000 square feet. 2 3 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. Just for this, for this building? Ok. 4 5 Ms. Lee: Just Building 1. 6 7 Commissioner Panelli: Ok, thank you. 8 9 Chair Michael: Commissioner King do you have any clarifying questions? 10 11 Commissioner King: Yes. So I’d ask of staff of the same, regarding the sidewalk project I mean 12 I’m, I don’t get a sense being able to read between the lines on whether this is a project we 13 feel really fits in with our long term plans or whether it’s just hey, here’s something we could 14 throw money at even if we don’t think it’s a great use for the money. It’s someplace to put 15 money even though it may not be the most optimal solution. Could you address that please? 16 17 Ms. Lee: Sure, thank you. So basically this improvement came up as part of the overall 18 discussion during the original PC and when the neighbors brought that up City did recognize 19 that that was a deficiency in our sidewalk system. And so it’s been identified in our Bike 20 Pedestrian Master Plan as a deficiency that should be corrected. And so it is a project or 21 improvement that the City would support. 22 23 Commissioner King: And I’m, I may be missing it. Is there a graphic of where that exists? 24 Where we’re talking about? 25 City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 Ms. Lee: It would be basically from, there’s no graphic on there although if you look on your, 2 the site plan it’s basically West Bayshore Road from north of the site all the way to the East 3 Palo Alto boarder. So it would be basically the left hand side, the one opposite from the 4 freeway. Right now it’s really a dirt, some dirt paths and then so the proposal would be to add 5 a sidewalk where those dirt paths currently are. 6 7 Commissioner King: And that’s beginning at Channing Avenue? 8 9 Ms. Lee: Yes, well north of Channing. 10 11 Commissioner King: Beginning of Channing headed north? 12 13 Ms. Lee: Yes. 14 15 Commissioner King: And how far would that go? 16 17 Ms. Lee: I don’t actually have the footage, the distance, but it would be all the way to the East 18 Palo Alto boarder. 19 20 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, thank you. And then let’s see do I have another question… no, I 21 think that’s it. Thank you. 22 23 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck did you have any clarifying questions? Ok. Ok so at this 1 point maybe we can open the floor for a Motion. Oh, Vice-Chair Keller is keeping me honest 2 and I’d like to invite the applicant back to make a statement if you like for three minutes. 3 4 Mr. Tze: It’s not a final statement. I just wanted to clarify a few things because after this 5 happened when I finally got a hold of my contractors and asked him what happened there were 6 a few things that contributed to their confusion and mistake. One is there was a demo permit 7 issued for this building because the City doesn’t have a deconstruction permit or relocation 8 permit. That permit did exist and to your question Commissioner King as far as the condition of 9 the building when it was reviewed and opened up was such that you didn’t want to reuse those 10 materials. If you tried to reuse it the inspector would tell you to replace it. There was that 11 much damage and dry rot and so forth in most of the building materials. So I just wanted to 12 point those things out. Thank you. 13 14 Chair Michael: Thank you very much. So now we’ll turn back to the Commission for a Motion 15 and for any other comments. Commissioner King. 16 17 Commissioner King: Yeah, so I guess on the comment section I watched the Council when they 18 addressed this and I think they as I believe we maybe find ourselves are perplexed. There’s no 19 track record. It’s a very rare occurrence. As far as how you would penalize or yeah, really it’s 20 penalizing the applicant for the error made, which at face value was unintended and in my mind 21 I think you, we’re ending up with a superior building that will last longer and probably safer, 22 certainly more habitable for the tenants so… Although that decision should have of course 23 been made during the initial process and I know at the time there were many members of the 24 public who were saying that’s an old beat up building and in fact with that style of architecture 25 City of Palo Alto Page 22 there’s not much there that you know it’s some windows there just isn’t a lot of structure, right? 1 It’s like a, like Eichler homes. And so I think it’s very hard to decide what is the appropriate 2 penalty. 3 4 I think as I mentioned before the key thing is that you want some disincentive for this to ever 5 happen again and yet the odds of something, the stars aligning where this could even happen 6 seems pretty rare. And so I really don’t want to make an unreasonable burden on the applicant 7 and yet again we don’t want that to become a par for the course for developers to say, “Hey it’s 8 just cheaper for me to break the agreement and pay the penalty.” So I have to say I don’t 9 really know where to really start as far as proposing a dollar amount that would then be 10 converted into funds to the City or General Fund or to specific projects. So I’m anxious to see if 11 any of the other Commissioners have a sense of that. 12 13 I believe staff may have made an error in saying $942,000. I think it was $94,000. Is that 14 correct? 15 16 Ms. Lee: Yeah, thank you. It’s actually between, so basically the $942,000 would be the 17 adjusted valuation and so if we used the 10 percent it’d be $91,200 to $94,200. And on the 18 other hand also if we did a doubling or tripling of the building permit fees, which is a pretty 19 standard fine used by other cities in the area that would be between $13,680 and $28,260. So 20 that would be more in line with what other cities have done, but because this is a PC the City 21 does have the leeway to make that a different number because the question that we’re focused 22 on here also is not just what is the violation that was done but also ultimately what is the best 23 public benefit that’s appropriate given the situation and given the needs of the City. 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Commissioner King: Thank you and so I mean, I guess if I were just trying to put some 1 numbers in there a fine in the ten to hundred thousand dollar range it could be again I don’t 2 know. Mr. Kohler didn’t really have an offhand back of the envelope of what the applicant 3 might have saved. Then again, maybe he didn’t save anything, but I would expect that not 4 having to try and recreate the building moving pieces of that type of construction that there 5 was, were some material savings and maybe we want to ask the applicant. I want to ask him 6 at this point, but those are my thoughts. And I’m sorry, no Motion is popping out from this 7 Commissioner at this point. 8 9 Chair Michael: Ok, thank you. So at this point let me just observe that often before the 10 Planning and Transportation Commission are applications for Planned Community zoning. In 11 connection with approving a PC zone ordinance it’s incumbent upon the Commission to 12 determine the adequacy of the public benefit that would result from the project. And here, well 13 and we also have had in the community some concern about the PC zoning process. It was 14 observed that the criticism is that oftentimes the public benefits are arguably inadequate and 15 then in the end they might not actually be delivered. So there, I think that situation is not what 16 we’re looking at tonight just to be perfectly clear. And I’ve also from up here this evening I’ve 17 been very impressed with the candor and the sincerity of the applicant in acknowledging the 18 facts, what happened, and it wasn’t intended and their efforts to bring about a practical way 19 forward, which was also part of the record in front of the Historic Resources Board. 20 21 So as we’re dealing with sort of a matter that there isn’t a well-established precedent in Palo 22 Alto for the penalty that the Council will impose I think that we should put forward sort of a 23 recommendation for the Council in terms of what would be a reasonable amount of monetary 24 penalty perhaps in line with the standards suggested by staff. But I think that the important 25 City of Palo Alto Page 24 policy issues that we face in considering public benefits in connection with PC zoning generally 1 that’s not the issue we’re facing tonight. There is an aspect of the, the nature of the benefit 2 relative to the historic building demolition, but the fact that it’s been rebuilt or is in the process 3 of being rebuilt with attention to the proper detail and whatnot is duly noted. So perhaps one 4 of our colleagues of the Commission will come forward with a Motion for a recommendation to 5 Council and our action on the two issues that we have. Interim Planning Director Aknin. 6 7 Mr. Aknin: If I could help out with this, I think after taking a look this is obviously a difficult one 8 for staff too because it’s hard to quantify this. When I’m taking a look at this I’m taking a look 9 at what public benefit was lost and obviously it was the historical aspect of this. I think just 10 talking briefly and speaking to other cities I think tripling of the fine, which would come out to 11 about $28,000 and then putting that towards some type of historic, some type of fund to help 12 rehabilitate a historic public structure would be something that would be adequate in this case. 13 14 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 15 16 Commissioner Alcheck: So is there precedent where we were consulted on fine amounts in past 17 transgressions, not tear downs of historical so and so, like I’ll give you an example of why I’m 18 asking because this isn’t the first “public benefit” that didn’t turn out the way it should have. 19 And I don’t know if we’ve gone back and investigated other public benefits which we feel have 20 not been provided the way they may or may not have been agreed to be provided. To the 21 extent that that’s the topic we’re talking about I feel like is this something we’ve done in the 22 past? Is it something we want to start doing? To the extent that this is an act that violated 23 let’s say a permit, is there a precedent for Planning Commission to kind of weigh in on the fine 24 City of Palo Alto Page 25 someone would get for violating a permit? Do you see what, there’s sort of two different 1 (interrupted) 2 3 Mr. Aknin: Yeah, the answer is no. I think you’re hitting it right there. We’re kind of mixing 4 and matching two things. There’s the fine and then there’s the public benefit amount. In this 5 case what we’re saying is a fine would typically be brought down by staff to an applicant. But 6 since we’re part of a PC zone right here right now what we’re saying is to pay an equivalent 7 amount as part of the public benefit so that fine could be put towards a specific purpose, which 8 in this case would be rehabilitation of a publicly owned historic building. 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not putting forth a Motion at this time, but I would suggest that if 11 we evaluate the loss of a public benefit or if we begin that sort of can of worms there the 12 notion that the public benefit’s value has been lost and so we’re going to get involved in 13 remedying the, that loss because there’s a lot of potential public benefits that you may want to 14 look at that similarly didn’t meet expectation or direction of the Planning Commission. And I’m 15 not sure that’s what we want to do tonight or that’s, I don’t know. 16 17 To the extent that there should be a fine assessed for the failure of the applicant to comply with 18 the permit he was given if there was a Motion to essentially defer to the City Council I would be 19 in favor of that. I sort of think that there are sort of two unspoken or I guess subtle messages 20 here. If the City Council, I’m assuming they’ll review this, if the City Council determines that 21 the failure to provide the public benefit is or failure to essentially deliver the public benefit as 22 promised is so significant that the fine has to be severe that would go a long way to bolstering 23 the notion that City Council is behind this idea of public benefits. If the City Council decides to 24 essentially assess a fine for failure to adhere to the permit that’s sort of different because 25 City of Palo Alto Page 26 people will fail to comply with specific permits in the future and they may or may not have 1 anything to do with the public benefit scenario. 2 3 And so again, I don’t think we’ve ever been in a situation where we’re tasked with enforcing the 4 receipt of public benefits. And so to a certain extent I’m uncomfortable with beginning to do 5 that because in the past on the Commission I’ve heard Commissioners state that the public 6 benefits that were supposed to occur didn’t occur. And I would then query as to well why don’t 7 we open that back up and figure out why that public benefit has not been provided the way you 8 intended and if it didn’t let’s assess some fine for it. If, so since we haven’t gone there in the 9 past and I’m not sure that’s where we want to go I don’t know if we should be essentially 10 weighing in too heavily on specific fine amounts. If this is an issue about assessing a fine for 11 permit noncompliance I think the City’s got a pretty standard formula and since we’re not 12 actively involved in the enforcement of those sorts of issues I don’t really know if we have to be 13 any more involved than to suggest that the City Council review this matter in light of the 14 situation and enact the standard procedure for assessing a fine for permit noncompliance. 15 16 So there’s sort of two big issues here and in both cases I’m sort of inclined to suggest that we 17 defer to the City Council with the suggestion that they pay particularly close attention to the 18 notion that if they don’t deal with this in a way they’re going to set a precedent for the value 19 we’re actually placing in our public benefit analysis if you could essentially avoid the delivery. 20 That’s convoluted, but I’d like to hear what you guys think about it. 21 22 Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli. 23 24 MOTION 25 City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I’m going to suggest that building off of what the 2 Chairman said before that this PC is not controversial like some of the others because this is 3 something that the neighborhood actually really wants. And I’d argue that the folks who have 4 been penalized the most are probably the neighbors. 5 6 I am very sensitive though to the comments that Commissioner King mentioned, which is we’ve 7 got to provide some kind of a disincentive to the old adage that it’s easier to ask for forgiveness 8 afterwards than to ask for permission beforehand. So what I’d suggest is, I’m going to disagree 9 with you Commissioner Alcheck about deferring to Council. I think Council appointed us to this 10 body to ease their load in some way and so the more that we can demonstrate some leadership 11 I think the more valuable we are to Council. So I would say let’s suggest something. They are 12 more than welcome to agree or add to it or subtract from it, but I think we can put forward 13 some rationale as to a specific proposal. 14 15 I think at this point I would like to make a recommendation, a Motion that we recommend that 16 Council approve this… let’s see, what’s the best way to phrase this? This amended Planned 17 Community or supplemental EIR under the condition that they contribute for the West Bayshore 18 sidewalk improvement. To me there’s a direct, because this is a connector to this, ostensibly to 19 this shopping center I think it’s a benefit to the community because I think it allows them to 20 perhaps walk more safely than what it is available today if they were to try to walk down West 21 Bayshore. I’m hesitant towards this contribution towards restoration of a historic building 22 because to me there’s no direct relationship other than the idea is that we’re supposed to be 23 historically preserving something, it didn’t happen, but it’s… I don’t see any connection to a 24 historic preservation opportunity in that part of town. So I’d rather see a project, a public 25 City of Palo Alto Page 28 benefit that actually benefits that part of town directly. And barring a better idea that one 1 seems like the best one on the table. So that would be my Motion. 2 3 Chair Michael: Just as a clarification did you have an amount for the contribution? 4 5 Commissioner Panelli: The $144,000, I mean whatever the estimated cost was. 6 7 Chair Michael: Planning Director Aknin. 8 9 Mr. Aknin: One thing, sorry for late breaking news, but we just received an e-mail from our 10 Transportation Staff. I had asked them to go out there an actually measure to figure out if any 11 parking spaces would be lost as a result of the sidewalk being put in and I’m reading the e-mail 12 now that up to 10 parking spaces could be lost if the sidewalk was put in now. They’re not 13 legally, they may or may not be legal spaces, but they are functioning as spaces and historically 14 have been functioning as spaces along there near the East Palo Alto boarder. So just to throw 15 another monkey wrench into everything there could potentially be a loss. Now you could 16 amend your Motion for us to take a look at that and provide that as part of our information to 17 City Council. That could be one way of going about it because this is just a preliminary e-mail, 18 but since I had the info I wanted to relay it to you. 19 20 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck had a question. 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. This is going to come off wrong, but this sidewalk serves residents 23 of Palo Alto or residents of East Palo Alto? 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Commissioner Panelli: It’s both. 1 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Because I’m a little confused about that because it looks like it would 3 serve residents of East Palo Alto and not that that isn’t a worthy cause, it’s just I think relevant 4 to the discussion. 5 6 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 7 8 Commissioner King: Yeah, I have my, I can pass this along. Unfortunately I don’t, someday 9 soon we’ll be able to project it up there. I have Google maps here and I’ll describe what I see, 10 which is that from Channing along 101, along West Bayshore to I believe the City of Palo Alto 11 ends at the creek, correct? That’s our boarder. There are no houses that appear to face from, 12 the houses on Edgewood back to West Bayshore there appear to be no residences or structures 13 through to the creek, which would be the border with East Palo Alto and then there’s that 14 apartment complex there that has sidewalks in front of it and then it goes to the intersection at 15 Woodland and from there north it appears there are no sidewalks and that there is street 16 parking where sidewalks might be. And so I’ll pass this along if Commissioners would like to 17 take a look at that. And so I’ll just… 18 19 Commissioner Alcheck: Do you know if the parking spots he was talking about are those near 20 that apartment complex? 21 22 Commissioner King: Maybe Aaron could address that. I’m not seeing any parking spaces near 23 Channing. I’m seeing parking spaces near Woodland. 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Commissioner Alcheck: I guess my question is: are those East Palo Alto? Are those parking 1 spaces that residents of East Palo Alto are using that we would…? 2 3 Ms. Lee: Well, we’re not sure exactly who uses those parking spots, but the parking spots as 4 Aaron had described are in Palo Alto. It’s just they’re informal parking spaces where vehicles, 5 people are parking their vehicles on basically dirt areas. So they’re not paved, but they’re just 6 wide enough for cars to park. 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 9 10 Chair Michael: So I have a question of Commissioner Panelli and maybe this is in the form of a 11 friendly amendment to your Motion and that is I guess for all the factors that you articulated in 12 making the Motion I wonder if we should try to provide some just clarity in our recommendation 13 to Council that the amount of the penalty should be some multiple of the permit amount, say 14 three times the permit amount and that it should be contributed towards the purpose stated, 15 which is towards a portion of the cost of the West Bayshore sidewalk improvement when that 16 project is implemented. So would that be accepted as a friendly amendment to your Motion? 17 18 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 19 20 Commissioner Panelli: Yes. 21 22 Chair Michael: Is there a second? Commissioner Alcheck? 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to throw in that I mean, again I to some extent wish we 1 could defer, but if we’re going to make a recommendation I sort of would prefer that the 2 contribution went towards the restoration of a historic building because this sidewalk to 3 nowhere essentially is what I would call it seems like a complete waste of money. I’m worried 4 that it doesn’t serve our residents and to some extent it seems more fitting that the monies 5 raised or assessed will go to the very cause that was not met here right, the restoration of a 6 historic building. It seems like the second concept would be more apt. 7 8 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 9 10 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So firstly I think that there are two additional presumably public 11 benefits that have apparently already been done, which were not included in the original public 12 benefit. And one of those which is arguable is the restoration of the storefront windows of 13 Building 1 and 2 to their original appearance as designed by the architect. The second thing is 14 the improvement of the traffic signal, which was not originally public benefit and that I’m not 15 sure if that was. Was that a public benefit or not? 16 17 Ms. Lee: It was a condition of approval. 18 19 MOTION 20 21 Vice-Chair Keller: It was a condition of approval. Ok, thank you for that clarification. So it 22 seems to me that I’m aligned with Commissioner Panelli that there should be some sort of 23 penalty. I’m aligned with Commissioner Alcheck that the direct cost if you will, the loss was in 24 historic resources and therefore any penalty should be applied to historic rehabilitation of 25 City of Palo Alto Page 32 resources in Palo Alto. The thing that’s interesting to me about this is that the sidewalk 1 construction on West Bayshore although I have no problem with benefitting the people of the 2 Condo Complex in East Palo Alto who came and spoke to us, I think that’s a worthy thing to 3 consider doing, the issue is that construction might further annoy the neighbors because it’s 4 actually happening behind the houses that are in Palo Alto on Edgewood Drive. And so I’m not 5 sure if that construction would be desired by them or not desired by them. So without getting 6 their input I don’t know, I have trouble recommending that that be done. 7 8 And I’m guessing that my suggestion would be probably considered too high, but I’m going to 9 say it anyway. So, but first let me say that we should probably have an ordinance. We have 10 this informally but it may not be an ordinance to require that there be no demolition without a 11 new building permit and that would have prevented for example the loss of the historic property 12 at the Juana Briones House that happened because of inadequate and there were also 13 destructions of houses that were not replaced by anything in Professorville I believe. People 14 just wanted vacant land and that’s a problem. And also we should actually have a law that 15 basically creates a penalty in case of an illegal demolition and other things like that so that this 16 would be clarified. 17 18 But it seems to me that there’s actually two things going on. There’s actually two infractions. 19 One infraction is demolition in violation of the building code. They’re supposed to have not 20 demolished the building but moved it. And I realize that technically there was a demolition 21 permit issued to move it, but that’s kind of an arcane thing. The second thing is that there’s a 22 loss of public benefit, which is the public benefit of having this historic building there. There is 23 a new historic building in its place, which is according to the Historic Resources Board better 24 City of Palo Alto Page 33 than replacing it with a building that looks out of place, but in some sense that’s a loss of 1 resources. 2 3 So I don’t know if I’ll get a second, but my suggestion is, my Motion is to recommend approval 4 to the City Council of the supplemental Environmental Impact Report to amend the Planned 5 Community ordinance to add to the benefits (1) restoring windows of Buildings 1 and 2, 6 storefront windows of Building 1 and 2 to the original appearance as designed by the original 7 architect and (2) a $500,000 contribution to historic rehabilitation of some buildings in Palo 8 Alto, one or more buildings in Palo Alto with that amount covering both the penalty of the illegal 9 demolition as well as the loss of the historic resource. 10 11 Chair Michael: So there’s a substitute Motion by Vice-Chair… there’s a new Motion by Vice-Chair 12 Keller. Is there a second? 13 14 Commissioner King: I’m sorry, could you repeat the penalty amount? 15 16 Vice-Chair Keller: The penalty amount as recommended was $500,000. And basically the idea 17 there is that that’s significant enough to deter people from violating PC ordinances at this stage 18 and I do, and it is, it goes towards historic rehabilitation and also the issue is I do think that we 19 should be enforcing in some ways public benefits that we don’t get. 20 21 Chair Michael: Can I make a friendly amendment to your Motion? 22 23 Vice-Chair Keller: Sure. 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 34 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 1 2 Chair Michael: I am inclined to support everything, all of the elements of your Motion other than 3 the penalty amount, which I think under the circumstances and facts outlined this evening is 4 significantly higher than I would have thought reasonable. And I would recommend that the 5 penalty amount be at the high end of the range in the staff report, which ranged from $10,000 6 to $94,000. So I think if we have a recommendation being for the high end of the range from 7 the Planning Department I would support your Motion. 8 9 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 10 11 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. I’ll accept your friendly amendment of the high end, which was I guess 12 $94,000 approximately. 13 14 Mr. Aknin: Correct. 15 16 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. 17 18 SECOND 19 20 Chair Michael: So I’m going to second the Motion and then Commissioner Alcheck would like to 21 make a friendly amendment. 22 23 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 35 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just going to throw this out there again, which is that we operate 1 with the, I would prefer to operate with the fine amount that was typical in the City for I would 2 call it permit infractions, which is three times the permit fees. And the reason why I would 3 prefer to do that is because since there is no current process for us to somehow enforce the PC 4 requirements on developers after the fact, at least I’m not aware of one if there is. It says if 5 we’re, it’s as if we’re trying to get that all out right here. Because it’s so important to us that 6 the PC’s that we, the public benefits that we attempt to negotiate if you will in some cases are 7 not achieved that we would really want to discourage anyone from ever doing something like 8 that again. At the same time we can’t go back and fix the ones that we don’t think are being 9 properly provided now and I’m not sure we’ll be able to, our role is not to enforce the delivery 10 of those public benefits that have been negotiated already and so I sort of would prefer that we 11 use this three times amount of the permit process because then we can say well this situation 12 we dealt with it in the standard permit penalty process as opposed to public benefit analysis 13 process. 14 15 Chair Michael: So does Vice-Chair Keller accept Commissioner Alcheck’s friendly amendment? 16 17 Vice-Chair Keller: With all due respect I don’t accept your friendly amendment. The reason 18 being we’re actually dealing with two things: the violation of the code rule for which the three 19 times rule might make sense, but the additional amount is for the loss of the public benefit that 20 was in the original PC. 21 22 Ms. Silver: Chair Michael if I could just interject for one moment just to clarify we do have a 23 code enforcement process for violations of a PC ordinance that has already been approved by 24 the Council. What makes this situation a little bit awkward is that while the ordinance was 25 City of Palo Alto Page 36 approved the construction was midstream and so we’re, the community benefits had not 1 entirely been provided at this point so we treat this violation really as a building permit violation 2 as opposed to a PC code enforcement violation. 3 4 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just sort of curious if a development was supposed to provide a 7 certain space for public use and it not only failed to provide that space, but that space was sort 8 of commandeered for private benefit use is there any enforcement process that would allow this 9 Commission to assign a value to that public space and ask that applicant after the fact to pay 10 into a General Fund or in the Park Fund or something? 11 12 Ms. Silver: I see what you’re saying. No, we would, that type of issue would be handled at an 13 administrative code enforcement level. And so there would be fines imposed and there would 14 also be an option that staff could bring to you a revocation or a modification of the PC 15 ordinance and that process would ultimately come to you so you would be considering whether 16 the violation is sufficient enough to revoke the PC permit. 17 18 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller do you want to speak to your Motion? 19 20 Vice-Chair Keller: I think I’ve spoken enough on this and I hope that we can, let me just say 21 quickly I think that in general this has been an excellent project and I appreciate all that the 22 applicant has done to build this project and to try to create a, the grocery store for the 23 community. I think we’re all, my guess is that we’re all in agreement as to this project should 24 move forward and that the entire project should be built and that the building should be 25 City of Palo Alto Page 37 rehabilitated. What we’re arguing about is the consequence for the demolition that was not 1 according to what the original PC said. So I just wanted to clarify that. So I’m assuming that 2 even those who might decide to vote against this Motion probably are, I would assume are still 3 in favor of moving forward. Thank you. 4 5 Chair Michael: And I have no further comments. Maybe we could just have a vote on the 6 Motion? Commissioner Panelli? 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 9 10 Commissioner Panelli: I would like to make a friendly amendment to what you put forth. I 11 would like for us to say that we will recommend this to Council, but that the decision about 12 where to apply this public benefit we’ll leave up to them whether it goes to the sidewalk or to 13 the historic preservation. We’ll let them make that decision. Because then it gives the 14 neighborhood neighbors a chance to provide their commentary about what they want. Because 15 one of my concerns is that the benefits are not, we’re going to see these benefits in some other 16 part of town and I’d rather see that neighborhood get the benefit. 17 18 MOTION AMENDED BY MAKER 19 20 Vice-Chair Keller: How about if I deal with this way that staff should survey, I’m requesting that 21 staff get some information about the neighbors on, in the vicinity and see whether they support 22 the building of the sidewalk and if so then report that as an option to Council. Is that 23 acceptable? 24 25 City of Palo Alto Page 38 Commissioner Panelli: Yes. 1 2 Mr. Aknin: I’ll just make one comment. This is scheduled for the, an early October Council 3 agenda. So we’ll do our best to get something out. We’ll send our regular notice out related to 4 it, but I can’t say with confidence we’re going to be able to have any type of adequate polling 5 of the neighborhood. And yeah we did send out the notice and we haven’t had much comment 6 on it so. 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: My suggestion is that for the houses along Edgewood Road, I guess 9 Edgewood Drive that go from this property to where West Bayshore crosses over the bridge to 10 East Palo Alto, but basically maybe a postcard be sent to them whether they have any 11 comments or objections to having a sidewalk installed. 12 13 Mr. Aknin: That’s fine. 14 15 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. 16 17 Chair Michael: Ok, I’m going to call for a vote. Commissioner King. 18 19 Commissioner King: Sorry. One question I have is will Council see the graphic that we’re seeing 20 now that offers, that has the two proposed potential benefits? Will Council see that? 21 22 Ms. Lee: Yes, we’ll make sure they’re presented that. 23 24 Commissioner King: So they’ll know that these were options we discussed? 25 City of Palo Alto Page 39 1 Ms. Lee: Yes. 2 3 Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And then my comment I wanted to bring up and I’d like to 4 actually address this to the applicant is I believe that in the Council’s addressing of this issue 5 that you were, had to stop building four of the houses and then you had to incur the expense of 6 the SEIR. So I believe that can be considered some form of a penalty that there were costs 7 incurred by the applicant for those and I would, if I were the applicant I might want to make 8 some estimate of those costs when you address the Council when this comes up before them. 9 So that’s it. Thanks. 10 11 Chair Michael: Ok. So I think we’re ready for a vote on the Motion. All in favor say aye (Aye). 12 All opposed? So the Motion has passed with Commissioners Panelli, Vice-Chair Keller, Chair 13 Michael, and Commissioner King voting in favor. Commissioner Alcheck opposed and 14 Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent. And we’ll take a five minute break. 15 16 MOTION PASSED (4-1-2, Commissioner Alcheck opposed, Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka 17 absent) 18 19 Commission Action: Approved staff recommendation to approve SEIR and amendment to 20 the PC zoning for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to allow for the 21 reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1) with a friendly 22 amendment by Chair Michael to add historic rehab penalty in the amount of $94,200. 23 Motion by Vice-chair Keller second by Chair Michael (4-1-2, Commissioner Alcheck against, 24 Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 25 26 Page 1 EDGEWOOD PLAZA DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR PC ZONE DISTRICT AND ORDINANCE ______________________________________________________________________ The Grocery Building and site parking areas including landscaping and tree planting were completed in May 2013. Retail Building 2 will be completed and painted in September 2013, and the park is currently under construction. Construction of Retail Building 1 shall commence once its building permit is secured and shall complete construction within 12 months following the adoption of the new PC Zone. The completion date is subject to a one-time extension of up to twelve months by Staff. Aug.  27,  2013         1. Determine:   The  amount  of  the  savings  likely  to  be  achieved  by  the  developer  from  moving   forward  with  the  construction  of  six  homes  starting  March  4,  2013,  the  last  City   Council  hearing.     Response:   Each  home  will  cost  approx.  $550,000  to  construct  so  six  homes  is  $3,300,000.    We   borrow  from  our  bank  at  an  annual  interest  rate  of  3.20%  (one  month  LIBOR  plus   3.00%).    And  March  4,  2013  to  present  is  nearly  6  months.     The  cost  of  capital,  or  interest,  “savings”  is  $3,300,000  x  3.20%/year  x  0.5  years  =   $52,800.       2. Added  cost  of  historic  detailing  on  wood  storefronts:   Our  original  off-­‐the-­‐shelf  storefronts  for  Buildings  1  &  2  cost  $134,000.    To  achieve   the  historic  detailing  multiple  carpenters  are  on  site  custom-­‐building  the  storefronts   at  a  cost  of  $384,000  (see  attachment).     Thus,  the  additional  cost  of  the  historic  detailing  is  $250,000.   To: Lyncon Construction 650.335.1988 From: Jason Goyette Phone: 715.9545 Project: Edgewood Plaza Bldgs 1,2 Fax: 715.9547 GC#: Att: Sean Anderson / Nandy Kumar Ref: Wood system alternatives Alternate #3 Complete wood system bldg’s #1 & #2 $383,954.00 lump sum complete to include -shop drawings and submittals -field verificaition of openings prior to fabrication of framing -Con-heart kiln dried S4S redwood 2” x 6” framing vertical and horizontal members - Con-heart clear, kiln dried S4S 1X stops of various sizes for the exterior and interior surfaces and for the bottom kick plate. The stops will be used to duplicate the original wood system -SAM wrap of all openings prior to framing install -Galvanized sill flahings under all wood storefront by SVG with up-turned end dams welded/soldered corners -Shop fabrication of frames for field install -installation of SAM material in glass pockets prior to glass install. -pre-shimmed Buty sealant tape at interior and exterior of windows -finish cap bead of sealant between glass and wood stops -Glazing to be project standard 1” clear Low “E”, tempered as required by code -interior and exterior perimeter beads of sealant between frames and surrounding SAM wrapped construction -Doors to be aluminum in bronze anodized finish with 1” perimeter aluminum sub-frame installed into the wood framing. Hardware is to be unchanged from what has been submitted. -cladding of wood around steel posts incidental to the window walls -mock-up (finishing not by SVG) NOTE: FINISHING OF WOOD IS NOT IN OUR SCOPE 220 Vineyard Court, Ste. 150 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 T 408-778-7786 F 408-778-8203 www.siliconvalleyglass.com QUOTE SVG Quote# 1206761 Date 3/21/2013 Pages 2 March 21, 2013 l Page 2 Exclusions: Final cleaning of glass; protection of glass after install; labor for composite cleaning crews; afterhours or weekend work; anything not listed above. License #735260 C-17 Signatory to Glazier’s Local 1621 Jason Goyette Estimator ______________________________________ Accepted By ______________________________________3/21/2013 ______________________________________ Signature Date Signature Date BY SIGNING ABOVE YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS QUOTE Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Edgewood Plaza Project Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198 State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 City of Palo Alto July 2013 Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 1 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR ............................................ 2 SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING THE DRAFT EIR OR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ................... 4 SECTION 3.0 LETTER FROM STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ..................................................... 5 Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 2 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013 SECTION 1.0 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR This document, together with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR), constitutes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the proposed Edgewood Plaza Project in Palo Alto, California. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Lead Agency is required, after completion of a Draft SEIR, to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIR. The City of Palo Alto, as the Lead Agency, is then required to respond to significant environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process, as described in CEQA Section 15132. The Draft SEIR was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period. Comments on the Draft SEIR were to be received in writing by no later than June 28, 2013. 1.1 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR This document has been prepared in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition to Section 1.0, describing an overview of the purpose and format of the Final EIR, the Final EIR includes the following sections: Section 2.0 List of Agencies and Individuals Receiving the Draft EIR The agencies, organizations, and individuals who received copies of the Draft EIR are listed in this section. The locations where the Draft EIR could be reviewed during the public circulation period are also included in this section. Section 3.0 Letter from State Clearinghouse There were no written comments received on the Draft SEIR during the 45-day circulation period and no changes to the Text of Draft SEIR have been made. Therefore, this document does not include responses to comments or text revisions. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 3 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR In conformance with the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15151), EIRs should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisions-makers with information which enables them to make a decision on the project that takes into account environmental consequences. The Final EIR also is required to examine mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The FSEIR is used by the City and other Responsible Agencies in making decisions regarding the project. The CEQA Guidelines require that, while the information in the FSEIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the DEIR by making written findings for each of those effects. According to the State Public Resources Code (Section 21081), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities of highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. All documents referenced in this SEIR are available for public review in the City of Palo Alto’s Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, during business hours, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Wednesdays 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Final SEIR will also be available for review on the City’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org, and at the following public libraries: Palo Alto Main Library, 1213 Newell Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303, and Palo Alto Downtown Library, 270 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the FSEIR will be made available to the public a minimum of ten days prior to the EIR certification hearing. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 4 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013 SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING THE DRAFT SEIR OR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY State Agencies California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3 California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Toxic Substances Control California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and District 4 California Department of Water Resources California Highway Patrol California Native American Heritage Commission California Public Utilities Commission California Resources Agency California State Clearinghouse Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 State Office of Historic Preservation Regional Agencies San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Local Agencies Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) City of East Palo Alto Additional individuals and groups were notified of the availability of the Draft EIR by email and postal mail, and the Draft EIR has been posted on the City’s website and in the Palo Alto Main and Downtown Libraries. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 5 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013 SECTION 3.0 LETTER FROM STATE CLEARINGHOUSE :-~--~---~-------~-------------.--------------.. -------~----.--------c~~!>.;;_ STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE o/PLANNING AND RESR.ARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT EDMUND G. BROWN JR. KENAJ.Ex DOOCI'OR GoVERNOR July 1, 2013 Elena Lee City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Edgewood Plaza SCH#: 2011022030 Dear Elena Lee: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental EIR to selected slate agencies for review_ The review period closed on June 28, 2013, and no state agencies snbrnitted comments by that date_ This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft envirorunental documents, pursuant to the California Envirorunental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. sm~~ Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 lOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812·3044 (916) 445·0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 WWW.OpLWl.goV Received JUL 082013 I:!ePanment of f'!anning & COmmunity l:nWotunem Grider, Donna From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Donna, Woodland Creek HOA <woodlandcreekhoa@gmail.com> Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:51 PM Grider, Donna char@cjmasi.com; hrosmarin@mac.com; Brenda Erwin Council Packet -October 7,2013 Edgewood Plaza Public Benefitpdf Attached please find a letter relating to the 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) Agenda item for inclusion in the Council packet for the October 7,2013 city council meeting. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Brenda Erwin President 1 WOOl)LAND CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Street Address: 1982 West Bayshore Road, East Palo Alto, CA 94303 . Mailing Address: cio eJM Association Services, Inc., P.O Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566 October 1,2013 Via Electronic Mail: donIia.grider@cityof.paloalto.ors Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 1--------:RE-~208O-Ghanning-Avenu~(.Edgewood-Plaza)-P--ublic-Benefitli---------,-----,-----­ . West Bayshore Road Sidewal~ I Bike bine Dear City Councilmembers: Thank you for considering the improvement of West Bayshore Road'in Palo Alto, including construction of a sidewalk or bike lane·(the "Improvement"), as a public benefit in connection· with the Edgewood , i-------P1aza reifevelopmerifat208U-Cfi~mg .AveiiUe{"E3gewoocfPliiia")-. ---. --.-. ---------. -----. -. ----~--- We strongly support the Improvement because it will provide an important public benefit for residents of palo Alto and East Palo Alto by improving the saftty of West Bayshore Road for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists •. . Our-community consists of 90 single-family homes located approx.nnately 1200 feet north of Edgewood Plaza. During the Edgewood Plaza DEIR and EIR review process, our residents raised a Dumber of . concerns about the safety of the stretch' of West Bayshore Road between San Francisquito Bridge and Edgewood Plaza. West Bayshore Road in Palo Alto is partieularlyhazardous for children walking or biking to the planned new Deighborh,oodpark alld other attraetiomJ at Edgewood Plaza.. We also . submitted a petition with more than 70 signatures requesting safety improvements to West Bayshore. Benefits of West Bayshore Road Sidew.alk 'Bike Lane to Palo Alto 1. Improves Safety of W~st Bl:iyshore ~~dfor R.e~~!r.!~~~ ~i~)'clis~~~_~~~ .. ~~to .. ~ts.Jr.!>~ lJ.~t~ Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Residents of both cities'use WeSt Bayshore Road as a key corridor between University Avenue and Embarcadero Road. With the increase of pedestrian and bicycle traffic to and from the new Edgewood Plaza shopping center and planned park, the risk of pedestrian- bicyclist-motorist collisions on West Bayshore Road has escalated. The road has a blind curve, and ---·--------------cars-travel-atnign speea:Tnere-isaisoa serious risk-of motorist-motorist coilisions as orivers swerve --+-.-----~--- to avoid pedestrians and bicyclists who are traveling.'on the road because there is no sidewalk or'bike . lane. (Once the San Francisquito Creek Bridge sidewalk ends, there is a 1;200 foot section of West Bayshore road with no bike lane, sidewalk, path or protective divider of any kin~ until Channing Ave.) The risks are particularly acute for children walking or biking on West Bayshore Road. 2. Implements a Priority Recommendation of the City of Palo Alto's Bicycle + P~destrian Transportation .Plan. The City of Palo Alto's Bicycle + Pe~estrian Transportation Plan recommends that "a sidewalk or Class I path should be provided along West Bayshore between East Palo Alto and . Channing Avenue to provide access in the area around Edgewood Plaza" (6.3.3 and 6.4.1). 1 3. Mitigates Hazards. Many residents have attempted to walk or bicycle this stretch of West Bayshore Road and have witnessed a number of near collisions between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. The City has been alerted multiple times in writing to the hazards on this stretch of road, which is within its jurisdiction. The proposed Improvement presents an opportunity for the City to mitigate the hazards as well as to provide a public benefit. . 4. Supports Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Shopping Center in Accordance with City of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that "Palo Alto will provide accessible, attractive, economically viable and enviropmentally sound transportation options .... Emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the automobile ... Solutions that reduce the growth in the number of automobiles on City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be supported." Specifically, Policy T -14 states: "Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, . including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and . multi-modal transit stations." .5. Promotes Success of Edgewood Plaza. Edgewood Plaza's attractiveness as a destination will be enhanced by safe pedestrian and bicycle access. j 6. Connects Palo Alto Communities. The Improvement will provide another link in the route for Palo Altans who wish to bicycle from Embarcadero to Newell Street or University Avenue. Other Cousiderations CalTrans Project: CalTrans is planning to rebuild the San Francisquito Creek I Highway 101 Bridge. The project, set to begin in 2014, will involve the temporary complete closure of the stretch of West Bayshore Road under consideration for this improvement, which may provide a window of opportunity to construct the project without re-routing traffic. We recommend that the timing of the proposed Iniprovement be coordinated with CalTrans. Thank you for your consideration. ~'I~/.£~ Brenda Erwin President cc: Charlene C. Marquez, CJM Association Services, Inc. 2 9042.txt Project Plans Page 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4125) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Recommendation for one-time additional services in support of Palo Alto’s homeless Title: Recommendation for One-Time Additional Allocation in the Amount of $250,000 Over Two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection with Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve a one-time City allocation of $250,000 to be disbursed over two years for support of its homeless outreach and placement plan and that the Fiscal Year 2014 allocation in the amount of $125,000 is authorized to be paid from the City Council Contingency due to the urgency of providing this service. The homeless outreach and placement plan will be comprised of intensive case management in connection with housing subsidies for the homeless to be provided by the County of Santa Clara (County). Further, the City Council directs staff to bring forward a Budget Amendment Ordinance in November to increase the City Council Contingency in the amount of $125,000 with a corresponding decrease of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and include funding of the Fiscal Year 2015 allocation in the amount of $125,000 in the FY 2015 Proposed Budget. Executive Summary Homelessness is a national concern and Palo Alto is not immune. Recent Santa Clara County Homeless Census figures put the local number of homeless individuals at 157 people residing in the city. During recent discussions on the overnight camping issue at the Cubberley Community Center, the Council proposed a one-time expenditure not to exceed $250,000 to augment homeless service programs in the Palo Alto community. City of Palo Alto Page 2 A newly formed Palo Alto Homeless Services Task Force (HSTF), convened by the Community Working Group, Inc., met to carefully review and forward an approach for the best use of the proposed $250,000 funding. The Homeless Services Task Force will continue to meet to create a long-term plan to inform the community on the complexities of the homeless landscape and strategies for addressing issues associated with these problems. The recommendation forwarded for Council’s consideration combines a commitment by the County to provide housing subsidies with a City “match” to support the intensive case management services needed to house at least twenty homeless individuals. Background On August 13, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee discussed approaches to address homelessness issues City-wide (with special consideration of resolving problems at the Cubberley Community Center.) At that time, the Committee separately considered Ordinance # 5209 which amended the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add section 9.61.020 which established Community Facilities hours at Cubberley, Lucie Stern and Mitchell Park Community Centers, among other city facilities (see Attachment A- Staff Report #3977.) The ordinance was forwarded to the City Council for a first reading on August 19, 2013, (PASSED: 7-1 Berman absent, Holman no) and placed on the consent calendar for a second reading September 9, 2013 (PASSED 6-1 Berman and Kniss absent, Holman no.) During the discussion on August 13, the Policy and Services Committee heard from many members of the public and concerned case workers and had a lengthy discussion on the issues at the Cubberley Community Center. The Committee heard testimony from neighborhood residents, individuals residing at Cubberley, service providers, homeless advocates and other interested individuals. The issue of homelessness is a complicated and regional issue that Palo Alto cannot solve or effectively manage on its own. However, the Committee agreed that immediate action was needed in several areas, one of which was the ordinance mentioned above. To address the concerns faced by the homeless, Council Member Klein made a motion to recommend to Council an investment in the creation of a multi-agency homeless outreach program to address the issues at Cubberley Community Center. The motion was approved as follows: MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price to Recommend to the full Council: City of Palo Alto Page 3 1) That staff develop a program at a one-time cost not to exceed $150,000 to deal with homeless issues brought forward by staff, 2) Direct staff to have the details of the program ready for full Council consideration as soon as it is complete, or as soon thereafter for consideration and approval by Council, 3) Recommendation Number 2, page 7, “Funding match with Santa Clara County for housing subsidies” for an amount not to exceed $100,000 over a two-year period. The recommendations above were made after staff reported that the Cubberley Community Center was being used as an unsanctioned place of residence for many unhoused individuals (see Attachment B – Excerpt from 8/19/13 Policy & Services meeting.) At present, there is an average of eight individuals residing unsheltered on the campus and an additional 25 residing in vehicles in the Cubberley parking lot. The unsheltered number has decreased from an average of 20 since staff initially brought the issue to the Policy and Services Committee in August, perhaps due to the nightly patrols by the Palo Alto Police Department which have taken place since August 1st. In regards to background information on homelessness in Palo Alto, according to data from the 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, the county-wide homeless “Point in Time” count is 7,631. The number of homeless in Palo Alto is 157, which is down from 334 in 2005. According to local social service providers, a portion of that decline can be attributed to the creation of 88 single residency occupancy (SRO) units at the Opportunity Center, 132 SRO units created by Palo Alto Housing Corporation (approximately 35% went to homeless individuals), the efforts of the Downtown Street Team, who have housed over 100 Palo Alto homeless since their inception, and other limited available openings in housing programs that diligent case managers from local social service providers have sought out for their clients. However at the same time, Palo Alto lost 120 SRO units with the closing of the Craig Hotel and Palo Alto Hotel. Discussion In the staff report dated August 13, 2013, two proposals were forwarded for consideration for positively impacting homelessness in Palo Alto: (1) the HOT Team approach and (2) a funding match with Santa Clara County for long-term housing subsidies. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The Committee’s proposals commenced amulti-agency dialogue on homelessness, and thereafter the Community Working Group, Inc. convened a Homeless Services Task Force (Task Force) in order to work collaboratively on issues of homelessness in Palo Alto. Task Force Collaboration The newly-formed Task Force requested that they be given the opportunity to carefully review and forward an approach for the best use of the proposed $250,000 funding. The members of the Task Force included the Community Working Group, InnVision Shelter Network, Downtown Streets Team, Peninsula Health Care Connections, Momentum for Mental Health, Project We Hope, Palo Alto Housing Corporation and Santa Clara County among others. After careful review and discussion, the Task Force carefully analyzed how best to utilize a one-time contribution towards a problem that is very complex and requires a long-term plan and ongoing investment. The Task Force felt strongly that there is a need to work together to create a long-term plan to inform the community on the complexities of the homeless landscape and the need for ongoing funding to positively affect homelessness locally While the Task Force looks forward to being in a dialogue with the Council on a longer-term plan, they appreciate the Council’s willingness to consider some immediate short-term support for housing people and that the approach of combining housing subsidies from the County with case management funded by the City is the most responsible and impactful course of action for this onetime support (see Attachment C – HSTF response to Council.) The most salient point of discussion was that access to permanent housing is the most important ingredient to solving homelessness. While temporary shelters and other interventions are can be helpful, they ultimately do not solve the issue for the long- term. While investing one-time funds of up to $250,000 will by no means solve homelessness in Palo Alto, it could be leveraged with the County support to house 20 individuals. The Task Force and staff agree that this type of investing in long-term housing solutions will have the most significant and long-term impacts on homelessness in Palo Alto. Therefore, with guidance from the Task Force, staff recommends the City collaborate with the County in an effort to provide permanent housing solutions for at least twenty homeless individuals utilizing housing subsidies provided by the County with funding for intensive case management provided by the City at a cost of $125,000 a year with a two-year commitment. ** City of Palo Alto Page 5 County-City Partnership The approach works as follows: The funds will be allocated from the County’s AB190 Grant. The County funds will be used to assist individuals who: 1) have had contact with the criminal justice system; 2) have a high chance of recidivism per the Corrections Assessment and Interventions System (CAIS); 3) significantly impact county, state or local resources; and, 4) are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. This is due to the initial funding source of the County’s housing funds, which can be used in a variety of ways including as tenant-based or project-based rental assistance. County subsidies can go towards permanent supportive housing and/or long- term transitional housing. Permanent supportive housing means that the individual receives an ongoing rental subsidy to be able to remain in their housing unit and will be helped by an intensive case manager to obtain the services needed to remain stably housed. These will be prioritized for individuals who face significant barriers to achieving economic self-sufficiency. Staff anticipates that permanent supportive housing will be targeted to individuals who meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) definition of chronic homelessness. Long-term transitional housing is most often for a two-year period. These subsidies are targeted at individuals who need assistance in getting “off the street” and, it is hoped that with the benefit of a housing subsidy and the assistance of an intensive case manager (ICM), will be able to reach the point of stability to be able to transfer to a non-subsidized unit in the future, therefore “releasing” the transitional subsidy to be used by someone else. The County has budgeted $518,400 for the housing subsidies and the administration of the subsidies over 24 months. Key to the success of these efforts is the work of the intensive case manager. Utilizing a “Housing First” approach, an ICM oversees the total provision of services to address the needs of the client to function at his or her best level in the community, often arranging for appropriate services and support. The ICM coordinates or provides mental health, social work, educational, health care, vocational, housing, transportation, advocacy, respite care, and recreational services, as needed. The ICM ensures that the changing needs of the client are met. The proposed $125,000 per year investment (for two years) by the City as part of the proposed recommendation would be utilized as follows:  Case manager salary plus benefits and payroll taxes, Administration and Management,  Supplies and travel expenses,  Flex fund for the 20 clients. The flex fund is used for items such as a bus pass, rental application fees, storage fees, cell phones to stay connected with the client, interim housing options, security deposits, and move-in assistance. Some of the specific duties of the intensive case manager include:  Locate and assess each new client  Arrange for a housing voucher City of Palo Alto Page 6  Prepare client for housing (addressing both internal and external factors)  Step one - Find a landlord that will rent to the client despite possible extenuating circumstances such as previous evictions, criminal record and how well they present. With a limited subsidy in a competitive rental market this is a very challenging.  Step two is either a) stabilizing client in housing so that they can hold onto housing permanently (overcoming barriers to successful housing such as addiction, paying rent, adhering to a budget, etc.) or b) getting them to the point that they can take over their rent by the end of the subsidy (transitional housing.)  Barriers that are faced by the clients include: substance abuse, mental health, disabilities, hygiene, past evictions, criminal history, lack of additional income, transportation, connectivity (sometimes it’s hard for case managers to even track down their clients without a cell phone). Misconceptions by landlords of the population or subsidy programs To the extent that this program serves chronically homeless individuals, the County would require that the City utilize a case management agency that is part of (or agrees to become a part of) the Care Coordination Project (CCP) of the Housing 1000 Campaign (Housing 1000), which is coordinated by ‘Destination: Home.’ Destination: Home is a public-private partnership galvanizing the community to end chronic homelessness in Santa Clara County. The Housing 1000 Campaign is a county-wide campaign to house 1,000 chronically homeless men and women in Santa Clara County by the end of 2013. This is a local chapter of 100,000 Homes, a national campaign to house 100,000 over the next two years. A community-wide project, the CCP was developed to ensure the effectiveness of services for this population by coordinating and monitoring intensive case management services, as well as providing professional development and improvement opportunities for participating case managers and agencies. The CCP also establishes data collection and performance standards for all participating agencies. Participating in the CCP also benefits the City because it would allow the City to access security deposits, move-in assistance, flexible housing funds, and potentially other housing resources for chronically homeless clients. In Palo Alto, three local agencies are part of the Care Coordination Project; InnVision Shelter Network, Downtown Streets Team, and Momentum for Mental Health. The City has the ability to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select an agency to provide intensive case management as part of this collaboration with the County as well as provide direct oversight of the contract. However, after careful consideration, staff is recommending that the City instead enter into an agreement with the County’s Mental Health Department (MHD) and have them release the RFP and provide oversight of the intensive case management agency as they have the staffing and the direct expertise in homeless services to do so. The City would still retain the ability to create and oversee the referral process of those receiving the subsidies. Both the City and the County would oversee the project. In addition, by allowing the County’s MHD to contract for the intensive case management services, the program may be able to leverage Medi- Cal funding. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Selecting a provider will only be one part of the program. The selected provider, other service providers, the Task Force, the City and County Departments will have to work to: 1. Agree upon a referral and client selection process; 2. Identify interim housing options for willing clients; 3. For program clients, establish access to medical care, mental health services, dental care, and substance abuse services; 4. Identify specific workforce programs for all clients, especially those using the transitional program; and, 5. Identify and gain direct access to housing units, preferably in Palo Alto. The agency selected to provide intensive case management as part of this Palo Alto effort will required to attend weekly County-wide meetings of the Care Coordination Project and keep very specific metrics on client progress that will be shared with staff and can be included in a progress report to Council after one year. Resource Impact Staff recommends an allocation of $250,000 to be disbursed over two years in equal parts for support of intensive case management in connection with housing subsidies for the homeless to be provided by the County of Santa Clara (County) using the City Council Contingency for FY 2014 and potentially using Stanford University Medical Center funds for FY 2015. Due to the urgent nature to fund the homeless housing subsidy, staff recommends allocating the funds from the City Council Contingency for FY 2014 and returning to the City Council in November with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to increase the City Council Contingency in the amount of $125,000 with an offsetting decrease of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. It is important to note that a provision in the SUMC Development Agreement states that funding from this source requires an advisory recommendation from two representatives from both SUMC and the City, which the City Council may consider in its final decision. However, such a committee has not been formed yet. Policy Impact Development of strategies to address the needs of homeless individuals would be consistent with Policy C-20 of the Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan: “Support and promote services addressing the needs of the unhoused community. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 8  : Attachment A -Staff Report 3977 (PDF)  : Attachment B-Excerpt from 8-19-13 P & S mtg (DOC)  : Attachment C -HSTF Comments to Council 10 7 (DOCX) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3977) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 8/13/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approaches to Homeless Programs and Ordinance on Community Center Hours Title: Consideration of Approaches to Positively Impact Homelessness and Ordinance Regarding Establishment of Community Center Hours, including Cubberley, Stern and Mitchell Community Centers From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that: 1. The Committee review alternative approaches for a possible multi-agency and service provider partnership that could have a positive impact on homelessness in Palo Alto. 2. The Policy and Services Committee recommend to Council an ordinance (Attachment A) that establishes hours of public access to the Cubberley Community Center and other City of Palo Alto Community Facilities as sunrise to 10:30 pm daily. Exceptions are allowed for duly authorized city employees or persons participating in city-sponsored activities, or other activities for which the City has provided written permission to utilize the grounds beyond the closing time. The ordinance also allows for the closure of specific facilities during portions of the day or the year as specified by the City Manager or his or her designee. Executive Summary Absent any restriction on hours of access, the Cubberley Community Center is being used by a growing number of individuals as a place of residence rather than a community center. As a multi-purpose public community center, with many preschool and afterschool programs on campus, the Cubberley Community Center has neither the appropriate facilities nor staffing to function in this capacity. Housing is neither the intended purpose nor appropriate use for the Cubberley Community Center. As Cubberley is currently open overnight, staff is concerned for City of Palo Alto Page 2 the safety and security of the Cubberley patrons, tenants, staff and the individuals residing on campus. Staff has been meeting with social service providers and others on means to address the issue of homelessness and use of community facilities and is recommending transitional funding and service enhancements to increase homeless outreach effectiveness and access to better services and alternatives. Additionally, staff recommendations have been developed to ensure that the core function of the community center and other City facilities, i.e., provision of a space for community events and programming is preserved by regulating hours of use (see Draft Ordinance). Background Since 1996, Palo Alto Municipal Code 22.04.320 has restricted access to City parks to between the hours of sunrise and 10:30 pm. There has not been a similar restriction on access to community centers, museums, theatres or City library grounds. There have been five to 10 individuals camping on the Cubberley Community Center campus for a number of years, mostly in their vehicles. In the last two years, the number of over-night inhabitants has increased significantly at this location. Counts vary by night, but there is currently an average of 20 individuals residing unsheltered on campus and an additional 10-20 vehicle dwellers who reside in the Cubberley parking lot. Many of the vehicles leave during the day, but at least eight campers remain on campus at all times. Staff attributes the increase of individuals residing on campus to many factors, including the closure of the Clara Mateo Shelter in Menlo Park, construction closures at the Mitchell Park Community Center, Art Center, and El Camino Park. Longer-term approaches to meeting the needs of neighbors and Cubberley patrons, as well as, individuals who are residing at Cubberley, include a proposed new municipal code ordinance defining the hours of designated public facilities and purposeful and specific outreach to the individuals residing at Cubberley and other City community centers, libraries and museums. Overview of Issues at Cubberley Many of the individuals residing at Cubberley observe the facility rules and their behavior causes no problems to others or staff. However, the actions of some others pose serious concerns. The key concerns are summarized below: City of Palo Alto Page 3 Day time: 1. Shower usage  Facilities are unmonitored, which is not consistent with best practices for a shower program.  Verbal disputes and physical altercations in the shower room.  Some Cubberley dwellers refuse to leave the shower facility by 8 am. 2. Storage of personal belonging on campus and in locker rooms. 3. Health and safety  Bathing and cooking in bathrooms. Night time: 1. Safety concerns as reported by:  Staff o Aggressive actions directed at staff by some individuals including verbal abuse and threats to person safety.  Tenants  Visitors/program participants 2. Health  Urination/defecation in the open.  Dumping of vehicle sewage in bathroom sinks.  Cleaning of food items in bathroom sinks.  Bathing/shaving in bathroom sinks. 3. Drinking and drug use 4. Fights between individuals 5. Overnight sleeping on campus (in vehicles and unsheltered). 6. Trespassing into class rooms for purpose of overnight shelter. Cubberley Facility Showers Many of the vehicle dwellers and individuals leave the campus during the day, but come back at night, usually after 8 pm. There are no specific programs for individuals residing on the Cubberley campus. However, the women’s and men’s locker rooms are open to the public for showering Monday to Friday, from 6:00 am to 8:00 am and are currently only used by the individuals residing at Cubberley during this period. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Over a decade ago, the gymnasium showers were opened for participants in Foothill College Athletic programs starting at 7 am. In 2004, some individuals asked the Cubberley Facility and Human Services Manager if the showers could be opened at 6:00 am to accommodate their work schedules. Although not participants in a Foothill College athletic program, the staff approved the request. At the time there were no other free public showers available in the community. The original public shower times were 6:00 am to 10:00 am. However, after receiving numerous complaints from facility tenants such as Cardiac Therapy Foundation, and Foothill College staff and students regarding the behavior of some of the individuals using the showers, Cubberley staff reduced the hours to 6:00 am to 8:00 am in 2011. The use of the showers is neither a formal City of Palo Alto program nor an official policy, and staff has set a closure date for public use of August 31, 2013. This closure does not require an action by the Council. Cubberley Safety Issues Increasingly, concerns and complaints from the public, program participants and tenants about these behaviors of the individuals residing at Cubberley have been reported to staff at the Cubberley Community Center office. Other more specific complaints have centered on individuals or groups of individuals intoxicated, vehicles that remain in the same location for extended periods of time, lawn chairs that are set up next to RV’s, loud music coming from the parking lot on weekends, syringe needles found around campus, and encounters with half- dressed people going to the showers in the morning. The individuals residing at Cubberley also have reported concerns for their personal safety and health and sanitation violations they have witnessed by other individuals on campus, both in the hallways and in the showers. The Cubberley Community Center custodial staff often report issues related to the individuals residing at Cubberley. For the night time custodial staff, the concerns raise exponentially. Only two custodians are on duty until 12:00 am. Their duties include cleaning and locking up the classrooms and bathrooms. They have witnessed numerous fights between individuals residing on campus, incidents of public drunkenness, cooking and cleaning of utensils and laundry in the bathrooms. At times, the janitors hesitate to approach an individual regarding their behavior due to personal safety concerns. Some individuals residing on campus also have approached staff to ask them to intervene with inter-personal disputes. Staff has called the Police Department when they become aware that criminal incidents have occurred. Over the past year, the Police Department has made a few arrests for battery and outstanding warrants on the Cubberley campus. However, for a majority of the calls for service, the Police do not make arrests. Most frequently, by the time the police arrive the parties have already left the scene or refuse to press charges against one another. Because either the Police did not witness the incident or because of a lack of victim cooperation, the Police was unable to take further action in regard to these incidents. City of Palo Alto Page 5 For a three-month period in spring 2013, Community Services felt the need to provide a security guard on campus at night to ensure staff safety after a threat was made to staff by an individual residing on campus. The Police Department filed a criminal complaint in regard to this incident and subsequently was able to obtain a protective order for the involved staff member. Claim Against the City for Injury Sustained in the Showers On June 10, 2013, the City received a claim for approximately $51,000 in damages filed by an individual as a result of a physical injury (fractured index finger) sustained by another individual residing at Cubberley while using the shower facility at Cubberley. Assault Incident on June 19, 2013 On June 19, 2013, the PAPD arrested a man for assaulting another man on the Cubberley Campus with a deadly weapon. Witnesses informed the Police Department that both men resided at Cubberley and the assault was precipitated by a dispute over national origin. DISCUSSION During 2013, staff has been working to find approaches to address the issues at Cubberley Community Center. Meetings have been conducted with Community Services Department, Police Department and City Manager’s Office staff to gather information and analyze workable solutions. Staff also solicited feedback about their experiences with the individuals residing at Cubberley from all Cubberley residents and had more extended conversations with long term and larger key campus tenants. These conversations shed light on the scope of the issues. Staff has also discussed the issues at Cubberley on several occasions with the key homeless services partners in Palo Alto including Downtown Streets Team, Inn Vision Shelter Network and Momentum for Mental Health, as well as, with the Community Working Group. Homeless services partners have provided regular outreach and/or support on the Cubberley campus and other City facilities and have been part of a larger conversation on possible approaches to addressing camping at City facilities and associated problems. In regards to the showers at Cubberley, social service providers have said the best practices for a homeless shower program are those that are staffed and monitored, which is not the case at Cubberley. Many of the individuals residing at Cubberley are known to the social service providers and have been homeless for many years. Since many homeless individuals have mental health and/or substance abuse challenges, assisting them is not a matter of making a single contact. Service providers work to establish trust between provider and individual. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Potential Approach - Response Plan While the Committee may consider a number of approaches, a proposed response plan was developed with the input and support of our key homeless social service partners to address immediate and long-term issues of homelessness in the community and individuals residing at Cubberley, as described below. Phase 1 – Immediate At present, under the leadership of the Downtown Street Team, the following actions have occurred or are on-going. 1. Assessment of individuals residing on campus 2. Monitoring of men’s and women’s showers: a. Informing shower users of pending shower closure. b. Providing Case Manager Outreach to individuals using showers. c. Providing incentives (including VTA bus tokens) to encourage individuals to start using showers at Opportunity Services Center. Phase 2 – Longer Term Enhance Social Services Staff recommends developing a plan to enhance services for un-housed and under-housed individuals through one of the approaches listed below. In all conversations with our homeless service partners on the most effective way to address the issue at City facilities, the need for a more comprehensive, community-wide approach was emphasized. The following longer term approaches were recommended by the homeless service providers and submitted for review by the Policy & Services Committee. 1. Creation of a Palo Alto Homeless Outreach Team (HOT). A HOT team would serve to engage, case manage, transport and ultimately secure housing as available for the most challenging to serve homeless individuals with mental health and substance abuse challenges (individuals who have been residing on the street for extended period of time and are resistant to services, etc.). The approach would be tailored for each individual. Comprised of staff members of local homeless service providers (with a key agency identified), public stakeholders and other community partners, the team would focus first on individuals at the Cubberley site, and then expand their geographic scope to homeless residents of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Page 7 One of our key local homeless service providers, Inn Vision Shelter Network, has successfully implemented HOT programming in East Palo Alto, San Mateo and Redwood City. They have recently received awards to expand HOT programming to Half Moon Bay, Pacifica and South San Francisco. The approximate cost for a HOT team is $150,000 for one year. Funding of this program would need to be transitioned to other Santa Clara County or privately-financed programs after one year. 2. Funding match with Santa Clara County for housing subsidies. Staff has been in conversation with the Director of Homeless Systems for the County of Santa Clara on possible county funding of combination of transitional and long term rent subsidies for ten homeless individuals who primarily have had contact with the criminal justice system and have a high chance of recidivism and who significantly impact county, state or local resources. However, t`his would require a two-year, $50,000 annual local commitment to fund a case manager. Santa Clara County would match the City’s contribution each year at the same amount, $50,000. Management of such of project would fall to the local homeless service provider who is the designated lead agency as selected by the County. Ordinance Staff also recommends the Policy and Services Committee recommend to Council an ordinance (Attachment A) that defines reasonable hours of public access to community facilities to be sunrise to 10:30 pm daily. Additional Information-Demographics: In regard to background information on homelessness in Palo Alto, according to the recently released data from the 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, the number of homeless in Palo Alto is 157. For comparison, counts for our neighboring cities are; Mountain View – 137, Los Altos – 4, and Sunnyvale – 425 (count taken at time when winter shelter was open at the Sunnyvale Armory.) The county wide count is 7,631 (see Attachment B for summary of key census findings). In its comprehensive 2011 Human Services Needs Assessment, the Human Relations Commission surveyed and held focus groups with homeless individuals and providers in Palo Alto (see Attachment C), and found that gaps in services to the homeless center around the need for more case managers to work one to one with individuals and available placements affordable housing. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Timeline If the ordinance is recommended by the Policy and Services Committee, the ordinance would be presented for a first reading to the City Council in October 2013. The ordinance would go into effect thirty days after the passage of the second reading of the ordinance. Resource Impact Enforcement of the proposed ordinance would be accomplished with existing Police staff resources. No additional staffing is proposed at this time. The resource impact for the development of social service outreach programs is dependent on the approach recommended by the Policy & Services Committee and approved by the Council. The approximate cost for a HOT Team is $150,000 per year. The funding match with Santa Clara County for housing subsidies would require a two year, $50,000 per year commitment on behalf of the City. Policy Implications Adoption of an ordinance regulating the hours and proper use of community facilities would be consistent with Policy C-9 of the Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan: “Deliver City services in a manner that creates and reinforces positive relationships among City employees, residents, businesses, and other Stakeholders, “ as well as Policies C-22 (community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community) and C-23 (expand the space available in the community for art exhibits, classes and other cultural activities. Development of strategies to address the needs of homeless individuals would be consistent with Policy C-20 of the Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan: “Support and promote services addressing the needs of the unhoused community.” Attachments:  -: Attachment A - 0160023 Ordinance Closing Community Centers v5 FG (DOCX)  -: Attachment B -'13 Homeless Census SCC Summarypage (PDF)  -: Attachment C - Excerpt from Human Services Needs Assessment conducted by the Human Relations Commission in 2011 (DOCX)  -: Attachment D - HSRAP-CDBG Support for Homless Related Services August (XLS) 1 *NOT YET APPROVED* ORDINANCE NO. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.06 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) to add Section 9.06.020 – Overnight Use of Community Facilities Prohibited The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: (a) The City Council hereby updates Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to provide for overnight closure of public libraries, community centers, theaters, interpretive buildings, and Art Center is essential to maintain and promote the public health, safety and welfare, to provide for the continued effective management of public property, and to provide for the continued enjoyment and accessibility of public property by all Palo Alto residents and the public at large; and (b) The overnight use of public libraries, community centers, theaters, interpretive buildings, and Art Center causes the City to incur increased costs for policing, maintenance, sanitation, garbage removal, animal control, and other problems which may arise; and (c) The overnight use of public libraries, community centers, theaters, interpretive buildings, and Art Center hinders public access to the services provided at those facilities; and (d) Public libraries, community centers, theaters, interpretive buildings, and Art Center are not intended for overnight use, during hours when the grounds are unstaffed and unmonitored, which creates a risk to the health, safety, and welfare of those persons on the grounds, as well as the public at large. SECTION 2. Section 9.61.020 (Community Facilities Closed Midnight to Sunrise) of Chapter 9.61 (Regulation of Community Facilities) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: “9.61.020 Use of Community Facilities Prohibited from Midnight to Sunrise No person shall use, remain in or enter any Community Facilities between 10:30pm and sunrise, other than a duly authorized city employee or persons participating in city-sponsored activities or other activities for which the city has provided written 2 permission to utilize the grounds beyond the closing time, provided however that the additional closure of specific facilities during portions of the day or the year may be specified by the City Manager or his or her designee. For the purposes of this chapter, “Community Facilities” means all buildings and premises of City of Palo Alto Libraries, the Cubberley Community Center, Lucie Stern Community Center, Children's Theatre, Community Theatre, Junior Museum & Zoo, Mitchell Park Community Center and Field House, Art Center, Peers Park Field House, Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, Pearson Arastradero Preserve Gateway Center and Foothills Park Interpretive Center, but not any land dedicated for park use.” SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Every two years in January, communities across the country conduct comprehensive counts of their homeless population to gain a better understanding of the individuals who are currently experiencing homelessness, and to apply for federal funding for homeless programs. The 2013 Santa Clara County Point-in-Time Count was a community-wide effort conducted on January 29th and 30th, 2013. In the weeks following the street count, a survey was administered to 856 unsheltered and sheltered homeless individuals, in order to profi le their experience and characteristics. Sheltered Unsheltered 2004 2007 2009 2011 2013 SHELTERED INCLUDES: UNSHELTERED INCLUDES: OBSTACLES TO SECURING PERMANENT HOUSING EncampmentAreas 19% Cars/vans/RVs 16% Abandoned buildings 9% On the street 31% Emergency Shelter12% Transitional Housing 13% Safe Haven <1% SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2013 Homeless Census & Survey HOMELESS CENSUS NINE-YEAR TREND ETHNICITY (TOP 4 RESPONSES)GENDER 31% 67% 2%6% 22% 28% 31%Men Women Transgender 1 year or more1-11 months30 days or less Hispanic White Black Multi-ethnic 52% of those experiencing homelessness for the first time had been homeless for one year or more AGE FOSTER CARE(respondents that have ever been in the system) 16% 77%25+ 14%18-24 9%Under 18 Yes (46%) No (54%) 2013 2011 FIRST TIME HOMELESSNESS DURATION OF HOMELESSNESS 35% 9% 56% 13% 41%47% 93% of survey respondents said YES when asked if they would want affordable permanent housing were it available. JOBS Bad Credit | 21% No housing availability | 18% No money for moving costs | 30% No job/income | 54% 26%74% 7,0677,0867,202 7,646 7,631 A disabling condition is defined here as a physical disability, mental illness, chronic depression, alcohol or drug abuse, chronic health problems, HIV/AIDS, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), or a developmental disability. What is a disabling condition? WHAT MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED RESPONDENTS’ HOMELESSNESS (TOP 4 RESPONSES) 42%34% $ 24% Employment Assistance Rent/Mortgage Assistance Mental Health Services 21% Alcohol/DrugCounseling 64% of survey respondents reported a disabling condition. DISABLING CONDITIONS Mental illness* (51%) Substance abuse (17%) Chronic physical illness (12%) Physical disability (14%) Developmental disability (4%) * Mental illness includes PTSD, depression, and other mental illnesses including bipolar and schizophrenia.Note: Multiple response question, numbers will not total to 100%. Source: Applied Survey Research. (2013). Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey. Watsonville, CA. For more detail or to view the comprehensive report, please visit www.appliedsurveyresearch.org. SERVICES & ASSISTANCE EMERGENCY ROOM USE in the past 12 months 65% 35% of respondents reported receiving government benefits reported were NOT receiving any government benefits Government services received (Top 3 Responses) Reasons for NOT receiving government services(Top 3 Responses) Calfresh, WIC or food stamps 61% GeneralAssistance 38%338% PANHANDLINGANHANDLING $5.90 per day is the average income for those survey respondents who reported panhandling INCARCERATION spent at least 1 or more nights in jail or prison in the past 12 months28% Never 1-3 times 4+ times 49% 35% 16% $250or less is the amount that 71% of respondents reported as their total monthly income. Summary These data provide a snapshot of those experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County on January 29th and 30th. It provides a basic estimation of the number and characteristics of those experiencing homelessness on any given night in order to inform future service planning and provisioning efforts. SSI/SSDI 15% Don’t need government assistance 19% Don’t think you are eligible 23% Income Gap Self-Sufficiency StandardRespondent’s Income $2,906/mo $250/mo $$$ Never applied 15% Excerpt from Human Services Needs Assessment conducted by the Human Relations Commission in 2011. Homelessness (including permanent and temporary housing and the assistance needed to get into and remain in housing) Definition: Estimates vary of the number of homeless in Palo Alto from 200 – 400. Homelessness takes a number of forms, of which these three predominate: 1) Situational or transitional: This is when someone is forced into homelessness because of uncontrollable circumstances such as losing a job and loss of the main breadwinner (father, husband, wife), etc. Also in this category are those with an urgent need for temporary shelter because of domestic abuse. 2) Episodic or cyclical: This is when a person repeatedly falls in and out of homelessness, as often happens with drug addicts and with people experiencing mental health issues. A person might live with episodes of severe depression and fall back in homelessness when these occur. 3) Chronic: This is when an individual is on the street for a long period of time and has very few or no resources at his or her disposal to modify their situation. Often, these people will suffer from mental health issues. They won’t have the ability to modify their situation without the support of others. Needs: Of the basic needs, emergency and permanent housing for low-income residents is in the shortest supply. What is available for permanent housing in Palo Alto (rental and for purchase) has come from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Community Working Group, Opportunity Center, CDBG- and other publically-assisted low-income housing, and Section 8 vouchers through the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. The Opportunity Center also provides emergency shelter through the Hotel de Zink program with a 15-bed rotating-shelter for men, hosted by Palo Alto area faith communities. This year there was also a Hotel de Zink for women, run by a Stanford student group called Night Outreach. It operated under the auspices of the Opportunity Center. Students raised the money, but there is uncertainty about whether they can come up with the money to do so again. It closed at the end of April. There are no other homeless shelters in North County; the Clara-Mateo Shelter at the VA in Menlo Park closed last year. The closest resource is the National Guard Armory in Sunnyvale that provides 125 beds, but is only open from November – March. Most other homeless shelters are in San Jose and have waiting lists. One key area where HSRAP enters the picture is through the services that help qualify individuals for such housing. That involves primarily mental and physical health care, employment, treatment and control of substance abuse, and other supports unique to individuals. Right next to housing itself is the interpersonal support to get homeless individuals into it and to provide the encouragement, assistance, and, as necessary, interventions to keep them in it. This is where case management or a comparable framework is crucial. Case management combines expertise, trust, and commitment to deal with issues such as landlord disputes, bouts of joblessness, regression regarding substance abuse, and the like—and to provide encouragement, to pave paths to increasing independence, and to move someone out of dependence so that another can be helped. A prime Palo Alto example of a program that amplifies case management is the Downtown Streets Team (DST) where a job, housing, and personal support can lead to increasing independence. Through its collaboration with Manpower, Inc., the DST links individuals with potentially permanent jobs and the coaching and guidance to capitalize on the employment opportunity Because Palo Alto is generally seen as a generous community, where temporary assistance, panhandling, and respectful police enforcement attenuate the pressure on the homeless to take initiative toward independence, our community is perceived on balance, as friendly to those who are un-housed. This does not mean it is problem-free, or that homeless individuals don’t need assistance to move toward self-sufficiency. But it does explain why, compared to neighboring towns, Palo Alto appears to have greater numbers than they of homeless and panhandlers. Downtown merchants have longstanding concerns about this, and the Police Department has assigned a special patrol to insure safety and cleanliness in the University Avenue area and associated parks and parking lots. Providers: Four agencies have programs in Palo Alto serving the homeless. All are HSRAP grantees. The InnVision-Opportunity Center’s services include assistance for singles and families in need, providing for basic needs, case management, food, showers, laundry, computer lab, health care, lockers, and children’s activities, and oversees the “breaking bread” program (which is a free hot meal program at local churches), a food closet at a local church, permanent housing for singles and families, and temporary rotating shelter program. Downtown Street Team (DST) members work in a variety of capacities in exchange for vouchers for food and other necessities. DST also provides participants with case management, transportation assistance, temporary and permanent housing as available and job search skills to work toward greater skills and independence. Momentum for Mental Health, a county-wide agency, provides a variety of mental health services. HSRAP funding supports a 12-hour homeless outreach specialist who is employed by Momentum. Peninsula Health Care Connections provides free medical, psychiatric and intensive case management for the homeless and those at risk of being homeless. Interrelations: The agencies in Palo Alto listed above work very closely together. The City’s Office of Human Services facilitates a bi-monthly meeting of North County homeless services providers called the Off the Streets Team, where the discussion usually centers on the needs of clients. The Police Department facilitates a monthly meeting called North County Alternative Services, comprised of personnel from the Police Department, Office of Human Services, District Attorney’s office, Veteran’s Administration, and County Mental Health service providers, among others. This group works on a restorative justice model to work with the homeless who are in frequent contact with the criminal justice system to connect them with housing and services. Gaps: All of the agencies working with the homeless are dealing with the basic needs of a very vulnerable segment of our population. A key finding of this report is the importance of meeting basic needs first and is highlighted by Philip Dah, Executive Director of the Opportunity Center who said “Basic needs are, indeed, food, clothing, and shelter. Those needs need to be met before a person can pay attention to medications, physical and mental health, looking for work, etc., and before a case worker can get any traction on other problems.” Beyond basic needs, homelessness requires special, usually one-on-one, relationships with case workers or similarly dedicated professionals to move from homelessness to independence and housing. Finally, the housing needs to be there as do services that enable the formerly homeless to maintain this new level of independence. FY 2014 Funding for Homeless Service Programs (HSRAP/CDBG) Agencies providing homeless services Agency Program Description 2008-09 Funding Amount 2009-10 Funding Amount 2010-11 Funding Amount 2011-12 Funding Amount 2012-13 Funding Amount 2013-14 Funding Amount HSRAP Community Technology Alliance Support for program operating expenses to provides technical tools to partnering agencies addressing chronic homelessness; provides a phone number for homeless and at-risk individuals to improve their access to employment, housing, and other social services.12,700$ 12,065$ 12,065$ 5,432$ 5,432$ $ 5,823 Downtown Streets Team Staff salaries and program expenses to provide a work-first model geared toward the homeless and at-risk individuals in the community through training, weekly success team. meetings 37,700$ 35,815$ 35,815$ 33,666$ 33,666$ $ 36,090 InnVision Shelter Network Staf salaries to operate Opportunity Services Center's nutrition program including daily meal and grocery programs. 8,920$ 8,920$ $ 12,340 Momentum for Mental Health Staff salary for Homeless Outreach Specialist who conducts direct street outreach to locations in Palo Alto and provides in person training to public and private entities in Palo Alto on homelesslness.27,000$ 25,650$ 25,650$ 24,111$ 24,111$ $ 25,847 Peninsula HealthCare Connection Inc Staff salary for outreach case worker who will seek out homeless individuals who are suffering from various untreated mental and medical conditions; work to secure housing and monitor the client's progress and keep them connected to the various medical, psychiatric and counseling services.25,000$ 25,000$ $ 26,800 TOTAL 77,400$ 73,530$ 73,530$ 97,129$ 97,129$ 106,900$ FY 2014 Funding for Homeless Service Programs (HSRAP/CDBG) CDBG InnVision the Way Home Staff salaries for case workers to handle intake for drop in clients at the Opportunity Services Center. 31,160$ 34,211$ 50,000$ 37,175$ 48,852$ InnVision the Way HomeCMA Staff salaries for emergency shelter 36,361$ 33,068$ -$ -- Palo Alto Housing Corp Staff salaries for SRO Resident Suport 31,160$ 34,211$ 26,000$ 20,375$ 32,413$ Downtown Steets Inc. Staff salaries and operational expenses (supplies) for workforce development program. 280,353$ TOTAL 98,681$ 101,490$ 76,000$ 57,550$ 361,618$ CDBG funding recommendationfor 2013-14 is pending final City Council approval in August. POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 13 EXCERPT ONLY Special Meeting August 13, 2013 Agenda Items 1. Consideration of Approaches to Positively Impact Homelessness and Ordinance Regarding Establishment of Community Center Hours, including Cubberley, Stern and Mitchell Community Centers. Rob De Geus, Assistant Director of Community Serves reported Cubberley Community Center (Cubberley) was a de facto homeless shelter with approximately 20 people residing on the campus and 18-20 vehicle dwellers using the parking lot nightly. Fighting, bathing, cooking in bathrooms, storage of belongings across the campus, verbal abuse of City Staff, use of alcohol and illegal drugs, and trespassing in classrooms occurred daily. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Community Services Program Manager indicated a point-in-time count found 7,600 homeless people in Santa Clara County and 157 homeless people in Palo Alto. Requests for homeless services totaled 28,000. A shortfall of affordable rental housing and an increase in poverty were primarily responsible for the rise in homelessness. Staff worked with the Police Department, the City Manager's Office, and service providers to analyze potential workable solutions. Since July 31, 2013, Staff and counselors from the Downtown Streets Team monitored showers at Cubberley and attempted to connect individuals with services. Staff decided to close the showers at Cubberley effective August 31, 2013. Chris Richardson, Downtown Streets Team mentioned that the purpose of the needs assessment and outreach was to inform the Council about the nature of the problem and possible solutions. The average number of people using the Cubberley showers was 20.75. Approximately 13 vehicles utilized the parking lot at Cubberley nightly, and an average of 11 people camped on the Cubberley campus without a vehicle. Respondents to the assessment lived in Palo Alto for an average of 12 years. Respondents primarily utilized programs for food and meals, medical care, and lockers for storage. Of the 16 respondents, nine utilized showers at the Opportunity Center, and seven MINUTES Page 2 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 did not; 11 were interested in transitional or emergency shelter; and 14 wanted to work with a case manager on permanent subsidized housing. Greg Penzinger, Downtown Streets Team Project Manager provided shower alternatives to the Cubberley homeless population. Many did not know where they would go for showers once the program ceased on August 31, 2013. Ms. Van Der Zwaag believed the most effective method to address the homeless issue at City facilities was a comprehensive, community-wide approach. Staff requested the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) to review alternatives for multi-agency partnerships. One recommendation was funding the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT). Mila Zelkha, InnVision Shelter Network noted a HOT Team was one of many tools that could be used. The proposal was meant to start a multi-agency dialog regarding homelessness. The community working group offered to convene a homeless services task force. Ms. Van Der Zwaag explained that a HOT Team was a cross-functional group of service providers working together to move homeless people into housing and to provide people with stability. A HOT Team managed, engaged, transported and secured housing for homeless residents. The team first focused on individuals at Cubberley, then expanded to other homeless areas in Palo Alto. The cost for a HOT Team program was approximately $150,000 annually. Staff's second recommendation was to have housing subsidies be provided by the County of Santa Clara (County). The County had possible funding for a combination of transitional and long-term rent subsidies for ten homeless individuals who primarily had contact with the criminal justice system. The suggested funding was divided between City and County: County provided funding for rental subsidies and the City provided funding for a case manager for two years. The project was managed by a local homeless service provider selected by the County. Experts indicated incentives worked best when combined with an element of enforcement. Staff, therefore supported a Committee recommendation to the Council of an Ordinance to define reasonable hours of public access to community facilities. The proposed Ordinance did not affect any prescheduled use of City facilities. Greg Betts, Director of Community Services wanted to consider the best operation of Cubberley for the safety of Staff, visitors and program users when attempting to determine solutions to the homeless issue. MINUTES Page 3 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Chair Kniss was interested in taking a human services approach to the issue. She acknowledged residents' concerns about Cubberley, but wanted to work toward a solution that provided enforcement and oversight. Ron Watson, Police Captain reported an increase in activity at Cubberley. He noted that it was a small number of the homeless population that was creating a problem. The previous evening, police officers arrested a female carrying a large number of baggies containing methamphetamines. Two weeks prior, police officers struggled with and arrested an intoxicated, belligerent individual at Cubberley. Enforcement and services were needed at Cubberley. Chair Kniss noted that police officers utilized overtime to monitor Cubberley. Council Member Klein inquired about the cost of overtime to monitor Cubberley. Mr. Watson stated monitoring six hours a night cost the City approximately $14,000 per month, $170,000 per year. Council Member Holman inquired about the length of time between funding a program for the homeless and seeing the positive results. Dr. Brian Greenberg, InnVision Shelter Network explained HOT would ask police officers to identify homeless people with the most complaints and emergency room contacts. Moving the most difficult homeless people into housing created a different quality of life for the entire community. The implementation period of HOT was approximately 30-60 days. The HOT list was limited to 30-40 names; they needed to move one-fourth of those on the list to housing in the first year and one-half each subsequent year. Council Member Holman felt one of the difficulties of any program was the immediate impact on the people. She inquired about the relationship between InnVision and healthcare providers in terms of services and funding. Mr. Greenberg worked with police officers to detain people that were chronically inebriated and try to offer them services. InnVision encouraged transition from the streets to a shelter, which included services and placement into housing. InnVision worked with police officers, medical professionals, and community-based organizations in a village approach. InnVision worked with homeless people to make better decisions and to move out of poverty. MINUTES Page 4 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Council Member Holman asked about InnVision's relationship with medical service providers. Mr. Greenberg believed substance abuse recovery services were a critical component to sustaining housing. InnVision used Hotel de Zink as a transition to housing. InnVision attempted to engage homeless people for behavioral healthcare services prior to housing them. Council Member Holman inquired whether the National Guard Armory in Sunnyvale could be utilized for housing outside of the November to March timeframe. Ky Le, Director of Homeless Systems for the County believed the National Guard Armory could be utilized as interim housing from November to March if the individuals had a place to go after their interim stay at the shelter. Council Member Holman asked if the National Guard Armory could be used as a shelter beyond the November to March timeframe. Mr. Le reported the County did not budget for that service but could discuss the option with the Cities of Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. Generally, the County did not expand emergency shelter services, but attempted to provide direct access to permanent or long-term housing. Council Member Holman inquired about InnVision's proposal to form a HOT Team. Ray Bacchetti, Homeless Services Task Force indicated many areas of expertise were needed for the homeless issue. HOT Teams, along with other actions were being considered for a comprehensive program. Council Member Holman wanted to see an organizational chart to identify services, responsibilities, and funding. Mr. Bacchetti stated an organizational chart existed in part but needed to be compiled into one group. Council Member Price felt this conversation was a beginning to many partnerships. She inquired whether a HOT Team approach could provide resources in Palo Alto. Mr. Greenberg related that HOT Teams were operating in Redwood City, San Mateo, and East Palo Alto, although they were not the answer to the entire homeless problem; many providers were still needed to work with homeless people. Moving the most difficult homeless situations into housing was going to provide the greatest impact to the community. MINUTES Page 5 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Ms. Zelkha listed three consistent questions regarding homelessness in Palo Alto were whether Palo Alto was a magnet for homeless people, did Palo Alto residents do their fair share, and what happened to a homeless person who was turned away from services. She assembled a multidisciplinary team to consider the three questions when conducting an audit of existing services for the homeless situation in the mid-Peninsula region. In working with the unhoused, the task force considered approaches that were specific to Palo Alto. Council Member Price inquired about how to measure outcomes and/or success with the HOT Team approach and whether partner organizations already had existing strategic plans. Ms. Zelkha did not know who the partner organizations were or what they offered. She mentioned that the task force would gather resources, expertise, and knowledge. Mr. Greenberg explained that the HOT Team list never reached zero because police departments added new names to the list as others were removed. He encouraged the Committee to contact the chief of police in San Mateo and Redwood City regarding their experiences with the HOT Program. . Council Member Klein asked where the homeless population would go if the proposed Ordinance closing community centers passed. Ms. Zelkha replied saying that was the reason multiple agencies, including the County were needed for a solution. The task force included the Community Working Group and Palo Alto Housing Corporation, two housing service providers; the homeless were displaced as of August 31, 2013. Council Member Klein believed the number of homeless people at Cubberley increased within the past year. He asked if there was another area where the homeless population would move to if Cubberley closed. Ms. Zelkha did not know but said one possibility was expanding the Hotel de Zink program. She added that it was not possible for a service provider to create housing. Mr. Greenberg indicated that many graduates of the shelters frequently worked in the service sector on one side of the Bay and lived on the other side. Those workers were not able to afford to live in Palo Alto or San Francisco. Mr. Watson reported the highest count of homeless people that were non- vehicle dwellers, living at Cubberley on a single night in the past two weeks MINUTES Page 6 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 was around 30. The number of people varied from four to 15 people. He noted that the police presence seemed to discourage the homeless population at Cubberley. Council Member Klein inquired about the number of vehicle dwellers at Cubberley. Mr. Watson indicated it varied from 9 to 20 over the past few weeks. Chair Kniss opened the meeting up to public comment. Edie Groner depended on Cubberley Community Center for education and recreation. The proposed Ordinance did not prevent Cubberley from being used as a shelter during the day. Alice Smith thanked Staff for an interesting and detailed report. She thought a task force should be implemented to find a working solution to homelessness and she requested that the Committee not adopt the proposed Ordinance until the City had a working solution. Karen Sundback supported adoption of the proposed Ordinance, but did not support the homeless program at Cubberley. The program did not have a schedule for removing homeless people from Cubberley. She did not think a community center should be a homeless shelter. Palo Alto Free Press believed the homeless problem at Cubberley could have been prevented by the Human Relations Commission (HRC). They thought the Public Defender should be involved in the HOT Team, rather than the District Attorney. Ray Bacchetti, Homeless Services Task Force expressed interest in working with City Staff to develop an implementation strategy to leverage City funds. He added that the expertise of many agencies could help with the homeless challenge. Diane Jones offered her time and experiences as a homeless person to find a long-term solution to the problem. She added that most service providers catered to drug abusers. Litsie Indergand, a supporter of The Opportunity Center endeavored to find a positive solution for the homeless. Katie Fantin, Vineyard Christian Fellowship of the Peninsula reported several of the homeless people at Cubberley were open to other housing options. MINUTES Page 7 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 She was concerned about closing Cubberley without having alternatives in place for the homeless people. Andrew Voltmer encouraged the City to preserve Cubberley as a community center and not a homeless shelter. Judith Schwartz felt the ideas presented were good; however, the deadline for closing Cubberley was only two weeks away. She wanted the community to find an alternative location for a temporary shelter and suggested the transition time be extended. Lynn Huidekoper inquired whether the Committee had completed a formal needs assessment at Cubberley. Chair Kniss was unaware of an assessment being performed at Cubberley; she requested Staff to contact Ms. Huidekoper with information. Ms. Huidekoper believed the bulk of vehicle dwellers were middle class citizens with jobs. The shower facilities at The Opportunity Center were not sufficient for the number of homeless people needing the facilities. She thought closing Cubberley should be delayed until an alternative site could be found. Gertrude Reagan asked the Committee to delay implementation of the proposed Ordinance to allow a transition period. Greg Rodgers noted the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance would not be enforced until the end of 2013; however, the Committee was considering a proposal that would implement the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance. He asked where the vehicle dwellers would go if the proposed Ordinance was adopted. Aram James reported violation of the proposed Ordinance would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. He suggested the second reading of the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance be removed from the Consent Calendar at the August 19, 2013 Council meeting. The task force did not include representatives of the homeless population. William Conlon wanted to ensure homeless people were not forced out of Palo Alto. He thought the City should give the community time to identify resources and possible solutions. Lois Salo stated the homeless were humans and deserved to have a decent life. MINUTES Page 8 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Cybele supported formation of the task force. She suggested vehicle dwellers utilize the Veterans Administration parking lot, that a transition period be implemented, and that the second reading of the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance be removed from the Consent Calendar. Penny Ellson supported the proposed Ordinance and requested additional restrictions be implemented at Cubberley. The homeless problem at Cubberley began two years ago and the homelessness situation required a regional solution. Carolyn Doberuiv indicated Cubberley was important as a community center. A transitional shelter was a potential solution. Elizabeth Alexis felt Cubberley should be closed to the homeless. Many parking programs for vehicle dwellers did not provide amenities. Raj Achutha Narayan believed Cubberley was a magnet for homeless people. Homeless people left their belongings under the soccer stands and moved in once the games ended in the evening. Mary Anne Deierlein expressed concern about homeless people occupying Cubberley during the daytime. He did not think Cubberley should serve as a de facto homeless shelter. Chuck Jagoda stated the homeless population at Cubberley had pride. Edie Keating inquired whether closing Cubberley at night would impede the work of the HOT Team. She requested the Committee consider a multi-city parking program for vehicle dwellers. Nick Selby supported a multi-agency partnership and dialog. He thought that if Cubberley closed at night, homeless people would disperse to other areas. Mary Shaw did not feel safe walking at Cubberley. She wanted the proposed Ordinance to be adopted and wanted an alternative location to be found for the vehicle dwellers. Michael Hollingshead reported that Stanford Hospital wanted to be a collaborative partner in the homeless issue and added that the Palo Alto Homeless Coalition included the Public Defender's Office. MINUTES Page 9 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Pastor Paul Bains founded Project “We Hope,” which built a shelter in East Palo Alto. He announced that homeless people in Palo Alto were invited to the shelter and to use the showers. Chair Kniss asked the location of the shelter. Mr. Bains specified the address was 1858 Bay Road, East Palo Alto. The shelter fed and housed 50 people nightly; the Opportunity Center and Downtown Streets Team referred some people to We Hope. Paul Mitchell was a vehicle dweller at Cubberley and said the Opportunity Center did not have enough showers. He suggested Cubberley not be closed to vehicle dwellers because of this fact. Barbara Goodwin felt it was unfair for the “difficult” homeless people to receive the majority of attention and services proposed by the HOT Team and requested the Committee consider postponing the ban on vehicle habitation. Stephanie Munoz felt the City should provide monitors for the homeless population at Cubberley and register all homeless people using Cubberley. Mr. Betts clarified that The Opportunity Center had five operational showers. Mr. De Geus reported The Opportunity Center had shower programs, drop-in centers for individuals and families, lockers for storage, healthcare, and case management. Chair Kniss added that The Opportunity Center offered mental health services. Mr. De Geus noted the closing of Cubberley in two weeks related to the showers only. Pam Antil, Assistant City Manager declared City Staff was not qualified to operate a shelter and said the proposed Ordinance should include the plazas around City Hall; therefore, Staff requested the Committee add those areas to the language of the proposed Ordinance. Council Member Klein inquired whether Staff supported implementation of the HOT Program now or after review of a task force recommendation. MINUTES Page 10 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Mr. De Geus reported the HOT Program was the first program discussed. Partner agencies met and discussed other programs and requested time to draft a recommendation. Council Member Klein requested Staff's recommendation. Mr. De Geus indicated Staff's recommendation was to implement a HOT Team Program, with some flexibility within the program. Council Member Klein suggested the recommendation to the Council should be to spend $150,000 on a program to be determined by Staff, subject to approval by the Council. Mr. De Geus agreed with Council Member Klein. Ms. Antil added that Staff would provide more details regarding a program when the recommendation was presented to the Council. Council Member Holman inquired about the cost to increase the police presence at Cubberley from 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. for 30 days. Mr. Watson reported the cost would be $28,000 per month. The Police Department was short of personnel and had difficulty filling normal overtime. With other overtime requests, officers were possibly not available for overtime at Cubberley. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX to recommend the City Council: 1) refer matter to the Human Relations Commission, charge Human Relations Commission and relevant City Staff to identify a structured proposal within 30 days with potential funding sources and a request for funding to address homeless issues discussed this evening with additional critical related matters. Such a structured proposal would include relevant organizations, related programs and responsibilities, relevant funding and a means to measure success. Proposal will not be the final word on this subject but intended to get the City on solid near-term footing for solutions; 2) provide $75,000 to expand the Hotel de Zink program, continue Downtown Street Teams work, and look at expanding Sunnyvale Armory opening earlier; and 3) direct Staff to turn off Wi-Fi at library closing time until opening time the following day; turn off electricity to external outlets at closing time; provide alternative access to showers for people; lock dumpsters in non-work hours; increase patrols at Cubberley; tow unregistered vehicles; and discard unattended belongings. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF SECOND MINUTES Page 11 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price to recommend to the full Council: 1) that Staff develop a program at a one- time cost not to exceed $150,000 to deal with homeless issues discussed tonight; 2) that Staff provide the details of the program as soon as complete, or as soon as possible thereafter, for consideration and approval by the Council; 3) approval of Recommendation Number 2, page 7 of the Staff Report, “funding match with Santa Clara County for housing subsidies;” and 4) approve an Ordinance (Attachment A) that establishes hours of public access to the Cubberley Community Center and other City of Palo Alto Community Facilities as sunrise to 10:30 P.M. daily. Council Member Klein believed homeless people had the same rights as other citizens; however, no one had the right to turn Cubberley Community Center into a homeless shelter. Limited data indicated the increased number of homeless people at Cubberley did not come from Palo Alto. The City alone was not able to solve the problem of homelessness. Delaying City action did not help the adjacent neighbors or increase the likelihood of a solution being identified in a short time. The Cubberley needs assessment referred to lease negotiations with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Agencies other than the City had the primary obligation to fund programs for homelessness. He did not expect City funding to continue annually. If the Committee approved the Motion, then the Council needed to receive the recommendation in late August or early September 2013. Ms. Antil reported a first reading of the Ordinance was on August 19, 2013; however, a program and any details of a program were not going to be drafted that quickly. Council Member Klein noted an Ordinance would become effective 30 days after a second reading and approval. Mr. Betts inquired whether the $150,000 amount would be a one-time expense. Council Member Klein answered yes. Chair Kniss requested Council Member Klein comment on the shower closure at Cubberley. Council Member Klein agreed with Staff that Cubberley shower facilities would close as of August 31, 2013. Mr. Betts understood the showers would close as of August 31, 2013. MINUTES Page 12 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Council Member Klein explained that many suggestions from the adjacent neighbors would become effective with passage of the proposed Ordinance. Council Member Price viewed the homeless problem as a public health, safety, and welfare issue for the individuals and facility users. Determining new ways to leverage funding was critical. The Motion provided opportunities to develop sophisticated strategies. Public resources for homelessness were insufficient. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER request that Staff bring forward to Policy and Services Committee a discussion of the utilization of the Community Health and Safety component of the Development Agreement with Stanford University Medical Center, including a discussion of health services to individuals most at risk including members of the homeless community. Council Member Price inquired whether Stanford University was merely interested in participating or proposed participating in a homeless program. Nadia Richardson, Downtown Streets Team was negotiating a contract with all hospitals in the County with respect to homeless people. Council Member Price assumed homeless people would be included in the program discussions. Ms. Zelkha met with members of the unhoused community to share ideas. The task force wanted to hold an interagency discussion. Ms. Richardson reported the County had slots reserved for homeless men and women to share their experiences. Chair Kniss noted the County continued to work on the homeless problem. One of the Council's responsibilities was to protect the community. The Motion was a balancing act between the neighbors and the homeless population. Mr. Bains invited homeless people to shelter and shower at We Hope. Other solutions were presented. The Opportunity Center was a regional agency. Council Member Holman did not support the Motion because Staff, rather than the HRC were to develop a program. Of the $150,000 provided in the Motion, $100,000 was to be used to match County funds to provide housing for ten people. MINUTES Page 13 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Ms. Van Der Zwaag reiterated that funding for the HOT Team was $150,000, and the County proposal for housing was $50,000 for two years. Council Member Holman inquired whether the $150,000 stated in the Motion would fund both the HOT Program and the County program. Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated one year of funding for the HOT Team was $150,000, and $50,000 per year, with a two-year request for funding was needed for the County to commit to provide the subsidy. Council Member Holman did not feel the Motion clearly stated the funding aspect. Council Member Klein indicated the first and second parts of the Motion covered the HOT Program and the County subsidy program. Council Member Holman clarified that the funding commitment was $250,000. The proposed Ordinance did not solve some issues raised by neighbors. Chair Kniss inquired whether the first reading of the Ordinance would be placed on the Council Agenda for August 19, 2013. The next scheduled Council meeting after August 19, 2013 was September 9, 2013. She requested Staff to consider placing the second reading on a Special Meeting Agenda, in case one was scheduled before the end of August. Ms. Antil was able to present the Ordinance for a first reading on August 19, 2013. A draft program was to be presented to the Council at a later time. Molly Stump, City Attorney noted 11 days were required between the first and second readings of an Ordinance; therefore, a second reading occurred at a Special Meeting on August 30, 2013, or in the first week of September, or at the Regular Meeting scheduled for September 9, 2013. MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Holman no September 20, 2013 Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members: The Homeless Services Task Force was formed in recognition of the unmet needs of the homeless in Palo Alto and the closing of Cubberley facilities, as well as the impending vehicle ban. These actions created a short term crisis- one that has stimulated us to form this coalition in order to focus on solutions to Palo Alto’s unique homeless and affordable housing issues. The Homeless Task Force is comprised of representatives from The Palo Alto Human Relations Commission, The Community Working Group, InnVision Shelter Network, Momentum for Mental Health, Project WeHOPE, Peninsula HealthCare Connection, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and the Downtown Streets Team. We recently asked for 30-60 days to develop a plan to address homelessness. The Task Force feels that we have come up with a short-term solution that will leverage the Council’s pledge of $250,000, County funds, and our expertise to move 20 people, or about 15% of our homeless population off the streets of Palo Alto permanently. Our recommendation to Council is to direct staff to begin an RFP process for a local agency to provide case management services to 20 individuals for two years in which collaborative efforts will be encouraged. This Case Manager will administer subsidies, work with staff to enroll preferred individuals, perform housing search within the subsidy limit and unit specifications, target landlords and more. Most importantly, they will work on successful housing retention strategies so that clients remain in housing permanently. Should you agree to this course of action, the County has agreed to supply 20 subsidies to that agency to administer on behalf of, and in coordination with, the City of Palo Alto. We predict that the County will spend around $600,000 on these subsidies in the first two years with an ongoing commitment of up to $300,000 a year. The task force is united in its belief that this is a good start, but only “the tip of the iceberg.” We plan to continue to develop a long-term plan for the rest of the homeless and low-income individuals of our community, focusing on building affordable housing, specifically in Palo Alto. We look forward to a public/private partnership to make Palo Alto a leader in ending homelessness not only in our city, but in conjunction with the County’s efforts as well. Sincerely and hopefully, The Homeless Services Task Force