Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-14 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT :ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ATTENTION:POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE DATE: SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 CMR: 410:04 REJECTION OF PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE LUCIE STERN MARITIME CENTER TO RELOCATE, REPAIR AND LEASE THE FORMER SEA SCOUT FACILITY AT 2560 EMBARCADERO ROAD AND REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION RECOMMENDATION Staff recolnmends that: 1) Council not accept the proposal sublnitted by the Lucie Stern Maritime Center responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP) package to relocate, repair and lease the former Sea Scout Base; and 2) direct staff to cooperate with Environmental Volunteers (EV) while it determines the feasibility of a long-term lease, including allowing EV to enter the property to assess its condition; or to return to Council with the actions required to demolish the building as per the original 1979 Baylands Master Plan. BACKGROUND The Sea Scout building is a 2,209 square foot wood frame structure composed of two one-story wings on each side and a taller center section equivalent to two stories in height. The building was designed by Birge and David Clark, and donated to the City by Lucie Stern on May 30, 1941. Located in the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, the building is currently in poor condition; its floors have been subject to flooding during biannual extreme high tides, and therefore its rehabilitation will require extensive sub- floor rehabilitation and relocation to a higher elevation near its current location in the Baylands Preserve. The Baylands Master Plan (Plan), adopted by the Council in 1979, established a plan for the harbor. The Plan called for the removal of the berths and buildings,including the Sea Scout building, and the return of the harbor to its natural state. Voters reaffirmed the Plan on November 4, 1980, when a ballot measure to continue operation of the harbor was defeated. On February 10, 1986, (CMR:142:86), staff presented Council with a CMR:410:04 Page 1 of 7 Yacht Harbor Building Assessment Report that recommended the demolition of the Sea Scout building as part Of the harbor reclamation project. That same year, Council approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 86-06, which was established to implement the goals of the Baylands Master Plan, including demolition of the Sea Scout building. On October 24, 1988 (CMR:495:88), and again on June 8, 1998 (CMR:249:98), Council delayed the demolition of the Sea Scout building in order to give the Sea Scouts time to remove its boats from the harbor and find a new place to meet. During this time, the boats were moved to Redwood City’s harbor, and Pacific Skyline Council gave notice that due to liability and financial constraints it would no longer be able to support the Palo Alto Sea Scout base. On April 17, 2000, Council granted the Lucie Stern Maritime Center’s (LSMC) request to give LSMC until January 30, 2001 to secure funding and find an alternate location for the former Sea Scout Building. (The LSMC is a non-profit organization. Its members are Sea Scouts, former Sea Scouts and those interested in preserving the facility at the Palo Alto Baylands for Sea Scout usage and museum purposes.) On May 6, 2002, Council adopted the Historic Resources Board’s recommendation to designate the building at 2560 Embarcadero Road, lcnown as the Sea Scout Base, to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in Category 1, as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. Council referred to the Policy and Services Committee (P&S): 1) the question of "how this unique building could become a viable element in the Baylands to be used by the Sea Scouts and other organizations committed to preserving the building for youth, and other community uses"; and 2) gave direction to the Committee to review, as expeditiously as possible, issuance, of an RFP so that other nonprofit organizations would be encouraged to participate. On September 10, 2002, the Policy and Services Committee recommended that the City Council direct staff remove the direction that the building be used solely for Sea Scouts and other youth activities and prepare a Request for Proposals for an option to lease the facility to any nonprofit agencies. The recommendation further stated that the term for the RFP process should be one year and the option for two years, and the tenant should be required to pay for all costs associated with the renovation and relocation, and obtain all necessary permit approvals prior to entering into a lease. On March 17, 2003, Council adopted the recomlnendation of the Policy and Services Committee directing staff to: 1) relnove the direction that the building be used for Sea Scout and other youth activities; 2) prepare a Request for Proposals to solicit proposals for an option to lease the facility; 3) in the process of selecting a tenant, give preference to an organization that would allow space for public use; and 4) ensure that the tenant’s CMR:410:04 Page 2 of 7 use of the building be compatible with the Baylands. Council also reduced the time for responses to the RFP process to six months. The RFP approved by Council included the following requirements for ilnprovement and use of the Sea Scout building: 1) the provision of public benefit and public access and consistency with the City park ordinance; 2) no adverse impacts to the Baylands environment; and 3) preservation of the historic significance of the building, In addition, the City encouraged uses benefiting youth, seniors, wildlife and/or the environment. The RFP also required that the building be rehabilitated and relocated to a higher elevation at one of three nearby sites in the Baylands Preserve (Site A, B, or C as shown on an attachment to the RFP). DISCUSSION Initially, there were three parties interested in leasing the building: The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, Wildlife Rescue and the Lucie Stern Maritime Center (LSMC). January 7, 2004 was the date set to receive the proposals responding to the RFP. Wildlife Rescue and the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory notified the City during the RFP process that they were no longer interested in the property. No proposals were received on January 7. When. staff contacted LSMC, it indicated that it was still interested but had forgotten the due date for responding. Staff was .concerned that returning to Councii with no proposals would not resolve the issue. Since the LSMC was still interested in leasing the facility, staff extended the deadline for submitting proposals to March 27, 2004. On March 27, 2004 the LSMC submitted the attached proposal (Exhibit A). Staff believes that the LSMC proposal is unacceptable, does not meet the criteria of the RFP and recommends Council not accept the proposal. On June 2, 2004, a six-member committee, consisting of one representative from the Historic Resources Board and City staff from Public Works, Planning, Community Services and Administrative Services, met to evaluate LSMC’S proposal. Overall, the committee felt the LSMC proposal was high.on enthusiasm but low on details. Committee comments ranged from lack of specific information on funding sources and donated materials, labor and expertise to low-cost estimates and an unrealistic source for annual revenue. There was no breakdown of material costs, no references were furnished, and in place of the $5,000 option purchase price, there was a note stating "as discussed earlier, this application fee is to be. waived". No such waiver was offered by staff. Estimated Costs for Moving and Upgrading the Facility LSMC estimates the cost to move the facility to Site B and rehabilitate it to be $150,000; $100,000 of that cost would be for the rehabilitation work. The $100,000 equates to $45.27 per square foot. In contrast, the City remodel of the Harbor Master’s House thirteen years ago cost $211 per.square foot. The Palo Alto History Museum (PAHM) is estimating $324 per square foot to restore and remodel the Roth Building. LSMC’s proposal listed $5,000 ($2.26 per square foot) as an expense for architect/engineer costs. Even with one-half the cost donated, that would only equate to one week of paid full-time design work. In contrast, PAHM estimated architect and engineering costs at $550,000 ($32 per square foot). Additionally, the LSMC report made no mention of the cost for CMR:410:04 Page3 of 7 permits, any jurisdictional review fees, or asbestos or lead paint removal. LSMC defends its cost estimates by saying a majority of the labor and materials will be donated. Estimated Revenue for Moving and Upgrading the Facility The proposal indicates that revenue sources to pay for the move and rehabilitation of the facility would come from the LSMC membership, County, State and Federal Historic Restoration Funds and applications to corporate and foundation grants. There was no reference to how much money had been raised to-date or an estimate of the timeit would take to raise the funds. At a.Policy and Services Committee meeting in 2002, after working on the project for three years, LSMC stated that it had do~ated services from the structural engineer, a house-moving firm was donating l~alf its costs ($50,000 to relocate to Site B), $3,200 had been raised for soil sampling, and it had pledges of $14,000 once a lease was signed. Annual Costs The proposer’s five-year pro-forma estimates the first year expenses at $28,919. LSMC projects that $28,919 will be enough to pay for a part-time staff member, upgrades to the facility, exhibits, equipment, utilities, maintenance, repairs, insurance, possessory interest tax and there will still be enough money to establish a $10,000 reserve for replacements. Armual Revenue The Gross Income Sheet anticipates that revenue to pay for annual costs would be $30,919. $10,000 would come from fund raising events and $20,9’19 from rental of the facility to community groups and organizations. The report also states that the facility would only be available for rental midweek from 9am to 5pm, yet it still anticipates 142 rentals per year. This estimate of rentals appears unrealistic given that the nearby Lucie Evans Bayland Interpretive Center averages 16 rentals per year at an hourly rate that is less than the rate proposed by the LSMC. Concerns with LSMC To its credit, the LSMC, in five years, has managed to become a non-profit organization, obtained a structural engineer’s .report on the condition of’the building and has had the building designated as a City historic structure. The proposal evaluation committee was prepared to give the Sea Scouts more time to address the lack of information, but staff believes that the LSMC’S ability to provide factual information and to raise the funds necessary to complete the relocation and renovation of the building have been long- standing issues. The City’s relationship with the LSMC began just prior to the expiration of the lease with the formal Sea Scout organization in June 1998. At that time, having already given tee Sea Scouts ten years to find a new location, the Council extended the lease another two years to the newly-formed LSMC. The Council also directed the LSMC to make quarterly reports to the City Manager. (LSMC furnished only three quarterly reports during the two-year lease extension.) In the first quarterly report, the LSMC suggested CMR:410:04 Page 4 of 7 that, rather than find a new location for its meetings, the building be moved to a new location. A year and a half later, in a letter dated February 25, 2000, staff admonished the LSMC for having made little progress in developing a plan to move the structure, identifying all of the costs involved in moving the structure, obtaining the required permits and approvals, and finding the necessary funds to move the building from its current location. At its April 17, 2000 meeting, when the Council gave LSMC additional time, it directed LSMC to provide: a professional written evaluation of the condition of the facility, especially the floor and foundation; an estimate of all costs associated with the move and the rehabilitation of the facility including code and ADA accessibility requirements; and a detailed report regarding how the building would be moved from its current location. On May 18, 2000, the City Manager and several staff members met with the representatives of the LSMC. At that meeting the City Manager, again urged the LSMC to create a formal plan regarding how its members would achieve Council’s direction of securing funding and finding a new location. The LSMC is now being asked to provide the same information .it was asked to provide four years ago. Staff is therefore i’ecommending that the LSMC proposal not be accepted. ALTERNATIVES Environmental Volunteers In a letter dated May 28, 2004, Environmental Volunteers expressed an interest in leasing the former Sea Scout building. Environmental Volunteers (EV) is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting the understanding of and responsibility for the environment through hands-on-science education. (One of its first projects was conducted at the Palo Alto Baylands 32 years ago.) EV has a staff of seven and an annual operating budget of $550,000. EV has viewed the building and would like to do a more thorough analysis to understand the extent of the relocation and renovation. It believes that the .building would be large enough for its staffing needs and still be able to provide for public meeting space. EV has expressed concerns about the expense of a thorough analysis as part of a proposal process. It also does not want to be involved in the politics of competing with the Sea Scout group. It is requesting that Council direct staff to cooperate with EV for up to 6 months while EV: 1) consults with a qualified architect, structural engineer, and contractors to determine more specifically the costs associated with the project; and 2) develops a fundraising plan based on project costs. EV is excited about the prospect of leasing the facility and believes that the former Sea Scout facility would provide its organization with a visible presence in a natural environment appropriate to the organization’s mission. A letter from Environmental Volunteers, addressed to Council, accompanies this report. Should EV determine that it is feasible ~for it to improve and lease the building, staff would return to Council with the specifics of EV’s proposal to relocate, renovate and operate the facility and an option to lease the Sea Scout building to EV for the !ong term. CMR:410:04 Page 5 of 7 RESOURCE IMPACT Council gave clear direction that prospective tenants would be required to lease, improve, maintain and operate the property at no cost to the City. Should the Council choose to demolish the building, funding would be requested as part of a future CIP request. In 1986, staff estimated the cost of demolition to be $30,000. Funding was approved by Council and included in CIP-86-06. CIP-86-06 has been closed and funds for the demolition have been returned to the General Fund. In order to demolish the building, staff would have to provide a new estimate, and funding would be requested in a future CIP. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Granting EV the time and opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of a long-term lease is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies related to the Baylands, park use and the Council’s stated preference that the Sea Scout btiilding be used by groups benefiting youth, seniors, wildlife and/or the environment. Demolition would be subject to a demolition moratorium of 60 days as set forth in PAMC 16.49.070 (a). In addition, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), or any interested person may recolmnend that the City Council extend the moratorium up to one year due to its Category 1, Palo Alto Historic Resources Board designation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A decision to cooperate with EV while it conducts cost analyses and determines fund raising sources, including allowing EV to enter the property to assess its condition, is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental impact assessment would be required. Appropriate CEQA review would be performed in connection with any proposal based on which the Council would award an option to lease the property. In addition, option conditions included in the RFP require optionees to comply with all requirements of the CEQA. Should Council wish to pursue the alternative of demolishing the building, appropriate CEQA review would be performed prior to staff returning to Council with a CIP request for funding the demolition. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Bid Response fi’om the Lucie Stern Maritime Center Attachlnent B: Letter from Environmental Volunteers CMR:410:04 Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: WILLIAM W. FELLMAN Manager, Real Property DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CARL ~.TS,’-~irector Administ,~tive ~ Assistant City Manager cc:Kevin Murray and Rocky Trujillo - LSMC Pria Graves Beth Bunnenberg Emily Renzel Karen Hohnan CMR:410:04 Page 7 0f7 March 2003 Attachment A Bid Response from the Lucie Stern Maritime Center SEA SCOUT BASE Request for Proposals and Proposal Package REOUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND PROPOSAL PACKAGE SEA SCOUT BASE This Request for Proposals and .Proposal Package includes a summary of ~the proposal requirements and procedures, .and the Proposal Forms (Proposal, Questionnaire, Option to Lease Agreement and Lease.) The Information Flyer attached to this Request for Proposals (the "Information Flyer") is hereby incorporated by reference into this Request for Proposals and Proposal Package. PROPOSAL REOUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES A.HOW TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL In order to submit your proposal you must: Provide a written description of the proposed project as indicated in the PROPOSED USE, HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY (Attachment A). Complete and sign the attached PROPOSAL PACKAGE and PROPOSER’S QUESTIONNAIRE (Attachment B), and attach the Option to Lease and Lease documents (Attamhment C). Complete and sign the attached PROPOSED PHYSICAL C~hNGES TO PROPERTY and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (Attachraent D). Attach a $5,000.00 PROPOSAL DEPOSIT in the form of a cashier’s check, or certified check made payable to: City of Palo Alto. Return the completed proposal in a sealed envelope before the due date and time to: Manager, Purchasing/Contract Administration City of Palo Alto, First Floor 250 Hamilton avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 o Mark the envelope: January 6, 3:00 p.m." "Sea Scout Building -opening Proposals are due before 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 6, 2004. be considered, proposals must be received prior to this time. To REALESTATE. 7/FIS PROP2 REQUIREDPROPOSAL INFORMATION ~D EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS Proposal documents shall be reviewed and proposers interviewed by a committee made up of representatives of City staff from Planning, Real Estate, Public Works, Community Services and a member of the Historic Resources Board and/or Architectural Review Board. Review of proposals shall consider many factors, including but not limited to the following information which must be provided in each proposal: The extent to which the proposal satisfies a public need or provides public benefit.Preference will be given to non-profit groups serving youth, seniors or wildlife and/or the environment. The extent to which the proposal is responsive to the guidelines and standards for rehabilitation for historic preservation Of the property as set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings attached as Exhibit II to the Option to Lease Agreement. The consistency of the proposed use with. existing City goals and objectives (set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Baylands Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code); The impact of the proposed use upon the ~ =~ - vicinity/neighborhood, the community generally, and the environment. The history and assessment of the proposer’s ability to carry out the proposed improvements and operate the facility and services as proposed; The consideration (monetary and non-monetary) provided to the City. to be The degree of public access, i.e., the numbers of people, especially City residents and taxpayers, that wil! be served by the proposed use. The fees that will be charged to Palo Alto citizens, if any. A five-year pro-forma financial analysis of the proposed use, setting forth the project revenues and REALESTATE. 7/MSPROP2 i0. expenses for that period of time. Evidence of the proposer’s ability to finance or to obtain finan.cing for the required improvements. All proposals, together with the evaluation committee’s recommendations for a successful proposer, will then be forwarded to the City Council for its selection of the successful proposal. The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or to accept that proposal which, in its opinion, will best serve the public interest. C.MINIMUM PURCHASE PRICE OF THE OPTION TO LEASE The minimum bid for the purchase price of the Option is SS,000.00. ROTHPROPKG4 REALESTATE . 7/MSPROP2 PRO]ECT: Sea Scout Building PROPOSAL PACKAGE (With Optionto Lease) THTS IS A PROPOSAL .TO ACQUTRE AN OPTION TO LEASE FOR PROPOSER Name: Address: Phone No. The undersigned ("PROPOSER"), hereby submits a proposal to the City of Palo Alto, ("CITY") to acquire a lease more fully described in the Option to Lease Agreement (Aq-FACHMENT C) and its exhibits, in accordance with the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this PROPOSAL and in the Option to Lease Agreement. A. PROPOSER HEREBY PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING: ,.---.--I.Monetary Bid Items: a)PROPOSER agrees to pay to CITY as the purchase price of the option, as set forth in Clause 3 (PURCHASE PRICE OF OPTION) of the attached Option to Lease Agreement: (Amount in Words) b)Additional monetary bid items during lease term): (Amount in. Numbers) (including proposed rental Non-Monetary Bid Items (these may be described in Attachment A, PROPOSED USE, PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPER~Y): REALESTATE, 7/MSPROP2 TERNS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSER has carefully read and fully understands this PROPOSAL document and the Option to Lease Agreement attached to this PROPOSAL, including its exhibits. The Option to Lease Agreement, and its exhibits, is an integral part of this PROPOSAL and must be attached to this PROPOSAL. PROPOSER warrants that it has the Capability to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of OPTIONEE and TENANT contained in the Option to Lease Agreement and its exhibits. ., 10. A PROPOSER’s Deposit in the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), in the form of a Cashier’s or Certified Check made payable to the City of Palo Alto, must be submitted with this PROPOSAL and is attached hereto. The PROPOSER;s Deposit will be held by CIl~ as a guarantee securing the obligations PROPOSER agFees to assume in this PROPOSAL. !n the event this PROPOSAL is accepted by CIl~ and PROPOSER fails to meet the terms hereof, PROPOSER agrees that said sum represents a fair and reasonable estimate of CIl~’s cost in preparing and soliciting this offering, and PROPOSER further agrees that said sum shall beexecutionretained by CIl~ as compensation for these costs. Upon of the Option to Lease Agreement, said su~ shall, at PROPOSER’S option, be returned to PROPOSER or shall be credited toward the Security Deposit required under the Option to Lease Agreement. PROPOSER’s Deposit will be returned to each proposer not selected by the City upon City’s execution of an Option to Lease Agreement with the successful proposer. This PROPOSAL may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time set for opening the proposals but may not be withdrawn after the time set for such opening, i.e., ]anuary 6, 2004, 3:00 p.m. Within ten (10) days after notification of the acceptance of this PROPOSAL by CIl~, PROPOSER will execute copies of the Option to Lease Agreement in duplicate and deliver to CIl~ the executed copies of said agreement, the required Security Deposit= and the balance of the purchase price of the option as set forth in the Option to Lease Agreement. PROPOSER has fully completed the Proposed Use, Preservation and Development of Property (Attachment A), the Proposer’s Questionnaire (Attachment B) and the Proposed Physical Change to Property and Environmental Assessment Worksheet (Attachment D). Attachment A, the completed Questionnaire and the Option to Lease Agreement with its exhibits,, including the Lease (Attachment C), and the Proposed Physical Changes to Property and Environmental Assessment Worksheet (Attachment D), are attached to this PROPOSAL together with any appropriate or requested supplemental material. PROPOSER represents that a!l of the information contained in or supplementing said Questionnaire is true and correct to the best of PROPOSER’s knowledge. CITY reserves the right to reject any or all PROPOSALS and to accept that PROPOSAL which will, in its opinion, best serve the public interest. REALESTATE, 7/MSPROP2 11. 12. 13. By submission of this proposal, PROPOSER acknowledges and agrees that the CZ~" has the right to make any inquiry or investigation i.t deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information contained in this Questionnaire, and authorizes the release to Cil~ of any and all information sought in such inquiry or investigation. AI-FACHMENT A (Proposed Use, Preservation and Development of Property), AI-FACHMENT B (Proposer’s Questionnaire), AI-FACHMENT C (Option to Lease Agreement) and AI-FACHMENT D (Proposed Physical Changes to Property and Environmental Assessment Worksheet) are attached to and by this reference made a part of this PROPOSAl. PROPOSER acknowledges and agrees that the Option to Lease Agreement and itsexhibits, including the Lease, may be subject to change and further.negotiation with the City, based on the proposed use by the successful PROPOSER for the property. PROPOSER (Please sign)f~ ..... i~~~ (Corporate seal) Date REALESTATE , 7/MS PROP2 PROPOSED USEr HISTORIC PRESERVATION A!qD DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY Provide a description of your proposed use and improvement of the property. This description can be of any length and must be included as Attachment A to the proposal. The description must include all of the following information: HOW your proposed use wil! satisfy a public need and benefit the City and/or community. The degree of public access provided by your proposed use, including fees to be charged to Palo Alto citizens. o How your proposed modifications to the property are responsive to the Secretary’s Standards For Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, which is attached as Exhibit I! to the Option to Lease Agreement. A description of the plan for relocation and rehabilitation tg be performed to the property as required under Section !! (C) (2). of the Information Flyer. PROPOSER’S OUESTZONNAZRE All information requested in this questi.onnaire MUST be furnished by the PROPOSER, and MUST be. submitted with the PROPOSAL. Statements must be complete and accurate. Omission, inaccuracy, or misstatement MAY be cause for rejection of this PROPOSAL. How did you learn of this PROPOSAL offering? ~,/~1.Received direct mailCity flyer ()2.Word of mouth ( )3,Read about offering in following newspaper, magazine or newsletter: I. PROPOSER Name of PROPOSER exactly as it appears on the PROPOSAL and as it will appear on any proposed agreement.with the City: Address of PROPOSER for purposes of notices or other communication relating to the PROPOSAL: Telephone Number of PROPOSER.: "~-~Z~ ’-~#:~-~’~/~Fax: E-Mai I : PROPOSER intends to operate as a Sole Proprietorship ( ); Partnership ( Corporation ( ): Joint Venture ( ); or t4 ~b~ ~ i~Y¢C.~h~T’ ~L:, ,i/~"~ ); REALESTATE.7/TOWERB 1 Z!. SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP STATEMENT If a Sole Proprietorship, furnish the following: 1.Name in full: 2.Address: 3. Birthdate:Place of Birth: California Driver’s Lic. No. Is proprietor doing business under a fict-itious business name? If so, furnish evidence that proprietor is authorized to do business under such fictitious business name (e.g.) notice published in newspaper of .general circulation; no. of filing with a County Clerk). IIi. PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT If a Partnership, furnish the following: 1.Date of Organization? 2o General Partnershio ( ) Limited Partnershi~ ( ) 3.Statement of Partnership recorded? Yes ( )No( ) Date Book Page County Has the partnersh’ip done business in Santa Clara County? Yes ( ) No ( ) When? REALESTATE.7/TOWERB Name, address, and partnership share of each general partner. Name Address 5hare Furnish.the Social Security number and California Driver’s License number of each person shown above. V, NON-PROFIT CORPORATION STATEMENT* If a non-profit cor.poration, furnish one copy of the rOllO~Ing: a.Articles of incorporation [OG~".#~<~ c A letter from the Internal Revenue Service stating that the¯.organization ~s tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) or 101(b) of the IRS Code. A tax-exempt status under Section 170(b) or 509(a) also acceptable. The IRS letter must contain the proper name and addresshas been°fforwardedthe organization,to them. or a copy of the change notice which d.A letter from the State of California stating that the organization is tax exempt. State the mission of the organization: Please attach an organization chart showing Board of Directors, members, if any, manageme.nt and staffing levels. 4.Please include a membership list of your Board of Directors, their City of residence, occupations, and dates of service on the Board. 5.How often does ¯your Board meet? 6.What was the average~cceNuance at Board meetings l~--* "ye~,:~-°.. *NOTE: Proposers consisting of more than one non-profit organization shall provide evidence of financial/legal commitment as a group REALESTATE.7/TOWERB VZ. 3OZNT VENTURE STATEMENT If a 3oint Venture, answer the following: 1.Date of Organization 2.Joint Venture Agreement recorded? Yes ( ) No ( ) 3.Has the ]oint Venture done business in Santa Clara County? Yes ( ) No ( ) When? 4. Name and address of each ]oint Venturer: Name Address Furnish the Social Security number and California Driver’s License number of each person or principals or officers of any entity shown under Item 4 above : 6.Attach a complete copy of the Joint Venture Agreement and any amendments, REALESTATE.7/TOWERB Vil. FINANCIAL DATA FINANCIAL STATEMENT Attach complete financial statements, supported by Federal tax form 990’s, reflecting your current financial condition and that of the previous five years. The report must include a balance sheet and income statement. You must be prepared to substantiate all information shown. SURETY INFORMATION Have you ever applied for and obtained a bond? Zf so, provide details of most recent bond. Have you ever had a bond or surety denied, canceled or~forfeited? Yes ( ) No If yes,-attach, a statement naming the bonding company, date, amount of bond, and reason for such cancellation or forfeiture. BANKRUPTCY INFORMATION Have you ever filed bankruptcy or been declared bankrupt? Yes ( ) No ~ if yes, give details, state date(s), court jurisdiction(s), case docket number(s), amount of liabilities, and amount of assets. REALESTATE.7/TOWERB PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REPAIRS/IMPROVEMENTS/USE/OPERATION The development and operation to which this proposal relates shall be financed in the following manner: LS FELONY ~NFORMATION I Have you or any principals or office~s of ~he p~r~nership or officers or directors of ~he corpore~ion, fel ony7 Yes ( ) No ~) If yes, please convi cti on, i state date(s),~ourt .location(s) and details of .l REALESTATE.7FFOWERB 6 VZZZ, EXPERZENCE STATEMENT Describe in detail the duration and extent of your experience with special emphasis upon experience directly related to development and/or management of the type of operation proposed, for this project. Also describe, in detail, the pertinent experience of the persons who will be directly involved in operation and/or management of the operation proposed for this project. REALESTATE.7/TOWEFIB 7 REFERENCES List at least four persons or firms with whom you have conducted business transactions during the pasz three years. At least two references named should have knowledge of your ability to finance the proposed projecz and your debt payment hi story. At least two -eferences should have knowledge of your abilities to operate the proposed facility. REFERENCE NO. I Name: Firm: Title: Address: Zip Telephone: Nature and magnitude of purchase, sale, loan, business association, etc.: REFERENCE NO. 2 Name: Firm: Title: Address: zi p Tel ep.hone : Nature and magnitude of purchase, sale, loan, business association, etc. REALESTATE,7/TOWERB 8 ZX. REFERENCES List at least four persons or firms with whom you have conducted business transactions during the past three years. At least two references named should have knowledge of your ability, to finance the proposed project and your debt payment history. At least two references should have knowledge of your abilities, to operate the proposed facility. REFERENCE NO.3 Name: Firm: Title: Address: Zip Telephone: Nature and magnitude of purchase, sale, loan,.business association, etc.: REFERENCE NO. 4 Name: Firm: Title: Address: Zip. Tel ephone : Nature and magnitude of purchase, sale, loan, business association, etc. REALESTATE.7/TOWERB FINANCIAL INFORMATION EST3MATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS - 1.Relocation Costs: 2.Land Related Direct Construction Costs: Land Preparation; including off-sites, grading, etc .....-,Sub-Total Building Related Direct Construction Costs : a.Shell Construction b.Interior Finishes c.Fixtures & Other Improvements ,¸ Construction Loan Costs*: i,~oints ii ~nterest Other *Assumes construction loan of $ for will be: Sub-Total Total Estimated Construction Costs "~ with interest estimated @ months construction period, Source of construction loan ipayments PRO-FORMA ANALYSIS - On the attached page provide a five-year pro-forma analysis of imcome and expenses for the proposed.project, REALESTATE.7/TOWERB 11 XII. OTHER INFORMATION Please provide any other information which you feel will be helpful in evaluating your ability to successfully develop and/or operate the proposed facility ~n compliance with the City’s Request for.Proposals. REALESTATE. 7/’I-OWERB 13 ATTACHMENTB ¯.. teaching kids of all ages to love nature and !earning! 3921 East Bayshor¢ Road ~ Palo Alto, CA 943q3-4303 oTel 650-961-054S o Fax 650-961-0548 o info@EVols.ors ~ www.EVols.ors Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto 94301 September 7, 2004 Honorable Members of the City Council, Regarding the Sea Scout Building at the Palo Alto Baylands, the Board of the Environmental Volunteers (The EV) affirms the following: 1. The Environmental Volunteers is very excited by the COl~cept of restoring the building, utilizing it as a long-term home, and further increasing community access to the wonderful Baylands Nature Park. 2. The Sea Scout building, space-wise, meets our needs now and well into the future. 3. The EV is very interested in having enough time to explore this opportunity. Principally we need time to review project costs and scope, to assess and pursue donor involvement, and pending workable answers emerging from these issues, we would require the time to prepare a proposal that will align with the city’s needs and interests. 4. Because of the significant time COlnmitment that will be required to assess this project’s feasibility; and the significant funds commitment that will be required to prepare a proposal~ the Environmental Volunteers requests a period of up to 6 months for the above process. We would require assurance that should we ’ submit a proposal that meets the City’s specifications and needs, we would not be competing with other submissions. In short; because of the significant time and cost investment in preparing a proposal, we are not in a position to invest those resources only to be turned down (exclusive of being turned down for substantive issues relating to an inadequate proposal, of course). We remain very interested in the concept of The EV restoring and inhabiting the Sea Scout building. But we need a period of time to understand the scope of this endeavor. I can guarantee that given the opportunity to explore it, we will be highly motivated to make this work. The EV’s approach to this endeavor is to assume it can happen until a "deal-breaker" issue emerges. printed on paper with 10% hemp/flax and 90% post-consumer waste The EV is very serious in its interest in determining our ability to do this project, our excitement and interest in the concept, and our commitment to work very hard in a short amount of time to hopefully get to the point of submitting a formal proposal. Thank you for your consider~ Allan Berkowit~ Executive Director Environmental Volunteers Bill Felman, Manager, Real Property, City of Palo Alto Karen Hotman Shari Mullen, Chair, EV Board of Trustees