Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-12 City CouncilTO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CMR: 433:04 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, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Not accept the proposal submitted by the Lucie Stern Maritime Center responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP) package to relocate, repair and lease the former Sea Scout Base. 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 3.Direct staff to return to Council with the actions necessa~~ to demolish the building as per the original 1979 Baylands Master Plan. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Policy and Services Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council: 1) not accept the proposal submitted 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 open discussions with Environmental Volunteers with a view of developing a potential long-term lease and that staff come back to the Policy and Services Committee with a status report within 180 days. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1" CMR 410:04 CMR:433:04 Page 1 of 2 PREPARED BY: WILLIAM W. FELLMAN Manager, Real Property DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CARL YEAT~ Director,~istrative Services CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City lV/anager CMR:433:04 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:ADM~ISTRATIVE SERVICES ATTENTION: POLICY AND SERVICES CO~’IMITTEE DATE:SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 CMR: 410:04 SUBJECT:REJECTION OF PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE LUCIE STERN" MARITIME CENTER TO RELOCATE, REPAIR AND LEASE THE FORMER SEA SCOUT FACILITY AT 2560 EMBARC.M)ERO RO.M)AND REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that: 1) Council not accept the proposal submitted bv 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) directstaff 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 Bayiands Master Plan. BACKGROUND The Sea Scout building is a 2.209 square foot wood frame structure composed of two one-stor~, wings on each side and a taller center section equivalent to ~’o stories in height. The building was designed by Birge and David Clark, and donated to the Cit~; 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 B aylands Preserve. The Baylands Master Plan (Plan), adopted bv 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:4t0:04 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 Prog-ram (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 Cit),’s harbor, and Pacific Sk%,line Council gave notice that due to liabiliD~ and financial constraints it would no longer be able to support the Palo Alto Sea Scout base. On April 17, 2000, Council ganted 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 preseladng the facilit3.~ 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 desi_o-nate the building at 2560 Embarcadero Road, ~known as the Sea Scout Base, to the Cit)~of Palo Alto’s Historic Invento~~ in Catego~ 1, as provided in Municipal Code Chapter t 6.49. Council referred to the Policy and Seta, ices Committee (P&S): 1) the question of "how this unique building could become a viable element in the Bavlands 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 Sela, ices Committee recommended that the CiD, Council direct staff remove the direction that the building be used solely for Sea Scouts and other vouth activities and prepare a Request for Proposals for an option to lease the facility to ~tn¥ nonprofit agencies. The recommendation further stated that the term for the RFP I~rocess" should be one year and the option for ta¥o ?,ears, and the tenant should be required to pay for all costs associated with the renovation and relocation, and obtain all necessal%.’ permit approvals prior to entering into a lease. On March 17, 2003, Council adopted the recommendation of the Policy and Services Committee directing staff to: 1) remove the direction that the building be used for Sea Scout and other vouth activities; 2) prepare a Request for Proposals to solicit proposals for an option to lease the faciliu’; 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 improvement 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 i~e 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 Observato~,, 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 Rescu~ a~d the San Francisco Bay Bird ObservatoD’ 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 Council with no proposals would not resolve the issue. Since the LSMC was still interested in leasing the facilit),, 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, Comrnunit3~ Services and Administrative Services, met to evaluate LSMC’S proposal. Overa!l, the committee felt the LSMC proposal was hi_~h on enthusiasm but tow on details. Co~r~nittee 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 Movin~ and Up_oTadin~ 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 CiD~ remodel of the Harbor Master’s House thirteen years ago cost $211 per square foot. The Pa!o Alto HistoD’ 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-haif 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 ($3Yper square foot). Additionally, the LSMC report made no mention of the cost for CMR:410:04 Page 3 of 7 permits, an?; 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 Movin~ and Up~adin;, the FaciliW The proposal indicates that revenue sources to pay for the move and rehabilitation of the facility would come from the LSMC membership, Count3.,, State and Federal Historic Restoration Funds and applications to corporate and foundation gants. There was no reference to how much money had been raised to-date or an estimate of the time it 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 donated services from the structural engineer, a house-moving firm was donating half 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, up~ades to the facility, exhibits, equipment, utilities, maintenance, repairs, insurance, possessory interest tax and there will still be enough money to establish a $10,000 resera, e for replacements. Annual 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 $20,919 from rental of the facility to community ~oups 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 Bavland Interpretive Center averages 16 rentals per ?,ear 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 desig-nated as a Cit? 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 abiliD’ 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 the Sea Scou~s 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 fred 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 progess 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 fmding 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 recommending 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 =o-roup. It is requesting that Council direct staff to cooperate with EV for up to 6 months while tEV: 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 prqiect 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 long term. CMR:410:04 Page 5 of 7 RESOURCE IMPACT Counci! gave clear direction that prospective tenants would be required to lease, improve, maintain and operate the property at no cost to the Cit%~. 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 opportuni~; 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 building be used by goups 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 recommend that the City Council extend the moratorium up to one year due to its Category 1, Palo Alto Historic Resources Board designation. EN~,qRONMENTAL REVIEW A decision to cooperate with EV while it conducts cost analyses and determines fund raising sources, including allowing EV to enter the propert2v,: 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 propert%.:. 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 from the Lucie Stern Maritime Center Attachment B: Letter from Environmental Volunteers CMR:410:04 Page 6 of 7 PREPAR_ED BY: WILLIAM W. FELLMAN Manager, Real Property. DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CARL YEI Director CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: HARRISON Assistant City Manager co:Kevin Murray and Rock?. Trujillo - LSMC Pria Graves Beth Bunnenberg Emily Renzel ¯ Karen Holman CMR:410:04 Page 7 of 7 SEA SCOUT BASE March 2003 Attachment A Bid Response from the Lucie Stern Maritime Center Request for Proposals and Proposal Package P_EOUEgT FOR ~ ~ ~T PROPOSAL PACiqAGE SE~A SCOUT BASE This Request for Proposals ~nd .Proposa! Package includes a suss~ry of the proposal requirements ~nd procedures, and the Proposal Forms (Proposal, Questionnaire, Option to Lease Agre=-ment and Lease.) The Info_~mation Flyer attached to this Reddest for Proposals (the "information Flyer") is hereby incorporated by reference into this Request for Proposals and Proposal Package. PROPOSAL REOUiRr~-m~P-S _~_~D _ A.HOW TO SUBMIT A PROPOS_~_L !n order to submit your proposa! you must: ~ovm~e a ~.~:_~en descriotion of the mrooosed project as indicated in the PROPOSED USE, HISTORIC PP~SERVATION A_~ D~v~LOP_N~--~T_ OF PROPERTY (Attacbn~ent A). Comp_iete and sigm_, the attached PROPOSAL PAC}tAGE and PROPOSER’S QUEST-~O-k~NAiP~E (Attachment B), and attach the Option to Lease and Lease documents (.~u~=cb_m_n~ C). Complete ~nd sign the attached PROPOSED P~YfSiC~ WOPJ[SPIEET (Attachment D). Attach a $5,000.00 PROPOS~ DEPOSIT in the form of a cashier’s check, or certified check made Davab!e to: City of Pa!o Alto. Retu~ the completed proposal in a sealed envelope before the due date mud time to: H~nager, ~archasing!Contract Administration City of Pa!o Alto, First Floor 250 H~milton avenue P.O. Box 10250 Pa!o Alto, CA 94303 Hark the e:.~_op~:~- =~ =" Sea Scout -omenanc J~nuar-_v 6, 3:00 p.m." Proposals are due before 3:00 p.m., T~aesday, January, 6, 2004. be cons~@e~e~, orooosa±s must be ~ --~-~=~ _.e~=,,~@ prior to this time. To -~’-T--~" ~ OF PROPOSALS Proposal doc~ments shal! be reviewed. ~nd proposers interq~iewed by a conznittee made up of representatives of City star: :tom P!a_~_.ing, Real Estate, Works, Se~<ices and a member of the Historic Resources Board and/or£~_~chitectura! Review Board. Review of proposals consider many factors, including but not !i~£ted to the following vYnich must be provided in each proposal: The extent to which the proposal satisfies a public need or provides public benefit,will be given to non-mrofit groups serving youth, seniors or ~,~=~±=~e ~nd!or the enviro~nent. The extent to which the proposal is responsive to t~e c~ide~=s ~nd standards for rehabilitation for historic of the property as set forth in the Secretary of the interior’s Standards for -.~-~Buildings asRenab~_~=~ion of Historic E~nibit ii to the Option to Lease o The consise=~v of the Dromosed use with existing goals and objectives (set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Bayiands Haster Plan, Zoning 0rdin~nce, ~nd Hum_icipa! Code); The impact of envirom~ment. the proposed use upon the i~mediate the ~ ~.~, a=~e~a~!v ~nd the ~ - history ~nd assessment of the mromoser’s ability to ~-~v out the proposed and operate the =~rv:c~s as proposedfacility and The (monetary provided to the City. to be i e , ~he ~mbers of~,e of m-mbiic a~ss ..... people, especially and ta}~ayers, ~=~ wi!l be served by the proposed use. The ===~ ~hat wi!! be chargee to m-~Alto ~ ~= ....s ap_\r . m~o_fo_--ma ::-- ~’ a! of the use, -setting for.-_h the ~roject revem~aes e_nd I0. expenses for that period of time. E~idence of the proposer’s ability to finance or to obtain financing for ~he re~dired improvements. All mromosa!s, together with the co_n~.£, tree ’ s reco.n~mendations ,o~ a success:u± proposer, wi!! t<~e~ be -_o~Tar~e~ to the City Cotun_ci! for its selection of the successful proposal. The P~ ~, Po~.~c-: ~ rese=m~es the rimht to ~---~ect any and al! proposals or to accemt that mromosal which, {~ its opinion, w-’ ~ ~ best ser-~e :he public interest. The minimu~ bid for the purchase price of the Option is s ,000.00. ROTHPROPKG4 PROJECT: Sea Scout Building PROPOSAL PACKAGE (With Option to Lease) THTS !S A PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE AN OPTION TO L~,SE FOR PROPOSER Name: Address: Phone No.Home 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 (ATTACHMENT C) and its exhibits, in accordance with the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in %his PROPOSAL and in the Option to Lease Agreement. A.PROPOSER HEREBY PROPOSES THE rOL~OV~=NG: Monetary Bid::=ms=~ : a)PROPOSER agrees to pay to Cz--Th,’ as the purchase price of the option, as set forth in Clause 3 (PURCHASE PRICE OF OPTION) of the attached Option zo Lease Agreement: (Amount in Words)(Amoun~ in Numbers) b)Additional monetary bid items (including proposed rental during lease L~,m): Non-Monetary Bid items (these mav be des=ribed in Attachment A, PROPOSED USE, PRESERVATION AND DE~ELOPMENT OF PROPER~f]: TERNS AND COND!IqONS 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 successfull~ undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations oT OPI-!ONEE and TENANT contained in the Option to Lease Agreement and its exhibits. 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 bv CITY as a guarantee securing the obligations PROPOSER agrees to assume in this PROPOSAL. in the event this PROPOSAL is accepted by CITY and PROPOSER fails to meet the terms hereof, PROPOSER agrees that said sum represents a fair and reasonable estimate of CITY’s cost in preparing and soliciting this offering, and PROPOSER further agFees that said sum shal~.beretained by CITY as compensation for these costs. Upon execution of the Option to Lease Agreement, said sum 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 (!0) days after notification of the acceptance of this PROPOSAL by CITY, PROPOSER will execute copies of the Option to Lease Agreement in duplicate and deliver to C_mTY 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. DmnDn~mm ~==~n.~= that all of the information contained in or supplementing said Questionnaire is ÷- ~ and correct to the best of PROPOSER’ s knowl edge. 10.CiTY reserves the right to reject any or all PROPOSALS and to accept that PROPOSAL which wil#, in its opinion, best serve the public interest. 11. 12. By submission of this proposal, PROPOSER acknowledges and agrees that the CE-FY has the right to make any inquiry _or investigation.it deems appropri ate to substanti ate ~r supplement i n~ormat~on contained in this Questionnaire, and au,horizes the release to CiTY of any and all information sought in such inquiry or investigation. AI-FACHMENT A (Proposed Use, Preservation and Development of Property), ATTACHMENT B (Proposer’s Questionnaire), ATTACHMENT C (Option to Lease Agreement) and ATTACHMENT D (Proposed Physical Changes to Property and Environmental Assessment Workshee~) are attached to and by this reference made a part of this PROPOSAL. PROPOSER acknowledoes and aorees that the Option to Lease 6greemen~ and its exhibits, ~nciudi~g-the Lease, may be subject to change andfurthernegotiation with ~he City, based on the proposed use by the successful PROPOSER for the property. PROPOSER .~- (Please sign) (Corporate seal Date REALESTATE. 7/MSPROP2 PROPOSED USEr HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND DEV~LOP.NZgkrT OF PROPERTY Provide a description of your proposed use and improv=--ment of the property. This description can be of any length and must be included as Attachment A to the proposa!. The description must include all of the following in~o_~mation: o How your proposed use wil! satisfy a public need and benefit the City and/or community. _n~ degree of public access provided by your mrooosed use including fees to be charged to Pa!o Alto ci[izens. How your proposed modifications to the property are responsive to the Secretar%~’s Standards For Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, -~nich is attached as Exhibit ii to the Option to Lease Agreement. A description of the plan for relocation ~nd rehabilitation ~ ~-’~ ~ ,~d=~ Section m~tO be perforTn_ ed to the property as ,e~a.~_ee ...... (C) (2) of the !nfo_~T~ation Flyer. PROPOSER’S OUESTZONNAZRE All information requested in this questionnaire 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? ~!.Received City direct mail 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: t,’~ : ~ i. " ~ k,"t ~ ~ ~+~ ’:" ’ Telephone Number of PROPOSER: -~.-.~.QS~ Fax: PROPOSER i n~nds to operate as a Sole Proprietorship ( Corporation ( ): Joint Venture ( ); or ); Partnership ( ); R=._AL=a i~i r_.~; i OWERu 1 ZZ.SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP STATEMENT If a Sole Proprietorship, furnish the following: !, Name in full: 2. Address: 3.Bi rthdate:Place of Birth: 4.California Driver’s Lic. No. !s proprietor doing business under a fict-itious business name7 if so, furnish evidence zhat 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). ZZZ. PARTNERSHZP STATEMENT if a Partnership, furnish the following: 1.Date of Organization? 2,General Partnership ( ) Limited Partnership ( ) ~. Statement of Partnership recorded? Yes ( )No(. Date Book Page County Has the par:nership done business in Santa Clara County? Yes ( ) No ( ) When? R-T_ALESTATE.7iTOWERB Name, address, and partnership share of each general partner. Name Address Share Furnish the Social Security number and California Driver’s License number of each person shown above, V. NON-PROF~ CORPO~ON STATEMENT* Zf a non-profi~ corporation, furnish one copy of ~he a.Articles of incorporation b.Bylaws c.A letter from %he internal Revenue Service s~a~ing ~hat the organization is tax exemp~ under Section 501(c)(3) or 101(b) of the ZRS Code. A tax-exempt status under Section 170(b) or 509(a) is also acceptable. The IRS letter mus~ contain the proper name and addresshas been°fforwardedthe organization,to ~hem. or a copy of ~he change notice which d.Al~~er from ~he S~ate of California s~ating that ~he organization is ~ax exempt. State the mission of the organization: 3.Please attach an organization chart showing Board of Directors, members, if any, management and staffing levels. 4.Please include a membership list of your Board of Directors, their Cizy of residence, occupations, and dates of service on the Board. 5.How often does your Board meet? 6.Wha~ was the average attendance at Board meetines_ last y:~,~: *NOTE: Proposers consisting of more than one non-profit organization shall provide evidence of financial/legal commitment as a group R=EALESTATE.7/TOWERB V~. 30INT VENTURE STATEMENT if ~ 3oint Venture, answer the following: !. 2. 3. Date of Organization Joint Venture Agreement recorded? Yes ( ) No ( ) Has the Joint Venture done business in Santa Clara County? Yes ( ) No ( ) When? Name and address of each Joint 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 =he ]oin~ Venture Agreement and any amendments. R EAL’_-.STATE.7,q’OW E P,B ~ V’ZZ. r’-~NANC-~AL DATA FINANCIAL STATEMENT Attach comple=e financial statements, supported by Federal tax form 990’s, reflecting your current financial condition and =hat of the previous five years. The report must include a balance sheet and income statement. You must be prepared to substantiate all information shown. Bo SURETY INFORMATION Have you ever applied for and obtained a bond? Zf so, provide details of most recent bond. ~’~L~,~ 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 Zf 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 REPA]ZRS!TMPROVEMENTS,/USE!OPERATiON The developmenl: and operalzion "co which ~chis proposal rela~ces shall be financed in the following manner: FELONY ~NFORMA~ON Have you or any pr~nc~paqs or off~ce~s of the partnership or officers or d~rectors of %he corpora%~on, feq ony? Yes ( ) No Zf yes~ pqe&se s:a%e dEte(s), Eour~ qo~at~on(s) and detEqqs of convq c%q on. REA=r..S i AT=.7/TOW=Rm 6 \giI. EXPERIENCE STATEMENT Describe in detail the duration and extent of your experience with special emphasis upon experience directly related to development ~nd/or .management of the type of operation proposed, for this project. Also describe, ~n de,all, The pertinent experience of the persons who wiiG be directly involved in operation and/or management of the operation proposed for ~his projec%. REALESTATE,T/TOWERB 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.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 ephone : Nature and magnitude of purchase, sale, loan, business association, 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 you[ debt payment history. At least two references should have knowledge OT 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: rl rm : Ti tl e: Address: Zip. Tel ephone: Nature and magni:ude of purchase, sale, loan, business association, etc. Describe your specific faci I i ty. X. METHOD OF OPERAT’ION plan for development and/or operation of the proposed I FINANCIAL INFORMATION ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS - 1.Relocation Costs: 2.Land Related Direct Construction Costs: 14--T[-3~ s~o~ is~ ---~,~ Land Preparation" including~ ~(~ .F,,..% jL,~<,~.~_,~:~.--o~,.~%f~off-sites, grading, etc... 2 . ’.~ / Sub-To~al _ " ....~3.Building Rela~ed Direc~ Construction Costs : a.Shell Construction b.interior Finishes c.Fixtures & Other Improvements Architec~ & Engineering Construction Loan Costs*: i.points ii.interest Other Sub-Total ~J: ~ .... Total Estimated Construction Costs --7~i., (,.~- , p~./~, ~~. ,, oA_-~umes construction loan of $__ with interest estimated @ o% for months construc~cion period. Source of construction loan !payments will be: PRO-FORMA ANALYSZS - On the attached page provide a five-year pro-forma analysis of income and expenses for the proposed.project. ; i % (.", t.:: ( REALESTATE.7FFOWERB 11 XiI.OTHER INFORMATION Please provide any other information which you feel will be helpful in evaluating your ability "co successfully develop and/or opera~:e the proposed facility in compliance with the City’s Request for Proposals. R-EALESTATE. 7,rFo’~IERE ATTACHMENT B En’ ronment l Volunteers ¯. ¯ teachin~ kids of aIl ages to love nature and learning! 3921 East Bayshorz Road ¯ Palo Al~o, CA 94303-4303 ~ Tel 650-96i-0545 ¯ Fax 650-96~-0548 ~ info@EVois.or~ ~ ~.EVo~s.org Paio 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 veDT excited by the concept 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 veo~ interested in having enough time to explore this opportunity. Principa!ly we need time to review project costs and scope, to assess and pursue donor involvement, and pending workable answers emerg-ing from these issues, we would require the time to prepare a proposal that will aligm with the city’s ¯ needs and interests. 4. Because of the sig-nificant time commitment 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 built’trig. But we need a period of time to tmderstand the scope of this endeavor. I can g-uarantee that o~ven the opportunity to explore it, we will be highly motivated to make this work. The EV’s approach to this endeavor is to assum~ it can happen until a "dea!-breaker" issue emerges. The EV is very serious in its interest in determining our abiliD7 to do this project, our excitement and interest in [he concept, and our commilment to work very hard in a short amount of dine to hopefully get to the point of submitting a formal proposal. Thank you for your Allan B~ Executive Director Environmental Volunteers CC:Bit! Fetman, Manager, Real Property, City of Palo Alto Karen Holman Shari Mu!len, Chair, EV Board of Trustees